MicroPress 4x5 question

On Nov 2, 7:29 am, "Max Perl" wrote:
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" skrev i en meddelelsenews:13ikncss2g3ls1a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > "Max Perl" wrote
>
> >> The camera came with a Xenar 135/4.7 lens. Is this an OK performer?
>
> > Variable, some are good, some not so good -- you would have to
> > test and make your own decision. Best performance will be at f22.
>
> >> I think I have the International Back version. What does this mean?
>
> > Same as a "Graflok" back
>
> >> ....that many suppliers of rollfilm backs can be used on the camera?
> >> ....e.g. a Horseman 6x9 back?
>
> > Yes.
>
> OK! ......then I will go for such a back. The Horseman 6x9 has good film
> flatness?
> Probably not as good as LinHof backs but these I can't use I guess?
>
>
>
> > --
> > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> > Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> >http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
> > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Horseman roll backs seem to be highly regarded. I also have an
MPP back that is pretty good.
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Nicholas O. Lindan" skrev i en meddelelse

> "Max Perl" wrote
>
>> The camera came with a Xenar 135/4.7 lens. Is this an OK performer?
>
> Variable, some are good, some not so good -- you would have to
> test and make your own decision. Best performance will be at f22.
>
>> I think I have the International Back version. What does this mean?
>
> Same as a "Graflok" back
>
>> ....that many suppliers of rollfilm backs can be used on the camera?
>> ....e.g. a Horseman 6x9 back?
>
> Yes.
>
OK! ......then I will go for such a back. The Horseman 6x9 has good film
flatness?
Probably not as good as LinHof backs but these I can't use I guess?


> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
>
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Max Perl" wrote
>>> I think I have the International Back version. What does this mean?
>> Same as a "Graflok" back
>>> ....that many suppliers of rollfilm backs can be used on the camera?
>>> ....e.g. a Horseman 6x9 back?
>> Yes.
> OK! ......then I will go for such a back. The Horseman 6x9 has good film
> flatness?
> Probably not as good as LinHof backs but these I can't use I guess?

You can use Linhof. Be sure to get the model for 4x5. 6x9 roll adapters
also come in a form to fit 6x9 cameras - this is what you don't want.

The type you want will be a roll film back attached to a 5x6" plate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/71/General_Accessories_Roll_Film_Holders.html

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Max Perl" wrote in message

> On the MPP MicroPress 4x5 camera there is a FRONT <-> BACK
> switch. It seems to be locked in the FRONT position but
> the FP shutter works fine
> in this position and I am not able to move the switch to
> the BACK position. Anybody knows the secret behind this
> switch?
>
> The camera came with a Xenar 135/4.7 lens. Is this an OK
> performer?
>
> I think I have the International Back version. What does
> this mean? ....that many suppliers of rollfilm backs can
> be used on the camera? ....e.g. a Horseman 6x9 back?
>
> Max
If the switch is like the one on the Speed Graphic you
have to push it in a bit to unlock it. See if that works.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk.DeleteThis@ix.netcom.com
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Max Perl" wrote in message

> On the MPP MicroPress 4x5 camera there is a FRONT <-> BACK
> switch. It seems to be locked in the FRONT position but
> the FP shutter works fine
> in this position and I am not able to move the switch to
> the BACK position. Anybody knows the secret behind this
> switch?
>
> The camera came with a Xenar 135/4.7 lens. Is this an OK
> performer?
>
> I think I have the International Back version. What does
> this mean? ....that many suppliers of rollfilm backs can
> be used on the camera? ....e.g. a Horseman 6x9 back?
>
> Max
Left out the Xenar. This lens is of the Tessar type. They
can be very good, as are the Xenars in Rolleiflex/Rolleicord
cameras. I have had only one of the 135mm/f/47 lenses to
check, it was on a late 1950's Speed Graphic. This lens had
excessive smearing at the corners, probably oblique
spherical aberration which is inherent in the Tessar type,
but I am not sure. Like the Wollensak lenses for the Graphic
cameras it had to be stopped down too far to get the corners
sharp. This may have been a dog. You can test for this
easily by focusing the camera on a distant small, bright,
object or highlight at the corner of the frame. Its normal
for a Tessar type lens to smear such highlights when wide
open but the smear should be mostly gone by about f/8 and
completely gone at f/11. The old Wollensak Raptar has a
little left even at f/32. Both the Kodak Ektar and Zeiss
Tessar are clean at f/8 to f/11. This lens should be about
the same if its a good one.
Previous to WW-2 Schneider did not have a good reputation
for consistency, after the war the company turned this
around and began to make excellent lenses and have quite
good quality control.
I don't know much about MPP except that they made a good
clone of the Linhof Technika.
The "international" back is a copy of the Graflok back
originally designed by Graflex for the Speed and Crown
Graphic cameras. This back takes standard Graphic type film
holders but also takes a wide variety of accessories because
the ground glass spring panel can be removed easily. It has
two sliding strips to hold the accessory in place. Without
the spring back the it looks like the older Graflex back as
used on the Graflex SLR cameras but the dimentions are
differnent and the lock strip position is reversed from the
Graphic type back so the Graflok or International or
Universal back will not take Graflex holders or accessories.
Almost all roll film adaptors and other accesories made
after about the mid 1950's fit the Graflok/International
type back.
I repeat in case my first post got lost, that the slide
switch for the shutters probably needs to be pushed in a bit
to unlock it.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk.DeleteThis@ix.netcom.com
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

In article ,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
>"Max Perl" wrote
>
>> The camera came with a Xenar 135/4.7 lens. Is this an OK performer?
>
>Variable, some are good, some not so good -- you would have to
>test and make your own decision. Best performance will be at f22.

To emphasize what Nicholas said, the major problem with older Schneider
lenses is that their quality control was terrible until some time in the
1960s (a rough estimate of my own; Richard may know more precisely). The
basic design is fine though in general a higher-end example of this same
design type (such as a Kodak Ektar) would probably perform better and not
cost much to acquire.

The high-end Schneider lens for press cameras was the Xenotar, but even
with those (which have a much more complex design which should offer
considerably better performance at wide apertures than the Xenar) there
is the curse of inconsistent Schneider quality control for most of the
press-camera era. If you are in love with your press camera and want
the best lens money can buy, there is a very rare 135mm Zeiss Planar
(a few were even made with modern "T*" multicoating) that is the ne plus
ultra of press lenses, but you could literally buy twenty press cameras
on eBay for what it is likely to cost if you can find one.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls DeleteThis @rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Thor Lancelot Simon" skrev i en meddelelse

> In article ,
> Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
>>"Max Perl" wrote
>>
>>> The camera came with a Xenar 135/4.7 lens. Is this an OK performer?
>>
>>Variable, some are good, some not so good -- you would have to
>>test and make your own decision. Best performance will be at f22.
>
> To emphasize what Nicholas said, the major problem with older Schneider
> lenses is that their quality control was terrible until some time in the
> 1960s (a rough estimate of my own; Richard may know more precisely). The
> basic design is fine though in general a higher-end example of this same
> design type (such as a Kodak Ektar) would probably perform better and not
> cost much to acquire.
>
> The high-end Schneider lens for press cameras was the Xenotar, but even
> with those (which have a much more complex design which should offer
> considerably better performance at wide apertures than the Xenar) there
> is the curse of inconsistent Schneider quality control for most of the
> press-camera era. If you are in love with your press camera and want
> the best lens money can buy, there is a very rare 135mm Zeiss Planar
> (a few were even made with modern "T*" multicoating) that is the ne plus
> ultra of press lenses, but you could literally buy twenty press cameras
> on eBay for what it is likely to cost if you can find one.
>

It was just for fun I purchased this camera.......as I got it for about $150
with
lens. It has a FP shutter which makes it suitable to use with lenses with no
shutter. The lens plate seems also to be quite simple. But I will try the
135/4.7
Xenar and see how it performs. The LF Nikkors are not to bad I think.....
I am interrested in photo history and I never heard about the english MPP
company before I got this camera. The FP shutter they used looks identical
to some used on Graflex cameras. 4x5" FP shutter........never heard about
this before either.
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Max Perl" wrote

> It was just for fun I purchased this camera.......
> as I got it for about $150 with lens

Old press cameras are lots of fun. And that's
a good price. The MPP's are well regarded.

Did you get it with a rangefinder? If you put
a 6x9 roll film back on the camera you lose the
ground glass for focusing. Though you can swap
backs all the time for focusing. At f22 you
can do all right with the scale on the camera
bed and a bit of practice judging distance.

> The LF Nikkors are not too bad I think.....

I don't think you can buy a bad modern LF lens.
For lens test results:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Peter" skrev i en meddelelse

> On Nov 2, 7:29 am, "Max Perl" wrote:
>> "Nicholas O. Lindan" skrev i en
>> meddelelsenews:13ikncss2g3ls1a@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Max Perl" wrote
>>
>> >> The camera came with a Xenar 135/4.7 lens. Is this an OK performer?
>>
>> > Variable, some are good, some not so good -- you would have to
>> > test and make your own decision. Best performance will be at f22.
>>
>> >> I think I have the International Back version. What does this mean?
>>
>> > Same as a "Graflok" back
>>
>> >> ....that many suppliers of rollfilm backs can be used on the camera?
>> >> ....e.g. a Horseman 6x9 back?
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> OK! ......then I will go for such a back. The Horseman 6x9 has good film
>> flatness?
>> Probably not as good as LinHof backs but these I can't use I guess?
>>
>>
>>
>> > --
>> > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
>> > Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
>> >http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
>> > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The Horseman roll backs seem to be highly regarded. I also have an
> MPP back that is pretty good.
>
OK......of course I could go for an original MPP back. I was just thinking
they were
difficult to get.......
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Nicholas O. Lindan" skrev i en meddelelse

> "Max Perl" wrote
>>>> I think I have the International Back version. What does this mean?
>>> Same as a "Graflok" back
>>>> ....that many suppliers of rollfilm backs can be used on the camera?
>>>> ....e.g. a Horseman 6x9 back?
>>> Yes.
>> OK! ......then I will go for such a back. The Horseman 6x9 has good film
>> flatness?
>> Probably not as good as LinHof backs but these I can't use I guess?
>
> You can use Linhof. Be sure to get the model for 4x5. 6x9 roll adapters
> also come in a form to fit 6x9 cameras - this is what you don't want.
>
> The type you want will be a roll film back attached to a 5x6" plate.
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/71/General_Accessories_Roll_Film_Holders.html
>
> --
Thank you!
Now I know a bit more of the LF world
The Linhof backs are not cheap.......but for an old press camera a used 6x9
Horseman back
should do it or a original MPP if I can find one.


> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
>
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Richard Knoppow" skrev i en meddelelse

>
> "Max Perl" wrote in message
>
>> On the MPP MicroPress 4x5 camera there is a FRONT <-> BACK switch. It
>> seems to be locked in the FRONT position but the FP shutter works fine
>> in this position and I am not able to move the switch to the BACK
>> position. Anybody knows the secret behind this switch?
>>
>> The camera came with a Xenar 135/4.7 lens. Is this an OK performer?
>>
>> I think I have the International Back version. What does this mean?
>> ....that many suppliers of rollfilm backs can be used on the camera?
>> ....e.g. a Horseman 6x9 back?
>>
>> Max
> Left out the Xenar. This lens is of the Tessar type. They can be very
> good, as are the Xenars in Rolleiflex/Rolleicord cameras. I have had only
> one of the 135mm/f/47 lenses to check, it was on a late 1950's Speed
> Graphic. This lens had excessive smearing at the corners, probably oblique
> spherical aberration which is inherent in the Tessar type, but I am not
> sure. Like the Wollensak lenses for the Graphic cameras it had to be
> stopped down too far to get the corners sharp. This may have been a dog.
> You can test for this easily by focusing the camera on a distant small,
> bright, object or highlight at the corner of the frame. Its normal for a
> Tessar type lens to smear such highlights when wide open but the smear
> should be mostly gone by about f/8 and completely gone at f/11. The old
> Wollensak Raptar has a little left even at f/32. Both the Kodak Ektar and
> Zeiss Tessar are clean at f/8 to f/11. This lens should be about the same
> if its a good one.
> Previous to WW-2 Schneider did not have a good reputation for
> consistency, after the war the company turned this around and began to
> make excellent lenses and have quite good quality control.
> I don't know much about MPP except that they made a good clone of the
> Linhof Technika.
> The "international" back is a copy of the Graflok back originally
> designed by Graflex for the Speed and Crown Graphic cameras. This back
> takes standard Graphic type film holders but also takes a wide variety of
> accessories because the ground glass spring panel can be removed easily.
> It has two sliding strips to hold the accessory in place. Without the
> spring back the it looks like the older Graflex back as used on the
> Graflex SLR cameras but the dimentions are differnent and the lock strip
> position is reversed from the Graphic type back so the Graflok or
> International or Universal back will not take Graflex holders or
> accessories. Almost all roll film adaptors and other accesories made after
> about the mid 1950's fit the Graflok/International type back.
> I repeat in case my first post got lost, that the slide switch for the
> shutters probably needs to be pushed in a bit to unlock it.
>
>
The BACK - FRONT switch seems to be stocked. It could
look as it was locked from the factory as I have difficult to see
what the purpose is if it could be set at the BACK position. It
is not possible to push it either.
The camera could be from about 1960 and I guess the Xenar
followed the camera. It has a "modern" shutter....Compur Rapid
which has 1/400 sec. as fastest exposure time. So maybe I am
lucky that the lens is OK. I have only tried one Xenar which was
on a Rollei 35 camera. This lens was very good. Able to make
very sharp Chromes.
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Nicholas O. Lindan" skrev i en meddelelse

> "Max Perl" wrote
>
>> It was just for fun I purchased this camera.......
>> as I got it for about $150 with lens
>
> Old press cameras are lots of fun. And that's
> a good price. The MPP's are well regarded.
>
> Did you get it with a rangefinder? If you put
> a 6x9 roll film back on the camera you lose the
> ground glass for focusing. Though you can swap
> backs all the time for focusing. At f22 you
> can do all right with the scale on the camera
> bed and a bit of practice judging distance.
>

Yes it has a rangefinder and there are cams? .....think it is
callsed for a 135 and 360 mm lens. The rangefinder optics
need a bit of cleaning to be able to show a very clear
double image.

I have the ground glass and it seems easy to swap between
this and a back......but of course it you use it hand hold as
a press photographer you can't do that.

It is the 2nd camera on this page. The newest version of
the MicroPress. They also did some Techical cameras which
looks quite nice.

http://www.mppusers.freeuk.com/micropress2.htm


>> The LF Nikkors are not too bad I think.....
>
> I don't think you can buy a bad modern LF lens.
> For lens test results:
>
> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
>
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question 

"Max Perl" wrote in message

>
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" skrev i en meddelelse
>
>> "Max Perl" wrote
>>
>>> It was just for fun I purchased this camera.......
>>> as I got it for about $150 with lens
>>
>> Old press cameras are lots of fun. And that's
>> a good price. The MPP's are well regarded.
>>
>> Did you get it with a rangefinder? If you put
>> a 6x9 roll film back on the camera you lose the
>> ground glass for focusing. Though you can swap
>> backs all the time for focusing. At f22 you
>> can do all right with the scale on the camera
>> bed and a bit of practice judging distance.
>>
>
> Yes it has a rangefinder and there are cams? .....think
> it is
> callsed for a 135 and 360 mm lens. The rangefinder optics
> need a bit of cleaning to be able to show a very clear
> double image.
>
> I have the ground glass and it seems easy to swap between
> this and a back......but of course it you use it hand hold
> as
> a press photographer you can't do that.
>
> It is the 2nd camera on this page. The newest version of
> the MicroPress. They also did some Techical cameras which
> looks quite nice.
>
> http://www.mppusers.freeuk.com/micropress2.htm
>
>
>>> The LF Nikkors are not too bad I think.....
>>
>> I don't think you can buy a bad modern LF lens.
>> For lens test results:
>>
>> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html
>>
>> --
>> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
>> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
>> http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
>> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
>>
>
The cameras shown on the MPP site above appear to be
clones of the late Pacemaker Speed Graphic and Crown
Graphic. More about these cameras can be found at
http://www.graflex.org
There was also a curious camera built briefly by Busch in
the USA. This was evidently intended to meet the military
specification for the Speed Graphic and had a focal plane
shutter. Unlike the simple FP shutter used on all Graphic
and Graflex cameras the Busch shutter was self-capping and
had much better speed regulation. I think it also had a
revolving back but am not sure. The standard Busch models
certainly did.
I have only ever seen one advertisement for this camera
and have never seen an actual example. Busch cameras were of
very high quality and were an alternative to the Graflex
models for press photography.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk RemoveThis @ix.netcom.com
 >> Stay informed about: MicroPress 4x5 question