Separate community discussion pagesEdit
- Camerapedia:Community Discussions/A New Home for Camerapedia
- Camerapedia Flickr group, external discussion of Flickr image contributors
- Google mailing list
Archive summary Edit
Here is the content of the archived discussions, briefly summarized, in the order in which it appears:
- A link to an image on Flickr must be within its Camerapedia area and requires an accompanying link to the Flickr page.
- Categories and templates both have their uses.
- It may be a good idea to have "a list with sources of camera reviews".
- See Camerapedia.org:Standards (cameras) for how to write a page about a camera, and use Template:Camera where useful.
- Eventually, each camera should get its own article. However, redirects can be used from the individual names to articles on more than one camera.
- The name of the maker of the camera should appear in the article title if the camera is usually so named (so "Pentax LX", not "LX"), but not otherwise (so "Pearl", not "Konishiroku Pearl").
- Articles may be provided to describe technical processes that are now primarily, or only, of historical interest (e.g. wet collodion")
- There's a list of templates.
- Templates may need more work.
- Camerapedia is not affiliated with Wikipedia and there is no plan to change this.
- See Help:Editing for help in editing.
- Although it would be convenient if one could search for the intersection of two or more categories (for example Category:Japan AND Category:6x6 AND Category:folding), Wikimedia software does not allow this. Thus we have for example Category:Japanese 6x6 folding.
- Although admin powers are needed for the best way to make complex alterations of redirects, non-admins can often achieve the same ends by rather messier means. If you are not an admin, have a good reason to do something like this and are willing to explain what you've done on the relevant talk pages, go ahead and do it without asking for an admin to help you.
- Good ways to find good pages are to look in Special:Longpages and to explore Camerapedia.org:List of templates.
- On one purpose of a favicon.
- Cameras and other products, even very old ones that are now unusable or unknown, are better described in the present tense. But what companies and people did to or with them in the past is better related in the past tense.
- Other than by footnotes, precise specification of which assertion came from which source is hard to do. We now have a footnote facility, however.
- Frame format is described as "[smaller] × [larger]", e.g. "24×36", "4.5×6".
- A sub-category for fix-focused cameras might be created as a sub-category of Category:Viewfinder.
- The word "classic" is not an objective way to classify cameras.
- There is a CSS class called "noprint" to prevent parts of a page from appearing in the printable version. Nobody knows how to use the global CSS stylesheets provided by Mediawiki.
- A Cleanup template may be applied to pages which need cleanup.
- It would be good to have the ParserFunctions Mediawiki extension.
- Affective words describing a particular feeling about a camera, such as "cute", are best avoided.
- The dimensions and weights must be given in metric units, and a conversion into feet, inches and ounces may be provided.
- There are cases where the nationality of a camera is difficult to define.
- The Category:Digital should be split in a number of sub-categories.
- An automatic index of companies might be created.
- How to remove a redirect.
- Various questions from a new contributor, drifting to a discussion about image hosting and copyrights.
- New version of the main page.
- Use of old advertising material which is still under copyright is not allowed.
- On edit conflicts, when two users are working on a page at the same time.
- Some disagreement about the posting of copyrighted advertising material.
- New main page applied.
- Camerapedia pages copied verbatim into Wikipedia, without source crediting, which is against the GFDL.
- Working on the copyrights page.
- Some plagiarism found and eradicated.
- Proposal to emphasize the good external links, and objections to this proposal.
- Proposal of French and other language versions.
- Copyrighted images found and eradicated.
- Link to another wiki.
- A set of templates is available to tag the published pictures with their respective licensing status. It can be found in the Category:Image rights.
- Visit from a Wikibook member.
- One contributor briefly leaves the project, then comes back.
- It is impolite to replace a good image by another equally good image without giving a reason and warning the contributor of the first image. It is discouraged to link an image from a site other than Flickr.
- Disagreement about the usefulness of the Category: Famous photographers.
- How to photograph cameras.
- How far beyond "camera" should this wiki go?
- How to classify the pages about film and emulsions.
- Visit from someone who confuses this page with a photo newsgroup.
- Manual confirmation of user creation is needed to avoid spam and destructive bots.
- Visit from someone who confuses this page with a photo newsgroup.
- Commercial links are prohibited, but links to private pages offering cameras for sale on a limited basis are tolerated. There is some disagreement about the links to auction houses such as Westlicht. The current practice is to allow the links to terminated auctions and to forbid the links to future auctions. Of course the links to the online auction sites such as eBay are forbidden.
- Visitor offering to contribute images.
- Questions from a beginning contributor.
- Minor question about the search engine.
- Visitor asking for information about very old lenses.
Image upload, rights water mark Edit
- We already have two templates to mark the license for uploded images. The drop-down list "license" at the bottom of the upload page offers the option "Own photo/I took this photo myself" and "other/This is copyrighted, but use is permitted by the copyright holder". The Template:Self or the Template:Permission will be generated without parameters into the page code of the file description page for the uploaded file, under the header "Licensing". After upload you can edit that section of that page to add parameters according to your preference concerning more exact rights description.U. Kulick 14:43, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
Flickr Group Edit
Display of old advertisements Edit
The image policy currently held at Camerapedia is to allow three types of images:
Publication of images under fair use is discouraged, and strict rules apply.
It is tempting to illustrate the articles with older advertisements. I'm fairly sure that the copyrights of an advertisement are held by the company which inserts it, not by the magazine publisher or by the advertisement's anonymous author. They fall in public domain after a fixed number of years following their publication:
- 50 years if published in Japan (per Japanese copyright law)
- 70 years if published in most European countries, plus a few more years for World War II in France and maybe some other countries
I don't fully understand the situation for advertisements published in US magazines: does the absence of the © sign mean that they are unprotected from the start?
Some good contributors recently added advertisements of the 1950s or 1960s, which are certainly still under copyright. I removed some of them but they keep coming. I understand that the copyright delay might seem too long for these documents. It seems obvious that Voigtländer or Zeiss ads of the 1960s can be published under fair use without harming anyone's rights, but a clear rule is needed to avoid people posting advertisements for the Nikon D300 and putting us into trouble.
In my opinion, we should distinguish between:
- the companies which merely disappeared, and whose rights are not traceable, for which fair use is allowed
- the companies which still exist or which were absorbed by another company, and whose rights are traceable, for which we need to contact the owner of the rights to ask permission.
It is absolutely necessary to keep concerted when contacting a company: a hastily written e-mail might induce a refusal. We can decide that when a company does not answer, it means that it does not care, and publish the images under fair use after that.
Another possible rule would be to trace our own "fair use" expiry date: for example any advertisement published more than 30 or 20 years ago is allowed, the more recent are not. I would like to hear the opinion of the others, so that we agree on a policy.
--Rebollo fr 09:13, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
- Hi Rebollo,
- You're right, the case of US magazine articles is a difficult one. Of course I'm not an expert, but from http://www.dml.indiana.edu/pdf/dml-copyright-duration-report.pdf, and from your earlier text on the subject, I understand that pre-1978 publications published without explicit copyright notice, could be considered public domain.
- In case it's not in the public domain, I guess using old ads could be considered fair use, since our site is non-commercial and we're doing some sort of research for which these ads are part of the sources.
- Good practice would demand to (1) allways mention the name of our source and to (2) retract the ad when, contrary to our expectations, a copyright holder presents himself. (3) limit ourselves to pre-1978 uncopyrighted ads.
- As I understand in ads published after 1978, copyright expires after 28 years or has to be renewed to be prolongated. Let's not go into shady territory and allow only pre-1978 ads that mention the source and have a clear relation to the text in the camerapedia article.
- --driesvandenelzen 11:34, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
- I absolutely agree with your approach., and I will make a set of clearer "public domain" pages.
- --Rebollo fr 07:30, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- American ads published until 1922 should be no problem, European ads maybe useable when published in Europe until 1926 because Spanish Copyright preserves rights for 80 years. U. Kulick 16:47, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
- The Spanish copyright laws should be a problem for Spanish documents only. Most European countries protect the anonymous works for 70 years. France adds a few more years for World War II, other countries might do the same. --Rebollo fr 03:06, 15 November 2007 (EST)
- American ads published until 1922 should be no problem, European ads maybe useable when published in Europe until 1926 because Spanish Copyright preserves rights for 80 years. U. Kulick 16:47, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
There is a set of "image rights" tag, used to tell the visitors the license status of the images published in the site. They are found in the Category:Image rights. I will manually add these tags to the pictures which are already present. I would like all the future image contributions to include these image tags from the start.
Moreover, I noticed a number of images licensed under Creative Commons but with no indication of their author. The Creative Commons license allows the reproduction of an image provided that the image is credited to its author. I am aware that the visitors can see the name of the author by clicking on the image and visiting its Flickr page, but I think that crediting the image directly in the page is better.
--Rebollo fr 12:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Polaroid Spectra System Edit
I have a camera that I do not see listed. How do I go about listing it? ... asks User:Irvdk
- First, check that it's really not here, by typing different possibilities in the search box. (Is it the "F300", "f300", "F 300", "F-300", etc.?) If you still can't find it, choose the name that seems most accurate, and decide whether or not to add the maker's name in accordance with practice here. ("F" makes little sense by itself, so "Nikon F"; "Autocord" does make sense, so "Autocord" rather than "Minolta Autocord".) You'll be told apologetically that there is no such article, and asked if you'd like to create one. Opt to create one. You'll get the hang of this by examining existing articles: If it's a Polaroid, then by examining other articles on other Polaroids. Once the article is done, you link to it from other articles (such as Polaroid itself) to taste. Happy editing! -- Hoary 19:13, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
Photobloggers using the blah blahEdit
Here's an entirely normal set of contributions by a new user. If this were Wikipedia, I'd be told to "assume good faith"; but it isn't, and I tend to think of simple self-promotion.
I do see a good reason to link to sites and pages of people who are actually using unusual cameras to good effect, doing something with cameras that seems remarkable to people other than themselves and their chums, or doing stuff that's otherwise truly noteworthy. Otherwise, I'd tend to scrap the lot. Am I merely a grouch? -- Hoary 06:20, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- I agree, I have been tempted to axe the "photobloggers etc." links for ages. Those links should be scrapped unless: (i) they contain info about the camera other than pictures taken with it, or (ii) the fact to have taken pictures with the camera is an achievement in itself. Condition (ii) does not concern regular post-1960 cameras which most people know how to use; pictures taken with a really weird or impractical camera, such as a big plate SLR or press camera, are allowed; we will decide for the in-between cameras on a case-by-case basis. --Rebollo fr 10:01, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- Indeed. I can see how people might see those sections as spam-like. Bottom line is that the sections should disappear if they don't add real value to the Camerapedia. I like Rebollo's suggestions, because they try to ensure that the links point out to valuable pages. Hoary's suggestion below talks about the notability of the photographers themselves, but I think it's possible for an "un-notable" photographer to still be a valuable resource. Whatever we decide on doing, I think we should document the guidelines so that new users will understand them clearly. --Lbstone 12:20, 3 December 2007 (EST)
- I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote. I'll make comments/changes on that page, if I eventually think that something doesn't quite make sense. Nicely done. --Lbstone 08:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)
I'll concede that some photobloggers whose photography is notable just from photoblogging and other website appearances (their own sites, Flickr, etc). But they're very few indeed. How about this set of criteria for notability? Of course we can allow links to the works of other photographers too if those photographers write informatively about the particular cameras from whose articles there are links. -- Hoary 20:44, 21 November 2007 (EST)
- I don't object to keep some photobloggers' links on notability criteria, and those at Wikipedia are perfect for that purpose. However the burden of demonstrating that the link passes these criteria should entirely lay on the contributor of the link, and none of us should spend his own time for that. --Rebollo fr 07:46, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Antique cameras (pre WWI)Edit
The timeline categories from 1839 to 1914 are already populated with more than 40 cameras. I hope that attracts experts for museum and antique cameras to write some further articles about historical cameras here. But there's only one entry of an early Japanese camera type: "Pearl (6×9 and larger)". We have to thank you for this entry, but after we also have to thank you for more than 150 entries in the "Japanese camera makers" category I'm supposing that you may know another very old Japanese camera type worth to mention? If you have no time to write the article yourself please set its title into the community to-do-list under the "Missing articles about cameras" headline.
Best regards, U. Kulick 10:30, 2 December 2007 (EST)
- First I would say I'm not responsible for the article about the "Pearl (6×9 and larger)", whose history shows that it was mainly written by Hoary. For the moment, I know very few about the pre-1914 Japanese cameras. It is my feeling that they were largely made on an artisanal rather than industrial basis, except for the products of Rokuoh-sha (early Konica). I intend to make articles about the Japanese plate cameras of the '20s and early '30s at some time. In fact, to look for the names of the companies and products would imply to start the research in itself, and it would not make sense to do this without writing articles at the same time.
- Best regards, --Rebollo fr 15:45, 2 December 2007 (EST)
- Better a terribly late reply than no reply, so: Yes, I did much of the work on that article on the big Pearls, but this was for a variety of rather specific reasons. I'd wanted to write up the smaller (and predominantly postwar) Pearls, so I needed to explain what the bigger ones were (if only to avoid confusion) and while I was doing that I became more interested in them. I was helped in this by the fact that these big old Pearls are documented in sources I could easily get hold of, which is partly because they were (very unusually) produced by a company that still exists, has records, and is of interest to many people. If you choose three or four CP articles on oldish (but not quite that old) Japanese cameras at random, you're very likely to find that most cite one particular book, Kokusan kamera no rekishi, which is a stunningly detailed and comprehensive source for Japanese cameras between 1935 and 1965. (Actually it isn't truly comprehensive, but it's as comprehensive as anyone could reasonably expect.) Both Rebollo fr and I have a copy of this. I know of no equivalent for earlier cameras (or indeed later ones). I'm also hampered by my personal ignorance of earlier cameras: of course I understand the principle of plates and sheet film, but I've never once used either and I fear that if I wrote about this kind of thing I could unwittingly make the stupidest mistakes. I've been very busy recently and I'll continue to be busy; I hope to find some time to contribute to CP, but if so I'm unlikely to say much about the earlier cameras, I'm afraid. -- Hoary 22:09, 18 January 2008 (EST)
- Hello Hoary, Sorry, when I started this discussion topic I had not recognized exactly the originatorship of he Pearl article. Of course it's your article. I responded to Rebollo's hesitating answer by adding an article about an early Japanese camera which I accidentally found in the web. But as this site's good start into 2008 Rebollo_fr began to add further articles about pre-WWI Japanese cameras, so that we just began to give the readers a sufficient insight into the beginning of Japanese world market entry:
- more difficult will be to find out something about cameras made in Japan before 1903, maybe only marketed inside Japan. But the rich variety of cameras that Rukuoh-Sha offered since then prooves that the Japanese camera makers must have had experiences in camera making before. Best regards, Uwe (U. Kulick 07:24, 19 January 2008 (EST))
- I appreciate your politeness, but really it's no big deal that I did a lot of work on the article on the big Pearls. (Rebollo_fr did a lot too, and he's been taking care of it for months.) Let's look at what you say at the end. Of course Japanese mass production of cameras didn't come from nowhere, but the fact is that the "Cherry" of 1903 is widely regarded as the first Japanese camera produced in any quantity. As I vaguely remember -- I'm now too sleepy to check -- the disagreements are of whether it was really produced in any quantity (not a single original example is known) and of how Japanese it and its close successors were. So the year 1903 might be pushed slightly later. It's also a fact that various essential parts of "Japanese" cameras (e.g. their lenses) were largely imported right through the 1920s. So what preceded camera production? The creation of individual cameras -- rather as you see on hobbyist BBSes even now, with people sawing and planing their own wood for construction of large-format cameras -- as well of course as import of complete cameras. There was indeed a large photographic supply industry in Japan, and within it two companies made a (near?) duopoly: Konishi (later to be Konishiroku) and Asanuma. Konishi(roku) continued to make film till the end, and continued importing cameras while selling its own. Much more could be written on all of this, of course. -- Hoary 10:45, 19 January 2008 (EST)
- The 1903 Cherry Portable about which Uwe wrote was actually the earliest Japanese camera to have a brand name. It appears in original catalogues, but as Hoary says, no surviving example is known and the pictures show the replica built by Konica around the 1970s. To go back further, we would have to create generic articles such as Japanese dry-plate cameras before 1903 and Japanese wet-plate cameras. It is difficult, but certainly not impossible to find catalogues dating as far back as the 1890s. The book by Lewis contains some information about early companies. Sugiyama's book would be of limited help, by providing a few pictures of surviving examples. At least one exhibition catalogue of the JCII (this one) probably has some information about the very first Japanese cameras. These are just a few bibliographical indications.
- --Rebollo fr 11:12, 19 January 2008 (EST)
- Now we have 60 antique camera articles. 60 articles about pre-WWI still cameras. Not mentioned the articles about early camera makers. We will appreciate anyone's serious ambition to add further articles about antique (or other) still camera treasures and milestones. U. Kulick 19:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Scope of Camerapedia articles Edit
I haven't been able to find this information anywhere, so could someone explain what sort of articles are allowed/accepted on Camerapedia?
So far I've seen articles on:
- Cameras and camera families/series
- Camera types
- Camera makers
- Lens mounts
- Film formats
How far does Camerapedia want to go in covering things related to cameras?
Does it want to cover: (added answers - U. Kulick)
- Lenses? (there are lots) (yes, for example lens brand Rokkor, but we still need much more articles, for example Petzval lens, Tessar, Dagor, etc.)
- Filters? (or at least types of filters) (example filter maker Hoya)
- Shutters (for large format)? (example Compound, missing: Unicum)
- Films? (yes! example film maker efke)
- Light meters? (example: meter makers Gossen, General Electric, Sedic)
Wikipedia has its "What Wikipedia is" and "What Wikipedia is not" documents (and many others) outlining what is and is not acceptable in articles. It would help if Camerapedia had something similar. --Imroy 18:20, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Hi Imroy
- The main page says : "This site is a free-content encyclopedia of camera information, a repository of information about all still camera brands and models. ... . By contributing, you can share your knowledge of camera equipment with everyone. ... "
- That means: All articles about still camera brands and models are welcomed, but also about camera equipment. IMHO equipment means not only cameras but also attachable lenses, shutters, viewfinders, macro bellows, rangefinders, flashes, all such things which give anybody the chance to modify or to enhance a camera according to individual demands. IMHO camera suitcases or tripods are not in the site's scope. As well as movie cameras, but since camera brands are in the scope the one or the other article about a certain cine camera would be in its appropriate place here, for example about Super8 cameras of the big still camera makers Minolta or Kodak, especially as off-topic examples for camera series like Minolta Autopak and Kodak Instamatic. I already have written one about the Ernemann Kino I because of its high relevance in the history of its camera maker. And that's what the site's home page doesn't say: The site says nearly more about camera makers than about camera brands. It's become just another topic that got into scope: Category:Camera makers. As well as the Category:People. Certain inventors, engineers and entrepreneurs got into focus by writing this resource about still cameras. Even some artists of photography, but for them here's just a niche like for the movie camera examples ;-) U. Kulick 21:21, 29 January 2008 (EST)
- Hello Imroy,
- I generally agree with U. Kulick's answer above. I also agree with you that a guideline would help, indicating which articles are wanted and which are not. You will find a draft for this guideline below. Any comments are welcome.
- Depending on the type of item, the article scope should vary:
- still cameras — articles about individual models or series are wanted;
- lenses — articles about an individual lens are acceptable when this lens is an isolated product (e.g. Zuiko 4cm f/2.8 for Leica), but articles should generally have a larger scope (e.g. Olympus OM lenses or Hexar lenses);
- shutters — articles are accepted for leaf shutters and for the few modular focal plane shutters (e.g. Rulex leaf shutter, the "Copal Square" FP shutter would be OK too);
- flash units, filters and other accessories:
- a generic article can help, explaining the general concept;
- articles covering the accessories of a large camera system are helpful (e.g. Olympus OM system or Olympus Pen F accessories);
- the specific accessories of a camera which is not part of a large system should be described in the camera's page (e.g. Minolta Miniflex);
- for third-party accessories, articles about makers are accepted (e.g. Hoya, Metz, Gossen), but their individual products should be described in the same article unless they are particularly significant ("Mecablitz 45 CT" or "Lunasix" might be OK, but "Kenko macro rings" is probably superfluous);
- film — articles about film makers (e.g. Efke) and articles about individual film brands (e.g. "Kodachrome") are accepted, articles about a specific emulsion (e.g. "Kodachrome 200") are best avoided;
- tripods, camera bags, fixed light sources, and other peripherical accessories distantly related to the camera — articles about makers are OK, lists of products and articles about individual products or series are best avoided;
- enlargers, darkroom equipment, processing machines, scanners — articles about makers are OK, and might contain a product list for the enlargers and other major devices, articles on individual products or series are not OK;
- cine cameras — difficult point, we might consider extending the project to cine cameras, or cooperate with Super8wiki.com
- people — there is disagreement on this point; articles on camera designers or founders of major camera companies are OK, U. Kulick said above that some articles on famous photographers are OK as isolated examples, others and I think that mention of photographers should be made inside a camera article, and pages on photographers themselves should be left to Wikipedia.
- --Rebollo fr 06:48, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Oplenflex; Anybody? Edit
A few month ago I have bought a TLR-camera x on a market in Belgium. It is a japanese Rolleiflex copy and the brandname is Oplenflex. I have never heard of this brandname and can't find any info about it on the internet. Can anybody tell me more? (I will enclose a pics of the camera asap)
-- Posted by Johan on Feb 4, 2008
- The name is perhaps related to what I called the Opulen Junior so far, by ignorance of the exact Roman spelling. In Google, I found an Oplenflex-35, name version of the Firstflex-35, and a past auction for an Oplenflex TLR which is perhaps yours.
- --Rebollo fr 18:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks for your answer. I also found the Oplenflex 35 with Google, but that's not the one. The Opulen Junior is described as being made of bakelite; my Oplenflex is way too heavy for bakelite. I think it's all metal.
- I saw one for sale in Sweden, visible for a short time in the Google cache: . It is not exactly the same as yours but is very close.
- The Oplenflex TLR is not mentioned in any of the sources I have (even the Japanese ones). I would say that the Oplen brand was used by some Western importer: the Oplenflex-35 is a rebadged Firstflex-35 (made by Tokiwa Seiki), and from the known description the Oplen Junior might be a rebadged Palma Brilliant (by Goyō). So I guess your Oplenflex is a rebadged version of something. It is not easy to find what, because there were so many Japanese TLRs, but the crank advance reduces the number of candidates. You might try to contact Barry Toogood at tlr-cameras.com, and ask him if his exerted eye sees a similarity with something he already knows. Please also tell me if there is a marking on the shutter rim, this is no sure indication but sometimes helps to ring a bell.
- If you can take more pictures of the camera, I would be happy to start an Oplenflex article.
- --Rebollo fr 06:08, 6 February 2008 (EST)
@ Rebollo: I mailed you pictures of my Oplenflex. Thanks.
Article corrections Edit
In looking at a few of the articles that include my photos, I noticed a couple of small errors:
On the Filmor page, it says "Further box cameras named Filmor were made by Fototecnica, others were made by the German company Vredeborch."
To the best of my knowledge, Fototecnica made only one camera named Filmor, though they did make similar cameras with different names.
On the Gallus Derby-Lux page, it says "It had a fast Gallix 50mm 1:3.5 focusable lens (although some have the well-regarded, faster Boyer Saphir f/2.8). There were four red windows on the back..."
The lens on my Derby-Lux is a Boyer Saphir 50mm 1:3.5
So if those other two lenses were available, that would make mine a third variation.
Also, there are four windows on the back, but to be accurate, only two of them are red; the other two are green, and there is a sliding mechanism on the inside of the film loading door which allows you to choose to use the two red windows or the two green ones.
Thanks for your attention,
- Gallus Derby-Lux - yes, there are two red & two green; I had noticed that was wrong almost as I wrote it, and meant to correct it, but didn't. Now fixed.
- The reference to an f2.8 Boyer lens comes from The Tomei's site. I've added f3.5 to the page, but left the 2.8; this may well be wrong, as I cannot find an example of the Boyer lens at all.
- Alan User:Awcam 18 June 03:20 BST
- Vial's reference book on French cameras lists the Gallix f/3.5, Saphir f/2.8 and Berthiot Flor f/2.8 for the Derby-Lux and Derlux. The book mentions the Saphir f/3.5 only for the earlier Derby-Gallus (direct continuation of the Foth Derby made in France by Gallus), which has the leather-covered body of the Foth Derby. John's example is thus an interesting fourth variant of the Derby-Lux. I think it's an early one: it has the Gallus logo on the front plate, which is unusual and seems to have disappeared on later examples. --Rebollo fr 05:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
- Filmor: http://www.photodeal.de/verlag/kadlubek5_index_neu.pdf lists the "Filmor Camera", a Filmor 6x9 and an Filmor 6x6 under "Fototecnica Torino", and several "Filmor" cameras under Vredeborch U. Kulick 05:49, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Copyright violations of Camerapedia content Edit
The website www.slrcamerashop.com contains many copyright violations of Camerapedia contents in its category descriptions, for example here. We need to take action against that; I will think about the most appropriate answer. Any suggestion is welcome. --Rebollo fr 09:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
zenix 110 camera Edit
Hello, Since there is not pics on this site thought that i will add some pics and info hope this helps here are the pics http://www.flickr.com/photos/15787821@N08/sets/72157606144579215/
Help needed to identify Voigtlander model Edit
I'm reposting this as I hadn't signed it - not sure what that does but it looked important!
I've tried to find a picture of the same camera on your amazing site, but no luck. Have also tried tracking down a rough date of manufacture using the serial number - so far I have found 4 serial numbers - as I thought this might help me work out what I've got.
The lens no. 395486, on the side rim of the lens it says 331762. The front plate has 177339, and there is a DRP 258646.
Hopefully you should see the photograph I took as well.....
Thank you for looking.
--Catshome 06:12, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
- According to the pictures I found in the book by Udo Afalter on Voigtländer cameras, yours looks like an Inos I (1931) or the earlier Rollfilm-Kamera (1927).
- --Rebollo fr 08:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Voigtlander identification - thank you Edit
I couldn't see an "edit" button next to my thread to add a thank you for the answer.
Yes, it does look like the Rollfilmkamera 5x8, so the serial number for the 1928 looks right too. I also appear to be missing the little black rectangle that swings out on the side from the wire bracket (no idea what the proper names are).
I really appreciate your help.
Cat --Catshome 17:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Camerapedia Article Style/Critique Edit
I've just massively updated the Nikon N90s article to reflect my knowledge of one of my favorite cameras. Could anyone give some sort of critique as to how good/bad of a job I did in comparison with other Camerapedia articles?
Thanks. --Cdzombak 12:26, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
Canon EOS 50D Edit
I just discovered this site and decided to add a small article on the new EOS 50D from Canon.
I used the current 20D article as a template. Hope i didn't do anything wrong...
Hi all quick question. I know the normal html for this, but how does this work in Camerapedia?
On the page Gitzo_Shutters I have a visual ID guide of the shutters and I would like to be able to link the captions below the images to the relevant section on the page. Normally that is an 'a' tag with 'name' and 'href="#' How does it work here? Dirk
IGNORE... worked it out..
add the subitle with a #
Camera Company(s) in Rochester, MN Edit
I once collected older cameras, read the collectors' journals, and found a few that referred to a company in Rochester, MN that made cameras. I may even have one.
Or so I think. Am I so far off base that I confused the Rochester Optical Company (Rochester, NY) and its Premo cameras with a firm in MN? Didn't the MN firm exist?
Agfa B 2 Commander Edit
Dear friends: I am a “little” spanish camera collector http://diarium.usal.es/bjordan/coleccion/. My last camera is an Agfa AGFA B 2 COMMANDER with an AGFA 85mm F 4.5 ANASTIGMAT lens (I don’t know anything about the shutter yet because the camera is coming). Could you help me with information about it. I have the MacKeown’s Guide and I have not found clear information. Only a reference of an Ansco Commander, but not clear because there is no picture. Could you help me? Kind regards,
Cameras and photography shops Edit
Hello from Spain,
I'm new in Camerapedia, although I've been reading it for many months. Excellent job!
I've started a page about camera and photography shops. I think it would be useful to have a big list of good photography shops in the world. When I travell, I like to visit photography stores and flea markets with old cameras. As tourist guides don't mention this shops, I thought that the best website to place this information is Camerapedia.
Please, add your favorite shops so we can visit them one day.
--Danipuntocom 16:38, 24 June 2010 (EDT)
One of the problems many may/will encounter, is to positively identify a bayonet mount of a lens they are looking at. This comes into play with all the third party lenses! I think it would be good if we could establish a "Bayonet" page that illustrates each type of mount, and maybe even briefly describes the identifying characteristics. And then links back to the specific camera manufacturer, where the mount may be discussed in more details (for ex. the Nikon variations etc).
This could then also be linked off the front page? If camerapedia is to become THE single most significant resource for all of photographic it would be a great addition.
Table form would be ideal. I would envisage a four-cell table row per bayonet type
|Manufacturer and Mount Type||Descriptive text||Annotated Photo||Unmodified photo|
Like thus (not a good example, though, as there is only one manufacturer, but still, a start):
Koni-Omega mount designed by Konica and then continued by Mamiya when they took over production of the Rapid Omega models.
|Three-lobed bayonet with shutter release set internally at the 9o'clock position (S). Small lens board with rangefinder coupling pin (R).
Bayonet diameter: XYZ mm
I don't have the energy, time nor expertise to do this properly, but would contribute as we go along.
The annotation /preparation of the annotated takes a while...
What do you guys think? Dirk
Another "new home" Edit
Some may not be aware that a "fork" has occurred in the former Camerapedia community.
Many former Camerapedians were unhappy at the lack of communication when it was sold to the for-profit host WIkia. Several of them worked to launch the non-commercial alternative site Camera-wiki.org. Please look at the "Recent Changes" pages there, and compare it to the "Wiki Activity" page here. You may judge for yourself which group has earned the trust and support of the hard-working contributors who built Camerapedia.
Hi. I just bought a kodak folding camera 1919 no.3-A model c and I can't figure out how to open it up so the bellows show? Got it through the mail so no insctructions. Can anyone help? Thanks.
Can anyone tell me how to close a 1941 Pontiac Block Metal 41 camera. I just recived my Uncle's camera, opened it up, and now I can't get it to close. I have tried everything. Thanks email@example.com
What kind of Camera is this? Edit
- I purchased this camera at an antique shop for $3 and was wondering what kind of camera it was an any information about it. I think its a pinhole camera that takes 127 film and its made of plastic and has topper on the back above the two red eyeholes. Any information would be helpful thank you.