Dan Deary

<p>The bad gear taped on top of camera</p><div></div>

<p>Side view</p><div></div>

<p>I found this Rollei in a rummage sale, no less, and got it for $10. Before I purchased it, I inspected it for focus, shutter speeds, dents, fungus in lens and so on. Everything seemed to have worked on the surface. The face plate was severely tarnished so cosmetically it was in poor condition. The only caveat was the label said “For Parts.” The major clue was that a metal gear was scotched taped to the top of the camera. The camera was intact so I was curious as to where the gear came from. I bought the camera and on closer inspection while home I realized that the film counter was always on “0” and there was no film stop working. The leatherette on the film winding side showed signs of being re-glued. The gear also showed signs of several mangled teeth. It appears someone took apart the camera hoping to fix a problem, couldn’t do it and just put everything back together sans broken gear(?)</p><div></div>

<p>Rick, I agree the 2^nd image is much better and would be acceptable even to me. I appreciate your efforts in throwing a positive light on this lens. The web sites I looked at however seem to me to be in a competition to see how many bubbles they will produce. It reminds me of that old SNL sketch featuring Christopher Walken and the band Blue Oyster Cult singing “The Reaper” with Walken repeatedly asking for “More Cowbells!!” In this case it’s “More bubbles!!”</p>

<p>My brother found a Fujica STX-1 with this 55mm lens in a garage sale and gave it to me(bless all those people who give me cameras). I have not used it yet and decided to research the lens. The lens is a 4 element design with 4 groups a slight variation of a Tessar I presume. This was written up by Rick Drawbridge favorably in 2009( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00S0Q0 ). In my research, it appears this lens is highly regarded for its sharpness and also by digital camera users for its"Bubble Bokeh." <br> Check out this site: </p> <p>I was rather horrified and felt the results were ugly and after seeing these samples it really turned me off to ever using the lens. I wonder though if its the digital medium that creates this form of bokeh or does it translate to film as well? I am curious as to everyone"s experience with this lens. And am I alone in the belief that bubble bokeh is ugly?</p>

<p>It is a little hard to diagnose from your description but I will throw in my two cents. First, this is a camera from the 70's, although one of the best in that period and is actually my favorite of all my SLR's. Because its old now, electrical contacts are questionable and it might explain the needle behavior. The circle in the viewfinder or as we use to call it "the lollipop" should move when you change the aperture ring. The lens has linkage to the body of the camera so either the camera body linkage is at fault or the lens is faulty. Take the lens off and reattach it and try it again. If that fails try a different FD lens( I am assuming you are using an FD mount lens). If all of this fails you could get the camera cleaned and lubed or you could get a hand meter and forget the internal meter altogether which I do with many of my old cameras. Good Luck.</p>

<p>I actually have a Hambletonian binoculars that are very good although big and heavy. I always associated them with the big harness racing event. I also have USSR made binocs that have very good glass but the mechanics of focusing is a bit rough.</p>

<p>My favorite movie for camera's although older than modern , was "The Public Eye." See my post in 2005. <br> http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Cnml</p>

<p>Looks like I will have to work a lot harder to get my stuff auctioned at Christies. As a side note in my quick review of the starting prices being asked, it appears a Diane Arbus print is the hot ticket now.</p>

<p>Yesmine: See my write up of the Yashica 635( a dual format camera.) You will get an idea with what you are going to deal with.</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00csB2</p>

<p>Lens cap left on? Sorry I couldn't resist. My only thought was when you tested it dry, did you actually see the light through the shutter curtain slit? Try this in front of a bright light. If you do see the light I have no other explanation. </p>

Camera looks identical to my Sears Tower Reflex with a Westar lens except mine has a Vero shutter. My father used it for many years. Focusing is a bit stiff and I will refrain from using lighter fluid after your experience.

<p>If you have obsessive compulsive tendencies like a lot of us do in this forum and a great appreciation of vintage engineering in cameras then you will find it a challenge and pleasure to use various lenses and experiment, no matter how tedious. If its convenience you are after I would pass.</p>

<p>I did find this:<br> http://www.historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=1384</p> <p>Mine is a variation of this double extension model XVIA. There are subtle differences.</p>

<p>Thanks Dan. The artical was informative and a little confusing about f stops so I will have to digest it further. Incidently I do not believe the previous owner(s) ever used the lens as a convertable as I found the lens rather difficult to unscrew from the shutter because the factory or the owner put some black thread on the lens to make it extra tight. </p>

<p>Absolute final image</p><div></div>

<p>4th Image</p><div></div>

<p>3rd Image</p><div></div>

<p>2nd Image</p><div></div>

<p>1st Image</p><div></div>

<p>Just acquired a Conley 5 X 7 folding plate camera that’s over a 100 years old with 5 film holders. Bellows is intact, shutter appears to work perfectly and the lens is clear from fungus. The back does revolve with a simple trap door to access the ground glass. The small viewfinder’s mirror is shot and the circular bubble level is long gone. The pneumatic bulb and tube was so brittle it fell apart. It all came in a “cycle” (?) leather covered case that was in very poor shape. No model name or number appears. Bellows does extend out to about 15+ inches but I suspect the lens is approximately 8 1/2 inches based on the distance scale on the side.<br /> My main question is about the lens. It reads “5 X 7 Rapid Orthographic F- 8,” made by Wollensak. I can find very little about the lens. I’m pretty sure it is not a convertible lens but I could be wrong. Is it a Rapid Rectilinear type lens? Is it one of the lesser lenses of Wollensak? Has anyone used one of these lenses? What were the images like? I did read in several places that the Rapid Rectilinear lenses while providing fairly good images for over 50 years was phased out because the Cooke triplet was not only better but cheaper to make. Any info on the camera and lens would be appreciated.</p>

<p> Thanks for your responses. I guess we can agree there is no perfect tripod or ballhead for every purpose. I expected some opinions to vary. The lightweight Gitzo tripod I got cheap is of very good quality but fully extended the legs are a bit "spindly" if that is a word. I would not put anything heavier than my Rolleiflex on it and even then I would not fully extend the legs.. For close ground work it is ideal with a SLR or medium format. For absolute stablity though I would go with one of several Manfrotto tripods or even my wood Zone VI. For absolute convenience and simple setups my old Welt Zoom-leg works well. The ballhead feature is new for me and the Gitzo #275 will suit me well for occasional use. It is very clean, works smoothly and sets up very secrurely. I'm not a professional so I'm not so picky. I just feel lucky I found this.</p>

<p>The off-set Gitzo #275 ballhead is vintage and as a result it does not have a QR plate. Don't really miss that much as with a ballhead I find it fairly easy to attach the camera. Here is a picture of it.</p><div></div>

<p>I have a closet full of old tripods and never thought I would buy another. However I saw this gem, a vintage Gitzo 124 Sport Luxe Performance model for only $8 in a thrift store and I couldn't resist. It came with a nice little compact #275 ballhead. No center column extension. It has 4 section legs that have 3 spread positions which makes it ideal for close to ground work. It's aluminum of course. Weighs about 4 3/4 lbs. With legs fully extended with a height of 60 inches, it is not as sturdy as I would like but it is not much of a hardship to use just the 3 leg section. On the interweb it states the Sport models were made between 1981 thru 1994 in France. The offset #275 ballhead is a pleasent surprise and I could mount it on another tripod if I was inclined to do so. It is supposed to handle up to 11 lbs. As with almost all Gitzo's extending the legs are a bit of a chore--a common complaint it seems. For just $8 I'm not complaining much. Anyone else have any experience with this item?</p>

<p>Casualty of WW II(?) </p>