I AM SPARTUS!

The Spartus 35 and 35F  cameras were sold from 1947-1954, and were manufactured by Spartus and then the Herold Manufacturing Co. in Chicago.  Although they are basic 35mm cameras, there are several iterations under the name, some with more than 1 shutter speed. All have several apertures.  While they somewhat resemble an Argus A, they are nowhere near the precision of that camera.  Lenses are inconsistent in results, and the cheap construction, rough finish, and lack of accurate control make them definite candidates for the Low-Fi camera selection.  Produced in the post-war photography boom, the Spartus 35 sold for about $12.00 - $29.00 depending on the model and the year.  The latter version of the 35 has a more streamlined styling, but no real change in features.  

 Spartus 35 F and the Spartus 35 front views

Spartus 35 F and the Spartus 35 back views. Note the differences
between the two

interior of Spartus 35F

While researching the Spartus cameras, I believe I found an error in Glass, Brass, & Chrome by Lahue and Bailey (2002 reprint by Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 347 pp.).  The authors claimed that the Falcon cameras – cheaply built 127 snapshot cameras that resemble a 35mm camera, had one model that was 35mm.  I have looked in every catalog and on-line source, and there is no evidence of a 35mm Falcon.  However, the interesting thing is that the Falcon models were originally made by the Utility Mfg. Co. in New York, until 1941, when the Spartus Corp. bought the company and moved its operations to Chicago.  This is where things get a little fuzzy, as Spartus then became the company name, producing a dizzying array of cheap 127, 120 and 620 cameras under various names, as well as clocks and razors.  In 1951, Harold Rubin bought the company, and renamed it Herold Mfg. Co., still at the same address on Lake Street in Chicago. So, in the end, it is certainly possible that some part of the Falcon 127 body molds may have been modified to make the Spartus 35, but there was no Falcon 35mm.  Also noteworthy – on the face of my Spartus 35 it reads NOT INC. under HEROLD MFG. CO., meaning that it wasn’t incorporated.  The Spartus 35 was the only 35mm camera produced by the Spartus and Herold companies.

I picked up a Spartus 35F on eBay just a little over a week ago, and paid $15 plus shipping.  I was amazed that the leather case with it looked practically new.  That’s a lot of years  - close to 70, without much use. I had to add a bit of oil to gt the shutter to function as it should, and as there are only two shutter settings – Time and Instant, not much to worry about.  There are four aperture settings – f/6.3, 8, 11, and 16.  The body is Bakelite, with aluminum and brass parts. The back opens by releasing a spring catch on the left side. The film loads on the right side, with the takeup spool on the left.  An aluminum button on the back is pushed in every time you wish to advance the film, which releases a cam that does one rotation as the film advances. You must manually reset the frame counter to 0 before loading the film.  

There are a few differences, other than the styling between the black plastic Spartus 35 and the last iteration – Spartus “35” with a gray plastic top deck and brown body.  The last version has the film cassette on the left side, and the takeup spool on the right.  The flash contacts are moved to the right side, and the frame counter to the left.  A push button on the right side opens the back, which is fully removable, and the button to allow the film to advance is on the lower right side of the back.  The tripod socket has moved to the center, rather than the left as part of the takeup spool assembly. Also, instead of using actual f/stop numbers on the front rotating selector, it has dull, cloudy, hazy, and bright. 

Overall, a fairly simple camera to operate. While the lens rotates to focus from 4 feet to infinity, it’s pretty much guesswork. Since I was shooting mostly at f/11, with a roll of Ilford Pan-F, most subjects were over 50 feet away.  Closer shots ranged from 10 feet to 40 feet, so really, at f/11 or f/16, I don’t think the focus is as critical.  The viewfinder is just an approximation of what will be in the frame.  

I took the Spartus “35 F” on a walk through the River Arts District in Asheville, which is my usual place to shoot and test new cameras.  It was a hazy sunny day, so f/11 it was, and I shot the roll of Pan-F pretty quickly as I walked through the area.   I developed the film in Rodinal 1:25 for 6 minutes, and when the film was hung to dry, I was amazed at the quality of the images.  My work on the shutter had paid off, as every frame was exposed pretty well.  I purposefully did one multi-exposure frame as 3 shots at f/16, and not too bad.  The frame spacing is pretty tight, and the actual frame size is 24x37.5 mm.  There was a small crescent shadow in the lower right corner of the frame (actually upper left in the camera), which turned out to be from a wire connecting the flash contacts to the shutter.  I pushed it upward away from the film gate, so future shots should be fine.  

Here are a few images from the 36 exposure roll of Pan-F. 

triple-exposure

I am pretty impressed with the quality of the photos, and a low-speed ISO film such as Ilford Pan-F is perfect for this camera.

If you want to read more about the Utility/Spartus/Herold history, here are some links to follow:

• Mike Eckman’s great article 
• Made In Chicago 
• Camera-Wiki 

One Year

It's been a year since we moved to Weaverville, NC from Ann Arbor, MI.  We feel very comfortable here, and are very happy in our new home. If you had  asked me three years ago, where I might be living in 2020, I don't think that NC would have been on my radar at the time.  Life is funny, in how things can quickly change in ways that one does not foresee.  But, at the age of 62, one does not often make big changes, and moving here was certainly a big change.  To be honest, I was getting in a rut in Ann Arbor, and while I did like our old home, the neighborhood, and my friends, nothing much had changed, except that I was retired.  The ugly politics at work hastened my retirement, and I had no reason for emotional ties to the place I worked for almost 37 years.    It was time to reinvent myself, and in a way, I did.  I'm no longer a retired entomologist. I'm a retired man that is passionate about photography, loves living in the mountains, and having a relatively stress-free life. 

Vance Birthplace, State Historic Site. Nikon F2S, FPP Infrapan.

I have fallen in love with Western North Carolina - the mountains, the rivers and creeks, nature's abundance, and  the people here are genuinely welcoming and friendly.  I grew up at the NW edge of the Adirondacks in New York State, and love being in the mountains once again.  We are very close to the Blue Ridge Parkway, and getting into the higher elevations is a really quick trip.  There are so many streams and waterfalls that are within 30 miles, it seems almost too good to be true to be living here.   We had plans for some trips to the coast, but then COVID-19 happened, and of course, those were put aside for the time being.  Despite that, I have been doing a lot of day trips in the area, and it's helped familiarize me with the best routes and natural features. 

View from Mt. Mitchell.  Nikon FM3a, Rollei Retro 80s

I still have not gotten my darkroom put in, and the new space will be smaller than my old one, but will be adequate for what I do.  For now, the downstairs bathroom is where I develop film, and it's worked out pretty well.  Unfortunately, with the current situation, there have been no photography meetups or gatherings.  I'd really like to do a Western NC film-shooters' meetup, but that will have to wait.

Biltmore Estate, Tasma Mikrat 200, Nikon FM2N

One other thing that is new for me is that I am trying to learn to paint with Acrylics.  The landscapes here are inspiring, and maybe I will find my style and see where I go with it.  It's definitely a challenge.

Walker falls, Nikon FM3a, Ilford Pan-F

Of course, if you have been following this blog, then you already know the things that I  have been doing over the past 12 months.  I am currently testing a bunch of other films, and hope to have some reviews ready  in August.

Stay healthy, my friends.

The Wirgin Edinex - so many Wirgins!

Germany produced many different camera manufacturers and it's just amazing that so many interesting cameras were designed and manufactured there before and after WWII.   Apart from popular names like Leitz and Zeiss, there were many manufacturers that produced quite good photographic equipment.  Many of the companies started in the 1920s, and had mixed success after the end of WWII.  With the creation of East and West Germany,  things became even more complicated with naming and branding. With VEB Pentacon in Dresden and Zeiss moving to Stuttgart, there became two major productions of Zeiss-named cameras.  However, the Zeiss in Jena became Pentacon to avoid trademark infringements in the West.  Zeiss Ikon became the West German manufacturer.  On top of all that Zeiss Ikon incorporated a bunch of other companies in the late 1920s, such as Ernemann, Goerz and Ica.  It's a confusing mess without some sort of guide.  However, it bears repeating that if you want to delve into collecting German cameras, restricting yourself to Leitz is pretty boring, if not expensive.

Wirgin Edinex (0)

Some German companies, such as Agfa, produced films as well as cameras.  Some, such as Voigtlander go back to the early days of photography (i.e., the Petzval lens was designed in 1840), and the names have outlived the German factories that made the photographic equipment.  The myriad of cameras that were produced in Germany in the 20th century is astounding, and if you look through a tome such as McKeown's Cameras (at over 1200 pages), you could spend a long time just looking at German-made cameras.  You'll see Adox, Agfa, Balda, Beier, Bentzin, Bilora, Braun, Bulter, Certo, Contessa, Dacora, Diax, Eho-Altissa, Erka-Kamerewerk, Ernemann, Finneta-Werk, Foitzik, Foth, Foto-Quelle, Franka-Werk, Futura Kamerawerk, Genos, Gerlach, Glunz, Goerz, Goldammer, Huttig, ICA, Ihagee, Iloca, Kamera Werkstatten, Kenngott, Kochmann, Krauss, Krugener, Kunik, K.W., Leidolf, Leitz, Linhof, Lippische, Mentor, Merkel, Mimosa, Minox, Montanus, Nagel, Neithold, Nettel, Orionwerk, Pentacon, Plaubel, Porst, Regula, Rietschel, Robot, Rodenstock, Rollei, Ruberg & Renner, Steinheil, Voigtlander, Vredeborch, Welta, Wirgin, Wunsche, Zeh, Zeiss,  and Zeiss-Ikon.  Some of them you have undoubtedly heard of, but others are  relatively obscure names outside of Europe.    The manufacturers Balda, Ihagee, Pentacon, Voigtlander, Welta, Wirgin, and Zeiss-Ikon produced a dizzying array of different cameras.
 
Wirgin began in Wiesbaden, Germany  in the 1920s and started producing cameras in the 1930s.  To escape the Nazi persecution of Jews, the Wirgin brothers fled Germany to the US  around 1938.  The factory was largely destroyed during the war, and camera production restarted in 1948, after Henry Wirgin returned to Germany and restarted the company.  The company went bankrupt in 1968.  Wirgin made about 150 different camera models, with a confusing number of similarly-named 35mm rangefinders and SLRs.  The company also made 16 mm subminiature cameras, 120 folding cameras, plate cameras, stereo cameras, as well as a number of zone-focus 35 mm cameras, such as the Edinex, which I am reviewing here. 

The Wirgin Edinex (0)

McKeown's lists the early basic Edinex models as type 0, as there are typically no distinguishing names on the models until the Edinex 1 was produced in 1951.  The Edinex cameras are surprisingly small due to the telescoping lens tube, rim-set leaf shutters, and compact metal body that opens from the bottom for film loading.   They lacked a built-in rangefinder until the Edinex III appeared.  There is a tubular post on the top deck of the camera that accepts an accessory rangefinder.   My Edinex probably dates from about 1948-1950, as it has a 5 cm Schneider Radionar f/2.9 lens set in a Compur-Rapid rim-set shutter with T, B, 1 - 1/500 sec.   Focus is made by turning the front lens cell, which focuses from 3.5 feet to infinity.  The viewfinder is tiny, and not ideal for anyone wearing glasses.

Using the camera

First, to load film in the camera, you rotate the release on the bottom plate, which comes all the way off. There is not much space between the pressure plate and the film transport, so you have to carefully load the film.  I had to tape the film leader into the metal removable -take-up spool and carefully guide it all into place.  To advance the film you must turn a small rotating disk to the left edge of the film winding knob. The arrow shows the proper direction, and once the film starts winding, release the small advance wheel, and the film will wind properly.  I found that the frame spacing is very generous, and varies from 4-6 mm vs. about 2 mm for typical 35 mm cameras.  The frame counter on the top is manually set. 

Since there is no rangefinder in the viewfinder, I just estimated the distance and set the focus on the lens.  I could have brought a rangefinder, but I didn't.  I used sunny-16 for my exposure guide.  To shoot, you must pull out the lens away from the body, and the two very obvious metal knobs on each side of the front assembly are grasped for this.  Pull it out until it stops and rotate just a bit clock-wise.  Cock the shutter by moving the cocking lever (upper arm) until it catches.  The shutter release is the lower arm on the edge of the front assembly.  There is also a cable-release port.    It really wasn't that hard to operate, and is certainly much better than using an Argus A camera.    The full range of shutter speeds makes the camera far more usable with modern films.    I loaded the camera with a roll of Ilford Pan-F, rated at ISO 50.   To rewind the film, turn the small rotating wheel in the direction indicated  (R, clockwise) and turn the rewind knob.  There is no double-exposure prevention, so yes, the camera could be used for multiple exposures.

negative sheet - note the wide frame spacing

I  developed the Pan-F, and I am actually quite pleased with the results.  Despite being a bit awkward to use, the camera's shutter was accurate, and my focus was never off.  I shot it at the Biltmore Estate, and I think this 70-year old camera performed as good as new.   Perhaps there really is something to be said for simplicity.  No doubt that this camera is compact, and while it isn't going to win the award for elegance, it handles pretty well.  To me, the biggest deal-breaker is the bottom loading and the cumbersome film advance sequence.    However, the camera obviously beats the US-made Argus A series which use a similar lens arrangement and focus scheme.   It's remarkably smaller and lighter  than the Kodak Retina-1, which is of similar vintage.  The lens and shutter assembly of my Edinex and a Retina -1 are very similar. The Retina-1 likewise lacks a rangefinder, but does also have an accessory shoe for one.  Note that the Retina-1 was built by Nagel Kamerwek, so is also a German camera. 

I think if you really want a rabbit hole to chase down, take a look at Wirgin Edixa SLR models.  So many different models, so many Wirgins!!

RESULTING IMAGES

Agfa Isola I Review

Last fall I picked up an Agfa Isola I at a thrift shop for a few bucks.  I suspect the price was low because the staff didn't know that to make the shutter fire, you have to telescope the lens away from the body.  It was in a brown leatherette case, and while I had hopes for a more advanced 120 camera, the Isola I was a new one for me, so I picked it up. 

Agfa manufactured these cameras from the 1956 into the early-60s, and produced three Isola models - Isola, Isola I, and Isola II.  If you are  looking for any particular one, get the Isola II, which I'll explain a bit later on.  The original Isola and Isola II have the same features, that is, B, 1/30, and 1/100 shutter speeds. 

All Agfa Isola models feature a telescoping lens tube, which when fully extended from the body, click in place to allow the shutter to function. That's important, and otherwise the camera will seem inoperable.  Also, the shutter has double-exposure prevention, as the film takeup knob needs to wind on a bit for the shutter to re-engage. There is a tiny red window by the shutter button to show that it has been fired.

The Isola I has two shutter settings - I and B - instant is ca. 1/35 sec, and B is obviously however long you want to hold it open.  The 1/35 speed is the Achilles heel of this camera.  Knowing this, I loaded a roll of Ilford Pan-F (nominal ISO 50) to try it out.  The sunny and cloudy aperture settings are ca. f/11 for sunny, and f/6.5 for cloudy, and a third setting provides a yellow filter which would be fine for b&w film on a sunny day using ISO 100 film.   If you wish to use any faster films, you will need to tape a neutral-density gel over the lens. 

I took the camera to Chelsea, MI to try it out, and shot a roll in an hour or so, testing out the distance scale and the aperture settings.  I finally got around to developing the film this week, and I have to say that overall, I am pleased with the results.

Using the camera is fairly simple, and like most roll-film cameras, there is a red window on the back to see what frame you are on. It takes 120 film, so no 620 fuggery is necessary.  There is a PC cord socket to enable the use of a flash, should you want to.  I did not try using one.

For me, the most limiting factor of the Isola I is the 1/35 sec shutter speed.  Even the most basic box cameras have a shutter speed closer to 1/60 sec.  Other than that, it's a pretty straightforward budget box-type camera that will provide results that would be expected from a camera in its class. 

You can get a manual for the Isola over at Butkus, of course. There is also a nice online presentation of using the Isola II over at UK Camera.  I recommend using low-ISO film for outdoor shooting, so Ilford Pan-F would be my first choice.  For indoors, you could use ISO 400 with a flash. Since the camera has a thread for using a cable release and a tripod socket, it certainly could be used for long-exposures, which I will have to try sometime.  Right now, I have a roll of 1992-expired color Ektar 25 loaded to see what I get from it.

Caffenol, the Universal Developer?

One of the interesting aspects of film photography is that it is a chemical process.  Therefore, there are myriads of combinations of developers and films that give us differing results. The process encourages experimentation, and while there are varying opinions on what constitutes the ideal developer, ideal film, and so on, the results are a reflection of a photographer's eye and what he/she considers acceptable results.  In addition to that circle, there are people that look for the unusual and one of those is to find the household "chemicals" that allow us to develop a roll of traditional black and white film.  This is one of those aspects of developing film that I find quite interesting.  One popular "household" developer is Caffenol, which contains a strong mix of dissolved instant coffee. The cheaper the brand, the better.  There are various formulations of Caffenol, and the typical mixture contains instant coffee, Vitamin-C, and Sodium Carbonate (washing soda).  There is a really great resource for those wanting to know more about it at caffenol.org.   I have made my own Caffenol concoctions with decent results, but it's been a few years since I have used it.  However, a few months ago I received a packet from the FPP store of the pre-mixed Caffenol sold by Labeauratoire.  If you just want to try using Caffenol, this is a good way to sample it without buying all of the components and mixing it yourself, and you can decide if it is worth going that route if you like the results. Note -- you can also use Caffenol to develop prints - and "tone" them at the same time, but I have not tried it myself.

Mixing is easy -- just follow the instructions on the packet, and allow it to cool to 20C before developing your film.  The contents of the packet makes enough developer to do 4 rolls of 35mm film.  The beauty of Caffenol, absent of any other advice, is that you typically develop for 15 minutes for any film. Pretty simple, right?  Of course, the smell of the concoction is not the greatest, and if you were expecting the aroma of a fresh cup of coffee, you'll be disappointed. You are not supposed to drink the stuff, anyway.

I developed 2 rolls of 35mm and 1 roll of 120 film before I dumped the Caffenol down the drain.  One of the rolls was Agfa Copex Rapid film - a high contrast film that is similar to Kodak technical Pan film.  I have heard that people have gotten good results with TechPan in caffenol, so I was curious as to how the roll would come out.  The other 35mm roll was expired IIlford Pan-F, and a 120 roll of Agfa APX 100.  Standard Kodak fixer was used, and the stop bath was just a water bath, which also washed away the dark Caffenol from the film.

Results -- very good. In fact, far better than I expected. All the negatives looked good, and the Agfa Copex was contrasty, as I would have expected.  However, the cool thing is that I developed the Agfa and the Ilford 35mm films together in the tank.  That would not have happened with other developers.

Some samples

expired Pan-F at ISO 32, Olympus OM-2

expired Pan-F at ISO 32, Olympus OM-2

expired Pan-F at ISO 32, Olympus OM-2

Agfa Copex,  Minolta X370

Agfa Copex,  Minolta X370

Agfa Copex,  Minolta X370

I think you can see that this developer gives you really nice tonality. low-grain, and it's as easy as can be to use.  While the pre-made packet is about the same price as a bag of D-76, it has low toxicity, and can be assembled on your own quite a bit cheaper in quantity.  It's a lot of fun to experiment with developers, and take a look at the Caffenol information online. There is a very enthused community of users out there.