Colin O

I was reading a review of a lens that I won't buy - Voigtländer 65mm f/2 Macro Apo-Lanthar. The review is here: https://dustinabbott.net/2018/08/voigtlander-macro-apo-lanthar-65mm-f-2-review/ One line made me think again about something... I understand that the "optical formula" of a lens affects things like sharpness, bokeh, sunstars, etc, etc. But how much does a lens contribute to the colour of output? I would have thought that colour was down to the processing applied in the digital camera (or properties of the film used), and not really anything to do with the lens. (PS. I have some vague memory that I was involved in a similar discussion here before, but I cannot find it.)

Hmm, I think that has absolutely nothing to do with my problem - do you realise you are talking about an entirely different camera? My problem - with a Mamiya 6 MF - is almost certainly down to a lack of pressure on the film that is provided by the "Film Holder Roller Plate" when using Mamiya's official 35mm adapter.

I think questions like these are absolutely pointless unless you say your location. Are you in the USA? Britain? Australia? Mongolia?

Just to confirm the other question I had - I bought a 67-72mm step-up filter ring, because I already have a couple of 72mm filters, and the ring appears to mount without any problem on the Mutar. It encroaches into the viewing path of the viewing lens of course, but that can be tolerated I think. Thanks all for the very helpful info and leads.

Hi I've noticed some NSFW images appearing in the forum sidebar that shows "Recent Gallery Images". Is there any way to block these images? I seem to recall an old Photo.net feature where this could be done - but can't find anything in the current settings. I've become nervous about visiting the forums in my open-plan office.

The suggestions were correct - what this distance scale on the Mutar is, is not a conversion between metres and feet - which I initially thought, by not looking closely enough. It does indeed seem to be a conversion from the distances on the focusing knob to the actual focus distances when the Mutar is mounted. There's one conversion scale in metres, and a separate one in feet. Only one of the scales is really visible at any given time - from the top - and to make the other scale visible, it seems a screw needs to be loosened, and the scales spun around.

On the left during the Olympics in Mexico a film cameraman, who I later learned is one of the famous Samuelson brothers from London, with super long lens on Arriflex camera. The photo next to it, dogs doing it in Hong Kong. In Mexico I worked with the Nikkormat and a 500 mm f/5 Pentax lens. I should never have sold that lens with my crazy head. But yes, then you need money once and there it goes. So Samuelson with the 500, 1/250th at f/5 on Ektachrome. The dogs just with the Leica and a wide angle.

A couple of points worth adding to my previous post... There were some changes made to certain models during their production run, which didn't warrant a new model name. For example, there are 3.5F cameras that have a 120/220 switch (not that 220 capability matters anymore), and some that don't. It's worth just bearing in mind if you see some small differences here and there, or if something is really critical for you. For fuller details though, you would really need to consult a book like the one I mentioned - "The Classic Rollei". The other thing worth mentioning is about so-called "white face" Rolleis... Towards the end of the TLR era, Franke & Heidecke changed the faceplate on the cameras, to one that was predominantly white, with smaller writing. This is purely cosmetic. But, these models command a premium because they are newer (but still ~50 years old!) and additionally, by this time, it was only really collectors I would say who were buying the cameras - and so white face models should theoretically be in better condition. I specifically avoided a white face camera, because of the premium, not to mention I simply prefer the look of the older faceplate. Here's a table showing the year of introduction of various models starting from 1949: | "Pro" cameras | "Pro" cameras | Intermediate model | "Amateur" cameras | Telephoto model | Wide-angle model | with 80/2.8 lens | with 75/3.5 lens | with 75/3.5 lens | with 75/3.5 lens | with 135/4 lens | with 55/4 lens | | | | | | 1949 | Rolleiflex 2.8A | Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat X | | | | 1950 | | | | Rolleicord III | | 1951 | | Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat MX | | | | 1952 | Rolleiflex 2.8B | | | | | | Rolleiflex 2.8C | | | | | 1953 | | | | Rolleicord IV | | 1954 | | Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat MX-EVS | | Rolleicord V | | 1955 | Rolleiflex 2.8D | | | | | 1956 | Rolleiflex 2.8E | Rolleiflex 3.5E | | | | 1957 | | | | Rolleicord Va | | 1958 | | Rolleiflex 3.5F (Types 1 & 2) | Rolleiflex T | | | 1959 | Rolleiflex 2.8E2 | Rolleiflex 3.5E2 | | | Tele-Rolleiflex | 1960 | Rolleiflex 2.8F | Rolleiflex 3.5F (Type 3) | | | | 1961 | | Rolleiflex 3.5E3 | | | | Wide-Angle Rolleiflex 1962 | Rolleiflex 2.8E3 | | | Rolleicord Vb | |

After a bit of googling, I found that the filter thread is 67mm. Mentioned in these 2 sources: https://kamerastore.com/products/rollei-rollei-mutar-0-7x-wide-angle-lens-attachment-tlr-1 https://www.mikeeckman.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ZeissAutumn1991.pdf

I just bought a 0.7x Mutar for my Rolleiflex 3.5F, and have 2 questions: It seems the Mutar has a filter thread on the front, which I was not expecting. Does anyone know what size filters it takes? I used a tape measure real quick and it seems the diameter is about 69mm, which seems a non-standard size to me, but maybe not. The Mutar has a distance scale on top, showing metres and feet. What is the purpose of this scale? It's just static - changing the distance at which the camera is focused has no correlation with this distance scale. Is it just there as some kind of conversion reference? I can't see any other purpose. You can see it, just about, in this image: http://www.chapterlux.com/wp-content/uploads/LUX_3893-940x730.jpg

I have a Rolleiflex 3.5F. Rolleiflexes are not the be-all-and-end-all camera that some GAS websites would have you believe. It's slow to use, and, I have to say, I find it hard to focus some times. (I've actually tried 3 different focusing screens in it - the original Rollei one, a Maxwell screen and finally an Oleson screen, which is probably my favourite.) Shock, horror, sometimes I miss autofocus and autoexposure. Also, the angle of view is sometimes too narrow for my liking, and you can't focus particularly close - around 3 feet minimum - without adding a fiddly Rolleinar close-up lens. Also, I've begun to notice more and more that my portraits have a "looking up" feel - by virtue of the way the Rolleiflex is held - which I need to do something about. Having said all that, I love the camera and use it all the time. I'll never get rid of it. Sometimes the view in the waist-level finder just looks magical. One thing that I love about it is that strangers will agree or even (rarely) request to be photographed when I'm using it, simply because of the camera's own charm. Mine dates from the late 60s and has never given me any mechanical trouble. I've never had it serviced. I watched eBay listings on and off for years before buying mine. Generally the cheap ones are in bad shape, and the good ones are expensive. I ended up paying £800 for mine in 2017. I did my research by reading "The Classic Rollei" by John Phillips, which is an absolutely fantastic description of the brand through the years, but the book is unfortunately out of print. I would not buy one that has any dings or dents that indicate the camera was dropped or severely mishandled. Also I wouldn't buy one that had obvious lens issues - scratches, fungus, haze, etc. Rolleiflex TLRs are all at least 50 years old (essentially), and they were all invariably high-quality cameras. Which model you go for is not as important as the condition of the exact one you buy. There was a significant advance made when coated lenses were introduced, so I personally wouldn't buy one from before the 1950s. (Can't remember off-hand when exactly coated lenses were introduced.) One thing that was important for me was to have a film advance lever, as opposed to a knob, but of course there are others for whom that wouldn't make any difference. If you are looking at the later models, the Rolleiflex 2.8 and 3.5 models were aimed at professionals. The Rolleicord models were aimed at discerning amateurs, and the Rolleiflex T fitted in-between as a more affordable option than the top-end models. There are also more "exotic" models, like the Rollei Magic (with automatic exposure control), Tele-Rolleiflex and Wide-Angle Rolleiflex. Model names are more logical than creative, i.e. as successive improved models were released, the model name for the 2.8 series just ran from "2.8A" to "2.8F". There were some idiosyncrasies in the 3.5 series, such as the "3.5E" sometimes being called the "3.5C" - possibly depending on territory? Rolleicord models use Roman numerals for successive models, the final one being the "Vb" (five b). There are some online resources that have lots of good info. One of the best in my opinion is Ferdi Stutterheim's Rolleigraphy Users Site. Check out these ones too: Dante Stella - Rolleiflex 2.8F What to look for when buying a Rolleiflex By Harry Fleenor A Tip for Buying a Rolleiflex from photographs And I also recommend this shortish instructional video from Hawaii Camera:

Fine. Offer the seller $75, if they don't know any better. You'll get a bargain, and the nice feeling of having cheated the seller out of a fair price for doing you a favour. Or if you want to offer a fair price, then don't ignore eBay. You said yourself that value is determined by what people are willing to pay. So why are you willfully ignoring what people pay? It doesn't make any sense to me.

you don't pay more just for the sake of paying more. You pay for the added value of being able to "road test" your purchase - and the peace of mind that gives you. Like I said, you should pay a fair price for you - but also for the seller. The aim (I would hope) is that nobody gets swindled out of any money.

It's a kind of ridiculous question in my humble opinion. What exactly are you buying? New or second-hand? What dealers have you had problems with? What items have you had trouble finding? What are you actually trying to determine here? Are you trying to find one single retailer where you will make all your future purchases? If there's some retailer that you don't have personal experience with, my best advice is to google for reviews of that specific retailer. It would probably be more efficient than your question here for anecdotal experience of random retailers. Worth also bearing in mind is that people tend to leave reviews far more often when they've had a negative experience than a positive one. So just don't forget about all those thousands of problem-free transactions that don't make it onto internet review listings.

Thanks for the interesting reply. Can you explain what "adhesive preholed hinges" are? Maybe you could link to something online?

After some more searching, I think I may have found a solution... "screw post binding" https://www.handmadebooksandjournals.com/create-custom-books/other-bookmaking-techniques/screw-post-binding/ https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/696346487/high-quality-linen-screw-bound

Worth mentioning... another thing I want to avoid - a ring binder. They are ugly and not at all of the photobook aesthetic.

This thread reminded me of the 2019 documentary 'Apollo 11' directed by Todd Douglas Miller. Highly recommended if you haven't seen it.

I was thinking of having a photobook printed with photos of friends and family. But as new photos are taken, I'd like to be able to include new ones and swap out old ones. Is there any photobook that could support this kind of thing? I know what I'm describing sounds basically like a photo album, but I don't want the album look - I want a photobook look. That is, photos printed directly on the pages. I did some quick googling and found photobooks available with spiral binding, but I'm not too familiar with this. Is it something that makes it easy to swap pages in/out?

What do you mean? In the US, B&H is a kind of "one-stop shop", but there isn't any real equivalent in the UK. Amazon is my preference for buying new camera equipment. For accessories, there are lots of options - Speed Graphic, Wex, to name just 2, but that's kind of doing a disservice to the many other good options. Lately I've been buying my film from Analogue Wonderland. And often I'll just use Google Shopping and find the cheapest reputable dealer for whatever item I might be looking for at that instant. Also, I have a kind of personal policy, where... if I'm looking for something (e.g. camera bag) but I'm unsure about it, and I go to some "brick and mortar" store to check it out - I'll then "reward" them with my purchase, even if they're not the cheapest retailer. Because shops that have gear on view for checking out need to be kept in business too.

I would also query the virtue in this. Everyone likes a bargain, but if the seller can sell it on eBay for x dollars, why should you cheat them out of that price (or thereabouts)? Plus, you should actually be willing to pay a premium for the peace of mind you get by being able to test your purchase first, which generally isn't so easy with eBay purchases. You should pay a fair price for you - but also for the seller. Having said that, look only at "Sold listings" when checking eBay prices. Current, unsold listings are no indicator of what the market actually pays.

I would imagine that it would be a recipe for disaster to start mixing-and-matching elements from one lens with another. Treat the lenses from each camera as units. And I'd include keeping taking/viewing lenses together as a pair - if I recall correctly, they were matched in the factory to ensure accurate focusing. Just my humble opinion.

No matter what I try, it just doesn't work. The film is not being held down securely against this roller. I'm not sure how Matt Osborne or anyone else got it to work with the "DIY method" shown in the video. Looks like the only option is to buy the original Mamiya adapter for circa $400 which I'm not going to do.

Good point. I just searched for the instructions for the original Mamiya 35mm adapter and found this exact explanation...

I'm hoping to get some advice from people familiar with the Mamiya 6 MF rangefinder. MF indicates the "Multi Format" version. I bought one of these last year, and it appears to be in fantastic condition - looks like only careful owners before me. To my shame, I've only put 3 rolls of medium format film through it so far - everything worked just fine. As mentioned, the camera has "multi format" capability - like the Mamiya 7 which superseded it - and there's an (expensive) adapter available that allows 35mm film to be loaded in the camera, to shoot panoramic frames a bit like a Hasselblad XPan. It's also apparently possible to avoid the expensive original Mamiya adapter and just use cheap 3D-printed 135->120 adapters to get your 35mm film loaded - that's what I'm trying to do now. Here's a video (not mine) walking through the process: My problem is that when I load the film and close the camera back, and try to advance the film until the frame counter shows "1", well, the frame counter never reacts. I advance and advance, and there's no stop - it appears I can draw the full length of film out of the cassette. I assume this is not what is supposed to happen, and I'd like to hear the experience of other owners. I know that the film is being taken onto the take-up spool successfully, because I opened the back of the camera in a changing bag, and was able to feel it. I rewound the film manually back into the cassette, tried to load the film again and had the same experience as before. I do have the pressure plate set to the right "220/135" position - though I doubt that would be the culprit in any case. Additionally, there is something else that doesn't really seem to do anything on my camera... So, the idea is that when you get to the end of your roll of 35mm film, you depress a button underneath the camera to disengage the gearing of the take-up spool, allowing the film to be rewound back into its cassette. That button doesn't really seem to do anything on my camera. I mean, it depresses, but it doesn't "click" or anything, and I can't quite see how it works... But that might be irrelevant - it might only be functional in combination with the official Mamiya 35mm adapter. Anyway, to finish, here's a photo of my 35mm film loaded in the camera, waiting to be advanced. As I said - the film does advance, just the frame counter doesn't advance. Has anyone here successfully used these cheap 35mm adapters with this camera?