John Seaman

<p>Another puzzle now, a nice fitted case came in another lot at the auction. I wondered if this was the original case for the Sonnar? The round compartment is larger in diameter than the lens itself but I wonder if it's actually designed to take the lens with the Flektoskop reflex housing fitted?</p><div></div>

<p>One problem was I forgot to set the infinity focus for Sony by adjusting the locking ring on the thread at the back of the lens. I was limited to perhaps five meters, which is why there is a predominance of close ups in the series.</p><div></div>

<p>Yes Stephen I'm sure they prefocussed on a critical point and then shot as the athete ran past.</p><div></div>

<p>The lens is too long to get a proper shot of this sculpture.</p><div></div>

<p>These were all hand held as the large aperture gave quite fast shutter speeds on the Sony, which seems to work best with the Sonnar in shutter priority mode.</p><div></div>

<p>Another one, the eagle sculpture:</p><div></div>

<p>The lens certainly produces a nice creamy out of focus background.</p><div></div>

<p>I managed to forget the lens hood but the shots didn't seem to suffer, although the contrast in some of them was rather low, so I just tweaked the levels a little to make them pop.</p><div></div>

<p>The shots were all done at maximum aperture, which makes focussing very critical. It was reasonably easy to focus in the nice bright screen of the A900, despite the lack of split screen aids. But the focus ring is a little stiff and after an hour my wrist was aching. I wonder how the German sports photographers of the 1930's got through the day. My subjects were stationary.</p><div></div>

<p>A few weeks ago I requested information about a Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm F2.8 "Olympia Sonnar" I acquired at a local auction, here:<br /><br />http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00cfno<br /><br />Since then I've had two adaptors made, one for Nikon, and one for Minolta AF / Sony Alpha, by the excellent SRB Griturn. I finally got around to putting it on my Sony Alpha 900, and took it to the Botanical Garden to try it out - you can beat me up for using a digital camera but my excuse is that its the lens which is the subject.</p><div></div>

<p>What a super find, and fascinating shots of Chicago. "Has anyone tried to shoot 35mm in medium format camera?" Yes, with a Super Ricohfleh,here:</p> <p>http://m.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00cQi4</p>

<p>Most people have their own ways of doing this. I don't try to scrape the foam out of the grooves above and below the film door. Just glue in strands of black knitting wool with dabs of silicone glue in the grooves. Once the camera is closed it presses the wool in nicely. The door hinge seal and mirror bumper can usually be replaced by sticky backed black felt. Just scrape the old foam off with whatever implement you have, and use lighter fluid or similar on a cotton bud to clear off the residue.<br> I don't usually try to scrape the mirror bumper foam 100% off or clean it off with solvents etc, to minimise the chances of messing up the focussing screen. The new bumper should stick on quite acceptably even if there are traces of the old one, the point being that the one thing you must not do is allow anything to get on the screen, which is virtually impossible to clean.</p>

<p>I just sold mine for 63 UK pounds, with filter and instructions. I've also got an RD but the shutter is a little sticky. People are just going potty for certain things, for example the Yashica T4, T5 point and shoots with Tessar lenses go for over a hundred pounds, as do the M42 Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm F2.4 Flektogons. The Olympus Mu 2 / Stylus Epic is not far behind.</p>

<p>Chuck I wish I took a picture before putting it back together, but the trapezium mirror from the dead Yashica slotted in perfectly, there even seemed to be a recess in the casting to allow for it, despite the fact that as I said, the original mirror is a simple rectangle.</p>

<p>Interesting results from the "folding box". The range of tones in the subject matter is probably something of an unfair test for the camera (and film) but I think its important to post results from classic cameras, whether they quite fulfill our expectations or not. Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>John, an interesting point, I had one of those sliding tube cameras a while back, a Braun Paxina, but it didn't suffer from stray light.</p> <p>The film was 100ISO and it was a bright day, but there are no significant shiny surfaces inside the Rollop. I'm convinced the problem is light getting from the viewing chamber into the film chamber, via the gap around the viewing lens, and around the end of the tube in which the taking lens slides in and out, when the focus is fully extended. Its hard to describe. You can only see it when the focus is racked out but I guess you rack it back and forth as you turn the knob to focus.</p>

<p>Another thought, it seems odd there was no option for 16 6x4.5cm pictures.</p>

<p>Rick, yes I did use a hood. It probably causes the corners to vignette, although some of the images are slight crops from the originals.</p> <p><strong>Wallace Heaton Blue Book 1955/6 TLR's</strong></p> <p>Photina Reflex Westar Lenses £20-19-9, Cassar Lenses £27-10-7</p> <p>Flexora £23-12-9, Delmonta £21-17-3. Flexaret 3 £36, Rollop 2a £42-18-7, Microcord 2 £62</p> <p><strong>Wallace Heaton Blue Book 1960/1 TLR's</strong></p> <p>Halina A1 £10-10, Rollop 1 £31-8-4, Rollop Automatic 2.8 £49-19-2, Microflex £63, Ikoflex 1c £35-2-9</p> <p>Rolleicord Va £48-13, Rolleiflex 4x4 £46-5-11, Rolleiflex T £88-15-9, Rolleiflex 3.5F £119-9-8</p> <p>Rolleiflex 2.8E/2 £140-6-10, Tele Rolleiflex £185-6--0</p> <p>Average wages in 1955, perhaps £10 to £15 a week? In 1961, perhaps £15-20. These were luxury items, even the cheaper ones.</p> <p>Finally a page from the Rollop manual, explaining the different picture sizes.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the comments.</p> <p>Mike, yes the Rollop seems to have been positioned somewhere above the Halina A1 and the Photina Reflex, perhaps on a par with the Weltaflex, but not up there with the Yashicas and Rollei's. In the mid 1950's in the UK there were import restrictions which prevented new Rollei's and Leicas from being available, so these lower tier TLR's were the only option unless you went second hand. - I've got a 1955 Wallace Heaton catalogue somewhere with the prices etc.</p> <p>Kris, I do suspect a light leak. As stated I shone an LED torch into the front of the camera and when I looked in the back. I could see a faint halo of light around the taking lens, when the focus was racked out. The light seems to be getting from the viewing compartment through the tube in which the taking lens slides in and out. Difficult to see how to fix it.</p> <p>Kent, the manual states that three different picture sizes are available with the appropriate mask. When I get a minute I'll scan and post the relevant page, if you keep an eye on the thread.</p>

<p >Last one. A double exposure, well the double exposure prevention is rather temperamental. Film is Fuji Reala, scanned at 1200DPI on my Epson Perfection 4870 flatbed.</p> <p > </p> <p >Thanks for looking.</p><div></div>

<p>Another one, this time it is flare.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm referring to the hazy areas at the bottom of these shots. I took it into a dark place and looked into the back with a torch shining on the front. With the focus racked out I could just see a crescent of dim light around the top of the taking lens, It looks as if light is somehow getting from the viewing compartment into the film chamber when the lens board is extended. Heigh-ho.</p>

<p >Flare, or a light leak? Perhaps I messed up the light seals although if it is a leak, it seems to be coming through the front somehow.</p><div></div>

<p>Looking at the next two, I realised there was a problem.</p><div></div>

<p>And another:</p><div></div>