nicholas_t.

Harvey, I was hoping no-one would notice that. What I mean't to say was Capa used a Rollei, and not necessarily a 3.5F (I didn't mean to imply that)<p>

But he was definately there...<br>

with a Rollei...<br>

in a war zone...<br>

taking pictures...<p>

Another interesting nugget of information which came out of that particular doco. Apparently, Hitchcock partially based his movie "Rear Window" on Capa's relationship with Ingrid Bergman.

3.5F's rule, they are such over-the-top beasts. However, they are somewhat becoming a rarity. I haven't seen anyone else use one (in public) in over 10 years. Also they are becoming less and less available on the classifieds (New Zealand). Haven't seen a decent one advertised here for over a year, and I check all the used camera sections, papers, online marketplaces...<p>

One other thing, I have noticed the activity in this forum (medium) format increase in the last year (is it me? or wishful thinking...). That is, interest in things '120' (especially Rolleis) have seemed to increase even with the onslaught of digital. This is opposite to what I expected would happen.<p>

Yeah, 3.5Fs are nearly the perfect camera. It was interesting to see Robert Capa used one (he appeared in a doco holding one in many of the photos) in war zones!<p>

What I am suspecting is happening with all the decent Rolleis is that they are ending up in f***ing camera collections and the like. Almost all of the Rolleis I've owned have come from older chaps who were losing their eyesight and could not use them properly. They were always glad to see their precious cameras continuing to get used.<p>

Also, I think many people are not continuing to keep their cameras up to good spec. The cost of a proper CLA is quite high and skilled 'local' repairmen/women are becoming less and less.

Kellys comments made me look at a test I did with my 'cord and 'flex. I went through the ranges with both cameras and tested a corregated fence as well as a wall on a tripod.<p>

Using a loupe on a lightbox from F5.6-22 the 'cord is sharp centrally and out to the edges from F11 although very usable from F8 onwards. I haven't developed the 'flexs roll of the same test that I did. Will do that this afternoon.

FWIW, my experience differs to others. I once owned a 150 Symmar I could never get a decent sharp photo with. OTOH, the 135 Xenar was consistantly sharp.<p>

Regarding the Rolleiflex reference. I am having a string of luck with Xenars. I didn't know how good they actually are. I have just bought an unused Vb with a doggy shutter to go with my refurbished Va. It's not that my 3.5 Planar isn't sharp - it is. It's just that I really like the simplicity of a 4 element lens.<p>

James, can you try both of the cameras out? Put a film through each and see which one you prefer. You might be surprised.

I had the opportunity recently to see a work by the Becher's. I was very impressed by the technical qualities of the prints.<p>

BTW, Paul, very eloquently written.

My camera guy uses a medical infrared heat lamp to separate the elements . I think I have heard of "baking" the elements to high temperatures when the lenses are to be recoated. Apparently this is <b>very</b> risky, much more so than fixing separation between elements. Lenses sometimes crack when using the treatment FWIBT.<p>

This particular camera repair guy uses an industrial optician to do things such as recoating, but can do the recementing by himself. I had a lens element re-polished by this industrial optics lab to fix some kind (chemical?) etching on a lens and the job was done excellently. They both did not recommend recoating the lens after the polishing, as it was considered _that_ risky. I have not noticed any adverse flare because of it (F2 28mm Zuiko). In fact even after the repolishing, the lens appears to have some kind of coating on it still.<p>

I would give you both of their details, but the camera repair guy is backed up for at least one year...

Raid, I investigated getting a separation fixed in my 2.8F some time ago. The process would have cost me less than half of what you stated. The real problem was not the cost but the <b>risk</b> - my camera repairman said. It is not an expensive procedure, much less than a CLA from his quote.<p>

Unless I am mistaken, the Canadian balsam is replaced with some kind of UV glue. The Canadian balsam, according to Dante, also melts at a very low temperature.

I am thinking... Gainer Phenidone Vitamin C developer.<p>

Mix as you go, use teaspoon measures, get the Phenidone sent to your destination (by a reputable company) and source your Vitamin C and Borax or Carbonate locally.<p>

...Use Ilfords wash sequence for a water stop and film wash and you're halfway there.<p>

Methinks <b>this</b> is the worlds most environmentally friendly developer.<br>My own 2 cents: trust a company which polluted a river to create a truly environmentally friendly developer ?...

I really like APX 400!!!<p>

At first I didn't because it really suffers from excessive grain in Rodinal (which some may like), but personally I don't.<p>

There was an excellent article in Darkroom which extolled the virtues of APX 400 in Atomal. Other magazines have said it works in some developers and not others. Personally, I find it responds very well in Rodinal + the ascorbate additive as well as the Gainer Phenidone or P-aminophenol soup. I find these combos can tease out some good grain to go with that <b>great</b> tonal range.

Ok, the original question guys.<br> ...Sharper?<p>

If the original thesis were true we would all be running around with Super Rollex backs on our Linhofs, or using 8x10 lenses on 4x5's instead of using medium format lenses which are designed for Rolleis, Hasseys, Konis or actual 150 Symmars for 4x5 or whatever...<p> A tautology...

Raid, yes but you have to offset the lessened negative 'real estate' of 6x7 vs 4x5 in your equation of 'what is sharper?' to balance it out.<p>

Also, using a 4x5 lens to do the work of a 6x7 lens creates a certain kind of ineffeciency as well. Lenses designed for a 6x7 (ie a 100mm Symmar vs a 150 Symmar) will have better correction all round. That is, the lens has to work less for the same amount of negative square inches.<p>

I know AA recommended a focal length up from the one used for enlarging (ie 135 for medium format, 80-90 for small format). Personally, I think if you are trying to get the most out of your lenses, using the appropriate lens for the format is the way to go.<p>

Although, all of this is within limits, there is a common practice to use, for instance, a 210mm as a standard lens for 4x5 and a 63mm enlarging lens for 35mm for the reasons exactly as you have stated. And for all intents and purposes this sounds reasonable and justified to me...

You could always send some chemicals to yourself care of the Post Office for pick up when you get to India. Still, the same potential hassles tho'...<p>

Or you could pick up some developer there, Indians need photos too!<p>

IIRC, what you are planning to do sounds similar to what Eugene Smith did when photographing, 'Spanish Village' (love that series...). Lucky *you* don't have Fascists to deal with where you're going!

HE-1, Kodak Hypo Eliminator is the recommended formula (not to be used on prints)<p>

Water 500 ml<br>

Hydrogen Peroxide (3% solution) 125.0 ml<br>

Ammonia (3% solution) 100.0 ml<br>

Water to make 1.0 litre<p>

 

Good luck.

I think Peter's seen that thread before...

Here in New Zealand, the local market for collectable, usable cameras (Leicas, early Nikons and Rollei's) is still very strong. Stronger than before. Mind you the market is so small...<p>

FWIW, trying to find a good used Rollei or Leica here is near impossible. The buy/sell papers are pouring with Leica cameras and lenses and Rollei; only in the wanted to buy sections, however.<p>

I think there are many a good camera locked up in cabinets, never to see the light again, except for once at perhaps an estate auction, only to be locked up again...<p>

The Rolleis I always got were from old jokers who couldn't focus them anymore. They were always glad their camera was going to get used and not "locked up".

Re Andy: interesting that you should say that Delta has a touch more speed, confirms what others have said about this film. If it wasn't twice as expensive as my standard 400 film, I'd definately give it a shot. Also, that the traditional technology 'trilogy' of 400 films seem very similar in speed - and look too, I'd wager...<p>

Regarding a good speed developer, Gainer Phenidone developer is 'good to go' speed-wise. For low light, also consider 'stand' development as a further technique to bolster your shadows.

Can't answer your question, but to save a bit of weight and hassle you can buy pretty much whatever film you want here (New Zealand), although Ilford films are a bit dear, Agfa is cheap.

Re Jay: I didn't know the 'C''s were prone to variation of quality of production (commonly referred to as 'Monday-itis')? What were the culprits, Planars or Xenotars?<p>

Actually I have a 3.5F Planar for sale at the moment (I didn't post directly on the Medium format board because it doesn't seem to be the 'done' thing) and at the risk of blatent self promotion, I think it's rather a nice deal (comes with a heap of accessories, cased and boxed)... $550.<p>

All told the 'white faces' are more collectable to the collectors ;^)) and indicate a later model in general. If you still are too-ing and fro-ing between the 'C' and the 'T' - do as the famous Mr 'T' from the 'A' Team said - 'AAAYYYEEE'. Go for it - sounds good.

Tony, hi, how are the shutters on both cameras at the slow speeds?<br>

If they are both good (do not stick) and the lenses are both clear then I would say (go on, flame me...) go for the T.<p>

The reason for this is that any camera which is 40ish years old and in like new cond., deserves attention.<br>

I recently spent a good deal of time and money sourcing a camera which was purported to be 'as new' - it wasn't. A good user is a good user, but the 'as new' cameras a few and far between.<br>

They are so hard to find... Yep go for the T.<p>

Good luck and all the best, Nicholas.

Oh, and I forgot, Acros also responds very well to standing development without much risk of bromide drag.<br>

I sound like an ad for fuji (I don't even use this film anymore).

Acros has amazing reciprocity characteristics with no failure due to reciprocity at up to 2 minutes exposure time.

Sell it and buy a Koni Omega outfit or a Rollei.

Brown glass bottles for developer, ancient photographic types - excellent.<p>

BTW there was quite a funny <a href="http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3e43ce1e.137517428%40news.the-wire.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Ddarkroom%2Bbulk%2Bbuying%2Bphoto%2Bchemicals%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3e43ce1e.137517428%2540news.the-wire.com%26rnum%3D3">thread</a> (dunno if this link will work) running in the rec.darkrooom newsgroup on google some time back. About buying bulk photo chems mainly, but it made me laugh. By chance, I was outside my motorcycle mechanics and noticed that the out the back of a cafe were a heap of detergent bottles of all sizes. I nabbed them (not stealing they were going to go to the dump/recyclers) and use them to store fixer in.<p>

Another BTW, those concertina bottles sold in photo are quite bad for oxidation. Apparently, oxygen bubbles hide in the folds and the chems oxygenate quite badly.<p>

*disclaimer* this is possible heresy and to be taken as such. No experiments have been undertaken to prove such statements by author ;^))

There is always a risk of damage due to grit when squeegeeing films. I don't let anything touch my film (and sometimes that isn't enough).<p>

As for watermarks, try LFN by Edwal - it's really good. Follow the instructions exactly and you should be fine. One bottle lasts years.

Threads like this are a waste of time...