harry_hollander

<p>For the 645N, the 150mm is not only the ideal portrait length (more so than 105 I'd say), it is also excellent in IQ for portraits and you have the autofocus option. It is also very lightweight. <br> But for the 6545D or Z, the length of the 105mm may be more suitable. I have neither this latter type of camera nor this lens, so cannot comment any further.</p>

<p>My Rolleiflex 6008 Integral no longer responds to the RC 120 remote release, which flips up the mirror and then (with another button) fires the shutter. It was on and off for some time first, but now it stopped working altogether. A second RC 120 did not change that behaviour.<br /> Does anyone have an idea how this maight be fixed? I can still push the mirror up button on the camera and use a traditional cable release, but it is not as convenient as the RC 120.<br /> All the best,<br /> Willem</p>

<p>I have a Billingham 307 which fits the Rollei 6008 with 50mm, 80mm and 150mm. Very comfortable. If I want to take along more (backs or otherwise), I use the Billingham 555. It is as comfortable but slightly slower to work from because of the way it opens. I like both tho, main reason to choose one over the other is weight.<br> But one camera with two lenses would also smugly fit the Retrospective ThinkTank 20. Do add some foam at the bottom, these bags have too little there as I once found out. </p>

<p>Fabulous camera. Plaubel in Hamburg, Germany always serviced these cameras and still do - of course, if you have to send the camera and the money overseas, that is a bit more complicated, but better than being serviced by people who don't really know what they're doing with this camera (and Plaubel do). In good state, it is worth the dosh. Question is, will you use it yourself. Otherwise, you might leave this decision to a buyer.<br> The light meter is a weak point because the wires suffer each time the camera is opened and closed. It is a factor in the value of the camera; personally, I would not trust the meter too much, and prefer a hand-held meter (I owned two copies of this camera in the past and still regret not having one today).<br> The rangefinder can be out of order, but that should not be hard to fix.<br> The Nikkor lens is famed for all the right reasons. <br> Best, W</p>

<p>In the UK, Peak Imaging does £4.55 per 120 roll developing only (E6 and C41).<br> Sending is by freepost in provided carbon boxes, the return postage is cheap in quality sleaves, and the service is almost instant: next day development, the folowing day return shipment.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The camera shutter speed dial should be set to X, not to A; it may not talk to the camera if you select A. Fixed shutter speed. I do not have the 540 so I cannot comment on the flash unit.</p>

<p>Just for the record: the manual for the Microflex states that the lens has four elements in three groups:</p> <blockquote> <p>The taking lens is the Micronar four glass lens arranged as a single, single and cemented doublet assembly and is 3.5 aperture. This lens has been specially computed to give the flattest possible field consistent with inappreciable change of focus when stopping down. Both lenses have all component glassses bloomed and are fully colour corrected.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly the same description is provided in the MPP Microcord manual, although that lens was manufatured by Ross and not by Taylor, Taylor & Hobson.</p>

<p>really depends on use. I have a Rolleiflec 6008 integral, but while it is possible to be handheld, it prefers the tripod.<br> On the other hand, the Pentax 645N is so balanced, you really can use it without a tripod.<br> Any TLR is good for street use, handheld, and preferable unless you want more lenses and no parallax error.<br> So I’m taking one of my TLRs when I’m on a short trip. All of these are capable of very good results. I do not have experience with the Mamiya 6, but I do with the Plaubel Makina 67, which is an incredible performer. But not that much less bulky than a TLR. 6x6 or 6x7 comes into play here too.</p>

<p>I found out two things: the Rolleiflex SL66 / SLX / 6000 and modern TLR screens easily fit the MPP TLRs (and the 2.8C and D), but I still need to find out whether they need to be shimmed. <br> The increase in brightness hardly comes as a surprise as the MPP screens are among the darkest in town.<br> What did surprise me is the following:<br> a Provia 100F film showed many overlapping frames;<br> a Velvia 100F, Fujis Pro 160 NS and Portra 400 did not have any overlapping frames.<br> How to explain this? Did I make a mistake in the loading of the Provia (not really aware of that, as loading is critical with the Microflex so I am paying attention each time), or is there a difference in thickness? Any experiences or suggestions? It was the second film in the series of four. <br> I do love the rendering of the Micronar. It is sharp but above all very pleasant. The Microflex is a real keeper.</p> <p> </p>

<p>It depends on the trip (are you with non-photographing company or focussed on the photography),<br> on the focal lengths you want (I sometimes like to travel with a single standard lens length, but 50-80-120/150 adds weight),<br> on the bag and other things that need to go in it;<br> where you go: city (TLR or RF), nature (WLF or TLR) but your mileage may vary.<br> I like the WLF cameras too, especially 6x6, and use some TLRs and a Rolleiflex 6008 integral. The latter comes with many modern advantages, and incredibly crisp lenses. When alone, I'd take it on a hike (I have the 80mm and 120mm plus 2x converter, but hope to add the 50mm). <br> If I need to go lightweight, it's the Rolleiflex 2.8C or Microflex I choose (the latter has a Taylor Hobson lens with beautiful bokeh but the Rolleiflex 10-bladed Xenotar has a faster aperture and faster shutter while it is no slur in the bokeh department itself, just different). Or an Agfa Super Isolette, but that's not a WLF, yet even slower because you need to cock the shutter. Sharp though if in good consition. I use it with a Voigtlander Kontur viewfinder. I will soon try the Ensign Selfix 820 at 6x6 because it has a 105mm lens, thus allowing a 1.5 effect on the 75mm folders I have, while the combo with the Agfa or Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta is still small and portable.<br> That said, I also have a Pentax 645N with 6 lenses. I prefer 6x6 but these lenses are incredible value (the release of the 645Z may change that). No WLF but a very bright viewfinder, that is a joy to use. It also is possibly the most ergonomical camera I've ever held.<br> A WLF is great and I do love it, but you can go slow with a RF as well. <br> I love my Sigma DP2M and DP3M, which are wonderful, but must confess that I still shoot film for 95%, and 5% DP3M.</p> <p> </p>

<p>My local E6 developer ran into problems with their development (the film holder broke during one of my films…) and quit development altogether when repair was not feasible.<br> Fortunately, Ag Photo Lab have a good postal service across the UK, which works very efficiently, so I use them for E6, while I have a local lab in London for negative colour film. But local E6 labs are harder to find.</p>

<p>It is good advice and works well, at least for my copy. BTW this site refers to 1/300 as the fastest speed.<br> Ray, you're right about good advice and convincing you of another solution! And it is fun too. I was curious, however, whether Joe's remarks about the average lens on the Microflex was first-hand experience or hearsay. As mine was based on hearsay ;) namely: <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98935">Twin Lens Shootout</a><br> BTW, I found a fresnel for a Microcord which fits quite well and makes a modest improvement. But the Microflex comes with a rather coarse grid. Maybe I get used to it.</p>

<p>You're right, I could have known that the ground part is in a fixed position, namely at the side facing the mirror, so any other screen should fit reasonably well. <br> I understood, however, that the Microflex's Micronar, by Taylor and Hobson, is a very good lens (5 elements in 4 groups), and that it has its own character, as sharpness is not all. So I do not quite see why you are so dismissive of this camera model. Admittedly, I have not yet seen the results but handling was easy and pleasant. The film advance problem these models tend to have can be easily avoided and proved no issue so far. The 1/300 is a bit of a limitation.<br> I do not collect, even though I have too many cameras, I want to use them and those I do not use end up being sold. Replacing a screen is no issue for me (and anyway, I keep the original) as long as it's not too expensive. I have a 2.8C, which does not have the best screen either, and I'm trying this Microflex as a second TLR. It's all from a user-perspective.<br> BTW, the Microflex came with a Yashica-Mat, but the automatic film advance is not working correctly (film never stops, moves on to the end). I had hoped to sell the Mat but with this problem, I may try to repair it myself if possible.<br> I prefer minimal grid lines or nothing on the surface at all in a screen, in other words a bright matte. Most of the Bay-screens are therefore not for me, and I don't want to invest in a Maxwell or Intenscreen. That's why I was wondering whether a Hopf screen could be the answer but I could not find MF user experiences online (I did for large format but I'm not sure that is comparable as no mirror interferes in the latter case).<br> Just in passing, I did clean up the mirror, which was necessary, but I'm not sure how to establish to what extent it may have lost its reflective value.</p>

<p>Having received a fairly good condition Microflex, I have two questions:</p> <ol> <li>I find that my model has a prontor shutter that goes up to 1/300th. But I read elsewhere (<a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/001g8y">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001g8y</a>) that it has a speed range of 1-1/500th. Were there different versions of the Microflex in its short life-span?</li> <li>What is the exact thickness of the screen in the Microcord/Microflex? Both are 57x63mm, and the MPP user group states that MPP screens are 1.1-1.2mm thick, but does not say which screens (MPP primarily made large format cameras), nor is this thickness precise enough (<a href="http://www.mppusers.com/ground.htm">http://www.mppusers.com/ground.htm</a>)</li> </ol> <p>I want to see if Steve Hopf can make a replacement screen, so I need to know its exact thickness. If all else fails, I'll just have to send him my current screen but that is an expense I'd like to avoid (crossing the ocean between the UK and US). The screens are easy to remove, but very very dim. <br> I also have a Microcord, but may let that go if I like the results of its sibling. </p>

<p>Although I acquired the Sigma DP2 and DP3 Merrills, I still shoot a lot more MF film (about 5 to 6 times more). But in various formats and with different brands, so I only tend to come here when it involves Rollei (my favourite, though) and for specific reasons; general surfing I do on Pentaxforums; for some of my MF rangefinders on Rangefinder.com, but only once in a while. <br> I have not found a good forum for the Sigmas, so I'm silent on that camera, even though they are formidable. The MPP website requires a subscription for printed magazines which I find too pricy, so I'm not on that one either. I followed the Futura club for a while but there was too much noise on that forum for my taste, so I stopped, but I still use the camera.</p>