revere eyematic

mysteryscribe · Sep 27, 2006

OKay now that I have decided to make the jump backwards... It is really between the rollie and yashica twin lens but I want to test the format to be sure it is worth the effort..... sooo....

The best test camera I can find so far is the revere eyematic 127. Its a fifties type auto aperture but it has a wallensak lens and a rangefinger. Looks like even a way to fool the meter for a little more exposure. Since it has a tripod socket, I assume there is a way to jury rig it to do bulb. With the polaroids I play with it is just put some tape over the sensor.

All that being said, has anyone ever heard of this camera. If so what have you heard. I saw some things on google and some pictures made with it and they look okay nothing to brag about but okay.

Mitica100 · Sep 28, 2006

The Eyematic was a decent camera because of its lens. The Wollensaks are underrated by all means. I shoot sometimes LF with a WA 90mm made by Wollensak. It's not your Rodenstock lens by any means but it really ain't bad either. Consider the price difference.

Anyway, the Eyematic EE 127 was made by Revere in 1958. The same firm made the Revere Stereo 33, a collector's itme if you may.

Experiment with it, let us hear your impressions.

mysteryscribe · Sep 28, 2006

Thanks I bought it and plan to shoot it till I decide if I want to continue making 127 rolls. I cut all my 120 rolls now, so I don't think that is going to matter much.

Yes I have several wallensak lenses and I find them quite satisfactory. Thats why I decided to go with this. I also picked up a bell and howell electric eye at the same time but I don't have much faith in it.

The revere has a rudimentary rangefinder as well as the wallensak lens. I thought it might be a fair test camera. If I can stand dealing with 127 I plan to do to either the rollie or the yashica twin lens.

I can't find any 40mm long rolls. We used to use it in a jail mug shot camera and now it's gone completely. That would have been nice to make the 127 rolls with. Ah well I guess the film jig is up next. I really hate cutting film with a jig and scissors but its really the simplest way for me.

mysteryscribe · Sep 30, 2006

Camera arrived today. I test shot it this afternoon and the negs look exposed correctly. Im going to have to check them for sharp when they get dry.

The film counter didn't work. I think I screwed it up myself but alas live and learn. If it is sharp and shoots well, for twenty bucks i'll pick up another one.

It has this huge photocell on top. Best I can figure you can set the aperture and it the cell adjusts the shutter some. Im not positive but I set it on f8 and the images were not too dense or too light so I will just have to see.

Of course I dont have a 127 reel so one got stick to the 120 apron and didn't develop. It was the one on which I shot some numbers to check for sharp but I should be able to tell line sharp.

Im also gonna have to work on the film cutting if I want to do this often. The first one was pretty ragged as usually happens. All in all it seemed to be a sucessful shoot.

Mitica100 · Sep 30, 2006

Sounds great!

mysteryscribe · Sep 30, 2006

Since I'm a big believer in the good the bad and the ugly (photographically speaking) I am going to post the first shot from the revere. It was all down hill from here.

I do know what happened (i THink)

Anyway here is the shot.

Im going to try one more time tomorrow then thank god that I didn't but the rollie... it is a true pain to cut the film for this thing.

Mitica100 · Sep 30, 2006

Nice and contrasty... I'm a bit puzzled by the twigs at the base of the three trunks. They seem to be at the same distance yet some are sharp (on the right) and some not (on the left). Could it be that the lens cells are misaligned? Or film pressure plate (if it's got one) is out of whack?

mysteryscribe · Sep 30, 2006

what happened is the film was cut ragged and then everything wasnt flat.

mysteryscribe · Oct 1, 2006

Let me explain about the dog eating my homework.... I do not have running water in my lab. I have a ten gallon or so water cooler for fresh water to mix chemicals ect. I have a large bucket with clean water (when i dont forget to change it) in which to soak tanks between uses.

Okay so I forgot to clean the soak water for the last couple of days. The light battle was fill with a soup made from all kinds of crap that fell into the soak bucket. Thats why this frame is streaked.

I was trying to find out more about the revere.... One thing is I don't think the eye works after all. I think I'm going to have to set it manually Guessing the shutter speed to be about 60 although it is probably closer to 100. I have f2.8 up to f22 so I can probably use it most places if I want to. If I could cut the shutter speed in half a couple of times I would be thrilled.

Anyway I'm posting this to show how the lens looks. Im not thrilled with the sharpness so I'll probably just use it in one of my display cases.

frankly I've shot paper negatives with better detail. It was a fun experiment but I think I'll stay with big negatives or at least quality cameras.

mysteryscribe · Oct 1, 2006

The one real plus I have found with the revere now that I have checked it out more is that it's flash is synced for electronic. The flash connector is the old kodak bayonet type, but it works with electronic flash perfectly.