chauncey_walden

The Yashinon will come into its own at f8 and f11.

You do have your medium format slides mounted in glass mounts, don't you?

Clark, I have a 2.8C which, like the original poster, I got for a song because of the condition of the front of the lens. I put a hood on it and shot a test roll and was blown away at the results. Sharp and contrasty and every bit the equal of my 3.5F Planar which has a perfect lens. Try it out with a hood.

Slide bars or focusing rails mounted sideways are a great way to work with one camera and static subjects. If the lens axis is perpendicular to the bar you still have the unoverlapped portions of the image to contend with but they can be masked out for slides or cropped off if making prints. In extreme macro work (I have made a lot of 3-D images of insects in amber) I found it easier to move the subject.

Joe, I just found this. Maybe it will help explain it: vfxio.com/PDFs/Parallel_vs_Converged.pdf Or, hold up a finger at arms length and look at it and notice what happens to subjects in the background. Our eyes toe in to look at any subject. Real stereo cameras have parallel axis lenses but have offset capture windows to reduce the non overlapped subjects. But what do I know, I've only been taking stereo images with stereo, or non stereo one or two cameras for 55 years.

Actually, Joe, parallel lenses without offset image planes (as built in to real stereo cameras) causes more eyestrain than toe in to center the subject. Toe in does introduce keystoning but for most subjects this is not noticeable. Pointing lenses inwards on two cameras or on virtual two cameras (via horizontally shifting) does work. I'm guessing you haven't tried it.

I think I have one that size stashed away somewhere. IIRC it is marked Minolta.

OK, you can try this. A general guideline for an ortho view would be a 1:30 ratio. That is the center of the lenses should be separated by 1/30th of the distance to the nearest subject. Stereo cameras have offset film windows to help eliminate unoverlapped areas of the merged images. Your option would be to slightly toe in the two cameras so that they, like your eyes, are both looking at the subject. Good luck.

The normal spacing would, of course, be the spacing of your eyes. Impossible with 2 4x5 cameras unless you are looking for the hyperstereo tabletop look. Another option would be to use one camera on a left/right oriented slide bar where you could vary the spacing from eye distance to whatever the length of the bar would allow to get the effect you want (assuming the subject is static.) For dynamic subjects you would have to mount 2 lenses on the same camera and rig a divider in the bellows to separate the images giving you a pair of 2.5x2 images.

Whoops, almost forgot the Russian 30mm rectlinear.

That makes a great kit, Rick. Of course, a lot of the beauty of your images must be assigned to the manual shutter actuator;-) On my 645, with the help of an adaptor, I use lenses I had for my usually defunct Pentacon 6. I have a Kiev 55 which I liked better than a zebra 50, the 80 standard, a 180 f/2.8 Sonnar, and a magnificient, late multicoated 300 f/4 Sonnar. The 300 works great with a 6 element telextender giving me a 600 f/8. Stop down metering isn't a problem and 6x4.5 is so much easier to work with than 135.

<p>Somewhere, I have or had, a parallelogram thingy that allowed you to compose exactly using the viewing lens and would then raise the taking lens to the height of the viewing lens so any kind of a close up attachment would work. Anyone remember these?</p>

<p>Kent, on your Custer shot, is your Petzval a little short for 4x5?</p>

<p>Back on subject, Kent, great results from your vintage Leica and lens.</p>

<p>It looks like one of the fast internal TV lenses that usually go for $5 to $15 bucks and make good paperweights. The coverage is very small and the only way it could be used is possibly as a limited range very macro lens on 4x5 but only if your subject is flat as there is 0 depth of field.</p>

<p>I love mine. I've had 2 of the Medalist IIs. Got rid of the first when I found the second one that had been converted to 120 by Bald Mountain. The lens was a carefully designed (Rudolph Kingslake and a host of RIT students tracing rays) reverse Heliar formula that Kodak also used on the lenses they made for the first Hasselblads. Had one of those also. Lenses were spectacular. I have all the accessory backs including the extension but have not felt any need to use them.</p>

<p>JDM, seeing that ad clicked in my memory. In my National Geographic inspired youth the Miami paper used to run ads for the clubs on Miami Beach. One such show ad featured none other than "Evelyn West and Her Treasure Chest". By the way Kent, just got back from Svalbard - hubba, hubba!</p>

<p>Make sure the locking tabs are in the correct positions when you install it. These are indicated in the instructions. No lube required.</p>

<p>Eileen, according to Kodak's CAMEROSITY date code the serial beginning RA would be 1951 and it appears to be either a movie camera lens or maybe, because of the other lens you have, a tv video lens. Someone will possibly know which.</p>

<p>I do. F/16 with 400 speed film has not been a problem. Neither has handholding. A lens heavier than an Angulon would tend to unbalance the camera. A cable release fed through the hole in the right grip makes a convenient thumb release. Of course, some people just can't handhold effectively.</p>

<p>Yes, 40.5 - http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm</p>

<p>I started with a Pentacon 6 and rounded up several lenses - 30, 50, 80, 180 and 300. Spacing was always a problem and after a drop, winding at all was problematic, even after a "repair". I bought a brand new inspected/updated Kiev body with TTL finder and it was really a beautiful camera. When removing the empty spool of the third roll of film I put through it the whole bottom of the spool holder pulled off due to faulty construction leaving the camera unusable. I took the finder off and returned the body for repair or exchange and after many emails and phone calls never got anything back. I loved the lenses so I picked up an adapter for a Mamiya 645 and a teleconverter and am happy with that. I also picked up a 645 to Nikon adapter because the late MC 300 f/4 is a heck of a lens and even with the teleconverter (300 f/8) does an excellent job.</p>

<p>http://www.theslideprinter.com/</p>

<p>You only need 1 good empty spool. Each roll of film you shoot will provide the next empty spool.</p>

<p>Your cameras will give you great results with slide film. Just be aware that older shutters may be a little on the slow side so test and allow for that so your results won't be over exposed. The Sputniks on the whole tend to have light leaks so it is safer to put tape over the seams once you have loaded it. Viewing medium format stereo slides in a viewer is an incredible experience. Mounts and viewers are available from several companies such as http://www.rmm3d.com/supplies/mounts.html. Just find an E6 processor and ask that the film be returned uncut. Instructions for mounting stereo slides can be found online. I see that BHPhotoVideo even has an inexpensive (less than $20) medium format 3D viewer made for the Holga which could be used for your Sputnik. I have 6 or 9 or 10 (got to get them all together sometime and post) stereo film cameras and a Fuji stereo digital. My first 35mm camera was a Stereo Graphic way back when. Have fun!</p>