• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

6x9 camera with Pre-Tessar lens?

RalphLambrecht said:
I wanted to know why you excluded 6x6 folders.
Click to expand...
I haven't completely excluded 6x6 folders from consideration, but...
a. I already have a Rolleicord V for 6x6 (I might try putting something over the taking lens to see what it looks like)

b. I've never had 6x9 negatives, so wanted to try out that format. I would probably not ever consider contact printing 6x6, but I might consider contact printing 6x9. Also, most of the old family photos I've seen are rectangular and not square, so I think the shape is part of the old time look.

c. The more recently made folders (early-mid 1950) are probably going to have more modern lenses, and make negatives that don't look much different from my Rolleiocrd V (1954-1957). And the older folders (1920-1940) which are more likely to have a pre-tessar lens designs, I think might be more likely to have damaged bellows or mechanical problems, but I don't really know?
 
runswithsizzers said:
Thanks for that. I've just been looking at Ensign's 1930 catalog of camera models. Fascinating! They had some very innovative design features, and so many models!
Click to expand...

That catalogue is a great find!

For non-UK folks (or younger UK ones!), the currency of the time was pounds, shillings and pence (£,s,d) with 20 shillings to one pound and 12 pence to 1 shilling. And inflation since 1930 means that one pound £1 in 1930 is around £85 today. So the All Distance Pocket Ensign No 1 ("extremely attractive for ladies" ... how language has changed!) on page 8 at £2 is about £170 now, or about US$230.
 
runswithsizzers said:
I think I have a few pound notes in a cigar box somewhere, unused after returning from a visit in 1977. Do you think I can still get an Ensign for £2 ?
Click to expand...
Never know, you might get lucky in a charity shop.
 
blee1996 said:
I have a Kodak Brownie Special 616 box camera with uncoated 105mm f/13 meniscus lens, and the results are plenty sharp. You have to look for worse lenses to get those dreamy effects...
Click to expand...

It appears that the thread has reached the totally useless conclusion that there are no lens designs, however primitive, that are not sharp enough for somebody.

We’ve achieved peak forum.
 
_T_ said:
It appears that the thread has reached the totally useless conclusion that there are no lens designs, however primitive, that are not sharp enough for somebody.

We’ve achieved peak forum.
Click to expand...

I guess you speak from philosophy, while I speak from experience. This one is actually from the primitive lens of Brownie Special Six-16, Ilford Pan F+. I don't know if it is not sharp. We can agree to disagree.

 
One way of reducing aberrations is to make the lens very slow by modern standards, like f/11 to f/13. The designers of Brownies knew what they were doing. I don't know exactly what each person means by "dreamy," but often some kind of subject isolation from a combination of limited depth of field, spherical aberration halo effects, and soft corners. These are going to push you to wider apertures.

It is possible, not very hard, to write down a list of demanded features in a camera+lens that is exclusive enough to have no clear-cut answer. I'm not singling out the OP, this happens all the time on Photrio and elsewhere. Then one has to decide whether to relax some of the specifications, to take up experimenting with possible solutions, or to turn away an ever longer list of proposed suggestions. Like, if one wants a simple lens, one could get the cheapest Kodak Tourist, but then it's not a fast or highly aberrated lens. One could mount an meniscus lens on a shutter and use it on a Baby Graphic to set the focus, but then it's not very compact. And so on.
 
You could always try something like this;

Flipped lens Brownie Hawkeye + modern strobes

Man, it's a one-trick pony, but what a beautiful trick. I bent the flash contacts in mine to work with electronic flash. pretty cool to see the little Brownie with a Pocket Wizard hanging off of it, firing speedo packs and heads! (Lith print on Ilford MGWT). Here it is out in the daylight -...
www.photrio.com
 
blee1996 said:
I guess you speak from philosophy, while I speak from experience. This one is actually from the primitive lens of Brownie Special Six-16, Ilford Pan F+. I don't know if it is not sharp. We can agree to disagree.

View attachment 417185
Click to expand...

It is a great snap indeed. I guess the sun helped a lot; I found that vintage lenses (in my case: 90 and 135mm Elmar M Leica chrome lenses from 1960s) perform very well when the sun is up.
 
I am still trying to make up my mind about where, exactly, on the spectrum from really bad to really good image quality I want.

I am a little reluctant to grab examples of photos that have the look I like from other photographers, either Photrio members or from the internet at large. Not sure if that that is ethical or legal?

Most of the images from my Rolleicord V are more normal looking that what I have in mind -- except, I did make a few shots with pantyhose stretched over the lens that do get more interesting. I discovered that stretching the hose material more tightly reduces the effect, so I had some control of the degree of softness.

Below are a couple of examples from the Rolleicord with pantyhose "filter" effect. I think the effect would be more to my liking if it were less uniform -- that is, a bit sharper in the center, and maybe less sharp in the corners. So I am going to try to make some custom filters, but first I need to find a Bay 1 adaptor that converts to 49mm filter threads.

So I may decide that using some kind of filter to modify a relatively modern lens from a 6x9 folder may be a more reasonable option compared to trying to find a camera with a meniscus lens that also offers more than one or two shutter speeds and/or apertures.




I might like a little stronger effect than what this second one shows, especially around the edges?
 
runswithsizzers said:
I am a little reluctant to grab examples of photos that have the look I like from other photographers, either Photrio members or from the internet at large. Not sure if that that is ethical or legal?
Click to expand...

Just credit them, and we generally won't have a problem. If you can provide a link as well, that should meet any legal concerns, although in most cases internet distribution means people are welcome to share credited work on the internet.
 

On a 13" MacBook. Well some difference, yes. And for that you want an entirely new camera???
 
If it wasn't for the fact that it's a folder without any aid to focussing other than a scale with a red mark that I take to be a hyper-focal aid, my 1934 Lumière Lumirex might well be close to what you might like. Soft lens probably a triplet, 105mm f6.3-22, 3 speeds 25-100 +B and T. The bellows doesn't leak and it takes 120 film. Of course the softness might be fungal growth or my bad focussing. It does take 120 film (mine also scratches it!) and is 6x9 format. I like it very much, apart from the dirty lens and the scratches (both of which I hope to get fixed before too much longer).
 
Try a skylight filter smeared with Vaseline.
A technique that is even older than the cameras you are considering!
It looks to me like it isn't lousy lens you are looking for, but rather images that have controllable amounts of aberrations added to them.
You could probably achieve most of what you want by just framing your shots in a way that encourages flare.
Something like this:



Which was taken with the same lens and camera as this one:
 

Yes, I need to try some variation of that, possibly leaving the center of the filter clean...?

To be clear, I don't want just blurry, which is how I see your tree example. I want slightly hazy and glowish but semi-sharp in the central part of the frame. I might try using clear spray paint to fog the edges of a UV filter, masking the central part of the filter?

I might try making a doughnut from the panyhose material and gluing that to a UV filter?

Bay 1 filters are way too expensive for such modifications, so I need to adapt some of my many 49mm filters to Bay 1 for testing on the Rolleicord.

Do some/many/most medium format folders have filter threads on the front of the lens?
 
RezaLoghme said:
On a 13" MacBook. Well some difference, yes. And for that you want an entirely new camera???
Click to expand...

Vive la différence!

As I mentioned in my recent post, I am now investigating using filters to simulate the effect on the camera I already have. Much of what I want a 6x9 camera for is the negative size and shape, and the "special effect" maybe being only part of the reason.
 

That is an interesting brand. I am interested, but unfortunately, availability seems to be not great in the USA.
 
Remember, the centre of the lens doesn’t result just in the centre of the image—if it did, stopping down would shrink the image.

IMHO, you were on the right track at the beginning in looking for an early/primitive lens. A lens at the limits of its coverage will often break down in an appealingly blurry way, and some of those old 6x9 folders pushed the coverage pretty hard; a 105mm triplet shot close to wide open on 6x9 is, I think, likely to give you a reasonably sharp but somewhat low-contrast centre and soft corners.

Give a chance to the Rolleisoft filter that someone suggested, too. They’re not too expensive in Bay I, and while they don’t do exactly what you described, I think they’re reliably fun.

runswithsizzers said:
Do some/many/most medium format folders have filter threads on the front of the lens?
Click to expand...

In my experience almost never. They expect push-on filters.

-NT
 
Two thoughts- I've flipped the center lens in a Rollei viewing lens (triplet) by accident and gotten an interesting effect- fairly sharp center, falling into OOF and some distortions. So think about flipping elements around. Also changing spacing, like pulling the rear element back (partially unscrew back group on your Rolleicord?). Or use only one group, not both.

And I don't know if it has been done or what would actually happen, but a filter behind the lens? A piece of glass with circular ground glass, going from clear to soft at the edge? Basically soft-focus the formed image, not the light coming in.
 
runswithsizzers said:
To be clear, I don't want just blurry, which is how I see your tree example.
Click to expand...

Understood - you want something like the over-hyped "Petzval" look.
If you look at my tree example, the trunk of the tree is fairly detailed. It is just that I included so much image veiling flare in the image that there isn't much contrast.
Perhaps this is more of what you are looking for - courtesy of a 1939 vintage lens on a Zeiss Ikon 521-2:

Memorial Bench - October 2024

A newly installed memorial bench facing toward one of my favorite sites in the North 40 Lands...
You should note, however, that the relatively limited depth of field is a major contributor to the outside of the main subject blur and character.
 
ntenny said:
a 105mm triplet shot close to wide open on 6x9 is, I think, likely to give you a reasonably sharp but somewhat low-contrast centre and soft corners.
Click to expand...
This sounds like good advice to me. I think filters, mounted on a relatively modern lens are going to get me only partway there. And it is the look of a simple meniscus, doublet, ot triplet lens that I crave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register