zeiss ikonta for shooting?

okidac wrote:

 > I thinking about purchased an old, but nice Zeiss Ikonta camera, for 6x6
 > or 6x9 negative.. It's good camera for everyday use (black and white and
 > color), for nature, cityscapes and portraits?
 >

I use them quite a bit and the tessar samples are realy good. Also I've
found the 6X9's suffer from film flatness and or corner sharpness and think
the 6X6 and/or 6X4.5's work better. Also the 6X9's are pretty big and kinda
kills their "portable" nature. The non-rangefinder models with the fold
down finders are really light and compact. For a rangefinder, look at the
model IV which has the rangefinder window built into the body itself. Of
the lenses the 75mm f3.5 opton tessar is the best of the lot.

Another really good 6X4.5 is the kodak duo620 but you have to deal with
respooling film. The ikonta is much easier to use from this standpoint. I'm
not a big fan of the voightlanders as they suffer from lens standard
shakyness and the color skopar lens isn't any better than a coated tessar.

--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

I use a Moskva 5 6X9, 6X6 which has rangefinder in body, its heavy but
produces some great shots. You do need a meter. Have fun.

--

Regards

David Entwistle
D.M.Entwistle RemoveThis @bigpond.com

"Make sure you stand for something or you will fall for anything" - Anon.
"okidac" <slike RemoveThis @post.hinet.hr> wrote in message
news:bhjfje$iid$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
 > I thinking about purchased an old, but nice Zeiss Ikonta camera, for 6x6
or
 > 6x9 negative.. It's good camera for everyday use (black and white and
 > color), for nature, cityscapes and portraits?
 > Any expierence?
 > Thanx,
 > g.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

Hopefully it has a Tessar lens (and not the Novar lens) which is a sharp
four-element lens. It is good for both B+W and colour. It has a fixed lens
so you can not do wide-angle shots with it like you might want for
cityscapes. Also it will not focus down to short distances and the lens is
too short for the best portrait shots (normally portrait lenses have a focal
length of twice the film diagonal to avoid face-bulge) and you will have
difficulty focussing at these short distances since you can not check the
focussing is accurate to make sure your subject is in focus. I think the
camera is best for outdoors use, general-purpose photography.

"okidac" <slike.DeleteThis@post.hinet.hr> wrote in message
news:bhjfje$iid$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
 > I thinking about purchased an old, but nice Zeiss Ikonta camera, for 6x6
or
 > 6x9 negative.. It's good camera for everyday use (black and white and
 > color), for nature, cityscapes and portraits?
 > Any expierence?
 > Thanx,
 > g.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

"okidac" <slike.DeleteThis@post.hinet.hr> wrote in message
news:bhjfje$iid$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
 > I thinking about purchased an old, but nice Zeiss Ikonta camera, for 6x6
or
 > 6x9 negative.. It's good camera for everyday use (black and white and
 > color), for nature, cityscapes and portraits?
 > Any expierence?
 > Thanx,
 > g.
 >

If it's 6x9, then it also will shoot 6x4.5, provided you have the mask that
is inserted into the camera. You can't switch midroll between 6x9 and 6x4.5.
I don't think you can shoot 6x6 with this camera, if it shoots 6x9. 6x6
cameras were never convertible to any other format.

Anyway, the Tessar lens is better than the pedestrian Novar lens. And the
Tessar lens performs marvelously at f/8 or smaller. B/W film in this camera
has a surprising amount of latitude, so minor exposure errors aren't a
problem.

The bigger problem, if your camera lacks a rangefinder, is properly focusing
the camera for portraits. You can either buy a little handheld rangefinder,
use another camera to focus and then read the distance and transfer to the
Zeiss-Ikon or simply guess.

Truthfully, like any camera, it will only take you as far as your own
creativity. The Zeiss-Ikons remain very sturdy and usable cameras, as long
as they haven't been abused.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

I have two Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas: a 1938 Super Ikonta B with
uncoated Tessar (6x6) and a 1950 Super Ikonta A with coated Schneider
(6x4.5). Both are superb cameras, beautifully made and with excellent
lenses. The A is a very pocketable camera with so-so rangefinder
performance; the B is a bit larger but still quite handy.

I shoot B&W film in them exclusively and either use a small hand held
meter or guesstimate exposure. I also scale focus them most of the time
(Tessars are best stopped down to f/11 or so, you have a good deal of
depth of field). I would recommend finding a later model with coated
Tessar lens if you want to shoot color film.

Here are a couple of portraits made with the Super Ikonta B last year:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/ZI/MF2.htm" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/godders/ZI/MF2.htm</a>

Godfrey

In article <bhjfje$iid$1@ls219.htnet.hr>, okidac <slike.TakeThisOut@post.hinet.hr>
wrote:

 > I thinking about purchased an old, but nice Zeiss Ikonta camera, for 6x6 or
 > 6x9 negative.. It's good camera for everyday use (black and white and
 > color), for nature, cityscapes and portraits?
 > Any expierence?
 > Thanx,
 > g.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

 >Anyway, the Tessar lens is better than the pedestrian Novar lens.

Now myself, doing resolution testing with real resolution targets, I have found
the both lenses tend to produce about the same results. What really supprised
me is that different shutter types resulted in higher or lower resolutions

Seems if the shutter has a tight shutter release spring such as a Compur-Rapid,
image motion is introduced even at high shutter speeds.

Larry<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

Hemi4268 wrote:

  >>Anyway, the Tessar lens is better than the pedestrian Novar lens.
 >
 > Now myself, doing resolution testing with real resolution targets, I have
 > found
 > the both lenses tend to produce about the same results. What really
 > supprised me is that different shutter types resulted in higher or lower
 > resolutions
 >


At what distances? I found the novar is OK at normal P&S "group shot"
distances but falls apart as it aproaches infinity. For landscape uses it's
pretty bad.

--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

 >At what distances? I found the novar is OK at normal P&S "group shot"
 >distances but falls apart as it aproaches infinity. For landscape uses it's
 >pretty bad.

Most tests were done from 50 to 100 feet. About the distance needed to
photograph a full size house with trees.

One reason landscape images could look pretty bad is most true infinity focus
points on folders are usually around the 50 to 60 ft mark and NOT the infinity
mark. The infinity mark more often then not goes way past infinity resulting
in out of focus images.

Larry<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

Hemi4268 wrote:

  >>At what distances? I found the novar is OK at normal P&S "group shot"
  >>distances but falls apart as it aproaches infinity. For landscape uses
  >>it's pretty bad.
 >
 > Most tests were done from 50 to 100 feet. About the distance needed to
 > photograph a full size house with trees.

Shooting a resolution chart at 100ft with a nromal lens? Sounds awful
convinient..

 >
 > One reason landscape images could look pretty bad is most true infinity
 > focus points on folders are usually around the 50 to 60 ft mark and NOT
 > the infinity
 > mark.


Not when the cameras have had the lenses calibrated at the film plane with a
ground glass. If 3 element lenses were as good as 4+ element lenses, no one
would bother to make them! =Maybe= in the center of the frame at small
f-stops there isn't much difference but anywhere else the difference is
pretty obvious. But of course you know more about all of this than the
people who designed the lenses...
--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

Nive to see you posting here again Larry. I thought you had died.

"Hemi4268" <hemi4268.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030817133113.29802.00000103@mb-m24.aol.com...
  > >At what distances? I found the novar is OK at normal P&S "group shot"
  > >distances but falls apart as it aproaches infinity. For landscape uses
it's
  > >pretty bad.
 >
 > Most tests were done from 50 to 100 feet. About the distance needed to
 > photograph a full size house with trees.
 >
 > One reason landscape images could look pretty bad is most true infinity
focus
 > points on folders are usually around the 50 to 60 ft mark and NOT the
infinity
 > mark. The infinity mark more often then not goes way past infinity
resulting
 > in out of focus images.
 >
 > Larry<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

I've had excellent results shooting landscapes with the Tessar at f/11 or
smaller. The Novar at f/11 was soft in the corners.
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

 >Shooting a resolution chart at 100ft with a nromal lens? Sounds awful
 >convinient..

Actually resolution targets are convinient to photograph at most distance
unless of course it's several miles away. I hate walking those 4 miles.

Larry<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting? 

 > If 3 element lenses were as good as 4+ element lenses, no one
 >would bother to make them!

The number of elements might be more to due with distoration then anything
else.

Larry<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: zeiss ikonta for shooting?