Charles Clemens

Like many others, I entered medium format by buying a relatively inexpensive TLR.

It so happens that as a youth I lusted heavily for the Yashica TLR (and for a young lady named Ubiquitous), as it (the camera) was almost within my price bracket, even then.

I "won" my camera on eBay, and fulfilled one of my childhood dreams. (Go ahead, buy that BB gun now that you're old enough that no one can tell you not to.)

The 124 is a great performer. It has, what is commonly purported as, a Zeiss formula lens. Most accessories are still available. It has x synch, so you can use an electronic flash with it. An owners manual and all details are on line at: http://www.geocities.com/y124g/front.html

The one I got had a problem not catching and cocking the shutter on wind-backwind about 1/10th of the time. So, I sent it to Mark Hama (a former Yashica factory employee who specializes in repairing these TLR's). He is at 2675 Earl Dr., Marietta, GA 30062-1530 (770) 565-1498.

All the images I've had from this camera have been outstanding. The lens is both sharp and contrasty.

I have, however, discovered a problem this camera has with "body flare". Bright light sources including white objects in the sunshine may reflect off the side walls of the film chamber and cause fogged areas. There is no internal baffling in the 124. I've read the 124G has some baffling, however, I haven't been able to find any opinions on how effective that baffling is or any good images depicting how much difference there really is from the film chamber of the 124.

This problem is not correctable with a lens hood. (Although, a lens hood is a good idea for a lot of other reasons.) I will keep this forum posted as I search for a solution to this problem.

I found using a waist level viewfinder tough to adjust to. Partially, because of my need to use glasses at the waist level distance, and partially due to the image moving in the opposite direction expected when one moves the camera. I felt a viewfinder, either through the lens or rangefinder type, was better suited to my needs. I'll still use it to make square slides, however.

29 Sep 2000 I just purchased a Yashica-Mat 124G from a gentleman in Australia. (I love eBay!!)

Later in this dissertation, I will give the results of my comparison of images, and opinion on the effectiveness of this baffling.

This was just the start, however.

My intellectual curiosity exploded (and my bank account imploded). I found a used Bausch & Lomb projector. ( I rued the day 30 years ago when I'd thrown out the "crummy old Realist 620" I'd had as a teenager.)

I studied up on the cheapest source of slide mounts. Worst of all, I began to look at all the other formats and camera configurations possible.

I still love seeing the big square slide fill my screen both top to bottom and side to side; but mostly I've been caught by the magic that only the big film has.

I've got thousands of good 35mm slides which I was very happy with before this new love affair; but I've had real sex now, and can't go back to "Playboy".

Then I played with a Mamiya 6 at Roberts Camera in Indianapolis, and loved it. So, I cast aside my previous decision and ordered a low mileage used one. The images were sensational.

I kept it a couple months, and shot some great pictures with it; but, with time, I became less infatuated with it and more cognizant of it's shortcomings. (Sounds like a girlfriend again, doesn't it ?)

The biggest problem was the inaccurate meter. I had to leave it permanently set at +1EV compensation and still be careful to not have much sky in my metering area on landscapes. I use a handheld meter anyway (a Minolta Auotometer IVF); but if there's to be a meter in a modern camera, one should be able to fall back on it if necessary.

Another disadvantage was the inability to do close-up work. I did spend a day with a tripod and a tape measure, using a tracing paper focusing screen and focusing targets; thus creating a distance scale and parallax shift formula that could conceivably have allowed using a set of close-up filters.

That close-up scale can be found HERE

I also found the split image rangefinding tough to use in spontaneous shooting situations. The view is always in focus. So, on grab shots, I would sometimes forget to focus.
Additionally, I'm used to composing within the whole of the viewfinder. So, using the bright-lines did not come naturally to me.
Finally, it's not all that compact; and has no case. So, it's not really ideal for backpacking etc., as I was envisioning it might be.

I ended up trading it back to Ken-Mar Camera (they were great about it) for a Pentax 645.

I also found a great deal on a used Kindermann projector; and so, sold the Bausch & Lomb. The Kindermann doesn't present any better image; but it's a lot lighter and quieter.

The Pentax 645 is a truly full featured system camera, and a great deal for the money.
I'm speaking of the 645, not the new 645N autofocus model. Which, I understand, is probably an even more wonderful camera; but out of my price range (or at least my wife's lethality range).

The 645 has a good, center weighted, through the lens metering system. It's an SLR with a pentaprism finder, and has depth of field preview. So, WYSIWYG (figure that out for yourself). It even has a dial in diopter adjustment on the viewfinder for us old farts with Viagra vision (stiff lenses).

It's mirror is well dampened. So, it's quite good for hand held shooting. It gets 15 shots on a roll of 120, which is handy and more economical. It has an integral power wind. It has TTL dedicated flash metering if you use a dedicated flash.

Many extol the virtues of the 6 X 4.5 format because it requires minimal cropping to fit 8 X 10 size. Also many say "Why shoot 6 X 6 when 9 times out of 10 your going to crop into a rectangle anyway, and end up using, in essence, a 6 X 4.5 size portion of that negative ?" I agree, and the slides have all the punch of the big film's wider color palette and definition.

I love this camera . It's handy as hell, does everything, and creates breathtaking images. It's like getting a pentaprism, TTL metered, and motor driven Hasselblad for $1300.00 instead of $6000.00

Still projecting a rectangle doesn't fill the screen in both directions.
There's still something about a square slide that kicks my ass.

For some reason I've felt compelled to get a Fuji GW670 rangefinder since I discovered they existed, about a year ago. I guess it was the concept of shooting like an old time press photographer with a new lens; or alternatively like having a hand held convenient view camera.

In any case, I just got it 2 weeks ago, and I love it already. I know T400CN isn't very archival; but I have a local processor with a brand new C41 machine that can do automated proofing of 6 X 7's. I had him proof out this first roll in 8 X 10's. I'm thrilled with the results, both in B&W and color.

One of the benefits, for me, of discovering medium format is a closer involvement with the whole photographic process from visualization to print or slide. This is especially true when using any of the cameras other than the Pentax because of the absolute need to use a hand held light meter

I'm comfortable with a light meter because I started doing "serious" photography in 1960 at age 15. Then, an uncoupled handheld meter was the only choice.

In fact, ten years ago, when my daughter first became interested in taking some serious pictures, I gave her my old Pentax H1 and a light meter. Having never been exposed to anything else, she adapted and learned quite quickly. (Of course, the desire to have beautiful images of Bryce Canyon helped a lot too.)

One also has to become a lot more cognizant of depth of field issues since there is less depth of field at the same F stop with the necessarily longer focal length lenses of medium format. This also means that, because of the need to use smaller F stops (and the magnification of camera motion by longer lenses) one often needs to use a tripod.

The film format itself calls for increased involvement because one has to find where to get film processed and printed. All labs are definitely not equal. Luckily the town I live near, and work in, is Carbondale, IL. Being home to Southern Illinois University, with it's Photography department and departments of Cinema and Broadcasting, we're blessed with 2 good local labs: B&L Photo and Egyptian Photo Lab. Both labs have new C41 machines with the lenses and hardware to process and proof medium format prints. One of these labs also does full spectrum custom enlarging. (He can't do Ilfochromes, however. Those I send to Allied Photocolor in St.Louis, which is only 2 hours away.) This level of service availability, in a town of only 30,000, in the "Illinois Ozarks", is a great blessing. Both labs can do E6 on medium format. Then, I get to mount my own slides.

I can get passable scans from medium format negatives and slides with the transparency adapter on my flatbed scanner (an Acer that cost $100.00 after the $49.00 rebate). (That's how all of these images were created.) The scans give me a good enough print to take to the custom lab to describe exactly how I want any enlargements cropped; and what the color balance, darkness, burns or dodges, etc. should look like. As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words. For 35mm, I have a dedicated slide and negative scanner.

I'm only beginning to appreciate the advantages and creative possibilities that being able to visualize a post exposure crop brings. The large negative, especially the huge 6 X 7, allows great enlargements from small areas of the negative, that are still bigger pieces of film than a whole 35 mm negative.

The Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B

Never quite done, I've gotten the desire to rehabilitate and use some really old folders. They should be good for backpacking.

My first is this 1935 Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B. It has a Zeiss Tessar lens and is still in remarkable shape. I found it on eBay for $158.00. Above is one of the first shots.

I used Velvia slide film because I knew it would show exposure errors well. With print film, often, any exposure error will get masked by the automatic adjustments for negative density done by the processing machine. ( Thus, with modern print film which has 2-3 F-stops of exposure latitude in both directions; and an auto adjusting machine that will correct for errors beyond those limits, you can practically walk in to the room with a roll of film and get a picture.)

The detail is amazing. I can't tell any difference in resolution between the Zeiss shots and the same shot done with the Pentax 645. The colors are great, and it's a real hoot to use a cool little folder and get My GREAT BIG SQUARE SLIDES.

There are many labs that will mount your MF format slides when they develop them; but they charge too much, and sometimes aren't real good in their mounting work even though they may be quite good at processing. I've ended up mounting my own, and have settled on glassless plastic mounts.

Glass is the gold standard; but cost $.80 a mount or so. Cardboard is cheap; but too flexible and potentially permanently bendable for my tastes. I had been using HAMA AV Promounts from Adorama at $9.95 per 50. Their relatively quick and easy to use (you need a hard tool with which to apply significant pressure on the one side that has the little spikes that perf the very edge of the film), reusable, and come in 6 X 6 and 6 X 4.5 sizes. However Adorama has sold out of them and closed them out. Now , if you can find them, they are $20.00 for 50. .

I looked at Clark mounts; but they looked too flimsy and seemed like they'd let the film move around in the mount too easily. .

I found "Journalfix" mounts at one dealer in the U.S.; but they are a bit pricey also. (Although the system is indeed elegant.) .

Gepe are good but difficult to use because of the little metal holder that has to be negotiated before closing the plastic mount. .

I have, for now, settled on the glassless Wess mounts. They're good, easy to use, and the least expensive at $7.00 for 20.

The above photo was taken with a Voigtlander Perkeo I.

This cute and capable little folder has only "Zone" focusing. That means you estimate the distance to subject and set the lens to that distance. Then, one sets a relatively small lens opening to give you enough depth of field to cover any errors in that estimate. Not an easy task if you're at a close distance with this 75mm lens; but probably not what this camera was really meant for anyway.

It's forte is being able to take gorgeous 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 snapshots with a little pocket size camera. This it does well, even in this the "I" version which does not have the Tessar lens and only offers shutter speeds of 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, 1/200, and B. Interestingly, it does have flash synch.

For the above image, I just (Aug. 2000) finished rebuilding a Perkeo II, and have some great slides from it. It's "Color Skopar " F 3.5 lens is superior to the F 4.5 "Vaskar" lens of the Perkeo I. Also, it's shutter speeds go from 1 sec. to 1/300th or 1/500th of a second, depending on which shutter it has; giving one much more flexibility. It also has a built in frame counter which allows you to close the baffle on the film number viewing window after lining up frame 1. Thus preventing accidental film fogging.

The above photo was taken with an Ansco Speedex. The Speedex and its counterpart the Agfa Isolette were nearly identical cameras produced in several variations from about 1940 to 1960. As they were moderately priced, millions were made and, sold. They shot 120 roll film in 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 format.

I had recently done a complete overhaul on this old Speedex, and took it in to work to shoot a roll of slide film with it as a test. I knew we were having our annual end of the school year picnic, so there would be plenty of snapshot excuses.

I was taken by surprise by the award ceremony wherein a grant in the name of a past-retired nurse was donated and the first recipient "nurse of the year" named. I was equally set back when I was the only one handy with a camera, and was pressed into service to officially record the event.

I hoped I had properly repaired the 50-year-old camera, and fired a few shots.

I was once again pleased with the performance of an old trooper.

The Ansco and Agfa cameras all share a common flaw. The lubricant used on the helical focusing front element (and within the rangefinder mechanism, if the camera is one of the models that has an integral rangefinder) has a nasty habit of setting up into a form of green concrete as the decades tick by. Many suggestions can be found on the web addressing how to free up these crucial elements.

All of them recommend instilling a solvent around the threads that the front focusing element shares with the second element. I do this by using a 5cc syringe with a 1 1/2" 25 gauge needle to inject solvent very specifically at the threaded interface involved.

I have also had good luck with pure denatured alcohol; but, again recently, I was warned that alcohol may remove paint from some older shutters with painted blades. It also tends to leave drying marks on the shutter blades which might hamper resale, even though it of course does not effect shutter performance.(Oct.2000)I just discovered one can go to ones local True Value Hardware and get a quart of "Sunnyside, Carbo-Sol, cleaning and degreasing solvent" which is pure trichloroethylene, for a small price. It is probably the most perfect solvent for the job. Dec 2000, Unfortunately trichloroethylene removes the black enamel surrounding the shutter speed indication numbers as a single unit, almost like peeling off a tiny sheet of black vinyl. The alcohol may still be the best choice. These factors are important to me as I have learned how to disassemble and ultrasonically clean these old leaf shutters, and have been using the aforementioned products to do so.

A problem shared by both when working on the Isolette is that some of the solvent/green-grease mixture inevitably gets on the rear of the lens of the focusing element, and seems to damage the coating slightly. This causes a slight hazing to be visible if the lens is held out at an angle to a light source. I don't know if this actually effects the performance of the lens. I suspect any effect is minimal, as the photos I've taken look good, and the alteration in the rear coating is not visible if the lens is viewed head on.

I should stress that the front "beauty plate" of the lens and the threads between the lenses are easily damaged. Thus, I would not recommend following the advice of some to use a padded pliers or any force of any kind to free up this junction; but rather be patient and let the solvent do its work.

I finally got the shutter cleaned and accurized on a Voigtlander Bessa I that I bought almost a year ago.

This great old folder shoots 8 enormous 6 X 9 cm negatives on a roll of 120 film. It has an insert that also allows it to shoot 16 shots at 6 X 4.5 cm. It has a 105mm F3.5 "Color Skopar" lens, shutter speeds from 1 to 1/500th sec, and is scale focused from 5 feet to infinity. It has M and X synch for flash.

All in all, it's a great piece of equipment and sells for about $150.00 instead of the $500.00 or so that the Bessa II commands. The Bessa II has a coupled rangefinder; but as far as I know is otherwise identical.

I had most of the image of Wheeler Hall seen above enlarged to an 11 X 17 by my local lab just to get an idea of the quality of resolution I was getting from the Bessa I Skopar lens.

I was disappointed to see less than good results. The enlargement looked fine to the non-critical eye; but it could have been made with a good 35mm negative. The mediocre resolution of the old lens is compensated by the gigantic negative so that normal (8 X 10) prints look good; but I would expect that huge negative properly shot to be able to yield a high definition 16 X 20 or even maybe a 30 X 40 print, and that would not be possible with this lens.

The 75mm f 3.5 Color Skopar lens on the Perkeo II is a much better lens, and might be able to yield the aforementioned prints. Certainly, slides I've shot with the Perkeo II look great projected to 6 feet by 6 feet.

Still, it's great to go out on a nice day with an old folder you've rehabilitated and see what it can do.

My friend Max Arens and I went on a week long 4 wheel drive camping adventure in the maze area of Canyonlands National Park Oct 2000. I shot about 100 slides on Ektachrome E100VS with my Voigtlander Perkeo II.

During this trip, I stumbled upon the idea of holding the polaroid filter from my Nikon in front of the Perkeo's lens. This was especially useful on this trip; because there seemed to be a haze present most days that really detracted from the distant vistas.

I had debated many months and tried many cameras (as you can tell from the treatise above) before reaching the decision to do all my medium format work on that trip with this 50 year old folder.

For some reason I have been slow in getting these images onto this page; but I just had a birthday last week and my wife got me the Epson 1240U Photo scanner I asked for. Now my enthusiasm is renewed.

It indeed does a sensational job with medium format slides and negs. It can scan them at 1200 PPI which yields a 45 meg file from a 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 slide. For it's relatively modest price of less than $260.00, it's a real marvel.

My overall conclusion, at the end of 18 months or more of research, is that the best overall camera in the vintage folder category, shooting 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 square images, is the Voigtlander Perkeo II, followed by the Zeiss Super Ikonta B with coupled rangefinder and Tessar lens.

The Perkeo is easier to self service and resurrect, however; and is much smaller and lighter.

These are some of the first slides and prints shot with my newly acquired Hasselblad.

After careful consideration of all the Hasselblad models available, I decided my needs would be best served by the 2000 series that has the focal plane shutter.

These shutters require less service, are more precisely accurate in exposure from edge to center (critical for slides), and have shutter speeds up to 1/2000th sec.

With the 2000 series, one gets an instant return mirror. Thus, unlike the 500 series, the composing image is virtually continuous rather than going blank till the camera body is rewound.

An added advantage is that the 2000 series cameras usually sell for less because people are primarily seeking the "classic" 500 series with the leaf shutter. They are also less sought after because the titanium foil shutter has gotten a bad reputation as being easily damaged. I considered that reputation; but decided that, as long as I got one with a pristine shutter in the first place, I was conscientious enough and less demanding enough as a non-professional that I would be able to keep the shutter from damage. Another advantage of this model is that lenses for it are generally faster and cheaper than those with built in shutters.

I got a great price on mine from a gentleman in Lille, France through eBay. It does indeed have a pristine shutter and is in beautiful condition. It took 2 weeks for my check to get to him via airmail, and 2 weeks for the camera to get to me via priority mail; but otherwise the international transaction was quite pleasing.

I bought a brand new Kiev copy of the NC-2 prism from a retailer in Moscow for $68.00. I debated this decision carefully with much reading of "The Medium Format Digest" on the parent server of this website. I finally decided that, since it had no moving parts, was "an exact copy", and was cheap, that not much could go wrong with trying it. I was right. It fits and performs perfectly.

A24 Hasselblad film backs cost a fortune ($819.00 new, $500.00 used). In an attempt to find a cheaper solution, I experimented with using an old "12" back that one can get for about $150.00 or so. I did this after reading that it was possible in some texts I got from the public library.

I liked the images from the Hasselblad, and I do believe the 200 series offers the most for the money; but the Hassy just doesn't fit my style of shooting. It's too clumsy in the loading/unloading, and all in all, just too bulky in feel and spontaneity for my tastes. I was able to sell it on good old eBay for just what I'd paid for it (or a little more). So, I got to play with a Hassy for 6 monhs for free.

I did a 3 day outdoor shoot with the Pentax 645 in Charleston, SC, and loved shooting with it. It's just as big as the Hassy; but feels and works faster and more efficiently. I had a great time and got great slides; but they weren't square.

Now that I'm used to the meter on the Mamiya 6 (non center weighted full viewfinder averaging, when using the 75mm lens), I find it quite fascicle. It's final. The Mamiya 6 will be my square slide shooter.

It turns out that, just as in 35mm, no one camera can fill all needs in medium format. The Pentax 645 comes closest; but there are still strong niches for the Mamiya 6 and the Fuji 670. The Voigtlander Perkeo II is amazing; but it's performance is not absolutely dependable, it can't use modern filters, and it has no metering.

I have the Rollei P66s, and I like it very much.
I was having a problem with the autofocus; but I found the solution, and wish to share it with all.
Please see the web page I made about this simple repair at:
http://www.cwclemens.com/Rollei/P66.htm