Dan Deary

If you get a chance to see "The Collection on Masterpiece" on PBS(in the US) it shows a young fashion photographer in Paris named Billy who uses a post war Rolleiflex...it is actually featured a lot and Billy, for the most part actually uses it properly. It does not reverse the image for the TV viewer but otherise it is accurate, although he does shoot, wind, and shoot again at a pretty fast clip. A few times they even show him changing the film. It's not often photographers depicted in film or television use vintage equipment properly.

In doing more research on the interweb I would surmise that there are multiple versions of this camera, at least three, probably more. Another difference I noticed late was that in my version I have a single viewfinder window with rangefinder. Ricks version looks like it has second rangefinder window. I am convinced I have one of the very earliest versions. It looks like the Olympus engineers were constantly tweaking this camera in its brief run from 1960-1963.

I looked at Rick's picture again and it does show shutter speeds on the barrel of his later version. My bad. I may have seen a more recent version on another posting somewhere in which there were no shutter speeds shown.

Just acquired an earlier version of this model labled Olympus EE although the case is labled "Auto Eye." There is one significant difference in that the lens barrel has a shutter speed ring with speeds offered from 1 sec to 500 sec and B. My example has a dead selenium meter so the auto function does not work, leaving only manual settings. On mine it does involve readjusting the film speed ring when I want to use slow speeds, a bit inconvenient but overall all manual speeds work except B. Another difference is that the lens is labled 1: 2.3 instead of the later version Rick has. Of couse mine also has a grey covering.

See my write up of the Yashica 635. I tested the auxiliary lenses extensively. Yashica 635, The Complete Package

Great pictures John. Your lens looks real sharp. I have a similar beat up Nikkormat FTn with same 35mm lens that I acquired in a rummage sale for the ridiculous price of $2. The camera body needed light seals and a new mirror bumper but shutter and all other functions work flawlessly. The Nikkor 35mm F2 lens however was a real mess. The front element was very hazy and blotchy which was probably fungus but it was difficult to tell. With cerium oxide and a Dremmel buffing tool, I must have spent 2 hours, in 30 min intervals, polishing the haze out( no amount of liquid cleaning would touch it). The multicoating appears to be gone on the front element but it it is now clear--I am testing it now and will know soon if all my work was worth it.

Dare I suggest you have found one of the rarest of Minolta lenses made to create special subdued (but sublime) effects on images that would equal the masterpieces of the early 20th century. Sorry, trying to look on the bright side of this.

<p>Excellent presentation. Those shots are fantastic. I am curious about the 28mm focal length. It seems to me that the 28mm lens is often neglected. I am guilty of this too as I usually use 35mm and 24mm as my preferred wide angles even though I have several 28mm lenses. I wonder how many of us actually actually use 28mm lenses? I may have to rethink my arsenal.</p>

<p>A vintage Eastman Kodak 2a Box camera. Do I win?</p>

<p>I have always suspected there were unseen weird forces affecting my photography. This explains all the failures I have had.</p>

<p>I prefer stainless steel reels but it does take a little practice. When you load this type reel you can tell if it is loaded incorrectly immediately if it does not settle in the grooves properly--just go back and unwind and start again. When winding on, I nudge the film back and forth to see if it slides in the groove easily. Also you can feel with your fingers if the film portrudes too much through the reel. For 35mm, I never rewind the tongue entirely back into the cassette until I cut the film squarely off--this makes a world of difference when first loading the reel. For 120 it is a little more difficult. In the dark I learned to cut off the corners about 1/8 inch on the taped end( I leave the tape on, it does not hurt) ever so slightly so I can center the film better on the holding spring. Its all done with feel.<br /> I know you hate to waste film, but practicing first in daylight and after getting the feel, close your eyes--practice more. Believe me it will come natural to you.</p>

<p>As I recall Ed Romney(remember him) claimed the lens on this camera was extremely good but the ergonomics of the camera made for a lot of camera movement when the shutter was released that it resulted in unsharp images. He felt tripoding the camera was the only solution. Having never used the Kodak 35 I cannot confirm this.</p>

<p>I still have the huge 755 Balomatic slide projector somewhere in my basement. Used it maybe 5 times and it worked OK. Several writers had disdain for that machine however. I don't use slide projectors unless I get nostalgic and look at old slides. I must have 4 or 5 projectors now.</p>

<p>The documentary shows many images were damaged( from a basement flood at the Signal Corps building in 1947) showing water streaks, salvageable enough to tell the story. If anything, it makes the images more haunting and believable. Vaccara worked for the Signal Corps after the war was over for 6 years.</p>

<p>Yes the Argus C3 is crude, ugly and sometimes infuriating to use. German Kodaks are indeed a better camera. I have gone to a lot of garage sales, thrift stores and camera shows and when I inspect the C3's about 95% of the time they still work. Not sure the German Kodaks' could do the same. Bear in mind about 2 million of these were made over the course of roughly 30 years. It is a tough camera that can take a lot of abuse and that is one reason Tony Vaccaro chose this camera.</p>

<p>I would like to recommend the new HBO documentary “Underfire: The Untold Story Of PFC. Tony Vaccaro.” It’s not for the faint of heart as some of the images are hard to take. The camera is discussed briefly in the beginning but the story is all about Tony Vaccaro as an infantryman in WWII who multi-tasked as a soldier with an M1 and a photographer with a small camera. He was never part of the Signal Corps; he did it on his own. He took about 3000 pictures! Who knew what that camera was capable of?</p>

<p>Well this was educational for me because I never realized that An RB Graflex could be shot with glass plates. According to the Graflex.Org website the plate film holder accepts two plates. What is puzzling to me is the baseball pictures were shot in the 1930's when film was quite prominent. It would seem to be impractical and uneconomical to use glass plates in that "modern era."</p>

<p>Thanks Rick. Having never seen a Mamiya Six, I looked up some info and the focusing on that camera is by moving the film plane. Since the lens on the TLR is by focusing by rotating the front element, I wonder if the four element design is still in play. I do have a Super Ikonta with a Tessar lens that has a rotating front element so I guess it can be done.</p>

<p>One more pic.</p><div></div>

<p>Acquired another TLR, a Mamiyaflex II that cosmetically is in poor condition with multiple dents, paper thin leatherette coming off and lots of paint scratches. It all seems to work though. According to my research it came out in 1952 predating the C2 series. I did need to adjust focus the two lenses so they were in sync. It was full of dust and what I like about most TLRs is that it is easy to remove the folding hood to clean the mirror and its innards. It has 9 shutter speeds up to 300th sec plus B. It is self cocking and after loading film to #1 in the red window the film winding is automatic. It has a self timer but I'm reluctant to try it with the age of this camera. The shutter says Setagaya Koki MERIT and seems to be reasonably accurate.<br> The focus is by front gearing common on TLRs of this era; the surprise is that it only takes a quarter turn to go from 3.5 ft to infinity. The lens is a mystery to me. It is a Setagaya Koki Sekor 1:3.5 F=7.5cm. What I cannot find out on the internet is whether this is a 3 element or a better 4 element lens. My guess is that it is a 3 element. Does anyone know? I will put some film through it soon but I think this will be a keeper.</p><div></div>

<p>Based on your serial # you have one of the very earliest 2.8 f's made in 1960, perhaps 1961. The model is designated as K7F.</p>

<p>I highly recommend an “enlightened” documentary currently on Netflix called “Monk with his camera: The life and journey of Nicholas Vreeland.” As a teenager from a prominent and wealthy family, he was tutored by Irving Penn and Richard Avedon no less. The film is mostly about Vreeland’s journey and history of his spiritual quest into Buddhism, the Tibetan variety. He made every attempt to rid himself of “attachments” yet retained his many and expensive film cameras ( he struggled with this). He was shown with many variations of Leicas, along with a Mamiyaflex and I believe a Sinar view camera. His gurus, including the Dalai Lama himself, encouraged his picture taking and in the end the selling of his photos helped build a new monastery in India.<br> The film is largely about Vreeland and his struggles, maybe 20% is about his photography.</p>

<p>To justify my obsession with camera collecting I wonder if this will work? "My dear It's for for my future museum."</p>

<p>rajmohan: I probably will give or sell it to someone after I get tired of it; I agree it is too good of a camera to waste. I am just doing this for the challenge of it. </p>

<p>I already have several Rollies and Rolleicords and have had two of them serviced at great expense. This is not worth servicing to me but it does offer a challenge to use it anyway the way it is. Here is my crazy solution: Live with 10 or 11 exposures instead of 12 to prevent overlap. Crank the film wind to approximate where it would normally be but allow a little extra space between exposures. I have put through Ilford paper backing and learned I can set up the 1^st frame after I start the film just after the feeler roller going 3 ¼ turns. From that point on I crank to the 10 o’clock position for the next several exposures, then 9 o’clock position until I reach the 7^th frame and finally for the remaining frames crank to the 8 o’clock position. This method may work but has potential for a lot of errors. Keeping count of the frames and remembering how far to crank is the problem. I may have to allow for film thickness as well.<br> Isn’t this vintage camera hobby great!! Not only do I manually set each exposure with focus, shutter speed and aperture but now I have to <strong>count and</strong> <strong>watch my cranks!</strong> In theory, I should get great photographs with all this attention to detail.</p>