Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Aug 7, 2012 5:31:57 GMT -5
Thanks everybody for the comments again. It took me a few days, taking everything in consideration and ... last but not least, it's so damn hot here, that I can'tuse my computer for more than a few minutes a day  Yes ... but ... how can I explain it properly ? If using a magnifier, it is already correcting/adjusting everything with the distance. Not understandable, isn't it  I mean, we try to put the magnifier into a position, where we can see a sharp picture and even if the lens is out of focus, you will get a sharp picture somehow. Still not a good explanation ... However, I thought about a solution and remembered a very interesting magnifier, which came with one of my large format cameras ( picture attached ). It has a cylinder and therefore the distance to the object is fixed ( of course, you could change it, but you shouldn't ). What I found out is, that I might have been right. Some former owner must have exchanged viewing and taking lens for what reason ever. It should work now ... hopefully  |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Aug 6, 2012 23:35:24 GMT -5
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Aug 3, 2012 9:59:47 GMT -5
Not on a regular base ( every night, week, month or so ), but yes. Most of my babies are leaf shutter cameras. They need some clicks from time to time. Oh yes ... I know that too |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Aug 2, 2012 1:23:06 GMT -5
That shoe box camera is certainly cool. How does it work ? Do you coat and expose pictures on shoes ? |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Aug 1, 2012 1:23:09 GMT -5
Mmmmh ... maybe  What I also thought is ... could it be, that one of the former owners exchanged/mistaked taking and viewing lens ? They are basically the same ... nearly ... except the distance to the plate ( where they get screwed in ) is different, depending on which lens you screw into which hole. My assumption is based on a try. I exchanged both lenses and the viewing lens is now focussing to infinity a little bit more perfectly, I think. And I noticed something else. The front lens is made of two elements ( lenses ), which become screwed to eachother and fixed by an outer orifice ring. The question is: How much/far do the need to become screwed to eachother ( distance ). Just tight ? That's what have been the case ... BUT ... I also found a scratch on both lenses, which actually looks like a mark ? All that could have an influence on the focus, couldn't it ? What I did now is ... I exchanged taking and viewing lens PLUS adjusting the both front elements ( lenses ) the the "scratch mark" ( if this is a mark at all ). Comparing the pictures in the viewer and projected by the taking lens, it doesn't look bad ... but it's always so tough to say, I think, because the DOF on a full open lens is so damn shallow on those type of cameras ... and my eyes not that young anymore as well  |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 31, 2012 7:19:49 GMT -5
And here comes the second culprit joining my recent "out of focus curse", mentioned in the Middl Flex thread before.
Okay, I didn't expect a "Leica like sharpness" from this camera anyway, but at least the quality of its "bigger brother", the Koroll 24s. For people, who are not familiar with this type of camera, it's a quite simple one. The lens can be screwed in and out a little bit, setting the focus, which needs to be guessed. Screwing the lens in and out, it becomes blocked by a mark, showing either infinity or the closest possible distance for taking a photograph ( here: 3 ft. ) I couldn't find anything for an adjustment yet.
However, the focus is quite poor ... either at close distances or at infinity. It even seems to me, that the lens is sharpest at infinity if it is set to the closest possible distance ( which means, screwed out quite a bit ). Here a test picture ( one of my friends has been kind enough being a model for this camera too ).
Also interesting, the 1/50 sec and f:11 are quite doubtful in my opinion. I used a 100 ASA film and all "normal daylight pictures" have been totally underexposed ( basically just black ), just in strong sunlight, something can be captured.
Any ideas, experiences ?
Berndt
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 31, 2012 6:48:20 GMT -5
After the "light leaking curse" on several cameras it seems, that I got a new one ... the "out of focus curse". All testfilms from three different cameras, which I got back today, have been a disaster  One of them has been from this Middl Flex. A fist and surprising experience. I would say, that the focus on TLRs is most accurate and easy to set ... but in this case, all pictures have been out of focus. I checked the taking lens, but it has been screwed on tightly and the metering of the viewing/focussing lens seems to be realistic too. Any suggestions ? It seems, that the focus is always a little bit behind of where it actually should be ( like on the test shot, attached ). |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 30, 2012 8:09:33 GMT -5
It is cute !!!
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 25, 2012 10:49:56 GMT -5
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 25, 2012 4:57:29 GMT -5
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 24, 2012 23:10:52 GMT -5
... or directly into the camera  |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 24, 2012 20:34:53 GMT -5
The Comet takes 3x4 cm pictures on 127 film. If using 35 mm film, the crop factor should be 4/2.4=1.66 then.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 24, 2012 9:57:55 GMT -5
I would have nothing to fear then ;D |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 23, 2012 20:57:58 GMT -5
I guess so I couldn't find anything in the japanese internet about this camera, which is unusual ( there are a lot of camera maniacs here, writting blogs about everything ). It is just known, that the maker released two cameras ( a TLR and a folder ) in 1952, both called "Middl" ( without the "e" ). The tricky thing in the japanese language is, that Japan is still using Katakana for writing words of foreign languages. For example, "Aires" ( name of another japanese camera maker ) comes from "EYE REScue". But ... why the strange writing ? Because EYE RES would be written アイレス ( A-I-RE-SU ) in Katakana. It needs some imagination sometimes to guess the original English word. Any idea what "Ma-ku-do-na-ru-do" means ? Mc Donalds ;D ;D ;D But I still have no idea about the origin of the word "Middl". "Middle" would be too easy, wouldn't it. It seems to be a rare camera though. I just found, that one famous TLR collector owns one and another ( or the same ? ) model appeared on an auction in Europe app. 10 years ago. What really makes me happy is, that my Middl Flex is in fantastic condition. The shutter is still working at all speeds and the lenses look like new after a little cleaning. I couldn't resist, trying it yesterday but need to wait a few days for getting the film back. I know, that not everybody is interested in also using his collectables, but for me, it's the highest level of "collectors happiness" |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jul 23, 2012 8:08:26 GMT -5
Not enjoyable to agree with that, Wayne ... but yes, I have to However, I do have the feeling, that I will still be able to use film until the end of MY days here on earth and that's all, what counts for me  A few years ago, I really thought, film will die soon, but "the condemned live longer" ... if that's the right translation into English. We only look at Kodak, but it is a fact, that more new films have been released during the last two years than films have become discontinued. App. 50 different film types are still available in all kind of formats and even long time ago abandoned formats like 127 or 110 are back on stage ( honestly, I never ever thought, that this would happen to 110 film ). So ... I also don't think, that the majority will return to film, but I also don't thing, that film will entirely disappear so soon. |
|
I mean, we try to put the magnifier into a position, where we can see a sharp picture and even if the lens is out of focus, you will get a sharp picture somehow. Still not a good explanation ...
