mike walden

<p><b>Bob: </b> My Pentax/Asahi lens is the older Takumar or it is the Super Takumar, I am not sure which. The person I bought it from sais it was a Super Takumar, but I do not see that anywhere on the lens. All I see is Takumar. I use a screw mount adapter with my X-700 so I can use this faster 300mm lens. Its a huge hunk of glass with a humongous aperture blades at the front of the lens.

<p>Here is the backside:

<p><br><p>

<center><img src="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mwalden/eBay/rolleiflex_02.jpg" border=1></center></p>

<p>I will try again:

<p><br><p><center>

<img src="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mwalden/eBay/rolleiflex_01.jpg"></center>

<p>Here is a scan:

<p><br>

<p>

<center><img src="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/eBay/rolleiflex_01.jpg" border=1></center>

<p><b>Art:</b> Thanks Art. That pretty much answers my question. Thats exactly what I wanted to know, whether the parts are available readily, or whether it was a 'hunt' for parts.

<p><b>Kelly:</b> I know the viewfinder is supposed to pop up, I was stating that it did just that, like its supposed to do. Everything on the camera appears to work, but without putting film through it, I dunno how WELL it works. Also, mine looks JUST like yours, except it has f3.8 on the taking lens and it has a connector for a flash in the upper right front of camera face.

<p>I am not sure I want to spend that kind of money to fix this one. I may leave it alone, and resell it. Save my money and buy a newer better one.

Just recieved my vintage Rolleiflex TLR. I have identified it as a

1930's 620/621. After inspecting it, all functions seem to at least

work, lenses are a little hazy, and the viewfinder 'box' pops up

when the catch is released, but, it seems the metal viewfinder box

panels are a little bent, one even has a tear in the metal edge. Can

this viewfinder box be replaced? Can one be found? Will later model

parts fit the very early models? What about lenses? ANY information

that will help steer me into some replacement stuff would be very

appreciated!

</center>

<p>Looks like someone left a 'center' html tag unclosed. hope this fixes it!

<b>Frank Mueller:</b>

<p>I bought it on ebay, paid $49.00 for the kit. I am only interested in the "close-up" part of the lens set. It will, as stated before by another member, need some kind of adapter to make it fit a lens. It will NOT flush up to any lens I have because of the flange that protrudes off the back of the mount area. This flange sticks out several millimeters past the screw threads and makes it impossible to put on a lens as is. This set is made by Zykkor.

<p>As far as the Ultra Wide angle, the description at the auction says it changes the lens by .70, making a 50mm wider or as wide as a 35mm I think.

<p>The description also says the closeup lens gives a 50mm a 1:1 macro ratio.

<p>This thing may go back on eBay as I just purchased a Minolta Auto Bellows III brand new in the box.

<p>Well, these are NEW..so the kit comes as a set just as it is. The closeup lens is screwed into the back of the Ultra wide macro lens. In the photo, the closeup lens is the one closest to you, the Ultra Wide Macro is the middle and the 2X is the far lens. Anyway, I have tried the closeup lens with many of my lenses. Problem is, is that there is a "flange" that sticks out past the plane of the threads, so it kinda "bumps" into the lens glass preventing the threads from meeting. Is this because its designed to be used with some other adapter of something to make it fit the lens? As far as the Ultra Wide Macro, it has internal threads (also the same threads that the closeup lens screws into.

<p>I dont know any other way to describe this thing, and I doubt I have any quick way to get better pics up for someone to look at.

<p>It just seems odd that the threads seem to be a little larger tham most of my normal lenses, and in the ad for this product, it says it offers a 1:1 macro ratio with a 50mm lens.

<p>So, I wonder why this set was put together with a Minolta MD 2x converter if it wasnt meant to work with a standard 50mm lens?

I have to second what Ward said. . . .a great point made here!

<p>Well, I bought this thing on. . . .well, you know where. . . and

I have not the faintest clue how to actually use it! No instructions

included, and I have never seen one before so I am lost. It

consists of a 2x Teleconverter for MD Minolta (which I do know what

that is), and then a seperate <i>ultra wide MACRO lens</i>. There is

also a <i>close up</i> lens screwed into the back of the macro lens.

<p>Speaking only of the <i>macro</i> and the <i>closeup</i> lens,

they both have screw threads. I cannot for the life of me find ANY

lens I own that these will screw onto the end of!

<p><b>HELP!</b>

<p>Someone please tell me how this is supposed to work.

<br><br>

<p><center><img

src="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mwalden/eBay/macro_wide.jpg"

border=1>

<p><i>"... tripping the shutter or not is your choice but don't assume you are more ethical than poor people or photographers that do click the shutter. as far as another boring homeless photo...i bet there are way more boring sunset photos or way more hyper gloss meaningless ad out there. go to your nearest barnes and noble and see for yourself."</i>

<br>

<p>Note: This is not a stab at you for your comment! I am only using it to make another point.

<p>This is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. If the people of America, and maybe other countries as well, did not have the appetite for this type of "art", then it wouldnt be in Barnes and Nobles. Its just like violence on tv.

<p>As far as nature shots, its not necessary to ask the sun for permission to photograph it.

<p>Another point; could you take a picture of some prominent business man, or ANY of the thousands that are walking around the streets of our cities, WITH that person knowing you took their picture, and without asking their permission, and offer them nothing? No compensation? No fear of liable or some other legal action?

<p>The homeless or other of the "less fortunate" may not, and likely do not, have the means or opportunity to take any action against you. And, they may not even care that you sneaked a shot of them. But, and I may be wrong, correct me if I am, I was under the impression that this was legally wrong. Even if its not, personally, I feel its taking advantage of someone who's position has been compromised. Come shove a camera in my face, and you will get a real fast macro view of a 9mm barrel. However, if permission was asked and given, then it is a totally different matter.

<p>Taking the advantage is often necessary in photography, but, not to this degree.

<p>And all of this is said <i>assuming</i> that the photo in question would have been without permission.

<p>I honestly think that by photographing *poor* people, or transients, or homeless, or less fortunate people, we are somehow oozing out the sympathy and compassion juices. Maybe its not the photographer him/her self, but rather the acceptance of the American public for these kinds of photos. I like to put myself in the shoes of the homeless person, and think of how I would feel with a camera pointed at me because I am in the lousy position I am unfortunately in.

<p>I think you did the right thing by walking away.

Could you email me the name and/or the address of that camera shop in Atlanta, Chris?

Never mind Bob, just found John post "Engaging with Photography". Good read!

Please delete my posts.

Sorry Bob. Posted wrong. If this is a valid post, can it be moved to a proper thread?

<p>As a new photographer, I really do often wonder; why do we photograph things?

<p>I am also an analytical person, and I try to reason with myself as to why I should take my camera out, and record on film, an image that virtually noone else will ever see.

<p>Also, being new to this art, I see photography as one of those things that are only for the affluent, frequently invaded by a few modest peasants that somehow aquired the knowledge of the nobles.

<p>I'd like to ask some of you what you see photography as, why you do it, and when one figures out he's potentially good at it?

Wow! thanks Mike. Thats exactly what I needed!

<p>Hi. Just purchased a RolleiFlex 620/621. I have searched the

posts here and I have been unable to find anything on this MF

camera. If there is something I am overlooking in my search

criteria, please let me know and I will refer to that post first.

<p>My questions:

<ul>

<li>Any known issues with this model?

<li>Can the viewfinder/focus screen be replaced with the brighter

models if necessary?

<li>Interchangeable lenses available?

<li>How does a flash unit work for this model if available?

<li>Is the loading technique the same as other Rollieflexes listed

in numerous other posts?

<li>Available manual or instructions?

</ul>

<p>Any info would greatly be appreciated!

You are exactly right S.C.! After a couple hours searching the web, I finally found a page that listed ALL Rollei models and there it was.

<p>$80 gets it to my door. I have not used this camera Douglas. I just posted "borrowed" photos pasted all together in photoshop. I have them on my persoanl web space so I can delete them real quick.

<p>He says the camera works very well, although, me not knowing him personally, I cannot know how much he actually knows about the camera.

<p>I mostly would like to hear from any of you that can tell me what model this is, and any other information about it such as viewscreen upgrades, lenses, faults to look for etc. That is, if you can recognize the camera model from the pics and info I supplied.

Owner says it is Pre WWII, believe its vintage is 1930's. Shutter speeds from "B" to 1/300th, 120 film 6x6 negative, case is NOT original but in good user condition. All shutter speeds work and film counter works. lenses are clear but uncoated.Shot several rolls of film and was very happy with the great prints.

<p>Here is a picture of the actual camera.

 

<br><br>

<img src="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mwalden/rollei_flex.jpg" border="1"></img>

<p>Thanks for the good responses!

<p>Since this thread is already started, what can anyone tell me about this particular camera. Thinking about purchasing it since I paid next to nothing for the Lubitel. Are their differences in each brand of MF camera as there are with 35mm SLR's?

<p>I dont even know which model this one is. All I know is it is a <b>Rolleiflex Twin Lens Reflex camera with a Carl Zeiss Tessar 3,8 75mm lens</b>.

Doug: I do have a film processing tank and a changing bag. Actually, these are new and I have never used either one yet. I may try that. Although, I still hate the chemicals. And, I wont let the lubitel sour me on MF. If I like it, regardless of the performance of the Lubitel, I will purchase a better unit. Never having used a MF, I am not sure yet what all the hype is about. Is it because of the size of the negative and the size prints it will yield? Is it the quality of the actual image itself?