Kodak No. 3A image quality?

[Christophoto]

I was just cruising around on the Bay and was looking at a couple 3As. It dawned on me, and I confirmed with a search, that it would be easy to run 120 film through them and get a panoramic. The question though, is how are the lenses on these things? 100+ years old... On one hand it would be fun and get some attention to whip out a 100 year old camera and get some cool panos on a backpacking trip, on the other hand I might be let down by antique lens technology. Thoughts?

 

[Jim Jones]

When shopping for early Kodaks, make sure you're getting one that uses a film size that is suitable. In some Kodak literature a hundred years ago the 3A is listed as making 3.25x5.5 negatives. Lenses for cameras in this size included simple meniscus lenses like those used in Brownie box cameras, the venerable Rapid Rectilinear, triplets, Tessar types, Kodak Anastigmatic f/7.7 (probably Dialyte type), and perhaps others. Tessars and Dialytes are fine enough to still be in production a hundred years later. Although the negatives were usually contact printed, the best ones stood up well to moderate enlarging. I once made a slightly cropped 16x20 from a 3A camera with a Rapid Rectilinear (designed in 1866). It was slightly unsharp, but almost good enough for a wall hanger. A Tessar or Dialyte should have done better. Consider that these lenses were uncoated, and subject to much more flare than with multicoated lenses.

 

[Christophoto]

Yeah, the 3As I was looking at took 122 film. The plan would be to make spacers for the top and bottom of the rolls and basically make it a 2 1/4 x 4 1/2 pano using 120 film. Good to hear some of the lenses might be good enough to bother with. I was looking at the upper level ones with the better lenses.

 

[mr rusty]

Check out my thread

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I have a 3A with a Zeiss london lens. 1913. I have modded it with DIY reels and a cardboard mask for 120 film. Get a gash film and work out how many turns it takes to advance the film - the red window needs blanking off.

 

[Christophoto]

Cool, thanks for the link, I'll check it out when I have more time later. As for film advancement, I saw a YouTube video where a guy with a 3A was able to use the numbers on the bottom of the backing paper and just stop on odd numbers, they were visible through the window. He had the spacers above the film so the film was at the bottom edge of the frame, haven't read your link to see if you did that or centered it.

 

[mr rusty]

No I centred it and count the turns. For new film spools what I have are two small bits of metal tube from an old car aerial which suitably flattened at one end jam into the crosses of the spool on each side and support the new film spool in the correct place. The home-made specials are the take-ups.

 

[Christophoto]

Ahh, interesting. Yeah, I was kind of wondering if you would get any extra distortion or odd vignetting by spacing only the top of the rolls and running the film across the bottom of the frame. Might be easier to set up and you get to use the red window, but I imagine it's better the way you did it.

 

[Dan Fromm]

IQ? What you'll get depends on where the film sits relative to where it shoulld be, on how parallel the standard is to the film plane and on the lens. Some of the lenses fitted to 3As are quite good. These include, depending on the camera's age, f/6.3 Tessars and f/6.3 Kodak Anastigmats (dialyte types, as Jim has already mentioned). Most of the shutters are now iffy.

 

[Christophoto]

Good to know, thanks. The one I was looking hardest at had the 6.3 Anastigmat. I don't have any experience with cameras quite that old, what is the shutter situation like? Are they just slow and not accurate or do they typically hang up completely? I have a toy in the mail that will let me test shutter speeds accurately so if it's a few stops slow but consistent it isn't a big deal... assuming it doesn't stop working altogether. I'm assuming a century old shutter is still delicate and complex to the point that I couldn't refurbish it myself?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Depends on the shutter. Kodak's own Ball Bearing Shutters are very erratic. All of the others will be improved by overhauls.

I forgot to mention that focusing will be a problem.

I've always seen FPKs as nothing but sources of lenses but people have done what you're thinking about doing and been happy. As long as you don't expect what you'd get from a proper 6x12 camera you'll be fine.

 

[GregW]

I have a #3 ( a very similar camera) with a rapid Rect. I can't complain about the lens, it makes very nice sharp images. For a roll film camera the neg is HUGE. If you look for one with a convertible back you can make an insert with a red window in the center out of black fomcor and a piece of red gel.

 

[removed account4]

you can always do the focus check to mark your rail by putting parchment / waxed paper across the film gate
and using a loupe and focusing on things of known distances ( using the waxed paper &c as ground glass ).
have fun with the 3a, i love mine ! using photopaper in it for paper negatives might become an addiction
that there is no 12 step program for

 

[NedL]

Me too. I love making paper negatives in mine, and the contact prints are a nice size. No 12 step program needed or wanted
I've only put film in it a couple times, my enlarger can't handle the 3.25x5.5 negatives.

 

[Christophoto]

Thanks for the info guys, it helps. I'll be finishing setting up my first darkroom after new years, and I have a nice 4x5 enlarger so I can have some fun with it. I'll have to look into paper negatives. I've heard of them and seen examples but don't know much more.

 

[nosmok]

Another issue is that the lens is not marked in standard f/stops. I have a 122 film 3a and I put a piece of tape on the back with the f-stop on it. You just use the maximum aperture to figure the f/stops mathematically using the fractions on the dial.

BTW the image quality is really really good. It's got a "Kodak Anastigmat" lens, if that helps.

 

[removed account4]

if the fnumbers are different than what is used today
you will most likely find it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#/media/File:Diaphragm_Numbers.gif
i used to have a chart with the stoltz system can't put my finger on it,
people here and the large format photo info site will help you figure out
what system was used ...

 

[NedL]

Some of my old Kodak folders use the U.S. ( "Uniform System" ). For me the easiest way to remember is that US 16 = F/16, and just go from there.

Where I sometimes goof up is on a homemade camera that uses a lens from a 3A but has twice the focal length... ( if you remove the front element of the B&L RR lens, it has twice the FL and covers 8.5x11 easily )... sometimes I remember to convert from US to F stops, but forget to double it! It was also more complicated when I used to use an old Weston meter...

 

[Christophoto]

Haha I never even knew about the old US way of doing it until I read up more on these. Pretty cool how something that was here so long can feel new.