john_stockdale2

It looks as though the scratches are not parallel to the film transport which to me suggests that it's not a camera problem. (Unless you have reframed at an angle)

You bought it to use, so use it. The point about the increasing shortage of trained mechanics would tip the scales, for me, given that you have a camera which is better able to survive the day to day wear and tear. I say this as a Rolleiflex SL66 user: we have just about run out of service personnel.

I'm a long time Rolleiflex SL66 user, and a few years ago I bought a GX to use when the noise of the SL66, as lovely as it is to me, would be obtrusive. I think the film loading is an improvement on the sensor loading of the earlier SL66 (similar to older Rollei TLRs) as they can get out of adjustment. I like the meter as it's similar to that of the SL66SE. However, the shutter button feel, mentioned above, is very disappointing. I have gradually gained the skill necessary to use it, but I don't like it. Plenty of other cameras with meters have the two-stage shutter button movement but none are as bad as this.

It can take a bit of trial and error to dial in the exposure index and developing time. I suggest that you take a couple of frames with a bit more exposure (say +1 stop, and maybe a bit more) to see if you prefer that. I does depend on how you do your exposure metering. I notice that in Bill's post above, he uses 1+150 not 1+100. Given a longer development time, that can improve shadow detail. My experience with this developer is that generous exposure is called for.

Would steam/water vapour from a kettle on the back of the prints be worth trying? I'd be afraid that immersion might disintegrate them. But I don't have any experience with this problem.

I don't need to push, but I'm going to try a bit of pre-exposure to control wide SBR in landscape work. Thanks Andrew.

"Trying to find one now, is beginning to get tricky as shooters are picking up second copies incase Nikon don't ever make a better DSLR." Here we go again! I'm just contemplating selling part of my collection of medium format film cameras, mostly bought in case "They Couldn't Be Replaced/Repaired." As it happens, they were so reliable I didn't need them.

I have a 208 and a 308. What I like about the 208 is the traditional rotating dials and the size, of course. What I don't like so much is that there is a bit of slack in reading, so it gives slightly different measurements if you turn the light level pointer to match the meter from low to high, compared to from high to low. I have compared it to my collection of other meters and I conclude that the 308 is more accurate even though I'm not so keen on the digital display. I also have the tiny Voigtlander meter which is good (reflection only) except it has an infuriating tendency to shift the film speed setting: there's not enough friction to hold it in place. I've thought of glueing it at 400 and if I rarely need a different film sensitivity then make a mental adjustment. Or sell it.

I think it's worth a try because when the lens is stopped down only the central parts of the elements are passing relevant light. If you try it please let us know.

Buying another body (Pentacon Six) in order to use this lens without going to the trouble of arranging a mount for my Rolleiflex SL66 is slightly tempting. There is one for sale locally (Australia) but the vendor reports some shutter curtain closing problems. So I've lost enthusiasm! The Mamiya 645 does not appeal for portrait orientation. I am still tempted to try to use my spare blank lens mount. A previous post here said that it would not be ideal. Why is that? I wouldn't expect auto aperture! I'm also tempted by a Biometar 120mm f/2.8, also usually available in Pentacon Six mount. If I was really lucky and everything worked out I could use the same mount as the 180mm. Maybe that would be too much to hope for.

Thanks Tom. I was aware of the lens being listed but have never seen one offered for sale. Does anyone know if the basic lens, before a specific mount is attached, is the same in all cases? If so, I could acquire any version, remove the mount (e.g.Pentacon) and proceed with having my blank Rollei lens mount drilled, maybe tapped etc.

I'm interested in the 180mm Sonnar to convert for my Rollei SL66, which has a focal plane shutter. I have a blank lens mount. (I had one drilled and tapped for an Imagon by Grimes and it was very successful). I see some of the Sonnars for sale, with various mounts. Could someone suggest which one would make the neatest conversion to a custom drilled and tapped spare mount? Would back focus dimensions have to be considered for infinity focus (although I'd be using it primarily for portraits).

A neat solution to putting it around one's neck. A loop of piano wire araldited in two carefully placed holes. I had to be careful because I mount the meter on two cameras, one of which has a shoe that would have been fouled if I hadn't beencareful

Last week I was going to write that I still use my D70 for routine photos of items and parts where a modest resolution photo was all that's needed and it was quick. However, I binned it a couple of days ago when it suddenly got very flaky. It was a strange feeling, putting a camera that looked perfectly fine externally into the bin. I never had to do that before.

That's a really good idea. I had to do the same some years ago when I had old paper, a Zone VI VC head that was misbehaving and home mixed paper developer. Too many variables to sort out. (The problem turned out to be mostly the head in this case)

Absolutely agree with tomspielman: "And maybe it's doesn't have to be this way, but working with medium format in my opinion is a much slower and deliberate process. It takes me more time to focus for example. I'm not saying that's bad, but it does mean that there's some situations where I don't want to use a medium format camera." For me, MF is more enjoyable. I love the big view through the WLF (as much as I hate the tiny view through my first Nikon DX camera), and I love using the big negatives, If I did this for a living, I probably wouldn't use MF.

I used to write documentation in my job and I tried hard to include everything essential to a range of readers and also to make it readable and not too long. These days I would rather read than watch a video except where explanation in words would be difficult or verbose. A recent example was changing a light bulb in my wife's Mercedes. I had to resort to several videos to succeed in a job that we used to do in a minute or two.

Rodeo-Joe's instructions are a later version and correct an error in the link in my earlier post about -MC without TEA. It apparently needs the glycerine. The standard -HD is so good I no longer bother with other versions.

Sandy KIng's summary: Pyrocat: Versions and Mixing Directions There was a version with errors for an alternative version of the MC version without any water or TEA but maybe it has dissappeared. For most purposes all versions are similar, so I'd suggest making up whichever version is most convenient. There is a concern that if using metabisulphite, it needs to be fresh.

I've successfully used methylated spirit. It's not a permanent solution, so has to be repeated from time to time.

Is something bent, preventing a close fit?

My limited experience with MF Delta3200 leads me to get out the Nikon with 400 film and a faster lens. For the OP, would a deep yellow filter get you close enough without losing such a high filter factor?

I use the SL66 version of the old 40mm Distagon. The box that contains the original lens hood and one filter is bigger than my lunch box.

I can't get out of the habit of rotating the aperture ring to both extremities even now it's pointless.

The same lens was available for the Rolleiflex SL66 and is even more rare. I saw one for sale on ebay for $18,000 a few years ago. A bit beyond my price range!