20 Fokos Szög

[Kym Wash]

Ithought it would be pretty straightforward to use. A double image that closes when the large wheel is rotated. but when I look through one of the apertures, it's just like a viewfinder window. And I look through the other one, the view is more constrained. But.., when rotating the dial the image merely shifts horizontally. No double image.

What am I missing? Is it dysfunctional? Glass is spotless and view is very clear. But there's nothing to focus. Beam splitter gone maybe. Does not look to have been opened. the very tiny screws look like new.

I don't own a FOKOS, so I'm answering on the basis of owning six or seven rangefinder cameras. The rangefinder has two sides. The near side that you look into has one lens; the far side pointing at your subject has two lenses. Look into that one lens on the near side, then turn the adjusting wheel until the two superimposed images of your subject coincide. The pointer should point to the exact distance of the subject you focused on. The next step is to set your lens to that indicated distance.

Thanks Scott. The Fokos must be different internally than the rf on the cameras. I was using it correctly but you kinda have to look for the patch particularly in direct light. Incidental illumination it's clearly visible. What I mean is that you have to rotate the vertical Fokos about it's axis to get the patch to show especially at very close objects within 1-2 m. But mine is extremely clear view. Thanks again for the suggestions. M

Well, take into account that the reflected image (to say, the one that "moves" while rotating the distance dial) is significantly smaller than the image you see through the viewing lens... about 1/3-1/4 of the diameter, I'd say, so you must concentrate your sight on the central part of the view (which is natural, anyway) ... you ought to see clearly (in good light) a "central circle" with a slightly different appearance.

You use the window beside the wheel for focussing. There should be a bright circle in the middle which should show two images, which will eventually co-incide when you turn the wheel. If you do not see the bright circle at first, moving your eye position should reveal it. It is slightly awkward for spectacles wearers such as myself, but you soon get used to it. If you do not see the two images in the bright circle there may be something wrong with the internal arrangement, which might not be too surprising in an item that is 80 to 90 years old. The FOKOS will work vertically in the camera shoe if you do not have the foot for the HFOOK arrangement. The images will move vertically to coincide rather than horizontally.

Now for some caveats. I have the FODIS/FODUA and the FOFER as well as the FOKOS/HFOOK. It is rare that one of these works perfectly. Not only are they old, but they are unlikely to have been subject to CLA/adjustment by a technician, unlike the rangefinder in a camera. One of my FODIS models has had the wheel/marking screw reversed and so it may have been worked on at some stage. I find that the readings from old rangefinders are 'approximately' correct at best. I generally use them just to confirm that I have the correct zone focus set. Shooting with one of my 1 Model As or Cs, I generally stop the lens down a bit to at least f6.3 and use zone focus. The rangefinder generally gives a good approximation of the zone focus.

The Standard illustrated above is a converted 1 Model A and the Elmar with no serial number has been converted from an 11 O'Clock infinity position to a 7 O'Clock position. If this had not been done then there would have been a danger of the user's fingers obscuring the right hand front window of the FOKOS which would cause the bright circle to disappear.

As I take all opportunities to look at my Fontenelle Collection archives, I looked for FOKOS/HFOOK when reading this thread. Here are the images I first found of both black and chrome FOKOS/HFOOK, and one mounted on a pre-war Leica Standard (similar to the Leica I as for telemeter mounting) and showing the pivoting. I also added images of the small yellow screen that may ease the viewing.

If you look on ebay and elsewhere under HFOOK you may find one, although, most that are there include the finder as well and are, therefore, relatively expensive. As in my own case, you can, occasionally, get the set with a camera. Where you see a FOKOS advertised it will most often not have the shoe which is much the rarer item.

Possibly 8. There would be black and nickel, black and chrome and all chrome in both meters and feet making 6 variants. The FOKOS was also sold as the HFOOK with the shoe and clip but it would still be the same rangefinder. There was a post war variant sold as chrome only with no mounting post, so that may add a seventh variant. Jim Lager also shows a shortened version for use with a left hand release.

I recently obtained an older, log-base fokos, similar in appearance to that of the OP, but a bit longer. It is in need of lateral adjustment: when the wheel is at the infinity mark, objects about 75 feet away are coincident (fused) in the rangefinder. Judging by the damage to the screw in the middle of the wheel, I imagine that is the adjustment screw. Then there is the pin nut (?) around the screw.

The patch is usable, but could be a lot brighter. Thanks to jc_braconi we have the cross-section; one can see that it is a semi-silvered mirror that does the job; I imagine not too much can be done short of replacing the mirror, probably beyond my pay grade.

My college degree is in engineering, but I also studied Japanese art history, Japanese film, Japanese aesthetic traditions, and haiku poetry. My study in these fields, in addition to the work of the artists mentioned above, has strongly influenced my work.

My knowledge of science helped me understand why some of my images worked while others failed. It helped me develop a theory of perception that led to a better understanding of what I was trying to achieve, and how I could work with the camera to accomplish my objective.

Of course, I understand that neither type of image is an accurate visual representation of the world. Water droplets do not hang suspended in the air, and you will never see an ocean that looks as smooth as they do in my images. Yet, for my experience, my long exposure images with the smooth water are more emotionally accurate.

Of course, this is only a translation. (Actually, I once took a few semesters of Japanese in the hope that I would one day be able to read the poems in their original Japanese. Yeah, that worked out. *laugh*) but I think the sentiment still comes through in the translation. I love the combined sense of melancholy, peacefulness, calm, acceptance, and appreciation for what one has rather than lament for what was lost.

An emotional experience requires a period of time. So for a work of art to be able to convey that emotion, the experience of time must be encoded into the work. The element of time is critical to expressing our emotional experience.

The problem is that many of our paintings, sculptures and photographs are static, fixed, unchanging. A snapshot is an arbitrary frozen slice of time removed from its time-space context. It has no past and no future, and without that context the photograph just exists in an emotionless vacuum. It is, as Hockney said, dead.

Later on there came a second epiphany. I made a 20-second exposure under a dock, looking out between the pilings toward the horizon. The shadow of the dock combined with the soft ripples in the water and the distant horizon to form a shot that, for me, was essentially an image without a direct subject. To me it seemed more like a photograph of a feeling.

Contemplating what it was about those two images that resonated with me led me to begin experimenting with longer exposures. I rarely photographed at night, so to extend the length of my daytime exposures I stopped down my lens to f45 or f64 and began to use neutral density filters.

The places where I find myself making images are those to which I have a strong, positive, emotional reaction. More often than not, these are places that through their stillness, expansiveness, stark simplicity, or the juxtaposition of man-made objects with nature, evoke within me a sense of quiet contemplation.

The difference between documentary work/photojournalism and fine art photography is that in the former, one wants to present photographs with the least amount of manipulation possible (other than the framing of the image, choice of lens, etc.), whereas a fine art photographer is an artist seeking to express an idea, evoke an emotion, or convey a message. For the photographic artist, the taking of the picture is just the first step.

David: All my prints are now pigment prints made on my Epson 11880 printer. For 15 years I made just platinum prints on hand-coated paper and then, for another 10 or so years, I made traditional prints (light-sensitive paper, chemicals, etc.) Now, I make my prints on the Epson.

Again, as I said earlier, cameras, film, filters, paper, computers, software, and printers are just tools, just as the paint brush and trowel are for the painter and the hammer and chisel are for the sculptor. The tools you use are not important, only the final work. No one cares what brushes a painter uses.

3a8082e126