Show your photos from a vintage folder

Great photos here! Here is one more from Weltur:
1487119198_b1f55a95ec_o.jpg
 
One from a Welta 6x4.5 w/ Tessar, one from Agfa Isolette w/ Solinar, one from Agfa Isolette w/ Apotar
 

Attachments

  • Web36430014.jpg
    Web36430014.jpg
    130.5 KB · Views: 1
  • Web Small93630004.jpg
    Web Small93630004.jpg
    183 KB · Views: 1
  • Web 27620010 Ver2.jpg
    Web 27620010 Ver2.jpg
    186.9 KB · Views: 1
I don't know about you guys, but don't these images have some type of cool resoultion or depth to them that sets them apart from DSLR cameras. They seem so life-like to me and almost 3D. I am going to be getting some ektar back from walmart that was taken with my Suzuki Press Van Camera. Will post.
 
"Mess Baldix" - OEM Balda similar to a Hapo 66 - 75/3.5 Ennagon w/uncoupled RF....
2892399931_808354586e.jpg


It won't make me forget my Rolleicord, but it's really a nice, light little camera.
 
Last edited:
Agfa Record III 6x9

Agfa Record III 6x9

scottyb70 said:
I don't know about you guys, but don't these images have some type of cool resoultion or depth to them that sets them apart from DSLR cameras. They seem so life-like to me and almost 3D. I am going to be getting some ektar back from walmart that was taken with my Suzuki Press Van Camera. Will post.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a different look - which does seem to have more depth even at infinity.

MolasPass.jpg
 
Great, some fabulous images here. I think I like Petronius' (is that from William S.?) Agnar the best so far. My First Six is a lens with 'Issues' as they say, but I still like it.
 
Ron and Chippy, I think the lens needs collimnation or there is a film flatness problem, it's such a great camera I might have to cough up the bucks and have it done.

Also the uncoated lens may be a little strange with Velvia slide film. As you know the Tessar is a very sharp sharp lens. You can see it in the previous giant Buddha photo I posted.

Still I sort of like the soft focus and weird colors in the cityscape.
 
scottyb70 said:
I don't know about you guys, but don't these images have some type of cool resoultion or depth to them that sets them apart from DSLR cameras. They seem so life-like to me and almost 3D. I am going to be getting some ektar back from walmart that was taken with my Suzuki Press Van Camera. Will post.
Click to expand...

I think that is probably due to more precise focusing. Typically, rangefinders do better than SLRs and DSLRs with normal and wide angle lenses when it comes to focusing. Also, the lenses, being of a non-retrofocus design, tend to be a little sharper with normal focal lengths and a LOT sharper with wide angle lenses.

You see, an SLR has got to use retrofocus lenses (lenses that can focus an image past the mirror box); this requires more lens elements and puts them at an immediate disadvantage (more elements = less sharp).

Another reason rangefinders can do better, aside from not having to deal with the extra added elements of a retrofocus lens, have to do with the SLR's fudge factor and magnification. A rangefinder focuses precisely, due to the focusing system being based on triangulation instead of an SLR's "now it looks fuzzy and now it doesn't" focusing system. The thing is, with an SLR, there is a range of focus where the image looks sharp through the viewfinder; unfortunately, this means that just because the image looks sharp through the viewfinder, it doesn't necessarily mean the prints will look sharp (the focus can look sharp and still be a little off). This problem is exacerbated when you put a wide angle lens on an SLR, since the subject looks smaller. It becomes more difficult to focus sharply simply because you can't see it as well. A rangefinder doesn't have this problem.

SLRs and DSLRs only really come into their own when you put telephoto lenses on them. With a telephoto lens, the image is magnified enough that an SLR's "now it looks fuzzy and now it doesn't" system works pretty well. You get a closer look at the subject and can better judge the sharpness of the focus with a telephoto, while a rangefinder's triangulation focusing system requires a broader and broader baseline to be accurate at long ranges. Since there is no way of accomplishing this on a conventional rangefinder, eventually, with enough magnification and distance, an SLR's focusing system begins to work better than a rangefinder's.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top