mark_messerly1

Despite the fact it is a big puppy it still gets a lot of use... spectacular speed, quiet/fast/accurate focus, metering rarely gets a tweek unless subject is in the sky eg an airshow or other odd lighting. Sometimes for travel I take off the large PB-E2 to cut size. Never a complaint or failure for me. I am an amateur photographer so it doesn't get 'pro level' use eg bouncing in back of pickup, rattling around Desert Storm action, etc. Not trading it for anything else.

The counter on the 'right' (cam facing fwd, looking down at top) advances further per stroke of the winder.... The spool diameter of the 120 is larger, thus more film per stroke advances and thus the one on the right is correct. I'll experiment further anyway.

I searched for this but info posted for later models... the earliest

Zeiss Ikoflex has two film counters... which one works for the 120

film? Not a big deal, I can shoot a test roll half one, etc. but this

may save a couple of days time experimenting. Looking down at the top

of the camera, (cam facing forward) the left counter has a

label 'Met' and the one on the right has no label. It is a

fascinating little beast rescued from the dust bin.... Thanks all!

Are you using one of the split prism focusing screens? (eg. 42215) This helped me a lot, and have one on a 501CM and an older 500 EL. I think it can make a big difference with critical focus, there is no question about the exact point.

Check the Cokin products. The X-Pro filter mount fits the monstrous older 40C, perhaps will fit the 40 CF... there is another 'Pro' series version that is for smaller diameter lenses. The X-Pro has several slots for grads or whatever other filters. The frame attaches via 4 thumb screws, each having a small padded foot that will attach to the outer diameter of the lens barrel.

Sorry, I'm not sure of the viewpoint from where the night shot above was taken.... Getting old.

Here's a version from the top of the Empire State Building with a 90mm lens, Kodak P3200 pushed one stop, developed in D-76.<div></div>

This time....<div></div>

Sorry, will try later....

Driving through Stanhope, Iowa. 9:30 PM July 6, 2003.

<img

src="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/75a97fbb/bc/My+Photos/__hr_stanhop

e3.jpg?BCuj1G_AXJYtjdVa">

The Polaroid back is a favorite back. The ability to test my exposures is helpful as my guesses are close but sometimes can be improved. I've also noticed distracting elements in the Polaroid 'previews' such as a crumpled piece of paper on the ground. I have not tried using the Quickloads or Readyloads in the Polaroid back. The instructions in the film packets say it's possible however I had some $ and got both of the backs. I prefer this method over the film holder fun, eliminating the need to carry a lot of backs and a changing bag. There aren't any of the dust problems. I have not had any light leaks with any of the backs. I have had some mechanical hitches, eg. film pulling apart in the Kodak and the Polaroid backs, requiring disassembly in one case. Again, I'm a new user and will certainly gain knowledge from the experienced users!

The July/August issue of 'View Camera' has an article about this topic. George DeWolfe (The Senior Editor) examines some scanners in the $700 - $1500 dollar range with some great examples and advice.

The HP Scanjet 7400C is what I use. I did not check others extensively, so here are some annoyances with this pup that may steer you toward more research. 1. No specific 4x5 neg carrier, you'll have to make one or suffer the (fig) Newton rings. 2. The interface is wretched. 3. The auto exposure values are frequently wretched. Sometimes I select a small area to get the exposure close, then reselect area and work with it in Photoshop. The reason I got it at the time was price... the ones I wanted were much more costly. Now I know why! Good luck!

Of ten or more other aberrations, why are people fascinated with this one? This must be why my photos with 'Hassy glass' are unrecognizable and resemble Jean Dubuffet paintings. Same for my Canon lenses. What are people photographing where this particular effect is so bothersome?

More info.... In the custom functions, you can select a specific focus point or points. See a manual page 38. Also, a very nice photo illustration of your question, similar to example in my earlier post, is on page 35 of the manual. Good luck!

The depth of field depends one the aperture you or the auto algorithm have selected. The electronics that select a focus point work the same regardless of the lens/aperture. One exception being a lens or lens/tube/filter combination that makes the effective aperture f8 or higher. In this case, autofocus will have difficulty. Once the the focus is selected and the 'x' number of LEDs indicate the object, it will adjust the aperture to that which you have selected, or the auto algorithm has selected when you trip the shutter. If you have a wide aperture, expect a shallow DOF. For example: you point the camera toward a baseball player who is 10 feet away standing alone on the field. The background is a brick wall with ivy on it, 25 feet behind the player. Autofocus LEDs will roughly select the outline of the player. Whether the ivy is in focus depends solely on the film speed/aperture/shutter combination. I hope this addressed the question.

Somehow the point listed in my earlier post was lost. An example from one book: A lens designed by Emil von Hoegh (see the book 'A History of the Photographic lens' by Rudolf Kingslake for details) was built by C.P. Goerz and initially called a Double Anastigmat Goerz, later reduced to the acronym Dagor. It doesn't list specifically the Tessar origination, but these books are a good source for name origination. I can't copy the whole book here. The Tessar design appeared under 21 other trade names. See the book. Did I not make that clear? Guess not. Peoples names. Acronyms. Made up names.

Rudolf Kingslake's books 'History of the Photographic Lens' and 'Optics in Photography' are excellent sources for many lens designations... and some amusing old designs. One odd design: the 'Goerz Hypergon lens of 1900' had a little cogwheel in front of the lens that was spun with air pressure to serve as a center weighted filter.

For example: A flat plane is parallel to the film plane. There are three objects spaced vertically on this plane (e.g. three flies on a board). I'd like to focus on one fly, throwing the other two out of focus. Tilting the plane relationship would do this, thus the interest in the tilt function of the flexbody. I hope this makes sense, and is my idea correct? I'm ignoring the additional extension and shift features of the Flex for this scenario. Thanks for the response!

Has anyone experimented with the 135/autobellows with the flexbody? I

am interested in some fine selective focus with macro subjects.

There is a small metal tab at the 'bottom' of the focus ring that is pushed to allow it to rotate to the closer focal distance. As you rotate the focus above the 3 foot mark you should here a click, where this little mechanism will again lock at the 3 foot mark. The old 40 C is a favorite lens of mine. Just be cautious of the geometric characteristics if the subject/film plane are not parallel!

A very reasonably priced combination would be a Newton 7100 bracket and the Metz 28C-2 flash. The flash is directly above the lens and thus suitable for waist level finders. The bracket has a number of lateral, height and other adjustments. It has a grip and cable release. It is well made. The Metz 28C-2 is quite powerful and I have had very good results. I am unsure physically how the winder may work with this combination.