Early experiment with manual camera

I posted this is another thread, but this is from my 2nd roll of film
through a Fed 4 [basically my 1st all-manual camera].

I think it turned out pretty OK.

Comments (even negative ones ) welcome.

http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/oxford1.jpg

 

What lens did you use?


Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng

Camera manuals and mercury battery fix
http://www.colyngoodson.com

Weston Ranger 9 battery fix
http://www.colyngoodson.com/weston.html

 

Industar 61 - the standard lens that comes with these cameras.

However, I'm not sure if it's an Industar-61 or a 61 L/D

[It's not marked with the L/D but it has the other features -
click-stop on the aperture setting and a yellowish tint to the lens
coating - which I gather [from web-sites] are marks of the L/D)

Thanks.

 

You need to hang onto that lens. I've been through around 40 Russian
lens over the last several years and have yet to find one with that
kind of sharpness and contrast..


Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng

Camera manuals and mercury battery fix
http://www.colyngoodson.com

Weston Ranger 9 battery fix
http://www.colyngoodson.com/weston.html

 

Actually, about 75% of the Sov./Postsov lenses I've used & tested have
excellent sharpness & contrast (and I wouldn't call looking good in a
800x507 pixel JPG anything special at all).

Check your rangefinder and/or body calibration.

Chris

 

Indeed.

The first roll of film I had back from that camera was pretty decent
but not quite 'right' - I checked the rangefinder and it was off at
infinity.

After adjusting it, the pictures are coming back pretty sharp. That
image looks good at a much higher res than the small .jpg I posted....
but it's still not absolutely crystal sharp if you blow it right up.

However, it was shot hand-held so the camera probably wasn't steady
enough to give a "perfect" image.

Either way, I'm pleased with the results from something that cost so
little.

Matt

 

You should also check your minimum distance RF adjustment (1 meter): You
do that by adjusting the eccentric on the RF arm (as opposed to the
screw used for adjusting infinity).
You'll probably have to readjust infinity adjustment if you change the
minimum adjustment, then recheck minimum and so on...
After about 3 cycles of this, you'll have a well-calibrated rangefinder!
: )

A drop of glue or shellack on the RF arm eccentric will HELP hold it in
place, but it should be checked regularly as it moves out of adjustment
quite easily (and hence, all those "lousy Russian lenses" all over the
place...)

Another hint: Zorkis & Kievs (the Contax clone/descendent in this case),
tend to be better built than the Feds and have a smoother feel to them.
Also, the Kiev/Contax has a wider based RF which is famous for staying
in adjustment (so fewer "lousy" lenses). You might not like its
ergonomics though.

Chris

 

Correcting my own post, I previously explained how to adjust, but not
how to check minimum RF adjustment.

Camera on tripod (or tabletop).
Lens set at 1 meter.
Easy to focus on object exactly 1 meter away from FILM PLANE.

Even tiny differences at that distance (i.e. 1.05 meters instead of
1.00) will result in out focus pictures at full aperture.

If your shots are still not up to (high) expectations, check the body
collimation (you'll need an SLR camera), just ask again or do a search
on it.

Chris

 

I checked the close-up calibration too and it seems OK.

I did the usual thing - draw a cross on a bit of paper, mount camera
on tripod at 1 meter, check what the lens is set at when its in focus.

I'll probably do it again soon, double check the measurements, etc and
make sure it's dead on.

I'm quite happy with the Fed for now. But yeah, will explore other
options if I come across a Kiev in nice condition. The lack of lens
compatibility would be an issue though.

If I had more than one Sov. rangefinder it'd be nice if they could all
mount the same lenses.

Matt

 

Chris Loffredo wrote:

Interesting. I've never done much close-up work so I've not had occasion to
explore this: I always thought that focus distance was from the lens node,
not the film plane. At least that's how it made sense to me.

OTOH, it is common to see the film plane marked on the exterior of the body,
which I infer must be useful for something. I can't think of anything else
that would utilize an external mark like that, so it sounds like you're
probably right here.

If so, I've learned something new and valuable. Thanks!!

I've set the focus of rangefinders at infinity by putting them on a tripod
with the back open, the lens on T and set at infinity, and a piece of
scotch tape across the film rails. Then I look through a calibrated SLR,
set at infinity, and through the rangefinder lens. If the striations on
the tape are sharp, that probably means the focus is correct. It would
seem this can be expanded to checking collimation by putting a piece of
tape across the rails at each edge of the frame window, and checking to see
that these are both sharp from one end to the other.

Is this in the ball park?

Thanks,

Bill Tallman

 

: )

There are some exceptions; for example some older Killfit macros (or so
I read) have the distance scales set from the front of the lens.

What you first described is what I understand as being "collimation",
i.e. the correct body depth/infinity setting of the lens. Whether tape
across the film rails is flat enough and whether the measurement is best
made at the center or 1/3 of the way out is a whole other can of worms...
: )

The second procedure you describe is a check that the mount/lens is
parallel with the film plane.
When I've tried it though, at least with most lens combinations, I've
not been able to "see" the corners.
In practice I do that kind of check on film (targets at center and in
the 4 corners), which might also catch some lens defects.

Typical example of such a test and the quality of Soviet lenses:
I had 4 Jupiter 12 (35mm f/2.8) lenses, 3 gave good and very similar
results to each other, one was much sharper on one side and much softer
on the other compared with the rest. Centering error?

Chris

 

Chris Loffredo wrote:

<snip>

Thanks, Chris.

Bill Tallman