How do you advance half frame?

removed account4 · Nov 25, 2012

there were/are several 120 format cameras and they were all pretty different.
it wasn't 1 body for everything ... i had a II as well as a 24s. one had a collapsable lens a few shutter speeds
and a flash sync, they are pretty much like a 120 box camera but italian, cast aluminum, futuristic-50s and much cooler looking than a 50s brownie..
the removable mask was a pretty funny idea. there are a lot of multi format box cameras i have and use an agfa which uses fins that flip up
and mask the film area, and 2 windows ( like the bencini ) the only drawback for the bencini's removable mask pieces/clips
is they are small and can be lost ( and usually are by the time they reach ebay ). the bencini has a viewer and it is eye level the boxes are usually
waist level milk glass ... PITA...

the 127 comet was pretty fun .... even thought it was made in the 60s/70s(?)
it shot vertical and looked like a 1990s / 2000s camcorder.. much more fun than a kodak flashfun ...

in the end most cameras are goofy and exactly the same a box and a shutter ...

Ian Grant · Nov 25, 2012

ChristopherCoy said:
I'm confused. I measured the window, the manual and camerapedia link clearly state it's for 120 film, and that it takes 3x4.5cm frames.... And you still say it won't work as designed?

I usually look up to most of you for information, but y'all seem to be so against the fact that this size frame just isn't possible. What is it about this camera that makes y'all think it's wrong, or I'm wrong or whatever?

All I really wanted to know was how to advance it to get properly spaced negatives.

I never said it won't work but it's going to have possible film flatness issues, but then it was a budget camera anyway and film flatness was a problem with many cameras which it competed with at the time and particularly the Instamatics introduced slightly after. The way there's no film rollers either side and the wide rebates would indicate that even with a pressure plate on the back it would be difficult to hold the 120 film flat.

It's just a rather strange design, why would you design a camera to shoot a 127 half frame size on 120 film, but as others have said one body for various film sizes would keep manufacturing costs low. They are often refered to as Toy cameras.

Ian

ChristopherCoy · Nov 25, 2012

Ian Grant said:
. They are often refered to as Toy cameras.

Ian

Yes they are. Aside frame the frame size, the Bencini's are just like the Certo Phot. The Certo is German, the Bencini is italian. Otherwise the both have two apertures, three shutter speeds, and aluminum cast bodies.

And both of these are nothing more than metal Holgas.

Ian Grant · Nov 25, 2012

The British Coronet is much the same with a high quality meniscus lens ;D

The important point is to assume like you have already that they are just old fashioned Holgas but many people had great fun and plenty of reasonable images with them in the 50's and 60's. The Ensign FulVue is a a TLR camera of similar low tch build and they sold extremely well in the UK, there was a US copy

A downside is the old thick emulsions like Verichrome (Pan), and Selo (Pan) with their wide exposure latitude aren't available any longer.

Ian

k_jupiter · Nov 26, 2012

Just remember you are talking about an Italian camera made out of recycled American airframe aluminum. I have a 127 model and yes, it's a piece of crap. I would say it looks nice on the shelf but it doesn't. Seems like a waste of film shooting 3x4.5 on 120 film. Take a couple of pics, document it, put them in the book and retire that poor bastard child.

tim in san jose

AgX · Nov 26, 2012

Tim, you better should have a look at when your camera was manufactured. We are talking about war struck Europe.
Even in Germany, here often praised for their cameras, camera industry was just starting to evolve again.

If you had a look at what common people were offered and could afford in Germany you would see a lot of "crap".
Europe was not Kodachrome-Wonderland.

ChristopherCoy · Nov 26, 2012

k_jupiter said:
Just remember you are talking about an Italian camera made out of recycled American airframe aluminum. I have a 127 model and yes, it's a piece of crap. I would say it looks nice on the shelf but it doesn't. Seems like a waste of film shooting 3x4.5 on 120 film. Take a couple of pics, document it, put them in the book and retire that poor bastard child.

tim in san jose

Wow! The Yashica 635 isn't a good camera, the Bencini isn't worth the space it takes up.... I'd hate to see what you have to say about my Hasselblad, Nikons, and Kodak Brownies.

Perhaps you should have another cup of coffee?

Ian Grant · Nov 26, 2012

I saw a Bencini Koroll this morning (in a shop), there wasn't a price tag on it but the seller's other items are too pricey. They certainly don't win prizes for design and ergonomics but they do have a curious appeal in a weird funky way.

You need to tell us how you get bon with it.

Ian

k_jupiter · Nov 26, 2012

ChristopherCoy said:
Wow! The Yashica 635 isn't a good camera, the Bencini isn't worth the space it takes up.... I'd hate to see what you have to say about my Hasselblad, Nikons, and Kodak Brownies.

Perhaps you should have another cup of coffee?

Excuse me. I never said the 635 wasn't a good camera. I like mine. The post you obliviously looked at states that the camera is best at portraits and not landscapes in 135 mode because OF THE POSITIONING OF THE FILM! Try taking landscape pictures with a TLR sideways. Damn.

The Bencini is a piece of crap. And yes, I know the history of it, remanufactured from downed and abandoned american airplanes. And I know what Europe was like for 15 years after the war. Done my research, spent my time in Europe, even lived with survivors of the second world war. The camera is still a piece of crap. What I said about the Bencini is take a couple pictures, put them in a book, and put the camera away because there are better things to shoot with. Life is too short.

If you are comparing your shooters with the Bencini, then perhaps you need to get better quality or take care of them better. When i shoot, I shoot FM2, RB67, and these days, my V8. We all went through the shoot old crappy camera phases, it seems romantical. But seriously, the Zorki, the Nettars, the 635, the 127s... belong on a shelf.

tim in san jose

ChristopherCoy · Nov 26, 2012

k_jupiter said:
Excuse me. I never said the 635 wasn't a good camera.

Yes you did.

k_jupiter said:
The 635 isn't a great camera but it sure is a lot of fun. The 80mm lens for 135 shooting does a quite presentable job for a portrait lens. It's not an 85mm Nikor but what is? Only issue is you really can only shoot portrait, landscapes in 135 don't work real well.

tim in sanjose

I just found it funny that both of your posts were cast in a negative light. Why bother shooting if you can't have fun? All you did was point out the negative aspects of each.

I enjoy shooting "crap cameras made from disassembled American airplanes." They're fun, especially when they are highly inaccurate. Doesn't mean I enjoy the Hassy or the F100 any less.

And downed and abandoned American airplanes huh? That's news to me and quite interesting. I might have to go research that!

k_jupiter · Nov 26, 2012

No I didn't. I said it wasn't a great camera. Good does not equal great.

If you think a 635 is a great camera, more power to you. Good enough lens, crappy shutter, fun design with the 135 insert. Not worth shooting for 120 film. At the cost of 120 professional equipment today, shoot the best you can. Rb67s are dirt cheap and 50 times better than that Yashica.

Just my opinion. My time being more valuable as I get older, the time I spend shooting film is spent with the best equipment I can afford. These days, that's usually 8x10.

tim in san jose

ChristopherCoy · Nov 26, 2012

Congrats! My question wasn't how much was your time worth, or how crappy are crappy cameras though.

My question was, how do you properly advance half frame cameras to provide even spacing?

Ian Grant · Nov 26, 2012

ChristopherCoy said:
My question was, how do you properly advance half frame cameras to provide even spacing?

Sometimes you have to sacrifice a roll of film to find out, it's the only camera manufacturer to use 120 film in this way, and you do have the links to the manual.

While I can't disagree with Tim that it's essentially a crap camera that was the standard of very basic entry level cameras in the 50's and early 60's and your camera has better features than some Kodak cameras of the time, which while bettert built may have been slightly inferior in terms of the resulting images.

Ian

ChristopherCoy · Nov 26, 2012

Ian Grant said:
Sometimes you have to sacrifice a roll of film to find out...

Unfortunately you are very right. And so I did. I went outside a blew a few more frames and rolled over the last 12 frames.

In fact my assumption was correct. Frame number in the first window, then frame number in the second window, and you get spacing like this.

Before I figured it out, I ran a few together yesterday, and didn't get spacing at all.

I'd have to say that I like this half frame effect. Essentially I get a 6x4.5 negative, so I could still get fairly nice enlargements if I wanted two photos in one. Could be nice for some art projects, especially detail shots.

MattKing · Nov 26, 2012

Christopher:
I think the things that confound some of us the most about the camera are:
1) the camera "throws away" about 1/4 of the usable area on each 120 roll of film - a strip about 1.5 wide and the entire length of the roll; and
2) the film gate looks like it is designed to ensure problems with film flatness on 120 film (whereas it probably would work well with 127 film).

As an interesting oddity worthy of collection or experimenting with, it seems fine.

AgX · Nov 27, 2012

I still do not understand that film flatness issue with this camera. I mean, the wider the film guides the more flat the film.

Ian Grant · Nov 27, 2012

AgX said:
I still do not understand that film flatness issue with this camera. I mean, the wider the film guides the more flat the film.

It's the lack of rollers either end and the cut-away for 127 that's the issue, those wide giudes only help in one plane. So when the film's wound on it doesn't necessairly tighten flat across its width.

We needs to be remembered that when you have simple lenses any anomalies in film flatness are less important anyway.

Ian

AgX · Nov 27, 2012

The guides are wider towards the center. That is what I mean.

How do you advance half frame?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency