PDA

View Full Version : BERGHEIL or AVUS



ARCHIVIST
10-Mar-2010, 21:14
I am looking for a very lightweight, vintage, and usable 4x5 (or 9x12) view camera for regular use.

I am looking for the picture quality that lenses like those on the Voigtlander Bergheil and Avus would produce. There are several long term projects I wish to undertake.

Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated. The Voitlander seems to meet my requirements but if any one has any other suggestions................

If I cannot obtain the camera I want I would consider obtaining a lens/shutter from the period (1920 to 1930 ) and using my stripped down Busch Presman model D.

This is my first post.

Regards
Peter

Bill_1856
10-Mar-2010, 22:07
Since you already have a Pressman D there would seem to be little advantage in switching to one of the old 9x12 boxes. There are lots of Skopar and Heliar lenses of the period available, which can be easily mounted on your Busch.

ARCHIVIST
11-Mar-2010, 03:44
That would seem logical except for the fact that the Busch may be in use elswhere and may not always be at hand. This may well turn out to be what I may have to do though.

My passion is for using older equipment. I love the image quality you get from older equipment.

Peter

IanG
11-Mar-2010, 04:21
Get a Patent Etui, smallest, lightest 9x12 camera ever made, Here's mine alongside it's US competitor. when you realise the actual format is only a fraction smaller that's a huge difference

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/etui07.jpg

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/etui06.jpg

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/etui05_sm.jpg

Just for good measure compared to another German 9x12.

http://lostlabours.co.uk/Uploads/etui03_sm.jpg

Ian

rfesk
11-Mar-2010, 05:18
I sent two Patent Etui's and two or three lenses from Avus's to Australia last year. I use a Busch Pressman myself. And a Voigtlander Avus and Vag. All 9X12.

Finding the old 9X12 holders are not so easy and loading them is more of a pain than the modern holders. Plus there are less film types available without cutting down 4X5 film.

I would try to adapt the old, uncoated lenses to a newer 4X5 camera myself if the size of the camera is not important.

Jim Galli
11-Mar-2010, 07:58
Everybody is different of course. I LOVE the focal shutter in my old fashioned Speed Graphic. Then it is a platform for every old barrel lens that I want to see the look. Euryscop, Heliar, Cooke, Petzval. Fast and efficient as proven by thousands of press photogs in the 1940's and '50's. A Bergheil with a Heliar is hard to beat also. A little more fussy perhaps, and only the lens it comes with but the trade off is lighter weight.

Ole Tjugen
11-Mar-2010, 08:31
The big advantage of the Bergheil over the Avus is that the former has bayonet-mounted interchangeable lenses. But that in itself isn't much of an advantage if you haven't got a second bayonet-mounted lens?

Also the Bergheil can be had with Heliar lens. Usually cheaper than a Heliar lens without the Bergheil, for some strange reason. The best you get on an Avus is the Skopar - a very good sharp Tessar-type lens - which is also fitted to some Bergheils.

IanG
11-Mar-2010, 08:52
Ole, just about any 9x12 camera can be bought with a lens for lens than the same lens on it's own, it's crazy but true.

Ian

ARCHIVIST
12-Mar-2010, 02:03
Thanks for all the good advice.

The one thing that has worried me, and this was touched upon by Bob, is being able to find a quantity of good film holders if I go to the 9x12 format.

Film is not an issue for me as I only shoot b/w and I understand that 9x12 is available in that format (EFKE?).

By trade I am a darkromm technician (38 years) with a passion for archival processing of b/w film and print. Nothing digital - wet silver all the way!

Regards
Peter

IanG
12-Mar-2010, 02:39
Peter, pre-WWII 9x12 holders are quite easy to find in Europe, the main issue is there wasn't a standard so you need to be careful to get the right ones, but I now have at least a dozen that fit all my camera's, and another 6 or so that don't :D

Film is available from Ilford, Foma & EFKE in 9x12, but you need film inserts in the plate holders.

Ian

Steven Tribe
12-Mar-2010, 02:40
9x12 film is not a real problem as it is widely available in Europe.
Whilst the KW etui patent cameras are a design ikon, I not not sure they would stand up to much use after so many years - they are more sensitive than other designs. I can speak highly of the 9x12 by Glunz, Goerz and Zeiss-ikon which are very available and robust. The film holder situation is not that difficult - but be aware that sellers have no idea what they are selling. They are so cheap that an occasional wrong purchase will not set you back much. There is some info available on line about style differences. I enclose a small contribution from a 1934 catalogue which shows the main types in profile/camera producer. The weakest point is the velvet light sealing strip which has occasionally been eaten by various bugs.

IanG
12-Mar-2010, 05:00
Whilst the KW etui patent cameras are a design ikon, I not not sure they would stand up to much use after so many years - they are more sensitive than other designs.

Actually both my Patent Etui's are quite robust, despite being over 80 years old :D Si I think they'll last quite a few more years of use. However the fact that they are about half the weight of many other German 9x12 cameras makes them harder to hand-hold steadily. I prefer my Crown Graphic hand held the extra size & mass makes a big difference, the 9x12's are just for fun.

Steven's mentioned Glunz, Goerz 9x12 cameras, but there were about 30 manufacturers, often parts are common, some companies were very short-lived but most quite solidly made, I have an Orion Werks & a Rodenstock both very well made,

It's really the lens & shutter combination you need to pay attention to, get a lens you want to try, lesser known triplets, in Vario and other 3 speed shutters aren't really worth it, the most reliable are those with Compur shutters, the Ibsor isn't as good, but can be OK, it's self-cocking and very heavy on cable releases, it's the forerunner of the Prontor Press.

Ian

Steven Tribe
12-Mar-2010, 11:18
I agree with everything Ian says, The Vario shutter is a warning sign of a cheaper, not so well made camera, - usually on plate cameras without an extension. Apart from Compur dial, Ibso (looks like a compound) many makers had their own branded shutter.
Pre 1926, other good names were ICA and Ihagee (IHG) for plate cameras (6x9,9x12, 10x15 and 13x18cm).

There are a lot more back systems than I illustrated before. In 1925 there were as many as 9 types. The big clearout of makers came with the Zeiss-Ikon formation and the massive German Depression. The photo shows the styles and the various main makers.

ARCHIVIST
12-Mar-2010, 16:44
Thank you Ian.

rfesk
12-Mar-2010, 17:43
You guys all have good points. Here in the US I have purchased maybe 25 holders to get about 10 that work well. I also find them slow to load and prone to loading mistakes on my part.

Also, I want to use a fast film and that is in my case T-max 400 rated at 800 ISO. To obtain that it has to be cut down from 4X5.

I wanted the AVUS to use for traveling - weight, size and the speed of set up are all important.

I have traveled with my Avus tucked in a Domke 803 satchel. The Avus' lens was replaced by a late 90mm F/6.8 Angulon. On a tripod it did ok. I scale-focused everything on that trip.

I am now in the process of converting a VAG to take both the 90mm F/6.8 Angulon and a Fujinon 150 F/6.3. This has taken a lot of work on my part and the project is far from complete because I want the 90 to fold up in the VAG as it does with the AVUS.

However, there is another consideration: 5 single holders (Voigtlander) weigh about the same as one loaded 6-shot Grafmatic. The Grafmatic is faster to operate and is known to hold the film consistantly flat.

Consequently, I have considered significantly lightening a 4X5 press type camera of some type or building my own out of carbon fiber sheets and use it only when traveling.

There are always trade offs.

IanG
12-Mar-2010, 23:30
Bob, I've been thinking of a similar approach, I really like the size and flexibilty of the 9x12 cameras compared to the vast majority of 5x4 cameras.

So I've thought along similar lines, maybe using the front standard & trackbed from another camera and building my own body & back.

It's when you compare the Patent Etui to a Crown Graphic, (as in the photos I posted) and realise the film size is only marginally different,then you think how to make a 5x4 version. They originally had similar 135mm Tessars.

My original intention was to mount a modern lens on my 2nd lens-less patent Etui, but even the tiny modern 150mm f5.6 Xenar is too large for the camera to fold closed, I'm not sure how KW overcame the problem of the larger Compur 0 shutters.

I've looked at a number of options, first make a 5x4 back for one of my other 9x12's, there is (or was) a camera repair guy who made conversion backs for Recomars, this would be the easiest & cheapest option.

2nd would be go down the Razzle, Byron, Littleman route, converting a Polaroid, the Byron accepts interchangeable lenses.

The third is to build a new camera, which makes you weigh up the Pros & Cons of your existing cameras and consider what features you actually want and need.

At this point we share common ground, I need to be able to use a 150mm (possibly 135mm) and a 90mm I have a good 90mm f6.8 Angulon, I don't need double extension, focus to 3-4 ft is ample, more movements than most 9x12 cameras (of the type we are discussing). Compact for travelling, and easy to use hand-held.

The fly in the ointment would be to try and kill two birds with one stone and add be able to shoot 6x17, eliminating my carrying two different cameras.

Ian

Bernard Kaye
13-Mar-2010, 18:05
Ian's second black camera, with the Etui, looks like an ICA/Zeiss Ikon "IDEAL" which has a swing back and if you can find Ideal 9 x 12 holders that pop on-pop off and load differently, you have a robust outfit that takes up to 150mm. lenses in Compur shutters. Avoid Ideals with smaller lens board holes that will not accept the larger 150mm. lenses. The lense-shutters are interchangeable but only shutters with the male bayonet lugs or male bayonet tabs will fit the female lugs on lensboard. It is difficult to put it all together but you seem to welcome challenge and there were good reasons serious photographers used more expensive Ideals in the 20s, 30s & 40s and before and after.
Bernie

IanG
14-Mar-2010, 01:02
Wrong guess Bernie :D

The second 9x12 in the photo is in fact my Rodenstock with a Trinar lens in an Ibsor shutter., but many of these camera's look very similar.

Voigtländer & Ihagee also made interchangeable lens 9x12 cameras, and there were others like the rare ISE Edelweiss 9x12.

Ian

Bernard Kaye
14-Mar-2010, 19:51
Shucks!
Bernie

Bill_1856
14-Mar-2010, 21:44
These were great field/press cameras when film packs were available for them. Unfortunately, by the time you add a dozen cut film holders the weight and bulk have been increased so much that you might as well carry a Crown Graphic or Busch Pressman and a couple of Grafmatics.

IanG
14-Mar-2010, 22:53
The other option is use a Rollex 120 back, I have 2. You're right about the weight of the plate/film holders.

Ian

Steven Tribe
15-Mar-2010, 03:50
I have just checked the weight of 9x12 vs. 4x5 film holders as I was not convinced there was much difference!

1 4x5 standard double sided modern plastic riteway weighs 187g.
1 9x12 double-sided film holder for zeiss-ikon. Made for sheet film but with removeable film sheaves is 210g.

So the 9x12 weighs just over 11% more than the 4x5 system.
However the saving in volume is more than 25%.

And now back to something completely different although touched on earlier! I, too coveted the idea of the bayonnet types. I realised that getting extra objectives, already fitted with the bayonnet flange, was going to be a difficult and expensive at this distance in time. I also realised that the whole design of the bayonnet system was based on the lens board opening which matched the currently available mass produced objectives. I don't know what the limiting diameter is with the Bergheil and other systems is so perhaps someone could enlighten me?
I also realised that the fixed standard on 9x12 got bigger and bigger as F4.5 and f3.5 lenses were taken into use. I have one (no name - but probably Glunz) where the distance between the outer rails is 75mm and the hole in the lens board is over 50mm. But how to mount different objectives? The method of glueing the bellows to the back of the front standard really excludes lots of methods and the idea of loosening locking rings through the back onto an even glued bellows did not seem possible. The solution is to mount objectives on a circular (or an approximation to a circle) lens board - mine would be 80mm in diameter - with a couple of "hooks" over the top part and a fixing screw underneath. I enclose a few photos to show what I mean. The two top "hooks" at A limit the twisting movement and a locking screw at around B completes the mounting. A black felt covering on the original standard would ensure light exclusion. The size of shutter is a limiting factor. It is possible to get at the adjustments of large shutters but access to the locking screw at B becomes difficult without a special tool.

rfesk
15-Mar-2010, 04:04
The lensboard idea is pretty close to what I am doing with my project camera - Voigtlander VAG converted to take interchangeable lenses - a 90/6.8 Angulon and a 150/6.3 Fujinon. My circular lensboard is smaller however. Not much larger than a Copal 0 shutter.

On the filmholders, I have never seen a Zeiss-Ikon double-sided sheet filmholder. My future project was to attempt to make double sided holders from aluminum and plastic - the problem with the single-sided Voigtlander holders is they are made of steel.

BTW, wooden holders weigh less than the Riteway plastic ones mentioned. Kinematic holders weigh almost the same as Grafmatics and hold 10 sheets instead of 6- they are not so troublefree to operate and are rare.



I have just checked the weight of 9x12 vs. 4x5 film holders as I was not convinced there was much difference!

1 4x5 standard double sided modern plastic riteway weighs 187g.
1 9x12 double-sided film holder for zeiss-ikon. Made for sheet film but with removeable film sheaves is 210g.

So the 9x12 weighs just over 11% more than the 4x5 system.
However the saving in volume is more than 25%.

And now back to something completely different although touched on earlier! I, too coveted the idea of the bayonnet types. I realised that getting extra objectives, already fitted with the bayonnet flange, was going to be a difficult and expensive at this distance in time. I also realised that the whole design of the bayonnet system was based on the lens board opening which matched the currently available mass produced objectives. I don't know what the limiting diameter is with the Bergheil and other systems is so perhaps someone could enlighten me?
I also realised that the fixed standard on 9x12 got bigger and bigger as F4.5 and f3.5 lenses were taken into use. I have one (no name - but probably Glunz) where the distance between the outer rails is 75mm and the hole in the lens board is over 50mm. But how to mount different objectives? The method of glueing the bellows to the back of the front standard really excludes lots of methods and the idea of loosening locking rings through the back onto an even glued bellows did not seem possible. The solution is to mount objectives on a circular (or an approximation to a circle) lens board - mine would be 80mm in diameter - with a couple of "hooks" over the top part and a fixing screw underneath. I enclose a few photos to show what I mean. The two top "hooks" at A limit the twisting movement and a locking screw at around B completes the mounting. A black felt covering on the original standard would ensure light exclusion. The size of shutter is a limiting factor. It is possible to get at the adjustments of large shutters but access to the locking screw at B becomes difficult without a special tool.

Frank R
15-Mar-2010, 04:26
I have wanted to build a 4x5 Patent Etui for years. Match it with a Grafmatic and it would be very compact and a bit lighter.

Steven Tribe
15-Mar-2010, 06:11
Here are some of the double 9x12 film holders I have. The one that fits the Zeiss-Ikon (top) is by our friend in LA, Suydam and is actually a combined adaptor for 1/4 plate!
The second is the double edge type (ernemann, ICA). This one has "home crafted" film sheaves. This has the name of yet another camera maker ERRTEE! Instead of a locking system it has brass tabs which jump up saying "EXP" when the dark slide is withdrawn!

I have removed the top dark slides and taken the film sheaves out.

IanG
15-Mar-2010, 07:10
I have wanted to build a 4x5 Patent Etui for years. Match it with a Grafmatic and it would be very compact and a bit lighter.

Join the club :D

Ian

Nathan Smith
15-Mar-2010, 08:54
I have an old and very abused 10x13 Avus (if I'm not misremembering the size, it has a 16.5cm lens). I've been planning for ages to make a 4x5 back on it. Same idea, with a Grafmatic or 2, it would make a compact set up.

Has anyone seen that done?

Nathan

Steven Tribe
15-Mar-2010, 09:18
10x15cm! Now this would be a lot easier. But there is only about 1 10x15 folder around for every 15 or so 9x12's. There are square bellows and square back 9x12 folders around too - but they are not common.

IanG
15-Mar-2010, 11:15
Steven, judging by the adverts for new cameras in the BJP Almanacs I have from the 1920's & 30's I'd guess the ratio is even more heavily in favour of 9x12. Every company made 9x12's but few made 12x15's.


I have an old and very abused 10x13 Avus (if I'm not misremembering the size, it has a 16.5cm lens). I've been planning for ages to make a 4x5 back on it. Same idea, with a Grafmatic or 2, it would make a compact set up.

Has anyone seen that done?

Nathan

I've seen a photo of a 9x12 to 5x4 conversion, but it would be far easier to convert a 12x15.

Ian

Steven Tribe
15-Mar-2010, 12:10
No companies made 12x15cm (unless this is the 1/2 plate variation for the UK market, which is more like 12x16.5)!! 10x15 was the intermediate size between 9x12 and 13x18 folders.

To my surprise I have discovered a whole range of other plate sizes:

8x14, 8x10.5, 9x14.

I think these sizes correspond to width of roll films then available as well as approximations to plate sizes even though they were for sheet film.

Steven Tribe
15-Mar-2010, 13:33
For own interest, I have just checked the number of 9x12 and 10x15 german folders on that site. There are 7 10x15cm folders - including a Ernemann tropical, two bergheils and two alpins! I stopped counting the 9x12's but there over a hundred. The run of the mill 9x12 are certainly a lot more expensive compared with a couple of years ago when I last looked.

Nathan Smith
15-Mar-2010, 14:08
10x15cm! Now this would be a lot easier. But there is only about 1 10x15 folder around for every 15 or so 9x12's. There are square bellows and square back 9x12 folders around too - but they are not common.

Yep, sorry, 10x15 is correct. That translates to 3.9" x 5.9", so conversion to 4x5 would seem to be doable. I expected to have to essentially make the "base" part of the back and then reuse the ground glass & spring portion from another camera. Someday I'll find the time to work on that. Maybe.

As someone indicated earlier, that would allow you to use a grafmatic and avoid carrying a load of standard 4x5 holders - and increase the availability of the film.

Still, it would be fun to play with one of those 9x12's :)

Nathan

Sevo
15-Mar-2010, 14:15
No companies made 12x15cm (unless this is the 1/2 plate variation for the UK market, which is more like 12x16.5)!! 10x15 was the intermediate size between 9x12 and 13x18 folders.

To my surprise I have discovered a whole range of other plate sizes:

8x14, 8x10.5, 9x14.

I think these sizes correspond to width of roll films then available as well as approximations to plate sizes even though they were for sheet film.

10x15 is German "postcard" size (approximately DIN A6) - a popular print format then and now. It was the more prestigious format, and not rare on higher end or professional cameras, but it was not represented at all in camera types that were marketed in high numbers, hence the low total numbers.

There is a longitudinal series descended from full plate, 8x14cm is a "Drittelplatte", one third plate.

Sevo

renes
16-Mar-2010, 16:10
I second to buy Bergheil over Avus. The main issue is to find someone who will make a bayonet flanges to use other lenses. I found an old man who makes them for me, so I could adapted a few lenses to my Bergheil 9x12: Angulon 90/6.8, Heliar 120/4.5 (it covers 9x12 holder with f/16), and extra rapid aplanat 200/4.5. My Heliar 150/4.5 had already flange, but this one is different than others and I doubt it can be copied. The last lens I want to buy and adapt to it is Tele-Dynar 290/6.3. I am now more focused on assembling and completing lenses to its little brother - Bergheil 6x9. Had already adapted Angulon 65/6.8, Heliar 83/4.5, Heliar 105/4.5, Heliar 135/4.5 and Tele-Dynar 200/6.3. Want to finsh it with soft 165mm and Tele-Dynar 255/6.3 :)

9x12 holders are quite heavy, I gathered twelve with inserts. I just ordered pack of 9x12 HP5+ and soon will make first shot with bigger Bergheil brother :) Carrying Bergheli 6x9 with all these small beautiful lenses and 2 Rada roll back are much more comfortable.

walter23
16-Mar-2010, 16:21
Yeesh. I've got an Avus and a couple of Bergheils. I've watched these before but didn't realize how slim they were. I'm intrigued, hopefully I never run into one for sale or I'll be out another $150 for something I'll rarely use ;)

I love this format and these cameras are a lot of fun to use.

You can still buy film for them too - Efke makes PL100 in 9x12, at least, and you can get it from freestyle.



Get a Patent Etui, smallest, lightest 9x12 camera ever made, Here's mine alongside it's US competitor. when you realise the actual format is only a fraction smaller that's a huge difference

Ian

renes
16-Mar-2010, 16:45
FOMAPAN 100
ILFORD FP4
ILFORD HP5+
ILFORD DELTA 100
ADOX
Wephota NP15 (25)
Wephota NP22 (125)

Bill_1856
16-Mar-2010, 17:21
They're more fun to fondle than to use.

Thierry Schreiner
16-Mar-2010, 17:35
Just in case,

More than useful.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=502010

Best regards