martyn_oliver

<p>John Impeller: "necessary to make an incision for a flathead screwdriver"<br>

On the contrary, NOT necessary. That is just vandalism that will damage the camera. A soft, sticky ball will do the trick – try a squash ball.</p>

<p>I think it's probable that, if the back is working as it should do, the amount of film advance (and consequently the gaps between each frame) will be consistent. Using films of different thickness might vary that amount, albeit minimally, but it should not lead to variations between one pair of frames and another.</p>

Two things strike me here. The first is that to make a proper assessment you need to use the material which you will be

shooting with. So backing paper on its own gives a false measurement. The second is that, even though your material is

incorrect, your result does at least indicate a comparative difference between the two backs, so at least one of them seems to be in

need of adjustment.

 

You wrote elsewhere that you were going to shoot mainly b/w. My advice would be to pick up two rolls of out of date 120

monochrome and just shoot them. Use a brick wall for your subject, and then you can also test the focus at the same

time. It doesn't really matter if it's poorly exposed, and you won't have wasted either time or money. You will, however,

have got a definitive answer on both of your backs..

<p>Hi Steve</p>

<p>There's a very good forum on Flickr dedicated to the K-O series.</p>

<p>I have an M with the standard 90mm Hexanon lens. Like yours, it came from a retired professional photographer, and apparently they were real workhorses known for their robustness and reliability. I love the lens – somehow it seems to impart a sense of depth that is lacking in European optics of the same generation.</p>

<p>One problem that sometimes does seem to crop up from time to time is overlapping frames on the film, a consequence of mishandling the film advance mechanism. But it seems as if you've been well advised. However, if you should feel the need to delve into the works of the mechanism, there's a really good explanatory guide online here: <a href="http://randamteagarden.tripod.com/id31.htm" target="_blank">http://randamteagarden.tripod.com/id31.htm</a></p>

<p>Look online for Greg Weber, who has to be the number one authority on K-Os. He overhauled my lens for me last year and did a splendid job for a very reasonable fee (he can be a bit slow, though).</p>

<p>Good luck with MF.</p>

<p>"How does the front element stay in if you remove the retaining ring?"</p>

<p>It's clear that, if you need to ask this question, you don't understand what you're talking about, and so you're making an uninformed criticism. The retaining ring retains the filter, not the front element. I don't know the rationale for Series filters. I do know that they were used a lot in the film industry. I also know that they were used extensively by Leitz, who make what are acknowledged by many to be the world's finest camera lenses. So K-O can't have been completely wide of the mark.</p>

<p>Martin is quite right about where the threads are. He's right, too, about the fact that the filters are Series filters, in this case Series VI. But the OP might not be familiar with Series filters. These are unthreaded filters that are held in place by a threaded and glassless ring. They're readily available on auction sites and from classic camera dealers, for not very much money. If the ring is tight, it can easily and safely be moved using the kind of flexible rubber strip that is marketed for opening jamjars.<br>

I have a feeling, though, that Martin is wrong about the fit of 49mm. As far as I recall, the thread diameter is 44mm. I believe the pitch of the thread of Series filters is different, too, so while you can start a threaded filter off, it soon jams and you then risk stripping the threads of your filter or - much worse - the threads of your lens. If you can't find the proper thing, then firms like Tiffen make adapters that do the job properly. If you use an adapter, though, make sure it's a step-up adapter (i.e. to a filter of larger size than Series VI) otherwise you risk vignetting.</p>

<p><em>Matti Lietepohja wrote (some time ago): "Fortunately this is easy: You just remove six visible cross head screws of the cover and also sensitivity selector knob. Removing the knob requires some kind of friction tool (thumb!) to open the flat head screw in the middle."</em></p>

<p>I used an old trick I learned from a watchmaker. To take the screw-down back from a Rolex watch, you're supposed to use a specific Rolex tool whose serrations fit perfectly into the knurled surround of the watch back. However, some of these watches are eighty years old now, and the backs have seen some wear and often some damage. So the tool no longer fits true. Solution? A little rubber ball. I used one of these "power balls", the type that bounce high in the air, to shift the flat head screw. It worked perfectly – and incidently it does the same job on the film-advance lever on my Leica too.</p>

<p>Thanks, Robert and Roelof. I'm sorry, I clicked to be informed of updates but wasn't, so I wasn't aware you'd both replied.<br>

I did in fact sell the set with profit, and I've since acquired the proper Bay 1 Rolleinar (2-part). I now have all three for my "T", and they're great.</p>

<p>I've just acquired a Microtek Scanmaker i900, mainly in order to scan MF negatives. However, as a precaution I decided to do the recommended calibration using the supplied Kodak targets. So far I've only scanned the reflective target, and, while the machine appears to make a pin-sharp image, it has a very pronounced green cast overall. I'm using a Mac with System 10.5.8 (Leopard), and the results are the same with ScanWizard Pro 7, Vuescan 8.6.24 and Silverfast. I can tune some of it out with ScanWizard's correction panels, but I feel I ought to be using those for fine-tuning rather than for making the initial scan acceptable. Has anyone come across this problem with this or another model?</p>

<p>There are two small cross-head screws on the rear face of the back, above and below the grey latch. You need to undo these. Also, on the top of the back there is a knurled dial that you use to change ISO. The centre of this dial is a screw which also needs to be undone. You need to improvise a tool (maybe the eraser on the end of a pencil), or use an engineer's suction wrench for this (or, if it's been undone in the past, you might be able to turn it with the tip of your thumb).</p>

<p>Seems to me you already are underselling it by your description. Agreed, the Koni-Omega series cameras are large and heavy, and they do lend themselves to being tripod mounted. But they're meant to be handheld, hence the huge and very effective grip and the pull-push film advance mechanism; and the weight is a benefit rather than a hindrance, because you can easily take handheld shots down to 1/15th of a second without a trace of shake.</p>

<p>As long as they're handled firmly but not clumsily they're bomb-proof. They are beautifully engineered. As you say, the early Omega versions were originally designed for aerial photography, but by the time that Konica began to make them they had become the camera of choice for many wedding photographers, who preferred them to Hasselblads on account of their toughness.</p>

<p>Finally, the Konica Hexanon lenses are superb, and I've read objective tests in which people compare the results with Hasselblads, and the Hexanons come out equal or better.</p>

<p>It's a pity you want to sell yours. If you spent time getting to know it and like it, I'm sure you'd find it a great camera, one that's satisfying to use and produces extremely good results. Sadly, their sturdy looks do them no favours in the marketplace and you won't get what the camera is really worth for it. But, assuming you have the 135mm Hexanon lens, my recommendation is that you hold out for at least £125 or $200, depending on where you live.</p>

<p>I recently bought a Rolleinar/Rolleiparkeil set which, instead of a bayonet number, was engraved with the diameter 34mm. I only discovered this after getting my hands on the set -- it was sold to me as being suitable for f3.5 lenses. (My T's Tessar is Bay 1 and definitely not 34mm!) So can anyone tell me which Bay no. this is, and which lenses it might fit.<br>

Incidentally, if anyone wants a 34mm Rolleinar, I now have one for sale!</p>

<p><img src="http://www.wordspace.co.uk/rolleiparkeil.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Good luck. Let us see some resulkts, too!</p>

<p>I think Chris Waller has nailed your problem -- the misconception that portrait lighting would have been with flash. On-camera flash is notoriously bad at classic portraiture. Rather, there would have been at least one tungsten lamp, probably two. The subject would be placed with a dark background behind them but not close enough to be illuminated. And attention would be paid to how the light and shadow worked with the subject's features. For more info on this, look at this web page: http://www.professionalphotography101.com/portrait_lighting/lighting_names.html/ Or google "Rembrandt lighting".<br>

Chris is right, too, about the type of film you use. Look at RolleiRetro 100, which is old Agfa APX100. It's perfect for what you want to achieve.</p>

<p>The world number 1 expert on KOs is Greg Weber. He's on <a href="http://www.webercamera.com/">http://www.webercamera.com/</a>.<br>

However, if you feel like trying to fix it yourself, I suggest you follow the instructions here: http://randamteagarden.tripod.com/id31.htm. OK, this is for a KO rangefinder back, but the advance mechanism is exactly the same. Take it slowly and you'll be able to disassemble, lube and reassemble it with relative ease. </p>

<p>I think you've answered your own question, don't you?</p>

<p>The newer lenses will do all you say; but the results will be harsh and brittle by comparison with the Summicron.<br>

Think, too, about the Nocton's extra bulk.</p>

Does anyone have experience of using the KoniOmega flexible shutter release? I managed without one until now, and then I found one,

new but old stock, last week.

 

It presses fine, and trips the shutter, but the plunger will only return to its starting place when I press on the collar. (In other words, it locks

as if for a timed exposure, and this seems to be its only mode.) Is this correct operation?

 

(Incidentally, I'm cross-posting this to rff.)

I've just measured mine at 1.7 mm.

Ha, definitely not a US camera dealer, me!

You should look here (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LuZB) and

here (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E4Sn), and then go over to

http://www.rogerandfrances.com. Roger Hicks in particular mentions large-scale printing

from Alpa negs.

 

Sadly, I can't give direct advice, only anecdotal, because -- sadly -- I don't have Alpa money!

But if I did...

"I will see if i can hire and use both cameras and then make a decision."

 

That, I think, is very wise. You can read stuff about line pairs per millimetre until you go

blind, but the real test is what works for you in practice, and what satisfies your criteria for

a good picture.

 

Back to the Linhof MT, for a moment. Nothing that's been said here suggests that anything

about that camera in 4x5 is "not great", it's just different people's opinions. Mine, about

the two features you mention specifically, are these: Rangefinder focusing with an MT is

not like rangefinder focusing with a Leica. Why? I don't know. Just my experience. It's not

quite as precise, and the viewfinder images are not quite as bright. However, ground-

glass focusing with an MT can't be beaten. Given good film holders, registration between

the glass and the film plane is almost perfect. The back? I guess by this you're referring to

the movements. The MT's back is pretty flexible in terms of tilts and swings, but there is

no rise or shift. The main worry from a movements point of view resides with the front

standard, which will rise, and will tilt backwards a bit -- but that's all. Architectural

photography is therefore limited.

 

I think you should also think again about why you want to use large-format, and perhaps

look at Philip Greenspan's article (http://www.photo.net/equipment/large-format/choosing) on

which LF kit to choose. The preamble to his article asks several questions about why one

should shoot LF, and you might find that you'd be better off with medium. For myself, I

use LF to shoot 4x5 polaroid, or to make contacts from 4x5 negs, so the negative size is

important. But if you plan to enlarge, you might be better off spending your money on

getting the best MF kit, say 6x9 (in the US, this is 4x3?).

 

With this in mind, if I can make a suggestion, why not take a look at Alpas? They are

fantastic to hand hold, have very usable movements, and are engineered to as high a

standard as the Linhofs. (Indeed, I'm sure some of their backs are made by Linhof, but to a

much tighter specification.)

I accept that you have probably already decided on the two (you mention three in fact)

cameras you'd like to choose from. And I don't know what are you most important criteria

in making that choice.

 

Personally I have no experience of Ebony cameras. And although I swoon over the

engineering of the Linhofs, I don't believe they (and especially the Master Technika) will

offer you the mix of facilities your chosen subjects will probably need.

 

First, the MT is limited in movements -- great for landscape or portraiture, but for

buildings, and especially tall buildings, you will struggle. Also you will find that changing

lenses is more complex than it need be because of the need to switch cams (assuming

you'll sometimes want to use the MT's rangefinder; personally I prefer the ground glass

approach).

 

Why not consider a reasonably lightweight monorail (agreed the Technikardan is such)? If

you have a long enough rail you can also use a longer lens and get great close-ups.

Incidentally, Noah, is it you who makes those wonderful polaroid boxes? They look great. I'd

love one! Maybe if I go to the States...

Noah, good advice, but you're a little bit harsh on the boy! He's excited, and can't keep his

hands off it. I'd be the same in his position. So would most of us, some time in our lives -

you too perhaps.

 

Mark, best thing is, do what we all say, and get a professional hands-on opinion from

someone who holds the shutter in her/his hand. No-one here can tell you exactly what's

what, if for no other reason than that no-one here can be 100 per cent certain what you've

got. Good luck.

Hi Michael.

 

Look on the bright side. Your Compur shutter might be old, it might be running slow, it

might be no good at all. But it's more than likely you'll find it works fine. I don't know

where you are in the world, but there are certainly several very capable engineers who will

work on it here in the UK and also in the US.

 

All you need to know can be found on the S K Grimes website (see here: http://

www.skgrimes.com/compur/synchro/index.htm), but, to sum up:

 

Once the shutter is cocked, there is a small lever at the top of the shutter periphery that

looks like a small folded-metal box with a tab on one edge. Pressing this will open the

shutter to full aperture for focusing.

 

It's easy, as you've found, to turn the ring to 200, but at this point turning becomes rather

more stiff. Never mind, keep turning and you'll find 400 with a bit more rotation.

 

I should think this is one of the "original" lensessupplied with your camera.

 

Good luck.