[Aaron28]

So far I've used an Agfa Isolette II - a 6x6 folding camera from the 1950s I believe, a very simple camera, but it was cheap. I also have a simple TLR, but haven't developed that film yet. Same for a Fed 3a 35mm camera.

cool ! yeh the isolette is a simple one.....does it have a rangefinder?....reckon the zeiss ikon nettar i have is quite similar without a rangefinder which i have not shot with.......TLR are fun as focusing is a different kinda experience.......have looked into getting a Fed but have not pulled the trigger

[HoutHans]

Part of our garden, imaged with the Super Takumar 28/3.5

[/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2m5yUro]Early morning in our garden[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/155361133@N02/]Hans Vedder[/url], on Flickr" target="_blank">

[Jonathan Mac]

I think sample variation should not be underrated. I read that many prefer the 55mm f/1.8 Takumars over the 50mm f/1.4. I have now two f/1.8 and one f/2 55mm, and they vary a lot, with the f/2 being the sharpest. Even at f/2.8 the difference is obvious. OTOH, my 50mm f/1.4 (8-element version) is incredibly sharp, even if image contrast is rather low below f/2.8. With regard to field curvature and lateral CA, it is better than my SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4 purchased in 1995.

I sometimes wonder if sample variation in lenses has become greater or lesser over the years. In the few cases where I've owned multiple copies of the same lens I've never seen any appreciable difference.

[stubyles]

previous meet n greet wind down at the river.......revived pentax 6x7 that i have worked on the past few months believe it to be in working order now.....smc tak 90/2.8LS
shanghai gp3 100........local process....epson v600 via silverfast8

Love that first one, you can tell the quality of the equipment (as well as the talent of the user of course!)

[Erictator]

Part of our garden, imaged with the Super Takumar 28/3.5

Love the filtered light, nice catch.
Eric

[Aaron28]

Love that first one, you can tell the quality of the equipment (as well as the talent of the user of course!)

thanks! yeh there ain't nothing like that 6x7 medium format!

[hongman]

Lovely light capture... do you recall the aperture you used?

[HoutHans]

Love the filtered light, nice catch.
Eric

Thanks, with a lovely morning like that, nice images are easy.

---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 12:00 AM ----------

Lovely light capture... do you recall the aperture you used?

I'm not sure what image you're referring to, but in my case it must have been around f/8 if memory serves me well.

[blankmampf]

cool ! yeh the isolette is a simple one.....does it have a rangefinder?....reckon the zeiss ikon nettar i have is quite similar without a rangefinder which i have not shot with.......TLR are fun as focusing is a different kinda experience.......have looked into getting a Fed but have not pulled the trigger

The Isolette is not even a rangefinder :P it's, how shall I put it....a window with a vague suggestion of what will end up on the film. It just gives the rough angle of view, and you'll have to estimate the distance yourself and get a sharp image using range focus.

I actually liked using the Isolette more than the TLR, because the latter was larger and more conspicuous. Also, its mirror is quite fogged up, I have yet to buy a new one, so the focussing image is somewhat dark.
And of course, without a prism, left and right are mixed up, which you'll also have to keep in mind.

I can recommend the Fed I also have a Fed 5b laying around, which arguably is a better camera than the Fed 3a, but I love the handling and style of the latter.
They're "inspired" by the German Leica rangefinders, but also made a few changes. And they are dirt cheap for what they are. I got mine for 20-30€ a piece, lens included, and I think you really can't go wrong at that price, just make sure the mechanism still works, and never ever change speed before cocking.

[Erictator]

The Isolette is not even a rangefinder :P it's, how shall I put it....a window with a vague suggestion of what will end up on the film. It just gives the rough angle of view, and you'll have to estimate the distance yourself and get a sharp image using range focus.

I actually liked using the Isolette more than the TLR, because the latter was larger and more conspicuous. Also, its mirror is quite fogged up, I have yet to buy a new one, so the focussing image is somewhat dark.
And of course, without a prism, left and right are mixed up, which you'll also have to keep in mind.

I can recommend the Fed I also have a Fed 5b laying around, which arguably is a better camera than the Fed 3a, but I love the handling and style of the latter.
They're "inspired" by the German Leica rangefinders, but also made a few changes. And they are dirt cheap for what they are. I got mine for 20-30€ a piece, lens included, and I think you really can't go wrong at that price, just make sure the mechanism still works, and never ever change speed before cocking.

I had an Agfa Isolette... I think it was a Mk III? It gave the impression of a luxury camera, well plated and felt very solid. I took some great 120mm film pics with it. Sorry I let it go. The Kodak Monitor's I had were really cool, and had more features, but that darn 620mm... it was a PITB to spool film in my dark bag from 120mm spools to the spare 620mm spools I had. Other than that, the Kodak Monitor series were really sweet.
Eric

[edom31]

SMC Tak 35/3.5 - this lens really pushes colors...

Blues:




It also does good yellows:







Such a sharp little lens...

[blankmampf]

I had an Agfa Isolette... I think it was a Mk III? It gave the impression of a luxury camera, well plated and felt very solid. I took some great 120mm film pics with it. Sorry I let it go. The Kodak Monitor's I had were really cool, and had more features, but that darn 620mm... it was a PITB to spool film in my dark bag from 120mm spools to the spare 620mm spools I had. Other than that, the Kodak Monitor series were really sweet.
Eric

Mine looks and feels also great, and it's in perfect condition, the previous owner probably has never used it. And it's certainly far lighter and more compact than just about any other medium format camera you can get today.
Maybe using a different enlarger lamp would get me better results, the one I have (20W LED to replace a 150W bulb) is far too strong, most exposures were 1-2 seconds and got too dark even with that.

That Kodak Monitor also looks nice I have an Ica Icarette somewhere, an ancient 6x9 camera from the 1920s or so, that is of similar design. Maybe I'll test it out one day. Thankfully it uses 120 film.
It seems incredible to me that even now, after 100 years, you can still get new film rolls for that camera



And here's an image, for a change. I took a little trip outside last Sunday, in my street there are beautiful flowers blooming everywhere. This is the only image I took with a Takumar that day, the rest all was with an Auto Revuenon 55/1.4 I got recently.
The aperture blades are oily and stuck at 1.4, I could clean them, but don't bother, if I want F/2.0 or higher I got better lenses for that and the 55/1.4 was only 5€ in immaculate condition, an absolute bargain even though images tend to be soft wide open.

---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 11:46 AM ----------

thanks! appreciate that! it's the beauty of the medium format magic!

Thankfully the Pentax 67 is relatively expensive...after your images I really want to get one myself
The 100 speed B/W film almost looks "too sharp" when seen at smaller sizes, the colour images one post above that one have a very expressive graininess I find.
It would be interesting to see how much you can enlarge the B/W images before being able to see image degradation. I've read that with the right setup medium format images can approach gigapixels if you'd want to digitalize them to full extent.

[paulh]

Such a sharp little lens...

I love mine "Precise" is how I describe its rendering. Beautiful shots, Ed.

[CedrusMacro]

A quick snap of an odd time piece discarded on a wander.

[edom31]

I love mine "Precise" is how I describe its rendering. Beautiful shots, Ed.

Ahh great word choice there Paul! Indeed.