Aerial Camera info

[Tadge Dryja]

Hi everyone

I've searched on google a little bit, but there doesn't seem to be much info out there, so I figured I'd ask this site. I'm interested in aerial cameras -- not to put in a plane and shoot verticals or obliques or anything though. I guess what prompted this was that I saw the Avedon documentary yesterday, and it made me think, "Ok, I need to be shooting way more film."

I don't want to get into a debate over quality / quantity, that kind of thing. I just want to experiment with a different shooting style. Having the speed and capacity of a medium format or 35mm system, with the scale of a LF system seems like a pretty great thing to me. I know some people like LF because it slows them down, makes them think, gives you movements and more control and so forth, which I think is totally valid, but, honestly, if I could get the same caliber prints out of my canon eos, I probably would never use my horseman.

So, are there any sites with lots of info about aerial cameras? There are 5" and 9" rolls, and different sized cameras for them I guess. I have an old roller transport processor I could try to push aerial film through perhaps.

If you look on ebay now, there are a couple aerial cameras for what seems like very little money. The "k-20"s look interesting, but I can't even figure out the most basic things about them, like... how does one focus? Is there a focal plane or leaf shutter? Can you change lenses? What's the equivalent of the maximum bellows draw? Etc, etc.

Also the lenses that I've been able to find very limited information on look ... just wacky. There's the infmous radioactive aero-ektar of course, then there's this "metrogon" that has some high speed rotary mechanical center filter..!? Ok...

Hopefull someone out there has tried something crazy like this and will know more. And maybe try to dissuade me from this madness. But cmon, doesn't it sound like fun to shoot photos with some 40 pound military surplus monstrosity? And to those of you who, like me, started out in the smaller formats... remember motor drive? You never miss that? :)

Thanks a bunch everyone

-Tadge

[jantman]

I don't know a whole lot about aerial cameras. However, all of the ones i've heard of, the focus is fixed at infinity. That's all that aerial work demands, and it makes it easier not to have to focus. I believe that the lenses are monuted in a way such that the camera uses minimal compensatino for variation in focal length.

Also, though I'm sure a different thing exists, the ones that I've seen have a viewfinder and no groundglass. So you don't really see what you get.

If you want something that's faster to use, how about getting just the back from one of those aerial cameras, putting it on a sliding frame with a GG (on a regular view camera), and getting a press shutter? Now you have the equivalent of a manual SLR (just with a slower "R").

Or, you could get something like a Graphic (B or RB, is it, the reflex?) or even better a TLR like the ones made by Gowland, and I think someone else (is it Wisner?) makes a new one, the Freedom 45, I think. I haven't looked into them in detail. If speed was such a problem, any of those could be adapted to take a motorized aerial film back. Heck, if you really want to, go out and get electronically-controlled shutters put on your lenses, bolt a Spotmeter F to the camera, use a Palm Pilot, and you have a fancy 4x5" auto-exposure SLR. A lazer or ultrasonic device could add autofocus.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi

I worked for a air picture company in Switzerland for 3 years. I had in my company car two Linhofs Aerotronicas 6x9cm for 30m long 70mm old cinema film format, but special aero films from Kodak. I could put 320 pictures on one roll of film. Lenses from 75 mm up to 450mm and I had to focus them by hand but the shortests distance was 50 meters so not very usefull for a head portrait! The 450mm lens was from Meyer Berlin optimized for infinity but worked good down to 50m! I got the power not from batteries got it from the helicopter via an adapter! Shutter speed was shortest at 1/1500 second wich is very fast for MF! But I would not see a use for the Aerotronica in an other field, otherwise I would own one!

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Tadge, not the best of ideas.

If you want to play with a motorized 70 mm camera that's pretty useless for most purposes, it seems that Agiflites are still being sold off as surplus. Enterprising individuals are trying to sell them and, especially, their Zeiss lenses on eBay. They take power and information from the aircraft, can also run off internal batteries, have forward motion compensation when talking to the aircraft, and their lenses are fixed focus at infinity. Strictly point and shoot. I've extracted a couple of 12"/4 Taylor Hobson telephotos made for early Agiflites from their Agiflite mounts. Its clear that a fixture is needed to collimate a lens to a camera. Given the fixture, I suppose a lens could be focused on a nearer subject, but not on the run. I've held an Agiflite, never laid hands on a Vinten F95, but they're much the same.

I've dismantled a number of AGI F135 cameras. This one looks a like stereo camera, isn't, holds a pair of 38/4.5 Biogons in AGI solenoid shutters. Fixed focus, NO practical way to adjust it, needs power etc. to fire the shutters, operate the autoexposure device, and advance the 5" film. Big heavy camera, not made to be hand held, not what any sensible person wants. And there don't seem to be any more.

I'm acquainted with a few sources of info on aerial cameras and lenses made for them. Try The Lens Collector' Vade Mecum, which says a little about British aerial cameras and their lenses, also a little about WWII-vintage US ones. Try R. Conyers Nesbit's book Eyes of the RAF which says a bit more about the cameras and very little about their lenses; the softcover version isn't too expensive. Also do a search for the RAF Boy Entrant Photographers' Association (RAFBEPA), whose site has a discussion of some of the cameras etc.; you want the "tools of trade" tab.

If you want a nice wide angle aerial camera that might even be made to work but that will cost you a pot of money, e-mail me and I'll be happy to direct you to the vendor. He points out that the cameras will work pointing straight up and are therefore well suited for use as anchors.

Basically, these things are snares for the unwary. So are most of the lenses made for them. If you have a thing for, um, tarbabies, go to it. I can't tell from your name whether you were raised in the US. If you weren't, the keywords for finding out about tarbabies are "uncle remus" and "brer rabbit." IIRC, the author was Joel Chandler Harris.

Cheers,

Dan

[John Kasaian]

Tadge,

C'mon lad, K-20s are soooo whimpy! What you need is a K-17 wieghing in at 50# fully dressed(with a loaded magazine.) 9-1/2"x 9-1/2" negatives. Focused at infinity. They are out there, and they are affordable(no one else seems to want them) Unless you've got a local aerial outfit that will process your film you'll want an aerial processor. Morse show up on ebay, mines a Houston-Fearless which looks just like a Morse. I don't know if an Old Delft will take 9-1/2" film, but they're out there. Just be patient. Dated Film is available from Ed (Mr. Photo)quite reasonably. Kodak won't sell it to you unless you buy something like 80 grand worth at a time. The only downside(besides wieght and bulk) of the K-17 is, if you don't want to use it in manual mode, you'll need a power supply. An original one would be a bit pricey and hard to come by as not many WW2 vintage bombers are still around and you may have to wait awhile before one shows up on ebay;-)

The thought of being in a studio with a K-17, surrounded by knock 'em dead Avedon-esque glamor models would be a little like being Robert Palmer in the "Addicted To Love" video.

Thanks for the fantasy.

[John Kasaian]

OK, I'm back.

Check out http://pws.prserv.net/varney/20cms/cameras.htm

My personal rule for determining the cost of an aerial camera is that if the price of the camera exceeds the cost of shipping, you're paying too much for the aerial camera.

[Tadge Dryja]

Ahhhhh, infinity focus.

Yeah, that does sound like a problem. Hmm... I was hopeing they were some kind of rangefinder coupled thing. Maybe not. It's just that this picture (http://www.combatcamera.org/gallery/glasco.htm) makes it look so easy!

Though I suppose, if it were easy, everyone would be shooting with them. Well, OK, now I understand some of the difficulties involved. I'll probably still keep scheming though. Maybe if you had some kind of negative diopter lens set to put in front, you could alter the focus that way... hmmm...

Ok I'll keep my eyes peeled for any K-17s or K-20s... if I end up picking up one for cheap I'll let everyone know how it works out.

-Tadge
http://tadge.net/

[Richard Boulware]

I hope you really know what you are investigating. Military areial cameras are VERY heavy, but for the most part they are incredibly sharp at infinity.

The most common of the oblique aerial cameras is the F-56....heavy as hell.

After flying nearly 3000 hours in the right seat of a Navy recon jet, (A3D)or shooting obliques, I can give you the 'straight skinny'! Contact me off line at boulware-den@att.net. P.S. One of the most precision camera systems I ever saw and used was the Basch & Lomb Tri-Metrigon system, which used three matched precision cameras, that photographed verticals, but horizon to horizon. This was the system that we used for most of our intelligence mapping. Be well. Richard Boulware - Denver.

[John_4185]

As you have alreadylearned, aerial cameras are focused upon infinity and the LF aerials are largely older cameras with less-than sterling optics, but a major issue is the roll film; you would likely convert to 8x10 film holders.

That said, if you would like to experiment regardless, I'd suggest moving the lenses to a 4x5 or 8x10 camera and use conventional film rather than the almost certainly expired military roll film. Note that the lenses are large so a 5.5" lens board is usually a requisite.

There are a couple very fine lenses for 4x5 if you can find them in excellent condition. Check out the biogons, in particular the Pacific Optical 3" F4.5. I do not know where you can find one in _good_ condition, however. The supply has apparently run out. Beware of a source in Georgia or Louisiana (can clarify later), for his are in pretty bad shape, and if the surface defect is on the rear lens, you are screwed because the rear lens focuses upon infinity just 1" from the film.

[Bülent Yilmazer]

Hi everyone,

Recently I acquired a K-20 Aircraft Camera. It looks to be in pretty good shape. However, the shutter release trigger does not operate. Is there something like a maintenance manual or spare parts book available for this aerial camera. As soon as I get the mechanism working, I'll probaly come up with more questions (what film to use, where to buy film, where to process the film, etc.) to keep you occupied.

Thanks in advance and best wishes to all.

Bülent

Ankara-Turkey

[ian carruthers]

hi there, ive just got a vinten type 95 aircraft camera and am going to endeavour to get this working, you were asking what type of shutter they would have, i would describe it as a curtain type , it has a slit in the curtain which is powered by roller drive so can move very quickly, apparently giving either 4-8 frames a second it also has a controller for single frame use, this one has its own fitted trunk with a 4" and 12" lens board and focussing viewfinder, hope this is of some help regards ian carruthers

[Dan Fromm]

Ian, which 4" lens does your F95 have?

Cheers,

Dan

[wfwhitaker]

Infinity focus is perfect. Infinity is about as close as I'll ever get to "knock 'em dead Avedon-esque glamor models."

[John Kasaian]

Wow! A blast from the past! I just won aerial camera #5 on eBay and have been futzing around with all sorts of bits and pieces, a sprained back and a hernia operation(Richard Boulware is right on about 'em being "heavy as hell") and this resurrected post got me thinking. You could possibly get a K-17 body (or any aerial camera designed for a seperate lens cone)and magazine without(or maybe with and just remove it)the lens cone. Then fabricate your own or modify the original for your own "infinity" say 15'---25' like they used to do with Speed Graphics, and use the optical window "finder" like a sportsfinder. It would still be heavy but it would be an interesting challenge to say the least!

Cheers!

[Dan Fromm]

Which did you get, John? A fairly nice and complete electric drive Williamson F-117 closed just the other day, haven't checked to see if it had made reserve.

And what are you going to do with the one you got, besides not drop it on your foot?

Cheers,

Dan

[John Kasaian]

Dan,

I won the Folmer Graflex K-10 that closed last week. It came with a stash of 7" film on spools:-) so I'm hoping it should compliment the Keystone F-8 nicely. The K-17 alas is murderous to manuever in a Cessna. The K-1 is mainly a source for parts. The Gowland is fine in helicopters but for fixed wing ops I get thin negatives---the f9 Nikkor is just to slow(but it is sharp as a tack!) My biggest issue is finding a pleasant way to slit 9-1/2" wide aerial film to 7" for the Keystone to digest. I've got some that Ed "Mr. Photo" had slit back when he knew of a lab that could do the work. I should probably see if he lined up another slitter. Wonderful (and inexpensive) film! Sure beats shelling out 80 grand to Kodak!

Cheers!

[Randy_5143]

Well, now that you all have those wonderful aerial cameras, and wondering about developing the film, if you can find it, here is the perfect solution. Especially if you are into "period processing". I recently acquired a "Filmentwicklungsgerat B" setup, ca WW II. Info is all in German, but states it is for 8cm roll film. Additional info and pictures can be seen here. If anyone is interested, contact me in e-mail and wait. I am real slow about replies.

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14247

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for the reply, John. Its good to know that people use 'em.

I'm interested in aerial cameras mainly because they're a source of relatively inexpensive good lenses. Not all of which, alas, are practical propositions for my cameras, but I can usually determine that without buying.