stephen_shepherd

Ferdi and Tak, thank you. Time indeed for the upgrade. . .

I currently own a 6002 which, through use of the MRC 120 remote release, allows

a limited kind of multiple exposure: you can frame the first exposure through

the lens, but after that--unless I'm doing something wrong--the mirror stays up

for all subsequent shutter cycles on that frame.

 

Is this the case also for the newer 6001/6003/6008 bodies? Or does the rotary

switch at the rear base of those bodies disable only the film transport gear

and allow the mirror to return between each exposure on a single frame?

 

I'd like to reposition the camera or change the lens between exposures on a

single frame and can't seem to get that to happen with the 6002 without

recomposing by blind guesswork.

 

I'd be really grateful for some clarity on this; it may be time for a body

upgrade.

Can't help with the exact dimensions of the screws, but I've found the Husky HD-74501 W, with interchangeable heads, is very good for camera work. Four heads, three stored in the handle: sizes 000 through 1 in Phillips, and 1/16 through 1/8 in flat.

 

If you're in the US, Home Depot has them.

The Rollei<b>GON</b> lenses for the 6000-series were made by Tokina.<P>

 

Rollei<b>NAR</b> lenses, for Rollei's 35mm cameras, were originally outsourced to Mamiya, and then to a number of different manufacturers, including Tokina. <P>

 

More information on the distinction <A href="http://homepage.mac.com/fwstutterheim/rugarchives/2002-07/00580.html">here.</A>

I have the (Tokina-made) Rolleigon and the older Zeiss 40mm HFT. Build quality on the Rolleigon is equal to the Zeiss, if not better in terms of the crispness of the engravings. It's a solid, heavy lens. Sharpness and bokeh are excellent--no need in my opinion to trade up to the Planar for those criteria. Next to my Zeiss lens, I would say the Rolleigon has a cooler color-cast, but nothing radically different.

<P>

<A href="http://myweb.lmu.edu/sshepherd/California.htm">A couple of example shots.</A>

Perhaps it's separation of the silvering on the prism, though it sounds more like a physical obstruction. Either way, the DP-20 is a devilish thing to put back together once it's been opened up, so professional repair, or purchase of a used finder, are probably your best options.

If you follow the link I gave above for the Intellect batteries (batterystore.com), there's an option to "Create a Pack." You can order the 8-cell pack in style #17. What you will receive is a spot-welded, rather than soldered, brick in the right size and configuration for the Rollei shell. The welds keep the tabs flat, though you may still have to do some x-acto knife trimming under the tabs where the glue used to cement the brick together has pushed the tabs up.

 

After that, your only soldering work is with the end leads, relatively straightforward. This is still pretty delicate work, however, and not for everyone--and you do have to be careful not to force anything or break up the very fragile plastic shields.

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006tER"> Here's</A> a related link that may be of use to you, if you haven't seen it already. The 600AE's are apparently the newer standard for Rollei. It's important in a rebuild to keep the connecting tabs as flat as possible, or the cell pack won't fit well inside the metal case.<P>

 

I've opted for a personal rebuild using <A HREF="http://www.batterystore.com/Intellect/IntMain.htm">Intellect 1400mAh 2/3A NiMH cells (IB1400)</A>, and they are superb in my 6002: they hold a charge, don't run hot under continuous firing, and never seem taxed by the camera. I use a Great Planes Triton charger, and have the proper .8amp fuse installed for the 6002/SLX.<P>

 

Of course, someone will probably offer up sound technical objections for not using this setup--and a fried 6002 is perhaps more expendable than a 6008--but it's working well for me, and in a very real sense has given my camera back to me.

. . . and <a href="http://myweb.lmu.edu/sshepherd/Summicron40Hood.htm">here's</a> an updated link for notes on hood options for this little gem.

The webpage cited by the original poster has moved:<P>

 

<a href="http://myweb.lmu.edu/sshepherd/Summicron40Hood.htm">http://myweb.lmu.edu/sshepherd/Summicron40Hood.htm</A>

Just a note to say that my webpage about the hood modifications has moved. I have also added notes on using the 12504 hood as an alternative to the 12526:

 

<a href="http://myweb.lmu.edu/sshepherd/Summicron40Hood.htm"</a>

 

http://myweb.lmu.edu/sshepherd/Summicron40Hood.htm

<a href="http://faculty.smu.edu/sshepher/Summicron40Hood.htm">Another solution.</A>

I have a home-made Nikon adapter I picked up at a camera show, and it works just fine for the Nikon f/2.8 16mm fisheye and 20mm ultrawide. Depth-of-field on these lenses is great enough to cover innacuracies in guessing distance. Both lenses, though fast, are also relatively compact, and don't turn the Leica into a hormone monster. Lenses longer than 24mm are going to need to be stopped down well or be focussed with accurate separate rangefinders.

If what you buy can be "improved" cheaply, then you may improve your chances of an equitable or even profitable resale. For instance, paint missing from the engraved numbers/letters can be restored. Sometimes just a detailed exterior cleaning (use a lightly dampened q-tip instead of a cloth) can turn an "Ex-" to an "Ex+".

Sorry about that:

 

http://faculty.smu.edu/sshepher/jeffrey.htm

Here's a recent environmental portrait shot with the 40mm Summicron-C wide open (f/2: Velvia):<br><br>

 

<a href="http://faculty.smu.edu/sshepher/jeffrey.htm"</a>

This is a <i>sharp</i> lens, with excellent colour saturation. Vignetting is perfectly manageable, coverage is unsurpassed.<div></div>

>>With a little tinkering, the ring can be made to accept the #12585 shade made for the 35 & 50 Summicrons.<<

<P>

 

 

 

<A href="http://faculty.smu.edu/sshepher/Summicron40Hood.htm">Here's</a> how.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Nice work, John. My contribution is half-assed, but it uses the same film:<div></div>

Actual pixels:<div></div>

Mark,

 

I just picked one up from eBay last week for a little over $400, and just love it. Below is a photo I scanned yesterday, much reduced for posting. In a subsequent answer, I'll post a detail of the original scan showing the "actual pixels."<div></div>

Looks to me like badly scratched coating and (possibly) pitting on the front element, the result of haphazard cleaning over the years. If that's the only problem, the lens will suffer some loss of contrast--perhaps less than you might expect. Have you done any test photos?