uli_mayer

Hi all, <br>for using the Monitor's frame counter and double-exposure control after conversion to 120 film there is a simple solution: Two strips of self-adhesive textile tape (4-5mm wide and approx. 15cm long) rolled around the shaft next to the dented wheels are all you need. (see photo )Ideally the new rollers should have the same diameter as the dented ones, but to make sure that there will be enough friction I just added one or two turns. The tape itself is like what book binders use for spines. <br> Procedure for film transport then is: Set the little lever on top of the camera on "wind"; start winding the film; when frame number #3 on the back paper is just disappearing in the ruby window, put the lever on top to its right position ("1-8"), and set the frame counter wheel to "1". Shoot!Turn the transport knob till you feel the stop. .... After picture #6 has been taken, re-set the lever to "wind" in order to disengage the mechanism.<br>Really a great camera and the lens is marvellous. <br> Uli<div></div>

Could it be that "Bi-Quality" meant that this Pinkham was designed as a dual-purpose lens, to be used as a soft portrait lens as well as a "sharp" lens ( perhaps similar to the Universal Heliar with its "floating" element to vary lens characteristics ) ?

Jack,<p>it may sound brutal, but since the Rollei filters are made of glass and aluminium only ( and no corrosive or soluble materials involved ) you could really wash them. Thereby you will reduce the scratch-prone part of cleaning ( wiping with "dirt" suspended in liquid ) considerably.<br>First hold the filter under the water tap to flush off the grid, then immerse the filter in a plastic bowl of lukewarm water (with a drop of dish cleaner added). Keep it there for a while to get the dirty layer solved. If simply moving the filter does not do the job to get the layer dissolved, , gently wipe the surface -underwater! - with a cotton ball. Let a clearing bath in demineralized water follow and the filter thoroughly dry.<br> This method has been followed by generations of amateur astronomers when cleaning such delicate surfaces as newly silvered telescope mirrors. Alternatively you could ask an optometrist to have your filters "washed" in his ultrasonic bath. ( In hard cases one could consider to substitute the water by sacrificing a bottle of wodka.) Cheers.<p> Uli

A look at Schneider's German site may give you additional information about the opto-mechanical specs about your lens and appropriate shutters for it. On www.schneider-kreuznach.com/archiv you'll find a wealth of data in pdf-files about the lenses they made from the fifties to the seventies. <br> Uli

Ken<br>you could ask an optometrist to sell you a simple -2dpt lens as they are made for glasses, and to fix it in a spare filter mount. I am pretty sure for portraits such a lens will do the job as well as the ones made by BW, Heliopan or the Distarlinsen I have. And you could even have it multicoated. <br> Uli

Mikel,<p> you may start with restoring/rebuilding a pre-1900 camera to get a feeling about the way those cameras work and the level of precision needed. If you do not want to use a lot of epoxy, your abilities to "cut" dovetails should be at least within 1/10 mm tolerance. The trickiest part will be designing and executing the camera back in order to get film plane und ground glass exactly ( rep. exactly )on the same level. Better to buy such a Graflok-type unit and the bellows as well first - and design the rest of the camera then according to your needs.<br>Uli

For flanges, retainer rings, for adapters to mount convertible lenses into shutters - whether from shelf or custom-made - I can fully recommend www.heliopan.de in Graefelfing, near Munich. This still family owned firm has been at least three generations in business of making all sorts of photographic accessories. Very nice and helpful people there, especially Mr. and Ms.Sommer, owners. <br>Uli

Collin,<p> for hiking and mountaineering you may also consider buying a good monopod. Together with your legs and some body weight on it, it's the lightest "tripod" you can get, sturdy enough in many situations.

Ole<p> in his "Optisches Nachschlage-Buch f�r Photographierende" of 1927, Hans Schmidt includes the Doppel-Amatar in a list of the "best known taking lenses", but without giving any specs.

His name should read: WILLY MERTE with an accent on the last "E".

Peter,<p> according to Willy Mert頩n "Handbuch der wissenschaftlichen und angewandten Photographie", 1932, those Amatars were made by Zeiss approximately between 1906 to 1920 and were of "equal performance as Dagors". The Doppel-Amatar consists of two groups of cemented triplets - either in Dagor-like lens configuration or showing a bi-concave, bi-convex, negative meniscus sequence. Its designer is Paul Rudolph, the man who also invented the Protar, Planar, Tessar and Plasmat lenses. BTW, Mert頨who designed the Biotar and Orthometar and improved the Tessar) is a very reliable source. His vol.2 "Bauarten der photographischen Objektive" even gives radii, thicknesses, glass indexes and lens spacings for a whole lot of lenses. Enjoy your classic glass.<p> Uli

Paul,<p> you could visit "Leicashop" and "Westlicht-Galerie", Westbahnstrasse 40, 1070 Vienna, which belong together and are the organizers of one of the best renowned photographica auctions in Europe. A look at their websites will tell you more: www.westlicht.at and www.leicashop.com . <p> Uli

Collin,<p> my advice is biased (based on my own trials and errors) . For the sum you mentioned I would buy 2 tripods - used ones, preferably made by Linhof: 1) a lighter and shorter tripod to really carry around and that would fit in a suitcase on flights, and 2) a tall and heavy beast for serious and special work. Why Linhof? - Because mechanically the ones I have are still in pretty good shape after 20 and 30 years of heavy use. Just a hint: There are some on e-baby right now. (Not mine!) <p> Uli

Mike, <p> I have one and I use it, although not so often. (I am more with 6x6 and 4x5.) This lens is defintely a heavy beast but I like it - to some extent - just because of that: it's the heavy duty feel it gives). Optical performance: I have no complaints at all! Even close-ups and details of family pictures ( some not bigger than postage stamps ) looked really sharp and contrasty when projected on a 5x5 meter screen. That is good enough for me. And its two-touch mechanism makes me never worry whether the lens focus stays where it should be or whether the tube is gliding down as may happen with one-touch zooms when working copy stands.<p> I must admit I almost never use the lens hand-held. It definitely needs support. And here the lens' revolving tripod ring shows considerable advantage over long lenses without it. Thereby the camera/lens unit does not hang fixed at one end with much stress on the mount but kept well balanced on the unit's center of gravity. And not to forget: One can easily change change from horizontal to vertical format without having to fumble with tripod heads. To sum it up: This Vivitar Flat Field is a no-nonsense lens, really good to use with monopod or any other support. <p> Uli

John,<p>

apparently my capability to read your posting carefully had been rather impaired when I scribbled my response. One should never underestimate the refractive power of Italian wine. <p> Uli

John,<p> maybe your fresnel screen has the wrong ( too long ) focal length for being used with that 75mm wide angle lens. A look at the webpage of FRESNEL TECHNOLOGIES might help to find out which focal length you should have. My guess: You need a fresnel with a refracting power closer to the focal length of your lens. But there should somebody be here in the photo.net who really knows how both focal lengths best relate.<p> Uli

Troy,<p> I keep it light and simple by using mostly a small old Linhof levelling head that gives me +/- 15 degree for fine-adjusting my 4x5 or a Rolleiflex. It weighs less than 200g and is holding a heavy camera (of let's say 5 kilo or a bit more) at least as firm as all the other tripod heads I have owned and sold (Linhof, Riess, Gitzo).<p> Any magic involved? - No, mechanics. This levelling head, like others by Linhof and Manfrotto ( Bogen ), simply relies on enlarged friction surfaces ( big sphere cut-offs) , and by keeping leverage to a minimum. The limited movement it provides is sufficient for many cases, especially outdoors; for the remainder I have a Schiansky head in the shelf.<p> Uli

Kelly, thank you for sorting out what apparently had been a language problem on my side, by thinking the term "design philosophy" did only comprise aspects of lens configuration and exclude all other "things" so important for making excellent lenses. That's what I like with photo.net: It's a free seminar in many ways. Uli

Kelly, you wrote: "...Ektar is really a design philosophy." How can that be when Ektars have such diverse designs as Gauss-,Heliar- and Tessar-type lenses in fact are? If I am not totally misled, what Ektars have in common is not one "design philosophy" but Kodak's will to offer a line of premium lenses under one distinguishing name. Only professionals with long experience in lens design, in actual lens manufacturing and quality assessment would be able to analyse all factors ( and quantify them!) that make a lens top notch - or less. Design is only one part of it. Quality control another. Uli

Tito, your question " What else did he design? " is easily answered: It is the Plasmat, patented in March 1918 - "according to some the finest lens he (Paul Rudolph) ever produced" (Aaron Sussman).

Mark, you will find an illustrative and short history of the Tessar design and its various re-designs in "100 YEARS OF CARL ZEISS TESSAR", a pdf-file on www.zeiss.co.uk . Uli

My Rodenstock catalogue "AUFNAHMEOBJEKTIVE" issued 7/1985 says, overall length of Sironar-N 5.6/150 is 51.0 mm, and length from shutter rear plate to the brim of the rear lens cell is 20.3mm if the Sironar is mount in Copal # 0; for Compur #1 that length should be 19.3mm.

Uli

Thanks to all of you for your kind answers. One special response to BG: You asked, if I am "totally confused now?" - Not at all! - I already went to the library to get a standard handbook of amateur astronomy. Your "anectodal" observations are fully confirmed there in an in-depth article on sound engineering of scope mounts and supports. Thanks again!

Uli

Do I need a carbon fiber tripod? - As manufacturers and many posters

continue to tell me and others, one should get one. But am I wrong

saying there are far too many moving parts in the camera/tripod system

- from pressing the button, cluttering mirror, wobbly tripod joints,

down to the rubber ends on the tripod legs - that changing tripod

material should be given first priority consideration when it comes to

elimate the assembly's weaknesses? My question is: Where can I find an

"analysis" that puts the carbon fiber vs. aluminium question into the

broader kinematic context? And a second question: Is it really

sensible to look for something that could be called the ultimate

super-stiff tripod? My feeling is that such a thing can neither be

made ( portable ) nor would it serve us best at all times. As I

understand it ( with my very rudimentary knowledge of mechanics) a

tripod has to be a compromise: For taking photos next to heavy traffic

or on vibrating ground we would be off best it the tripod worked as a

damper (requiring big mass and low stiffness to kill low-frequency

vibrations) whereas for leading bumps or wind thrusts as directly as

possible to the ground the tripod should have just the opposite: low

mass and high stiffness. Or am I wrong?

Daniel, there are shellac sticks in almost every shade of wood colour which can even been mixed in order to imitate grain. You simply melt them down with the tip of a hot knife or a soldering iron.. Just gooogle "Stick shellac" ( www.frets.com ) and see how it works. It really does! Uli