Filmwasters
Which Board? => Main Forum => Topic started by: cs1 on January 17, 2018, 07:25:21 PM
-
I've searched the forum but haven't found any dedicated box camera thread. The Brownie Day thread and the one about new box cameras being kickstarted left me with the urge to discuss boxes. :)
I'm familiar with a number of Agfa boxes, however, I'd like to try boxes by other manufacturers. I've stumbled upon the Altissa Periskop box which caught my eye for three reasons: (1) it's a gorgeous looking camera and (2) it's not 6x9 but 6x6 (I don't have a box with that format yet) and (3) it's supposed to have a very unusual lens design with aperture and shutter located between two lens elements. My question to start off this thread is: has one of you seen this box in real live before or does one of you even own one and can share her or his thoughts about / experiences with it?
Feel free to chip in any other box related questions / suggestions / remarks that spring to your mind. :)
-
I must say that it's really nice looking.
Hard to resist such a stunner
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/100/312918765_6c59b62a99.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tDMR8)Altissa Box (https://flic.kr/p/tDMR8) by Alfred (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alf_sigaro/), on Flickr
-
Sandeha generously started a thread (http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8578.msg114777#msg114777) about my box camera book a couple years ago. There are chapters on four of my favorite box cameras with a bit of history and pictures from each camera. There is a preview (http://www.blurb.com/books/6836206-out-of-the-box) with all pages at the BLURB site.
-
I was looking for a list of boxes that includes their format and film type but couldn't find anything. Anyone aware of one? A list of those that use 120 film would be a start.
-
Well... maybe we can start a list here (http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=9474.new#new (http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=9474.new#new)) :)
I'll go through my collection and list the ones I have there.
-
This is a pretty good list of Kodak Box cameras:
http://www.brownie.camera/ (http://www.brownie.camera/)
-
Wow! This guy really has boxes of boxes! ;D
-
I must say that it's really nice looking.
I agree, it's stunning. :) I'm hoping to find a cheap one but prices on a well known auction site are quite steep for a reasonably well preserved copy.
-
And Bakelite is one of those things that need to be in really good shape or else it just looks shoddy.
-
Sandeha generously started a thread (http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8578.msg114777#msg114777) about my box camera book a couple years ago. There are chapters on four of my favorite box cameras with a bit of history and pictures from each camera. There is a preview (http://www.blurb.com/books/6836206-out-of-the-box) with all pages at the BLURB site.
Thanks for the hint. I looked at the preview of your box camera book. It looks impressive.
I'm wondering: how common are Agfa boxes in the US? I suppose they must be quite rare over there? I saw in your book that you have an Agfa Clack. I have a copy, too, and I got it for maybe 5 € (it was definitely < 10 €) which was a no-brainer.
-
And Bakelite is one of those things that need to be in really good shape or else it just looks shoddy.
I'm not entirely sure but I don't think it's made with bakelite. I think it's tin covered with a (very likely fake plastic) leatherette.
-
My dad (for reasons unknown) had a dozen or so Spartus Press-Flash cameras. These shot 6x9 portrait aspect on 120, were manufactured from the late 1930s up to 1950, and used Edison screw-base flash bulbs. What's odd is that I can't recall ever having seen a period photo of press photographers using one of these; cameras are almost always Speed or Crown Graphics.
-
Those are very pretty cameras. Very art deco. Looks like they have eye level viewfinders. I guess you've tried one of these before. How do you like them?
-
Those are very pretty cameras. Very art deco. Looks like they have eye level viewfinders. I guess you've tried one of these before. How do you like them?
Sadly, no. My dad was a consummate and somewhat unrepentant accumulator of esoterica, to the extent that it took me three solid years of weekends and vacation time to clear his house, after he passed. There were 100s of cameras, including a half dozen tri-color still cameras and a Technicolor System III two-color motion picture camera; more than 1500 books on art and photography; and dozens of pieces of flat artwork. Add to that a garage full of WW 2-surplus photo chemicals (literally, enough to support a commercial lab for months if not longer), long-expired print paper; two 35mm motion picture projectors, one silent and one sound; etc. In short, it was an overwhelming mass of stuff to sort through.
I consider myself fortunate in at least knowing what most of it was. I kept a few items, mostly things I remember from my childhood; sold those items that appeared to be of interest to collectors and users of older equipment; and gave the rest to charity. At the time, though, I didn't know what I didn't know for much of it. For example, had I known of Filmwasters or APUG then, I would have been much more informed with many of the items.
-
cs1 said:
"...I'm wondering: how common are Agfa boxes in the US? I suppose they must be quite rare over there? I saw in your book that you have an Agfa Clack. I have a copy, too, and I got it for maybe 5 € (it was definitely < 10 €) which was a no-brainer."
Agfa/Ansco had a substantial presence in the U.S. prior to WWII. The government took over the company during the war and ran it for about 15 years. I don't know how many Agfa cameras have made it to the U.S. since then, but probably quite a few via ebay. I have an Agfa Synchro Box as well as the Clack which I found at a flea market for $5. That was good luck as the Clack was something of a fad item for a time a few years back and they typically brought up to $40 on ebay. The Clack was marketed directly in the U.S. for a time as the Weekender, but they seem less common here than the ones with the Clack name. Some Clacks have a yellow filter as one of the aperture settings. Mine has sunny and cloudy settings and another with a supplementary close-up lens for 3-10 feet.
-
So far, I've seen and own quite a few Ansco cameras. They're not quite as common as Kodak but still not too hard to find in Canada.
-
oh, I was just clicking through the german box registry over at camera-wiki a few days ago.
ofcourse, here's something more comprehensive: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Category:Box (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Category:Box)
and a page just generally about the history and evolution of box cameras http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Box_camera (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Box_camera)
-
Box cameras.....they're the type of camera that I should love, but for whatever reason, they just haven't grabbed me as much as they should. I have a broken Coronet 'Captain' displayed on a shelf (who could resist that name!!) and I actually own my mother's Box Brownie from the 1940's - when we came across it, the darn thing still had some film in it. Photos of my grandmother, taken by my mother in the late 1940's. I was really excited to develop the roll, but in the end they were a disappointment. Amongst other things my mum had shot straight towards a window which my gran was standing in front of. Silhouette city :(
-
Some Clacks have a yellow filter as one of the aperture settings. Mine has sunny and cloudy settings and another with a supplementary close-up lens for 3-10 feet.
Thanks for the writeup on Agfa/Ansco! I seem to have another Clack variant with a closeup lens, a normal aperture and a yellow filter for sunny environments. It's nice to see what sort of features they packed into such a simple camera. :)
Ed, I love the story about your grandmother's camera. It's lovely to own cameras with a history.
I fell victim to "box fever" due to acute box discussion events on a certain forum. ;) I just bought a Zeiss Ikon Box-Tengor (56/2) on the far too expensive auction site that you resort to when the flea market season hasn't started yet. The box seems to be in great shape. Can't wait to try it (it hasn't arrived yet). See what "box fever" does to you: I romanticise about the simplicity of box cameras in the other thread and can't resist to buy one of the most sophisticated boxes I know of. Oh well...
-
Even the most sophisticated box is still pretty simple when you think about it.
-
Thanks for backing me up, François! You're absolutely, right. :)
-
Another great list of Kodak Box Cameras:
http://kodak.3106.net/index.php?p=203 (http://kodak.3106.net/index.php?p=203)
-
That's quite an impressive list, Bryan.
I'm currently gathering material for a project that I hope to be starting soon. I'm going to try to convert my Agfa Synchro Box from 6x9 to 6x4.5. I know we're filmwasters but 6x9 sometimes wastes too much film in my eyes so I'm curious how this will turn out. The plan is to cut a mask from metal sheet (basically two strips, one at the top and one at the bottom) to reduce the height of 9 to 4.5 and to spray the mask with black paint and to glue it into the film holder of the Synchro Box. The tricky part will be to find the exact position for the little window for the exposure numbers for 6x4.5. It will involve drilling two holes (one in the box and one in the spring loaded back that keeps the film flat). That's probably going to be the hard part. I've bought a spare Synchro Box for little money to harvest parts from it. If all works well, I'll use the inner part with the film holder from the spare box to make a pinhole insert which I can use with my Frankensynchrobox. I'm looking forward to this project. :)
-
That's quite an impressive list, Bryan.
I'm currently gathering material for a project that I hope to be starting soon. I'm going to try to convert my Agfa Synchro Box from 6x9 to 6x4.5. I know we're filmwasters but 6x9 sometimes wastes too much film in my eyes so I'm curious how this will turn out. The plan is to cut a mask from metal sheet (basically two strips, one at the top and one at the bottom) to reduce the height of 9 to 4.5 and to spray the mask with black paint and to glue it into the film holder of the Synchro Box. The tricky part will be to find the exact position for the little window for the exposure numbers for 6x4.5. It will involve drilling two holes (one in the box and one in the spring loaded back that keeps the film flat). That's probably going to be the hard part. I've bought a spare Synchro Box for little money to harvest parts from it. If all works well, I'll use the inner part with the film holder from the spare box to make a pinhole insert which I can use with my Frankensynchrobox. I'm looking forward to this project. :)
Well, it will have a angle of view about equal to a 55mm lens on a 35mm camera. That is if the lens on the Agfa is 95mm. If it is longer, 100mm or 105mm then even more narrow angle of view. That's with a 42X56mm size negative. The standard 6X9 negative is 56X84mm.
Kodak, for their Tourist 6x9 folders had a multi-format replacement back with masks and a adjustable red window. I had the kit for years but never used it, finally sold it a photo show. Interesting idea though.
-
That's quite an impressive list, Bryan.
I'm currently gathering material for a project that I hope to be starting soon. I'm going to try to convert my Agfa Synchro Box from 6x9 to 6x4.5. I know we're filmwasters but 6x9 sometimes wastes too much film in my eyes so I'm curious how this will turn out. The plan is to cut a mask from metal sheet (basically two strips, one at the top and one at the bottom) to reduce the height of 9 to 4.5 and to spray the mask with black paint and to glue it into the film holder of the Synchro Box. The tricky part will be to find the exact position for the little window for the exposure numbers for 6x4.5. It will involve drilling two holes (one in the box and one in the spring loaded back that keeps the film flat). That's probably going to be the hard part. I've bought a spare Synchro Box for little money to harvest parts from it. If all works well, I'll use the inner part with the film holder from the spare box to make a pinhole insert which I can use with my Frankensynchrobox. I'm looking forward to this project. :)
Well, it will have a angle of view about equal to a 55mm lens on a 35mm camera. That is if the lens on the Agfa is 95mm. If it is longer, 100mm or 105mm then even more narrow angle of view. That's with a 42X56mm size negative. The standard 6X9 negative is 56X84mm.
Kodak, for their Tourist 6x9 folders had a multi-format replacement back with masks and a adjustable red window. I had the kit for years but never used it, finally sold it a photo show. Interesting idea though.
If memory serves, the Zeiss Super Ikonta C shipped with a 6 x 4.5 cm mask. There are two red windows on the back for viewing frame number, one for 6x9 and the other for use with 6 x 4.5. See
https://www.cameraquest.com/zikontc.htm (https://www.cameraquest.com/zikontc.htm) for pictures; might give you some ideas for your modifications.
-
John, Earl: Thanks for both your feedback. I'm primarily curious if I manage to do this from a craftsman point of view. I have little to no experience with working with metal sheets. But it definitely looks feasible. My spare Box should be arriving tomorrow so I definitely know what I'll be doing this weekend. :)
The idea with a removeable mask is pretty nice. I just need to find a way to insert it into the filmholder properly. For anyone who's interested, there's a site in Spanish with a number of picture of the Agfa Synchro Box including one of the filmholder's back. Unfortunately I don't understand Spanish so I can only guess what the text might be saying. http://www.camarassinfronteras.com/synchro/synchro.html (http://www.camarassinfronteras.com/synchro/synchro.html)
-
Try this one instead
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.camarassinfronteras.com%2Fsynchro%2Fsynchro.html&edit-text=&act=url (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.camarassinfronteras.com%2Fsynchro%2Fsynchro.html&edit-text=&act=url)
-
John, Earl: Thanks for both your feedback. I'm primarily curious if I manage to do this from a craftsman point of view. I have little to no experience with working with metal sheets. But it definitely looks feasible. My spare Box should be arriving tomorrow so I definitely know what I'll be doing this weekend. :)
The idea with a removeable mask is pretty nice. I just need to find a way to insert it into the filmholder properly. For anyone who's interested, there's a site in Spanish with a number of picture of the Agfa Synchro Box including one of the filmholder's back. Unfortunately I don't understand Spanish so I can only guess what the text might be saying. http://www.camarassinfronteras.com/synchro/synchro.html (http://www.camarassinfronteras.com/synchro/synchro.html)
You're welcome. Sounds like a fun project. Here's a view of the back of the Ikonta. Per the manual, for 6 x 4.5, you start with the frame number in the right-hand window (# 24 in the graphic), make the exposure, and then advance the film to place the same frame number in the left window (# 25). My guess is that the windows are about 5 cm part, give or take, to account for spacing between frames.
-
I just measured the window distance on my Voigtländer Bessa 6x9 which also has a 645 mask. They are precisely 4.8 cm apart.
-
Hey guys, I'll translate the Spanish text from the website in a little bit :)
-
I just measured the window distance on my Voigtländer Bessa 6x9 which also has a 645 mask. They are precisely 4.8 cm apart.
That's good to know! My spare box should arrive tomorrow. I need to extract its little red plastic window to implant it into my other box for the 645 window. When it arrives I'll try to figure out how to go ahead with the modification. I've already changed my strategy from making an in-situ mask to making a removable mask. I also need to find a drill that has the exact size of the window so that I won't have to do a lot of filing. Exciting times are ahead. ;)
-
I just measured the window distance on my Voigtländer Bessa 6x9 which also has a 645 mask. They are precisely 4.8 cm apart.
That's good to know! My spare box should arrive tomorrow. I need to extract its little red plastic window to implant it into my other box for the 645 window. When it arrives I'll try to figure out how to go ahead with the modification. I've already changed my strategy from making an in-situ mask to making a removable mask. I also need to find a drill that has the exact size of the window so that I won't have to do a lot of filing. Exciting times are ahead. ;)
Find a step drill bit with small increments between steps. Not only are they self-centering, but they will also put a nice chamfer on the hole. Small pilot hole, then step bit.
-
As I mentioned in the "I just picked up..." thread, I seem to have some trouble with my Zeiss Ikon Box-Tengor 56/2. It looks like I can't get it to focus properly. Even when taking photos without the closeup lenses the image is soft and infinity focus isn't there. It gets worse when using the closeup lenses. The 1-2m lens seems to focus much closer than 1m, same goes for the 2-8m lens. The closeup lenses aren't 100% clean, but the front lens is really clean and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't focus to infinity properly. There's nothing loose, the case is not bent and looks intact. I'm a little baffled.
Antony, since you're the only other person I know who owns a Box-Tengor 56/2, I'd like to ask you for a favour. :) Would you mind removing the front of your Box-Tengor 56/2 and taking one closeup photo of the front of the box, one of the inside of the front where the front lens sits and one from the inside of the box behind the front where the shutter mechanism is? Removing the front is very easy: there're two screws (one on the left and one on the right hand side, you can easily remove them. The distance selector and the aperture selector are a little flexible. You can put them both in the middle position, simultaneously press them towards the lens and simply slide off the front cover. When putting the cover back, you can put one of the selectors (I use the distance selector) through the slit, put a flathead screwdriver through the other selector's slit and carefully lever the selector through the slit. It's not difficult at all, you just need to make sure not to scratch anything. Furthermore I have a question regarding the shutter mechanism: mine is quite a lot of work to operate at least compared to my Agfa Synchro Box. Is it the same on your box?
I found one more thing which might interest other Box-Tengor owners: if you have opened your box, have a look at the mechanism that lets you put the box in "bulb" mode ("T"). The lever stops the circular shutter to revolve all the way and keeps it open. This, however, puts some strain on the metal pin of the "bulb" slider (it basically works against the power of your thumb on the trigger). In my box, this pin was bent quite a bit so that in "T" mode the revolving shutter moved a little bit into the aperture's opening when holding the shutter open. You can clearly see if you have this problem without opening the box by putting it on "T", by holding the shutter open, and by looking through the front lens. It's easily fixed by slightly (at I really mean slightly!) bending the pin back (away from the aperture). But be sure to test the shutter several times afterwards (in "T" and "M") because it will revolve too far if you bend the pin back too far.
-
OK, I've done some pictures and here's a zip file with jpgs and dngs, let me know if you want more.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5ahla3owt1vq7m/tengor.zip?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5ahla3owt1vq7m/tengor.zip?dl=0)
The shutter on mine does feel 'heavy' - like it's on a strong return spring or something.
-
Thanks, Antony, the photos are very helpful. Your box looks almost exactly like mine. There're no differences that seem to be significant. I've put a ground glass on the film plane today and looked at the projected image of my Tengor when holding the shutter open on "T". The image looks perfectly sharp. I have no idea what's going wrong with the focus when using film. I also looked at the back, the pressure plate looks fine so there's no reason to believe that the film isn't flat. I'm out of ideas. I'm probably going to give it a last try on a tripod and jot down every setting while shooting to find out what's going on. It really sucks, this box looks absolutely gorgeous and has no damages that I can see. There's the odd shot that's perfectly sharp but most shots are blurry.
-
Can you post some samples of the sharp and unsharp photos? It might be helpful to get more eyes on them to see just how they are unsharp, which might lead to the why.
-
Yes, here're two examples. The first one with the pipe shows a reasonably sharp image which leads me to think that there's the potential for sharp images in that box. The second one at the river, however, is one really strange example. It was shot without any closeup lenses dialled in so I'd expected it to be sharp in the background and not in the left hand foreground. But what I got was a sharp left hand side in the foreground, extending into the background quite far, however, the right hand side is not sharp in the same distance. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the film really isn't properly pressed onto the film plane. All unsharp shots seemed to have front focus which - by my understanding - means that the film is probably too far from the lens. I had the box on a tripod for both shots and used a cable release.
-
Or maybe the lens has either a slight defect or is simply not parallel to the film plane?
-
I don't think that it's the lens. Other shots show completely other sorts of out-of-focus patterns. I think that it's something with the film not being flat on the film plane. I'll check the closing mechanism of the box today.
-
Concur this is most likely a film placement issue. Have a look at the film guides on either side of the gate and all along the path to make sure the film is being positively controlled the whole way. Also, check that the ratchet on the winder is holding properly, otherwise the film could lose tension and shift.
Note that I'm not familiar with the Box Tengor specifically, but the above should still be relevant. If you have a photo of the innards it might help narrow things down further.
-
Here're a number of photos of the innards. Please excuse the mobile phone photo quality.
-
And here's one of the box' back.
-
Really not much to go wrong there (you might want to check those rusty rollers for rough spots to ensure you don't end up scratching the film). Did you check that the ratchet in the wind mechanism is holding properly?
-
I rubbed the rollers with a cloth until they felt very smooth (they still look rusty but the rust doesn't come off). I'm thinking about using a Dremel-like tool with some polishing paste to get rid of the rust. Haven't come around to doing it yet.
Non-native speaker question: by "ratchet in the wind mechanism is holding" you mean "does the winding knob and the part that protrudes into the inner camera fit properly into the film spool and turn the spool properly"? Yes, the knob is firmly attached to the little "T" piece that goes into the spool and it seems to transport reliably, I just checked it. It also looks like the exposures are equally distanced on the exposed film so I believe that the advancing mechanism is fine. The only thing I haven't checkt again is whether the spring that holds the fresh film firmly (the spool that's opposite of the spool with the winding knob) is doing its job properly. That's what I'm going to check out tomorrow.
I'll shoot one more film tomorrow and I'll really make sure that everything is properly set up. I'll use a tripod and try as many settings as possible from the same perspective. If that doesn't show any results that tell me more about the root cause, I think I'll give up. If any of you box enthusiasts happens to be in my area in Germany, I'll invite you to my house, we'll have a beer and you can try to fix this diva Tengor of mine. :)
-
Sorry. What I meant to ask was whether the knob could be turned in the wrong direction. If it can, tension will not be maintained on the film.
For the rollers, superfine steel wool with some naptha or other solvent will get them as clean and smooth as they're going to be.
-
Ah! Thanks for the clarification. No, the knob only turns in the right direction. If I try to gently turn it in the wrong direction it immediately stops. There's no perceivable tolerance, it's immediately stopped.
Thanks for the advice regarding the cleaning of the rollers.
-
Test it with just the backing paper of the previous film... You might find something there.
-
If you do your own darkroom work then you can cut a piece of photo paper to size to test if the out of focus problem is the lens or the film position. Cheaper than running $5 roll of film for each test.
-
Or maybe there is a way to auto collimate the lens with the back on.....
I'm trying to figure out a way to bring light inside the camera through the lens....
Maybe using a box with a 45 degree mirror that would shine light from the side while letting you look through the lens with a telephoto....
-
Unfortunately I don't make my own prints (lack of space and equipment) so I had to revert to using a film today. However, I have high hopes. I found that the spring at the end where you put in the new film was quite bent away from the spool so I bent it back and it might just have helped to keep the film stretched tight over the rollers.. After all the forensic work on finding the cause for the unsharpness (thanks for all of your help!) this was the only option that I had left. I've already developed the film, waiting for it to dry. I'll keep you posted. If that indeed was the problem, I might even have just fixed my Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2 which had almost the same problem.
Looking at the ground glass with my headstrap magnifying glass led me to believe that the whole thing was not an issue with a general lens displacement. There were a number of shots that actually came out with correct sharpness. This inconsistency would be very unlikely if the lens was permanently skewed. However, I think that I really need to try your auto collimate setup, François, because I'd really like to find out whether I can make it work or not.
-
Ok, I think that the spring element was the cause of the problems. The shots I have now are pretty consistently sharp. However, getting stuff in focus with the closeup lenses isn't easy if you shoot at f/9. The DOP is pretty shallow. I need to try this box with a little more light. For now I think I can live with the results. Thanks to all of you for your help.
Antony: I think we need to do some more Box-Tengor talk after you shot your first roll of film. I'm very interested in what you think how the box handles and what your overall experiences are.
-
Those boxes are simple machines, you shouldn't have any problem getting it working.
The leaf spring that holds tension on the spool could easily be the culprit here. It should still put pressure on the film near the end of the roll.
Do your negatives get progressively fuzzier as you go? If so, definitely check out the leaf springs.
-
No, I think that after tightening the leaf spring I get quite consistent results. However, I've only shot the box at f/9 so far. The manual says that you get the best results at f/11 (in terms of DOP, sharpness etc.). That's what I'll try next time. I've also got a nice and sharp 1-2m closeup. So that lens is working as well.
-
It seems to me that Zeiss pushed the envelope a bit too far with the 56/2 Box Tengor in regard to what can be expected from pressed metal construction. I had better luck with the somewhat simpler and sturdier 54/2 model. Even then, I got some inconsistent results until I took a more disciplined approach to using the camera with a tripod and a cable release. It was useful for me to examine the image on a ground glass at the different aperture and distance settings to get a better idea of actual performance. Also, if you look at the real dof possibilities on something like DOFMaster (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) it is pretty clear that the marked dof ranges on the cameras are wildly optimistic. My conclusion was that the closest you could get with the camera was about five feet, and that fast film and a small aperture was good insurance.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3026/3034567453_e71ce7ae99_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/5C9Xbv)
Margaret (https://flic.kr/p/5C9Xbv) by Mike Connealy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26055599@N04/), on Flickr
There is a post on my blog summarizing my experience with my three Box Tengors (https://connealy.blogspot.com/2016/04/zeiss-ikon-box-tengor_1.html).
-
Mike, thanks for the link and the excellent writeup in your blog! You confirm what I already thought. I think that f/9 is overly optimistic. I've still got some Ilford HP5+ left which I'm going to test in the next few days at EI 1600. I'm curious how that will turn out.
Anyhow, it was great to dig for a solution for my problem because I got to know the Tengor really well. One thing that I'll definitely put s stop to is the double exposure prevention mechanism. I've got two reasons for that: (1) I sometimes want to expose at 1/15s or even longer by releasing the shutter more than once but that's impossible and (2) sometimes for no apparent reason the double exposure prevention kicks in without releasing the shutter.
-
I did use the Box Tengor this weekend, might not be able to develop the film until midweek though. Weather wasn't ideal (Looked like the sun was breaking through the cloud when I went out, not so much when I got to where I was going) so I mostly shot at f9, tried different focus settings, and was very slow and steady when I operated the shutter.
The other thing I found was that sometimes my reflection in the top of the viewfinder made the image in the viewfinder hard to see.
I'd tried running a roll of backing paper through to practise. The leaf springs on mine seem pretty firm, and the rollers looked clean.
Looking forward to see how it comes out, will try to develop it by midweek (joys of working from home!).
-
Also, if you look at the real dof possibilities on something like DOFMaster (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) it is pretty clear that the marked dof ranges on the cameras are wildly optimistic.
Lets not forget that when this camera was made, enlargements were a rare thing. On a contact print, even the OOF frames probably look fine.
Also, when they designed the lens, they probably used a larger than the current standard circle of confusion which affects the depth of field directly.
-
Antony, the viewfinders on my copy are also quite "frackled" and also quite foggy. For composing the shot I have to shield the viewfinder from incident light with my hand most of the time. I found that putting a little lubricant on the axle that operates the little lollipop shielding vastly improves the operation of the shutter release.
François, you're perfectly right WRT prints. However, I have a number of shots that are very sharp, a fact that tickles me to see what I can get from the box.
-
Using a bigger than usual COC wouldn't prevent making tack sharp photos, it would just make the focus range identifying marks more liberal than they would be on another camera.
-
I found that putting a little lubricant on the axle that operates the little lollipop shielding vastly improves the operation of the shutter release.
What did you use for that, I just developed the film I shot and have pretty epic camera shake on all but two frames!
I guess it's either that or use a cable release!
-
Normally I wouldn't use oil on optical stuff like lenses or so but for this box I actually used Ballistol which is an oil that supposedly doesn't become resin.
-
I forgot to mention: don't expect wonders from lubricating the mechanism. It stays pretty firm because the spring that moves the shutter release back is quite strong (and it probably must be because of the way the shutter and all the surrounding mechanics are designed). However, I realised that you can actually press the shutter release really slowly (which actually gets easier after lubricating the mechanism). In the beginning I was afraid that the shutter might get stuck and stay open for too long but if you reach the critical point when the shutter fires, it doesn't matter how quickly the release is pressed, it'll fire properly at ~1/30s. Funny enough, using a cable release also puts some circular momentum on the box (I can describe it more accurately) which can result in blurriness. I found the downward momentum of a carefully pressed shutter release easy to control by pressing the box against my chest (which is more difficult with a release cable).
-
I'd like to write a short note about a box I got a little while ago: the Altissa Periskop 1:8 Box camera. The Altissa Box was manufactured by Altissa Camerawerk Dresden (in Dresden ;) ). It's a special little box: it's 6x6 and it has an eye level viewfinder. It has two speeds, 1/25s and B, and two apertures, f/8 and f/16. The box was manufactured in the 1950s. There seem to be different variations of the Altissa Box and my copy seems to be a later model. It has a lovely art deco look, it's a beautiful box and looks very different from most other boxes I've seen. The box is quite small being a 6x6 box. It fits on the palm of your hand. The shutter is a very simple rotating shutter. To open the box's shutter mechanism you unscrew two screws underneath the two dials on the face plate. The front opens by lifting the lower part of the face plate. You can now easily reach the shutter mechanism, the aperture and the lens. I haven't seen this box very often in Germany. I wouldn't say it's rare but it seems like it's not as common as e. g. Agfa boxes. It sells for an average of 25-30 € on a well known auction site (some people take even more which is quite ridiculous). I got my copy for 7 € because the shutter release button was sticky and it was unclear at the time if I could fix it. However, I was able to clean an lubricate it and it works nicely now.
I had some concerns regarding the image quality because 1/25s is really slow especially if you want to shoot without a tripod. However, it was no issue at all. For some reason the position of the shutter release button helps. You can hold the box nicely at eye-level and fire the shutter without shaking the box.
My conclusion: the Altissa Box is an absolute gem! If you have the chance, get one. It's so small that you can take it anywhere without much of a hassle and the image quality it produces is excellent, very individual and quite characteristic.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/976/42044709971_1fef0c3fde_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/274m8sB)
Marsh (https://flic.kr/p/274m8sB) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/979/41144542245_3391cceea3_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25FNwXp)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/25FNwXp) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
-
That and the fact that it just has that unusual look to it :)
-
That Periskop is a very odd but cool looking camera, almost looks like the viewfinder was added as an afterthought!
I did stick a drop of Ballistol on the pivot in the Box Tengor, and while the shutter still requires a firm press, it's a much more smooth action than it was originally, just not got around to trying it again since. Need to buy more film!
-
François, the look is oddly pleasing, I agree. :) Unfortunately, my photo of the box doesn't do it justice. There're much nicer photos on the net that show its beauty.
AJ, you're right. The viewfinder looks like a "last minute add-on" because it's made from a separate piece of metal which looks like a "hat" for the box. I'm looking forward to seeing shots with you Box Tengor. I have an older Box Tengor model sitting around on a shelf which I got for 5 € in Leipzig from a very nice guy who had to move his photo studio and had to get rid of some old cameras. I definitely need to try it soon. The shutter release on the older model is much less tense than on the new model.
-
The oil seems to have done the trick, as I ran another test roll through on Friday and got some decent results, posted a few in the 18 - 20 May weekend post, but here's another:-
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/947/40407789350_80b226abdc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24yGtZh)
Negative Space (https://flic.kr/p/24yGtZh) by Antony Shepherd (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajshepherd/), on Flickr
-
That are great news! I'm glad that the oil worked! The closeup in the weekend thread is also brilliant not only because you took it with a box but mainly because it's a really nice composition! :)
-
Thanks, I picked the closest focus distance and paced it out to be sure, so I was really happy with that shot!
-
The Voigtländer Brillant
A few weeks ago I found a lovely little box camera at a yard sale. It's a Voigtländer Brillant.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/885/27513543397_f77d8db7b5_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HVh6TT)
Voigtländer Brillant (Front) (https://flic.kr/p/HVh6TT) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
Some of you might see this camera and say "what's a TLR got to do with the box camera thread"? Bear with me, things will become clear in a moment. :)
The Voigtländer Brillant in the above form was made in the 1930s (some websites say 1932-1937). My copy is the earlier variant with a zone focussing scale which makes it more than 80 years old. It shoots 120 film in 6x6 format. It's got three exposure settings: 1/50s, 1/25s, and B. The viewfinder is not coupled with the distance dial which means that this is indeed no real TLR. Furthermore it only has these three exposure settings I mentioned earlier as well as only apertures f/8, f/11, and f/22. This makes it a sophisticated box camera with a TLR look. The lens is quite sophisticated because it consists of at least two elements.
The Brillant looks absolutely stunning. It's very well built and I personally find the look of it quite exquisite.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1740/28510389418_3f6a9fab58_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Krncuf)
Voigtländer Brillant (Side) (https://flic.kr/p/Krncuf) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1752/28510388848_513f711bea_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Krncjq)
Voigtländer Brillant (Bottom) (https://flic.kr/p/Krncjq) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
There's an oddity about this camera which some of you may already have realised by looking at the two pictures above: it's got an exposure counter at the side as well as a little red window for looking at the exposure number on the film's paper. At first I asked myself why Voigtländer went through all the trouble of adding an exposure counter mechanism if they already have the little red window on the bottom of the camera. But upon closer inspection I came to realise that this makes perfect sense because the little window at the bottom aligns with the numbers on the film's backing paper that's meant for 6x9 exposures. However, this camera shoots 6x6. So the secret behind the mechanical exposure counter is quite simple: you wind the film until you see the "1" in the red window on the bottom, you then reset the mechanical exposure counter at the side to "1" (there's a small switch on the side for that) and after that you don't pay any attention to the counter at the bottom any more (after all it only counts 6x9 exposures) but only to the counter at the side. My theory is - and I have no proof whatsoever that this is actually true - that back in the 1930s, a lot of films might only have come with exposure counters on the backing paper for 6x9 exposures and Voigtländer needed to make sure that you still get the spacing for 6x6 exposures right. In any case this is a charming little feature / oddity that makes this camera so lovely.
Apart from this, the Voigtländer has the best viewfinder of any box that I've seen so far. It's absolutely brilliant.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1745/27513543177_d339f95c9c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HVh6Q6)
Voigtländer Brillant (Viewfinder) (https://flic.kr/p/HVh6Q6) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
It's such a pleasure to frame shots with this viewfinder.
Some words regarding my copy of the Voigtländer Brillant: I go it with its original leather case and leather strap (both a little beaten up but still in good shape); when I got it I also saw that the shutter seemed to fire properly but the lenses had a lot of haze or fungus (they're so small that I really couldn't say what it was). So I disassembled the front lens to give it a proper cleaning.1 I didn't expect to get any satisfying results when shooting with it for the first time but the cleaning must have worked. Yes, the results aren't the best I've ever seen but they're quite good for such an old box camera. They have the same dreamy look like the photos that François gets from his DYI lens. ;) The only flaw that I have with my copy is that the shutter release lever doesn't return to the starting position by itself but this doesn't have any negative influence if I don't shoot it on "B". Here're three shots taken with this camera:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1734/27513542967_2992f400e3_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HVh6Lt)
River (https://flic.kr/p/HVh6Lt) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1748/28510387448_ae94eb56d4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KrnbUh)
Twigs (https://flic.kr/p/KrnbUh) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1736/41481135675_08cd02019e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26cxEsp)
Summer meadow (https://flic.kr/p/26cxEsp) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
To summarise, I'd say that the Voigtländer Brillant is a very lovely box. Especially the fact that it has an absolutely brilliant viewfinder makes it very attractive in my eyes. Also, I like that it shoots 6x6 so that you get more exposures per film. The zone focussing seems to work well. I've shot portraits of my kids and I really liked the results. Your subject is clear and sharp while you have a very pretty unsharpness in your background. I can definitely recommend this camera if you can find a decent copy.
Sorry if I forgot to mention anything in this quick and dirty writeup. If you have any questions regarding this camera, please let me know.
1 If you ever want to try this yourself, it's quite easy. You need to unscrew the two little pins that keep the front lens element from focussing beyond the zones that are found on the scale. Then you turn the front lens element clockwise (!) 1.5 rotations and after which you can remove it. Make sure to memorise the position in which the lens came off. Remove the three screws of the front plate and you're in business. The front lens of the viewfinder can easily be screwed off counterclockwise.
-
Wonderful writeup cs1. I've wondered about the Brilliant for some time and It's nice to hear from someone who actually has one.
The closest I've had to this camera is a Kodak Duoflex IV that had a 3 element lens with scale focusing of the front element. The lens was a 72mm f8 with waterhouse stops to f16. Only had one shutter speed though, about 1/50 and also 'B'. Unfortunately it only took 620 film and I was too lazy to respool. The film chamber was really tight, even for 620 metal spools, so no 'trim to fit' for 120 either. I've always thought Kodak came up with this spool size just to curtail competition and force customers to buy their film.
-
I'm glad that you enjoyed it. There's a lot that I don't know about this box. For example I have no idea how common it is and what the availability is today. I haven't seen it at all "in the wild" here in Germany, neither on flea markets nor on garage sales. That's why I picked it up when I saw it on this yard sale, it simply caught my eye. I agree that the fact that it takes 120 film is very nice. I still need to figure out whether or not I'm going to keep it (Mrs. S is very GAS tolerant, however, my camera shelves aren't that big and I don't want to stack up on cameras that I don't shoot; the number of box cameras grew steadily over the last few months so I need to part with some of them). This camera really is too pretty to just rot away on a shelf, if I don't keep it I hope that I'll find someone who'll give it a good home.
-
Voigtlander made quite a few versions of the Brilliant. Mine is an early model with a steel case and a 7.7 3-element Voitar. Later models had plastic cases and some of those had Compur shutters and Skopar lenses. There was even a focusing model which was later copied by the Russians and sold in great numbers. The Brilliant is one of my great favorites because it so far exceeds expectations with its results.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8011/7640760902_23e0621acd_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/cDbU1W)
chevy (https://flic.kr/p/cDbU1W) by Mike Connealy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/26055599@N04/), on Flickr
I should add that my favorite depiction of the Brilliant is Nelly Kate's pen and ink drawing (http://nellykate.net/work/illustration#/id/i2607637). Her music (https://nellykate.bandcamp.com/album/ish-ish) is super too.
-
Wow, is that a shot taken with the early Voigtländer Brillant model? It's fantastic. I think that my lens is much softer due to the haze or fungus which I thought I had removed. It's a really lovely box in any case.
The next box I really need to shoot with soon is a Zeiss Ikon Box-Tengor 54/2 that's been sitting on my shelf for a while. I have high hopes for it because I seem to have trouble taking photos without camera shake with my other Box-Tengor 56/2 (AJ knows this problem as well). The Box-Tengor 54/2 and 56/2 have quite different shutter release mechanisms. The one on the 54/2 reminds me of the one of the Agfa Synchro Box which isn't prone to induce camera shake at all. I'm looking forward to trying it out.
-
It's official: cs1 is unable to take consistently sharp images with Zeiss Ikon Box-Tengors. ;)
I've tried the Box-Tengor 54/2 yesterday and I have no idea why but the results are exactly like with my other Box-Tengor 56/2. There's a lot of unsharpness which is hardly just camera shake (and I measured an average shutter speed of 1/45s which is quicker than most of my other boxes which don't suffer from this problem). Of 8 shots there's one that's sharp so this box *is* capable of taking sharp images. But I don't seem to be. Just to be perfectly clear: I know what to expect from a box in terms of image quality. However, I've never had any issues with my Agfa, Altissa, or Voigtländer boxes. The Box-Tengors just don't seem to like me. ;) So I'm giving up on trying to extract a nice image from the Zeiss Ikon Boxes. I really don't want to spoil the fun that I have shooting the other boxes. If anyone's interested in a Box-Tengor 54/2 and/or a 56/2, please let me know. I'll probably be putting them up on a well known auction site soon, I don't see a good reason why they should clutter up my shelves. :'(
-
It's official: cs1 is unable to take consistently sharp images with Zeiss Ikon Box-Tengors. ;)
I've tried the Box-Tengor 54/2 yesterday and I have no idea why but the results are exactly like with my other Box-Tengor 56/2. There's a lot of unsharpness which is hardly just camera shake (and I measured an average shutter speed of 1/45s which is quicker than most of my other boxes which don't suffer from this problem). Of 8 shots there's one that's sharp so this box *is* capable of taking sharp images. But I don't seem to be. Just to be perfectly clear: I know what to expect from a box in terms of image quality. However, I've never had any issues with my Agfa, Altissa, or Voigtländer boxes. The Box-Tengors just don't seem to like me. ;) So I'm giving up on trying to extract a nice image from the Zeiss Ikon Boxes. I really don't want to spoil the fun that I have shooting the other boxes. If anyone's interested in a Box-Tengor 54/2 and/or a 56/2, please let me know. I'll probably be putting them up on a well known auction site soon, I don't see a good reason why they should clutter up my shelves. :'(
I sent you a PM about the 56/2.
-
I had the same problem trying to get consistent results from my three Box Tengors. My 54/2 was a little better in that regard, but what ultimately worked for me was to consistently use a tripod and a cable release. I was happy with the outcome after learning to stick to that strategy, but it kind of defeats the idea of simplicity one is pursuing by choosing to use a box camera. I haven't made any more pictures with the Box Tengors in a long time, but I did use my Ansco Panda and my Hawkeye Flash later to make a lot of pictures that I liked.
-
I can relate to what you say about hauling a tripod with you all of the time with the Box-Tengors. It really is diametrically opposed to what I'm looking for in a box camera.
I'm pretty convinced that the shutter release mechanism of both the 56/2 and the 54/2 is to blame. The release just isn't smooth at all on both these boxes as opposed to e. g. the Agfa Synchro Box which has a fabulously smooth release. Even the Altissa Periskop which almost feels a little flimsy due to its small size (6x6) has a smoother shutter release. And you can successfully shoot at its 1/25s shutter speed without any problems.
-
Maybe using a short monopod would be enough support?
-
Yes, maybe you're right, François. But a box is supposed to be "lovingly" pressed to the chest when firing the shutter and that affectionate embrace should be perfectly sufficient to get a shot without blurriness. :) The Box-Tengor is a diva and wants to be put on a tripod and keeps me at a distance. I won't have that. ;)
-
Originally I wanted to use my Agfa Synchro Frankenbox to shoot some pinhole photos for the "Let's see some... PINHOLE" thread. Unfortunately I realised that I had damaged the light seals of the pinhole module (I repaired it after the photowalk) so I had to resort to shooting classic box camera photos. Since I'm not aware that we have a dedicated "Let's see some... box photos" thread, I "declare" this thread to not only be the box camera but also the box photo thread. :) Please feel free to post box camera photos whenever you feel the urge to do so. :)
It's been a while since I shot with my Altissa Periskop (a 6x6 box that is utterly brilliant) and when I shot it yesterday, I remembered why I liked it so much. It's a lovely little camera which handles exceptionally well for a box camera. The following shots are on Fomapan 100, dev'ed in Caffenol-C-H (RS).
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7903/33172620378_426d928f29_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SxmmjE)
Klusfelsen (https://flic.kr/p/SxmmjE) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7821/46134255175_7e0ef9765c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dhJ7LF)
View towards the Kluskapelle (https://flic.kr/p/2dhJ7LF) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7871/32106291267_33967b3361_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QV88PZ)
Tree at the foot of the Steinberg (https://flic.kr/p/QV88PZ) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7887/46134254065_2db0b44c2c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2dhJ7rx)
Forest track (https://flic.kr/p/2dhJ7rx) by C S (https://www.flickr.com/photos/c_s_1/)
-
I've never been a fan of box cameras, but the other day I picked up a Coronet Rex Box No 2 on an impulse (I blame you lot :D ). I'm not sure the model name is correct, but that's basically what I can read from the camera. Searching for these on the internet turned up quite a few variations of the Coronet Rex, but none looked like this one. So it can be from the 30's, 40's or 50's, I do not know. What I do know is that these were made in Birmingham, UK. The shutter didn't work and the viewfinders were very dim. I ripped it apart and started working on it. The shutter was easily fixed, the spring shown in the second picture had jumped off. The divider between the viewfinder and lens compartment was loose, so that had to be glued in place. The "mirrors" for the viewfinders turned out to be pieces of bent metal with chrome finish. I covered the back of them with black tape and did some touch up paint with matte black inside the two compartments. Cleaned mirrors, viewfinder glass and lens and assembled again. The viewfinders are now nice and clear, so I reckon I'm ready for testing with film.
Oh, and when I look at the first picture I remember that I have to polish that rusty nail between the viewfinders and paint it black.
-
You'll see, box cameras can be a pleasure to use.
And since they're all so simple mechanically, they're easy to repair. That's a big plus in my book.
-
It's a lovely looking box, Kai. It looks like it has the usual revolving shutter. I think that I can also see a mechanism to switch it from 1/25s or 1/30s to B, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a "pull out thingy" on top of the box? I'm also wondering whether or not it has a fixed aperture or also a second aperture. Looking at the mechanism I don't see anything that would hint at a second aperture. Are there any other levers other than the film advance, the clips that close the box, the shutter release and the shutter mode selector? EDIT: Oh, hang on, there seems to be a slide on the top center of the camera for a second aperture -- is that correct?
I've seen a box that looks exactly like yours on a dutch camera museum website. They say it's from 1945. It's quite an interesting box. How does the shutter feel and operate? Fantastic little box. Very nice find.
-
Thanks CS1. The silver rod you see at the top in the second picture can be pulled up from the top of the camera, that's the B setting. No shutter speed selector, I should guess it operates at 1/30th of a second. I guess that means 100 ISO film on a nice day, otherwise 400? There is no aperture setting on the lens and no additional levers. There are a couple of models that look very much like this one, the difference is the name plate around the lens. The strap on the top is real leather, maybe that points to an earlier date than the 50's. The "No 2 Box Camera" text is stamped into the ring around the film advance knob. By the way, that knob is very hard to push in or pull out, any tips on how to improve that? Lubricating it doesn't seem to help, although I have not tried grease.
The shutter has a good resistance, you cannot set it off by accident. Not very ergonomic, though.
-
I'm pretty sure it dates back to before the 50's.
In the 50's there was plenty of bakelite, punched tin and metal take-up spools.
My guess is that it would date to before the 1940's
-
I do not know when those wooden spools went out of production, this has an old fashioned Agfa logo stamped into the metal rings on each end. No plastic in this camera apart from the red film window at the back. It is at any rate the first camera I've had to open by pulling out a handful of nails. :)
-
A lot of the early Kodak Brownie cameras were built similarly.
-
Regarding the film advance: it's fine that it's hard to pull out since it keeps the film tight. It should also only be turnable in one direction so that the film is always tight but can't accidentally wind back. These old boxes normally have a simple but clever spiral mechanism in the film advance that makes the lever only move in one direction. I fullheartedly recommend using Fomapan 100 or 400 in a box camera because of its tolerance towards under- and overexposure. And yes, the standard exposure time normally is 1/30s, for pre WWII and shortly after even more likely 1/25s. The standard aperture often is close to f/8 or f/11.
-
I'm afraid the wind knob on mine can be turned in both directions. I agree that it should not be too loose, but this one requires a set of pliers to pull out. I will check if it's possible to dismantle the wind mechanism, but it's very compact. Fomapan sounds good, I believe I have both 100 and 400 in the fridge. :)
-
Could you post a closeup picture of the inside of the box that shows the winding mechanism? I have a suspicion what's wrong but it heavily depends on how the mechanism actually works. If it works like I suspect, the spring inside the winding mechanism has twisted and it now blocks the shaft of the winding lever. I suspect that you can twist it in both directions because you're not only twisting the lever with its shaft but instead twist the whole mechanism that contains the shaft and the spring. This should normally be crimped or tack-welded to the box. This is only guess work but if you can post a closeup it might be possible to check whether this theory holds up. If it does, I'd remove the mechanism, reposition the spring (this should free the lever so that you can pull it more easily) and glue it back together (unless you can tack weld).
-
I removed the mechanism from the box, it's kept in place by two prongs that are bent to each side. I think there is a spring inside, but I cannot access it due to the fact that those two prongs are crooked and then the crossbar that is pressed into the axis is another hindrance. The prongs cannot take much more bending before they snap off, and then I will have a real problem. I think I shall have to leave this as it is.
-
Yes, it all looks rather fragile. Just to be sure that I understand you correctly: though the prongs are almost straight now you can't slide the round part over them? Or is the crossbar the only thing that actually keeps you from removing the washer-like round part? If the latter is the case, you should be able to remove the crossbar with tweezers, it's very likely only jammed into the slit of the shaft. You can put it back and squeeze the shaft back together (maybe add some epoxy if you want to make sure that the crossbar stays put).
If you can't remove the washer, hope is still not lost. This mechanism looks like most mechanisms that I've seen on boxes. I think that I have a broken box somewhere. I'll find it and try to show you how the spring / spiral sits in the cylindric part of the mechanism. If you know what it looks like, it could very well be possible to reposition it with a very small "L" shaped tool by sliding it in from the side and twisting it 90° without putting strain on the washer or the prongs. Let me browse around my spare parts stuff, I'll try to locate a box. Please give me until tomorrow to locate the box.
-
I have tried to remove the crossbar, but the thing is really solid. Anyway I cannot get the round dish over the prongs, they are too twisted and in addition very solid. There is a little hole in the dish, I've tried to manipulate the spring through it but I cannot see what the spring looks like and how it works. If you can provide a picture of such an arrangement that might help.
-
Ok, if you can't get the washer over the prongs then there's no sense in removing the crossbar. So it's good that you didn't remove it.
I've found a mechanism that looks very similar to yours. I've attached two photos of it. I'm sorry for the quality, I had to use my phone as a macro camera and I had to illuminate the inside with the LED flash and with an LED head torch so that you can actually see something (thanks to my wife for holding the torch :-* ). Basically, there's a spring that spirals all the way from one circular end to the other of the cylindrical part of the mechanism. At the end that is closer to the inside of the camera (that should correspond with the "washer side" of the mechanism that you have in your photos) the spiral's wire is bent so that the bent part basically dissects the spiral's circular profile in two halfs. That's the piece of wire that sits in the slit of the winding crank's shaft. My guess is that this spiral is dislocated. I'd try to make an L shaped tool with a little hook ant the shorter L part and I'd try to realign the dissecting part so that it's parallel with the crossbar and that the spiral winds all the way from one circular face of the cylinder to the other. Does this make any sense? :) I really hope that this helps you fix your box camera.
-
P. S.: What I forgot to ask: can you unscrew the winged crank from the shaft? If yes, re-alining the spring might be pretty easy by using two very small watchmaker's screwdrivers (one at the one side of the shaft's slit and one at the other) which you push down until the dissecting part of the spring is all the way at the bottom. With a little bit of luck the spring will "spring" into the correct position and you're done.
If the crank turns easily with the unaligned spring there's a good chance that the film won't stay flat on the focus plane. If you don't have any luck with realigning the screws otherwise, I'd actually risk breaking the prongs, realign the spring and glue everything back together with epoxy. The whole alignment procedure is much easier with the washer off.
-
Hi Kai! Just a quick note: I'm currently restoring another Altissa and I'm having almost the same problem with the winding mechanism. The spring wasn't dislocated, however, the cylinder and the washer weren't clamped together anymore and I had to glue the cylinder and the washer back together. I used epoxy for that. I'm currently painting the box and I'll glue the cylinder back in as well afterwards since all the holding clamps were gone when I got the box. I'll let you know how that worked out. Maybe epoxying might be an option for you as well.
-
Hi CS1, thanks for your support. The last few days I have not had the time to work on this camera. What I can tell you is that the wing "nut" on the outside of the camera is not possible to remove. I had a quick look at the spring, it's much thinner than yours and it's made from a rectangular wire. I need to study it closer and try to figure out how it's supposed to work. Regarding film flatness I'm not so worried because this camera has a "brake" on the take-up spool as well. I hope to get time to look into it the next few days.
-
You're welcome, mate, I'm glad that you're getting into box camera photography, so I'm happy to help if I can. :) In your case I wouldn't bother with the spring either and trust the "brake" on the take-up spool as long as the winding knob is easy enough to move.
-
Somehow, box cameras never seem to stop amazing me by their reliability.
Last night while listening to the radio, I picked-up a 1924 Kodak Rainbow Brownie I have and checked the shutter speed just for fun. Even after 96 years it still reliably clocks at 1/25 to 1/32... average at 1/31 of a second... Incredible
-
I totally agree. And if they don't work 100% it's often quite easy to repair / lubricate them. I've seen almost 80-90 year old boxes that I suppose still work today like they worked on the first day. I love this sort of resilience in a piece of gear.
-
Finally got around to have a look at the Coronet Rex today. I couldn't get my head around the function of the spring so I simply removed most of it leaving only one turn. Now I can pull it out and push it in without any problem, and there is a little resistance so it doesn't spin freely. Putting it back on the box one of the prongs broke off, so I've glued it with Power glue. It seems to be ok, and I can get to test it out when the rains stop.
Oh, and then I got tempted by a hi-tech box camera on a local listing........ :P Fully functional, I've just taken it apart and cleaned finders and lens. Where will it end..... ::)
-
Good job fixing the Coronet. I'm curious how it'll perform in the field.
Ah, the Box-Tengor. It looks like it's in a really good condition. I'm interested how it works for you. Just one piece of advice if you take it apart: make sure to properly lubricate the shutter release. It'll make a huge difference in terms of camera shake. The lever is somewhat strange because it induces a twisting motion onto the box which makes it hard to produce pictures without motion blur. Other than that it indeed is quite a sophisticated camera for a box.
Some news about the Altissa Pinkiskop: my daughter (5 yo) spent the last two days shooting the Altissa Pinkiskop. We did a number of dry runs without film so that she grasped the concept of "you really need to transport the film if you don't want double exposures". It seems like the dry runs prepared her properly, she actually completely understood what to do and properly and thoroughly advanced the film after each shot all by herself. I've added a ~10cm cable release because it made it much easier for her to release the shutter (her hands are a little too small to do it comfortably without a cable release; she managed to do it but it was hard for her not to shake the camera or accidentally put a finger in front of the lens). She actually saved half of the film (Fomapan 100) for the next day. I developed the film this afternoon, it's currently drying. The negatives look promising. It was quite amusing how she found two aspects that she enjoyed about the camera: taking pictures on actual film and carrying the box around as a "fashion statement". I'm excited to find out how she's going to like the results. We'll see whether or not she'll be my future "filmwasting partner in crime". ;)
-
I just found this one at an estate sale. The only reason I got it is because it's kind of unusual. It's a re-branded Ansco Cadet B-2. Bear Photo was a photo services company in San Francisco, CA. This one dates to the 1940's. It takes 120 film and makes 6X9 negatives. Other than some tarnish on the front this one is in very good condition. It has two shutter speeds, B and instant.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7894/47340964521_7f83e27493_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2f8mPqe)Bear Photo Special (https://flic.kr/p/2f8mPqe) by Bryan Chernick (https://www.flickr.com/photos/60348236@N07/), on Flickr
-
Great find, Bryan. I had a closer look at it on your Flickr page. It's a gorgeous box. Judging by the winding knob and other metal parts, this box has been stored in a properly dry place. That's fantastic. Also, the leather handle looks really good. It seems like it has at least two different apertures (if that piece of metal next to the shutter release is the handle for pulling the aperture plate out). Looking forward to seeing some photos taken with it. :)
-
Great find, Bryan. I had a closer look at it on your Flickr page. It's a gorgeous box. Judging by the winding knob and other metal parts, this box has been stored in a properly dry place. That's fantastic. Also, the leather handle looks really good. It seems like it has at least two different apertures (if that piece of metal next to the shutter release is the handle for pulling the aperture plate out). Looking forward to seeing some photos taken with it. :)
It only has one aperture, when you pull the handle out it puts the shutter into B mode. Everything inside and out is in excellent shape, except of course the oxidation on the front :(. I went to the estate sale because it had a nice Darkroom in the house, the owner took very good care of everything. I also got a few items from the Darkroom and a few records that were in excellent condition. I’ll deffinatelly take some photos with it.
-
Ah, interesting. I mistook the shutter mode lever for an aperture. Even better, no variable aperture means one less thing to worry about. :) That's what I love about boxes.
Removing the oxidation without ruining the print will be hard, I guess. Unless you're really really good at masking, polishing and re-painting. ;) Then again, a little patina gives the box character.
-
I wonder if something like naval jelly or Krud Cutter would work?
These are liquid and are said to be safe on a ton of stuff...
This might be inspiring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-MC_ZEXQbw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-MC_ZEXQbw)
-
I’ll leave it the way it is, if I start putting Krud on it I’ll probably make it worse.
-
Here's my next project; restitching the original leather bag for the Coronet Rex. The thread was rotten and so was the strap. I've replaced the lock and put on new strap rings, so now the hard work remains. Ouch!
-
Fantastic effort! I hope that you'll succeed because having the proper accessories for your box (strap, leather bag etc.) adds so much to the fun. :) I caught the "restoration virus" after dealing with my Altissa Periskop. It was followed by the Altissa Pinkiskop and after that I started with the Altissa Appleskop (for my son) and that's almost finished. I'm wondering what to tackle next. ;)
-
You better watch those fingers.
I once poked myself with a speedstitch... it's been scaring me ever since...
-
Here's my next project; restitching the original leather bag for the Coronet Rex. The thread was rotten and so was the strap. I've replaced the lock and put on new strap rings, so now the hard work remains. Ouch!
I've done a few if you need any pointers, yours actually looks fairly simple. here's one I did with some instructions included. http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg125875#msg125875 (http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8655.msg125875#msg125875)
-
Thanks Bryan! I used the same technique on a Yashica Mat 124 case once, it worked quite well. The Coronet case had been sewn with double thread as well, but as you say that's a bit tricky. I have purchased a set of curved needles for this purpose, it makes the work a bit easier and it's a good investment for little money.
-
And it also makes a more robust stitch. The speedstitch works more like a sewing machine so there is a lot of contact between the threads. Using hand stitching, the threads actually go from top to bottom so it's stronger.
On luxury handbags, all the stitching is done by hand so that they don't come unsewn because of regular wear and tear.
-
Are you going to use waxed yarn or regular cotton yarn?
-
Last time I did some leather work I ended up going to an old cobbler and asking for a short length. He looked at the amount I needed, fetched one of his big spools and wrapped a long enough length on a piece of cardboard. He told me he would never use that much red yarn in his life. So I gave him a buck for it....
Still have some left over.
-
Are you going to use waxed yarn or regular cotton yarn?
I'm going to a local shop tomorrow and I think I shall be lucky if they have cotton thread, let alone waxed thread. Last time I was there I looked for wool felt, and all they had was some horrible synthetic felt in garish colours. I ended up buying the real thing from Ireland. Thank God for the Irish! ;D
-
Hehe, I hope that you'll find suitable yarn.
I'm not very experienced when it comes to working with leather. The only reason why I thought of waxed yarn was because a while ago I bought some waxed yarn off Amazon to make a couple of camera straps from old leather belts. The waxed yarn worked really well. Fortunately there're a number of useful YouTube videos out there with people who know what they're doing and who explain really well how to DIY. The double sewing technique looks very useful. How was your leather case sewn originally? Do you think it was double-sewn?
-
It was probably sewn with a machine in which case it wouldn’t be double sewn. One source for waxed thread is dental floss. When I was a poor starving college student studying Geology my cheap hiking boots started falling apart. I sewed them up with dental floss and they held up really well.
-
I must admit that dental floss is surprisingly strong for what it is. Doesn't look quite as good as real leathersmith yarn but it is robust.
-
This case was double sewn. The side panels on this bag are quite thick, so I assume that it would not have been possible to use a machine. How thick is the tread you are using? I would think that a rather thick thread would be better for restitching an old bag. Unfortunately my shopping spree today had to be cancelled, so I'll make another attempt next week.
-
The yarn I got has 3 strands... I don't know what it's called in reality.
Here's a local store that has international delivery
http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=76636&cat=1,76639 (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=76636&cat=1,76639)
Also, I don't know if Tandy Leather has stores in your area, but they carry the stuff as regular merchandise.
-
I got out yesterday to test the Box Tengor, and I'm quite pleased with the result. But I shot one picture in landscape format, and that one has got motion blur. Must try to steady the box better next time.
Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor / Fomapan 400 in Xtol
-
Those shots look very good, Kai. I never managed to get anywhere close to your shots in terms of sharpness.
-
Ok, so I found a professional supplier of leather paraphernalia in Oslo. Interestingly, the only type of thread they are supplying is linen thread. I ordered three spools of waxed linen thread in different colours plus some needles and a nice sewing "glove". So now to work!
-
You definitely won't regret getting the glove!
I have a speedstitch awl and let me tell you that it sometimes takes all my strength to get it through some materials. With the amount of force and how pointy those needles are, I'm always scared of stabbing myself by accident with them.
-
I don't know what a speedstitch awl is, could it look somewhat like this?
-
It works a bit like that, except that the spool is in a different place.
While it does stitch really fast, the results are not as robust as manual stitching.
The speedstitch just like your hand stitcher imitates the way a sewing machine works. There is a top string and a bottom string that rub against each other in the hole (yikes, that sounds creepy) but never cross to the opposite side, while regular stitches just criss-cross in the hole. Hand stitching is much more solid because of that. If your wife wants to buy a Hermes bag, it will be hand stitched using two needles.
Here is the link to the one I got http://www.speedystitcher.com/ (http://www.speedystitcher.com/)
and here's the how it's used https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6OatKzjeD0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6OatKzjeD0)
-
Went for a short walk this morning to test the Coronet Rex. I had a feeling that the film was not going to be very flat, there was not a lot of resistance when I advanced it. The results are a bit surprising though, sharpest in the middle and fuzzy at the edges. Very soft lens? I shot these in landscape mode which is a bit awkward with these cameras. The shutter release is really designed to work best in portrait mode.
-
Yeah, the shutter thing is there for a lot of boxes. One of the worst that I have is an early Kodak. It uses a lever that you push up for one exposure and pull down for the second. When using it in landscape mode, it's not very practical.
-
Ensign 2 1/4B box camera I got a couple months ago is really nice.
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8e652c740f53ec4e2f30ae87decd49e7/tumblr_ppxkcpjoe81wnnom6o3_540.jpg)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/985dd824d6fe27a4ce8e6b0a37c43aa8/tumblr_ppxkcpjoe81wnnom6o4_540.jpg)
It is larger than usual for a 6x9 box camera, which means it is huge. But it's build really well, and the optics are surprisingly good.
-
She shots look fantastic. Do you happen to have a picture of the box? I'm curious what it looks like. :)
-
Not my photo:
(http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/images/Houghton-Ensign-2-1-4-B-(box).jpg)
Pretty common camera.
-
Great find, Bryan. I had a closer look at it on your Flickr page. It's a gorgeous box. Judging by the winding knob and other metal parts, this box has been stored in a properly dry place. That's fantastic. Also, the leather handle looks really good. It seems like it has at least two different apertures (if that piece of metal next to the shutter release is the handle for pulling the aperture plate out). Looking forward to seeing some photos taken with it. :)
It only has one aperture, when you pull the handle out it puts the shutter into B mode. Everything inside and out is in excellent shape, except of course the oxidation on the front :(. I went to the estate sale because it had a nice Darkroom in the house, the owner took very good care of everything. I also got a few items from the Darkroom and a few records that were in excellent condition. I’ll deffinatelly take some photos with it.
Does the B setting change the aperture? I've had a couple of Ansco camera where setting the shutter to B also slides a smaller aperture into place. It was a patented "readyset" feature, the idea being the smaller aperture made it easier to count off long exposures. If this sounds stupid, just think that the error between 1 and 2 seconds is a lot greater than between 4 and 5 seconds - smaller aperture, longer exposure times, easier counting.
-
That's a nice looking apparatus. :)
-
That's a nice looking apparatus. :)
It's nice that they went all out with a lens cap and a sports finder. I've had good luck with Ensign box cameras, they're better made and featured than most other brands. I have an "all-distance" from the 30's that has even more features - two focus zones and a built in yellow filter.
-
Cool! A yellow filter is really nice, the Agfa Synchro Box has the same. I'm glad that you like the Ensign, it sounds like a lovely box.
-
You just gotta love it when things are well designed.
So far one of my favorite boxes is an old Coronet twelve-20. I should take it out more.
-
Today I took my Coronet Rex out again after having tightened up the brakes on the film spools. When I wind the film I get a good deal of resistance. I hoped that would fix the focus at the sides, but that didn't work. So I guess this camera is best used for soft portraits or maybe as a Holga substitute. :P
-
To be perfectly honest, I love the focus falloff. It's fantastic! :)
-
It has it's charms, yes. :)
-
I personally don't see any reason to try and fix it.
Don't forget that it probably was designed to do contact prints of the film. In that case the lens needs to be quite bad for it not to produce sharp looking details.
-
The issue with soft edges is not one of film flatness, but of field curvature. And - if you know what you're doing to can exploit it to do "impossible" things with depth of field.
Here's a few examples of what's going on, using a different box camera (Kinoflex):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1476/26075584506_3d2b64b282_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FJdbPd)Saab (https://flic.kr/p/FJdbPd) by Berang Berang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/berangberang/), on Flickr
Compare the bottom left of the frame with the top right. See it? That's field curvature in action. The zone of focus moves closer to the camera the further it is from the center of the lens. So really close objects will be in focus if they're in the edges of the frame - meanwhile distant objects, which would be in focus if they were in the center of the frame, will be out of focus at the edge of the frame. Check out the car, and the trees around it - same distance.
And now for the impossible :D
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1971/44070345375_4b852daa52_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a9m3hX)DOF Madness (https://flic.kr/p/2a9m3hX) by Berang Berang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/berangberang/), on Flickr
Notice anything weird about the depth of field in this image? Look at the plant in the right foreground. Now look at the ground behind it. Now look at the center of the frame. :o This is what happens when the DOF is curved!
In fact the only thing that you can do with the film to counteract this, is curve the film to match. That's why cameras like the Ansco Pioneer have extremely curved film planes.
-
Great find, Bryan. I had a closer look at it on your Flickr page. It's a gorgeous box. Judging by the winding knob and other metal parts, this box has been stored in a properly dry place. That's fantastic. Also, the leather handle looks really good. It seems like it has at least two different apertures (if that piece of metal next to the shutter release is the handle for pulling the aperture plate out). Looking forward to seeing some photos taken with it. :)
It only has one aperture, when you pull the handle out it puts the shutter into B mode. Everything inside and out is in excellent shape, except of course the oxidation on the front :(. I went to the estate sale because it had a nice Darkroom in the house, the owner took very good care of everything. I also got a few items from the Darkroom and a few records that were in excellent condition. I’ll deffinatelly take some photos with it.
Does the B setting change the aperture? I've had a couple of Ansco camera where setting the shutter to B also slides a smaller aperture into place. It was a patented "readyset" feature, the idea being the smaller aperture made it easier to count off long exposures. If this sounds stupid, just think that the error between 1 and 2 seconds is a lot greater than between 4 and 5 seconds - smaller aperture, longer exposure times, easier counting.
It looks like the same aperture on both settings.
-
So if I have understood this correctly Bryan; if I take a picture of a curved wall from inside the curve, then everything should be in focus?