How has your experience with the Mercury Universal 6x9 been? What is your current set-up?

[Certain Exposures]

Hello,

What has your experience with the Mercury Universal 6x9 camera been like? I am considering if I want to try it out.

So far, I have only had one experience with a 3D-printed camera: the Cameradactyl Homonculus.

I decided the Homonculus was not for me because I could not achieve sharp focus and accurate compositions for portraits and urban landscapes without using an accessory ground glass back. I found that process too inconvenient for my preference for medium format. I wrote a more nuanced and detailed review if you're interested. It's on the first page of Google.

With all that in mind, I have three questions for you:

1. Can you achieve sharp focus and accurate compositions for portraits and urban landscapes without using an accessory ground glass back? If so, what is your setup?

2. If not, how convenient is your ground glass back set up for you to use?

3. What is your favorite configuration (lens, back, etc.)?

Moderator's edit - link added at OP's request: https://mercurycamera.com/cameras/6x9-medium-format-camera/

 

[Donald Qualls]

Define "sharp focus" -- I have lots of negatives I consider sharp made with "that looks like four feet" scale focusing augmented by smallest aperture the light would support at useful shutter speed (with a 105 mm lens on 6x9). If you have a marked/calibrated helicoid, any camera body ought to be able to do the same.

 

[Don_ih]

That camera has a bit of a "taken" name -- Universal made a camera called the Mercury (the pawking meter camera)...

In the meantime, if it has no rangefinder mechanism, focus can only be done by scale or ground glass.

 

[ic-racer]

You might want to look into a camera with a rangefinder.

I never understood the Mercury camera concept. Why take a lens off a camera that can focus handheld and put it on a camera that can't achieve hand-held focus.

 

[Certain Exposures]

Define "sharp focus" -- I have lots of negatives I consider sharp made with "that looks like four feet" scale focusing augmented by smallest aperture the light would support at useful shutter speed (with a 105 mm lens on 6x9). If you have a marked/calibrated helicoid, any camera body ought to be able to do the same.

Could you link some examples of shots you took in the F8 - F11 range?

The gallery in my article includes examples of "guesstimate" shots I took with the Homonculus. Those would all be examples of poor focus (to me).

That camera has a bit of a "taken" name -- Universal made a camera called the Mercury (the pawking meter camera)...

In the meantime, if it has no rangefinder mechanism, focus can only be done by scale or ground glass.

Interesting, thanks. Parking?

You might want to look into a camera with a rangefinder.

I never understood the Mercury camera concept. Why take a lens off a camera that can focus handheld and put it on a camera that can't achieve hand-held focus.

Unfortunately, rangefinder cameras are outside my budget to buy and maintain. SLRs are affordable and generally hardy.

The main benefit of the Mercury would be the weight. My basic RB67 kit weighs 22LBs in a camera bag .

 

[Dustin McAmera]

The Univex Mercury, by the Universal Camera Corp., looks like a parking meter. It's too small for your current needs though: it's half-frame on 35mm film. The parking-meter bit is housing for a rotary shutter. In at least the second model, it has a depth-of-field table printed on it.

Mercury - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

camera-wiki.org

 

[Donald Qualls]

Could you link some examples of shots you took in the F8 - F11 range?

I'm not at home, so don't have my scans at hand -- I'll try to remember to do so when I'm home this evening. I don't generally have exact exposure information, though, and with the camera I'm thinking of (1927 Voigtlander) I'm as likely to go f/16 or f/22 in good sun (dial-set Compur maxes out at 1/200).

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I googled the Mercury camera I think you're talking about. I think I found the right page (it has viagra adverts embedded in the listings. I don't know enough to check whether that's really them, subsidising their site, or if its been hacked).

I have to say I hate this product. The 6x9 medium-format camera basic bundle (a body with a frame finder, and with a helical focus unit that you have to find and fit your own lens to, and a Graflok back that you have to find and fit your own film back to) is 150 dollars. That is, they've done everything but all the hard parts of making a camera, and it costs enough to buy (I think, if you're patient) a fully-functional folding 6x9 folder from the 30s-50s, including a lens. and an accessory rangefinder. Uncoupled rangefinder won't slow you down much; and for many photos scale focus is easy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, heck, if you're going to get a 6x9 folder, may as well get a Moskva 5 -- coupled RF (albeit separate window), very good Tessar-type lens, double exposure lock (which can be defeated by using a cable release attached to the shutter), many come with a 6x6 frame mask (in case you like square), and they're usually under $200 even these days. Get a serviced one from Ukraine and it should still be under $300. I had one, traded it, and missed it so much I bought another not long ago.

I think the OP was interested in being able to change lenses, though -- the Universal (once built up) uses Mamiya Universal mount lenses, which are good and not too expensive.

 

[xya]

...I decided the Homonculus was not for me because I could not achieve sharp focus and accurate compositions for portraits and urban landscapes without using an accessory ground glass back...

I have this camera and for me it works very well https://www.oddcameras.com/cameradactyl_universal_travel.htm but I do not have the Mercury camera. I use mine for street, maybe it is not ideal for portraits. For portraits I would use the heavy original Mamiya Universal because of its wonderful rangefinder. My favorite street setting is the the 65 or 50mm Mamiya lens and an ordinary Graflex roll film holder. Works for me like a charm and no problems with sharpness.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Not that I do portraits, but I think the shortish range would make parallax error a problem with a rangefinder. Not a terrible problem, but enough that I'd prefer either an SLR or a view camera.

 

[OAPOli]

I don't have experience with those two but I have made a few 3D-printed cameras. It looks like your Cameradactyl body is slightly out of spec with a too long flange-focus distance. I think it's difficult to hold high tolerances with a 3D printer so I usually design the bodies a bit short then shim the mount (or offset the focus scale) after checking the collimation.

Otherwise the Mercury is essentially the same thing although it seems more versatile in terms of lenses. It's not clear to me what they use for the "focus unit". 3D-printed helicoid?

 

[Certain Exposures]

Hello,

What has your experience with the Mercury Universal 6x9 camera been like? I am considering if I want to try it out.

So far, I have only had one experience with a 3D-printed camera: the Cameradactyl Homonculus.

I decided the Homonculus was not for me because I could not achieve sharp focus and accurate compositions for portraits and urban landscapes without using an accessory ground glass back. I found that process too inconvenient for my preference for medium format. I wrote a more nuanced and detailed review if you're interested. It's on the first page of Google.

With all that in mind, I have three questions for you:

1. Can you achieve sharp focus and accurate compositions for portraits and urban landscapes without using an accessory ground glass back? If so, what is your setup?

2. If not, how convenient is your ground glass back set up for you to use?

3. What is your favorite configuration (lens, back, etc.)?

Mods, is there any chance you can add this link in my first comment so that folks will know what camera I am talking about?

The Univex Mercury, by the Universal Camera Corp., looks like a parking meter. It's too small for your current needs though: it's half-frame on 35mm film. The parking-meter bit is housing for a rotary shutter. In at least the second model, it has a depth-of-field table printed on it.

Mercury - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

camera-wiki.org

Thanks, I will take a look. Yes, I am thinking about a medium format camera that uses RB67 backs.

I'm not at home, so don't have my scans at hand -- I'll try to remember to do so when I'm home this evening. I don't generally have exact exposure information, though, and with the camera I'm thinking of (1927 Voigtlander) I'm as likely to go f/16 or f/22 in good sun (dial-set Compur maxes out at 1/200).

Oh - no rush. At first I thought you were using the Mercury 6x9 camera. I am still curious about your results though.

I googled the Mercury camera I think you're talking about. I think I found the right page (it has viagra adverts embedded in the listings. I don't know enough to check whether that's really them, subsidising their site, or if its been hacked).

I have to say I hate this product. The 6x9 medium-format camera basic bundle (a body with a frame finder, and with a helical focus unit that you have to find and fit your own lens to, and a Graflok back that you have to find and fit your own film back to) is 150 dollars. That is, they've done everything but all the hard parts of making a camera, and it costs enough to buy (I think, if you're patient) a fully-functional folding 6x9 folder from the 30s-50s, including a lens. and an accessory rangefinder. Uncoupled rangefinder won't slow you down much; and for many photos scale focus is easy.

This is the camera.

Options like the Cameradactyl and Mercury cameras are more practical if you've already bought into a Graflok system and would rather stick to it than use a rangefinder for whatever reason.

Well, heck, if you're going to get a 6x9 folder, may as well get a Moskva 5 -- coupled RF (albeit separate window), very good Tessar-type lens, double exposure lock (which can be defeated by using a cable release attached to the shutter), many come with a 6x6 frame mask (in case you like square), and they're usually under $200 even these days. Get a serviced one from Ukraine and it should still be under $300. I had one, traded it, and missed it so much I bought another not long ago.

I think the OP was interested in being able to change lenses, though -- the Universal (once built up) uses Mamiya Universal mount lenses, which are good and not too expensive.

I was curious if anyone had experience with the Mercury because it would allow me to shoot 6x7 or larger, use my RB67 film backs, and carry something much lighter than the full RB kit.

I have this camera and for me it works very well https://www.oddcameras.com/cameradactyl_universal_travel.htm but I do not have the Mercury camera. I use mine for street, maybe it is not ideal for portraits. For portraits I would use the heavy original Mamiya Universal because of its wonderful rangefinder. My favorite street setting is the the 65 or 50mm Mamiya lens and an ordinary Graflex roll film holder. Works for me like a charm and no problems with sharpness.

Thanks. I don't remember looking at that camera. I will check it out.

Not that I do portraits, but I think the shortish range would make parallax error a problem with a rangefinder. Not a terrible problem, but enough that I'd prefer either an SLR or a view camera.

Yes, that makes sense.

I don't have experience with those two but I have made a few 3D-printed cameras. It looks like your Cameradactyl body is slightly out of spec with a too long flange-focus distance. I think it's difficult to hold high tolerances with a 3D printer so I usually design the bodies a bit short then shim the mount (or offset the focus scale) after checking the collimation.

Otherwise the Mercury is essentially the same thing although it seems more versatile in terms of lenses. It's not clear to me what they use for the "focus unit". 3D-printed helicoid?

I am not sure because I haven't gone through all the details on its design just yet. I was hoping to see some user feedback but it doesn't look like I've reached that audience.

 

[MattKing]

Mods, is there any chance you can add this link in my first comment so that folks will know what camera I am talking about?

Done!

 

[Certain Exposures]

Done!

Thank you!

 

[Donald Qualls]

At first I thought you were using the Mercury 6x9 camera. I am still curious about your results though.

No, the only 3D printed camera I have is a self-printed parts set for a 4x5 pinhole (forget the name at the moment). The Voigtlander, however, has a Skopar, equivalent to a 1920s Tessar, so the dialyte or double Gauss designs of Universal Press lenses ought to perform better than this -- yet I have Fompan 400 negatives (shot from approximately the minimum focus distance of about 1 meter) in which I can read the texture of a white blossom petal.

All to say, there's nothing wrong with scale focus if you have the ability to stop down a bit for DOF and the focus scale is set accurately. The latter is the likely failure with a camera where you have to find, install, calibrate, and mark your own helicoid...

 

[Dan Fromm]

I googled the Mercury camera I think you're talking about. I think I found the right page (it has viagra adverts embedded in the listings. I don't know enough to check whether that's really them, subsidising their site, or if its been hacked).

I have to say I hate this product. The 6x9 medium-format camera basic bundle (a body with a frame finder, and with a helical focus unit that you have to find and fit your own lens to, and a Graflok back that you have to find and fit your own film back to) is 150 dollars. That is, they've done everything but all the hard parts of making a camera, and it costs enough to buy (I think, if you're patient) a fully-functional folding 6x9 folder from the 30s-50s, including a lens. and an accessory rangefinder. Uncoupled rangefinder won't slow you down much; and for many photos scale focus is easy.

I take it that you don't like 2x3 Graphics, with or without Kalart rangefinders, either.

I hate posts that confuse camera backs with film (sheet, in the UK cut, or roll) holders.

More seriously, Mercury offers a ground glass for $55.

 

[Dan Fromm]

OP, Its been a while since I checked prices but I suspect that with careful shopping you can get a 2x3 Graphic with Kalart rangefinder and a Graflok back for less than the price of a Mercury. The Graphics are more capable.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I take it that you don't like 2x3 Graphics, with or without Kalart rangefinders, either.

I hate posts that confuse camera backs with film (sheet, in the UK cut, or roll) holders.

More seriously, Mercury offers a ground glass for $55.

I don't think I confused anything with anything, if it's me you're referring to.

I have nothing against the modular nature of the thing. In itself, the connect-to-anything ambition of Mercury is quite fun; but it annoys me that the camera body they offers is so crude, with hard, square corners, and its fasteners sticking out at all corners, even highlighted with optional coloured plastic washers; and hugely overpriced for a bare body. If you look further on the Mercury site, one of the options they think we may buy is fitting this thing on the front of our Phase 1 digital back: I'd expect Phase 1 to send goons to beat me up.

Re Graphics, I have a Century Graphic, and love it. It and the Mercury aren't from the same world. You can link them with a Venn diagram, as both plastic-bodied and modular, but they are not near-equivalents.

It's a while ago, but I got my Century Graphic with a coated 127/4.7 lens, the RF adjusted correctly for it, backs for 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9, the focusing hood (a ground-glass with a fresnel, in a little folding metal hood) and the little galilean finder, for 400 dollars. I would recommend it to the OP too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I got my Century Graphic with a coated 127/4.7 lens, the RF adjusted correctly for it, backs for 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9, the focusing hood (a ground-glass with a fresnel, in a little folding metal hood) and the little galilean finder, for 400 dollars.

That seems about right. Mine came with a 101/3.5 Ektar, well-calibrated RF, ground glass but no film backs for around $150, but since I have an RB67 I'd already been gathering 2x3 Graflok accessories. I've now got two Grafmatics as well as roll backs in 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 (a couple of those for 220). Might even have a couple 2x3 double dark slides, I'd have to refresh myself. I usually keep either the Graflex 23 or my RB67 220 back on it (the latter until I run out of GP3 in 220, at least).

 

[btaylor]

I bought one of these Mercury 6x9 cameras on the kickstarter campaign. Set up (focusing helical) for the 101mm Ektar lens I have on my baby Speed Graphic. I have never gotten around to using it, so if anyone’s interested I’ll move it on for $75 plus shipping for the body.

 

[Light Capture]

It's possible to use a 3d printed camera without groundglass with excellent results.

However, there are few things that need to be in place first. Some of them not easy without proper tools.

1. lens flange (front helicoid surface) needs to be calibrated and parallel with film rails
2. CoC (circle of confusion) needs to be calculated for the format or for desired resolution
3. Camera helicoid has to be calibrated with ground glass and distances marked. Ideally lens would be collimated at infinity
4. Hyperfocal distances at different apertures need to be calculated and noted.
5. For distances of less than 3-4 meters. Precise calibration of helicoid markings and tape measure is the only way to ensure proper focus.
6. Wider apertures and smaller DOF will make it easier to miss intended focus.

Not sure if online compression is going to show what's actually on these images but actual negative is very detailed and uniform in sharpness from center to edges. 10-20x magnification is easily possible for close examination. Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f8 at f22.

 

[Chuck1]

I bought one of these Mercury 6x9 cameras on the kickstarter campaign. Set up (focusing helical) for the 101mm Ektar lens I have on my baby Speed Graphic. I have never gotten around to using it, so if anyone’s interested I’ll move it on for $75 plus shipping for the body.

What size shutter is the helicoid cut for?

 

[grahamp]

I see some parallels with Morton Kolve's Will Travel cameras. link: Morton Kolve . Mercury are trying for a sort-of system camera, but do rely on parts for pre-existing products. I have a Will Travel 4x5 with a 90mm f8 Super-Angulon, which was a challenge to set the focus scale, but I got there. Scale focus is fine, I can use a separate rangefinder, or a ground glass. It seems fine using 6x12 and 6x9 RFH, but it is mainly used with 4x5. At f8 it is probably hiding a lot of fine alignment issues! It is not a substitute for my 6x9 and 4x5 view cameras, but meets a certain need. If I had not got the lens on hand, and had my own printer, I likely would not have bothered.

The questions to ask are: what niche does it fill, what are the ancillary parts costs. And can you address the list of configuration points from a post above.

The Mercury site does have some useful data on RFH units from various manufacturers.