• 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

Adventures in Lo-Fi (photo-centric)


Yes, I did find a very good condition one for $70, a lot more than they were going for years ago I guess. It has the yellow filter. I tried it out yesterday, it made a "fat roll", so I've tried bending the metal piece by the take up spool a bit and hope it fixes it.

30mm push-on, good to know.

Look at the difference between these two cameras: same negative size, almost same focal length. And that's not even mentioning the weight difference of around 5 pounds!

 




First roll through my Zeiss Icon Nettar 517/2. Mine has the 105/6.3 Novar-Anastigmat, which I believe is a triplet design(?) First photo at f9.5 and minimum focusing distance, which is a little less than 7ft. Second photo at f8.0.



Mine has a Vario shutter with speeds of 1/25th, 1/75th, and 1/200th second, plus B. When shooting this test roll, I was hoping to use the widest aperture (f6.3), but with Kodak Tri-X metered at EI 250, even on this cloudy day, and using the top shutter speed of 1/200 I still had to stop down some. Next time, I will try a slower film. And now I have a push-on filter holder for my Series V filters, so I can use yellow-orange-red filters and larger apertures due to the filter factors. This lens takes a 31.8mm or 32mm push on filter.

Still not sure how I am going to get on with scale focusing. And I think I am going to regret not being able to focus closer than 6-7 ft. Other than that, it is a jewel of a camera, and folded, very easy to carry. I believe the viewfinder is going to be much more useful than the one on the Agfa Clack, although I still have not tested just how accurately the Zeiss Nettar is showing the edges of the frame.
 
Last edited:
runswithsizzers said:
First roll through my Zeiss Icon Nettar 517/2
Click to expand...
You have left lo-fi camera territory.
runswithsizzers said:
I was hoping to use the widest aperture (f6.3), but with Kodak Tri-X metered at EI 250, even on this cloudy day, and using the top shutter speed of 1/200 I still had to stop down some.
Click to expand...
A couple stops overexposure does not hurt. Certainly less than a couple stops underexposure, should you get caught in mediocre light with 100ISO film.
runswithsizzers said:
although I still have not tested just how accurately the Zeiss Nettar is showing the edges of the frame.
Click to expand...
IMO not as bad as I initially thought. Get your eye close to the v/f lens, but do not try to "peek into corners". If you want to gain some assurance, tape some tracing paper over the film gate, dark cloth, determine actual FOV; compare with what the v/f is showing.
 
bernard_L said:
You have left lo-fi camera territory.
Click to expand...
Yes, when stopped down, the negatives from the 105/6.3 Novar-Anastigmat look very good. But perhaps a little more "character" will show at f6.3?

As I mentioned in the opening post, "I am interested in exploring the boundary between low tech and more modern lens designs, so expect some photos made with better cameras." Maybe I should not have used the term, "lo-fi" in my title?

Honestly, I don't really know exactly what I am looking for, or what to call it, but I am having fun seeing what kind of images these cameras can produce.

bernard_L said:
tape some tracing paper over the film gate, dark cloth, determine actual FOV; compare with what the v/f is showing.
Click to expand...
Good idea, I plan to try that with this camera and the Agfa Clack, too. Thanks for your reply.
 
runswithsizzers said:
Yes, when stopped down, the negatives from the 105/6.3 Novar-Anastigmat look very good. But perhaps a little more "character" will show at f6.3?
Click to expand...
Nothing spectacular, I bet. 6.3 may not be quite the optimum for sharpness, but quite conservative.

I have a Franka Solida with a 80/2.9 Radionar. That is pushing the limits of a triplet. At 2.9 the images are definitely, shall we say, dreamy.
 
bernard_L said:
Nothing spectacular, I bet. 6.3 may not be quite the optimum for sharpness, but quite conservative.

I have a Franka Solida with a 80/2.9 Radionar. That is pushing the limits of a triplet. At 2.9 the images are definitely, shall we say, dreamy.
Click to expand...
Right now, I think my goal is less "spectacular" and more "subtle"...? Still trying to decide.

The Franka Solida cameras look good, but a quick search is not turning up any 6x9 or 6x4.5? I have a Rolleicord, and I like it just fine for square, but at the present, I am more interested in pursuing something less square.
 
@bernard_L, I am having trouble telling which area of the frame your crops were extracted from.

Once a photo has a certain level of fuzziness across the whole frame, I start to loose interest (many smaller format pinhole photos, for example). But I am willing to accept a fairly high degree of unsharpness at the edges of the frame if the center is noticeably sharper in comparison.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that my choices in subject matter, subject distance, and aperture may be far more significant in getting to the look I want, than my choice of lens? (Working theory; still evaluating)
 
Perversely, I am always disappointed when I buy a supposedly cheap, crappy camera and discover it makes fine images.
 
Kino said:
Perversely, I am always disappointed when I buy a supposedly cheap, crappy camera and discover it makes fine images.
Click to expand...
Yes, with one exception, that has been my experience, as well.

But "fine images" are good, too!

I regret using the phrase "lo-fi" in the title of this thread, because I think I am discovering my real interest is not lo-fi to any great degree, but rather the boundary between fine images and lo-fi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register