Dan Deary

<p>75 or 80mm is the typical size lens for 120 film( to do rectangular, square, or round for that matter). Larger sizes such as 90 or 105mm or even larger can be used but you will have to extend your enlarger column higher to get a decent size print which also adds the possiblity of more enlarger shake leading to unsharp prints. If you are very careful you can overcome this. (Note: Some of the best printers use larger than necessary size lenses because the image is sharpest at the center of the lens but those printers will have very stable enlargers.) Do you know anybody that has an existing enlarger of any kind to play with and understand the relationship of format size to lenses? It will also give you a sense of what you need and want in an enlarger.</p>

<p>I see know you did specify size. My advice still applys.</p>

<p>I can't respond to those two enlargers but you didn't specify what formats you want to enlarge. If it's only up to 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 size a simple Omega B-22 will do providing you use the proper negative carrier and 75-80mm lens. Of course it will do 35mm with a 50mm enlarging lens. Omega parts are usually plentiful. A more sturdy enlarger would be a Beselar 23C--again the parts are readily available. If you have the room get a 4 X 5 enlarger-they can be had very cheap now. Omega and Beselar made great ones and this would increase your flexibility manyfold. Beware if you go for some obscure enlager make sure you get all the negative carriers, condensers, lenses and all necessary parts-many are sold with a lot of shortcomings. I myself have a Beselar 4 X 5 with Zone VI flouresent head which I highly regard with as many negative carriers as I want-probably 6 or 7. I have used the Omegas and Beselar 23C cited above and they are perfectly acceptable. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>From the NY Times just over 5 min.</p> <p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging-to-a-future-beyond-film.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging-to-a-future-beyond-film.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0</a></p>

<p>Don't know if this helps and it may be too riskey to try it. I did this on a Luna Pro that I got cheap so I had nothing to lose and so far it has worked. The article is about battery conversion but it addresses recalibration. Here is the link:<br> <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/lunapro.htm"><br /></a>http://www.graphic-fusion.com/lunapro.htm</p>

<p>Excellent presentation what the little Canon GIII QL17 can do. It's one of my favorite small rangefinders, the other being an Olympus RC. I see nothing wrong with your scans--I wish my scans were that good. </p>

<p>I don't think there is a simple answer for this but I will ask anyway. Is there a way to view 3D Realist images on a computer sceen without crossing one's eyes? It gives me a headache when I do this. If there was a viewing device out there, I would like to know as I have not only a Realist camera but a Kodak Stereo as well.</p>

<p>In my opinion I don't think it's fake. It is identical to the original Zone VI camera I have. Originally Zone VI had an arrangement with Wista and Tachihara. Nice lightweight view camera. What is confusing, is that I always thought the original Zone VI camera was a Tachihara. Or are the Tachihara's and Wista the same? I have discovered that in many Japanese products, photo, musical instruments, etc, that there was a lot of manufacture interchangeability( I can't think of another way to describe this.)</p>

<p>I acquired a Rapid 100 several years ago but the film magazines were pretty beat up and there was considerable overlap on the film. Have not touched it since but are there good magazines to be had anymore? I would be happy to find just one.</p>

<p>I have a similar one with a pan head. Very nice lightweight tripod. You may have noticed the legs can be extended out by prying the braces apart--very easy. Good find.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of your positive responses.<br> Les: I could be wrong but I believe the cable release adapter was originally called a "Leica Nipple" used on their screw mount cameras that was adopted by Nikon and others. Yashica in their manual calls it "over-lap type cable release." I actually have two Safe-Lock tripods. I have a PT-3 which must be similar to yours(except mine don't have blue legs. Damn) in my winter home in Florida. It weighs 6 lbs. The one pictured is a lightweight Zoom-Leg at 3 1/2 lbs. I agree they are underrated. In 1972, Consumers Report rated the PT-3 equal to the Tiltall.</p>

<p>I suspect that people who have used the Rolleikin on their Rolleis, that the use of a pentaprism attachment would greatly improve the use of the 35mm format. I would certainly like to hear from those who may have tried this.</p>

<p>The results in my limited test would say the auxiliary lenses work better with 35mm film—there is no vignetting. Both of them showed some loss of sharpness but for the average person, it may have been acceptable. I might give a slight edge to to the Telephoto. When I think about it, probably almost 90% of my 35mm shots with an SLR are horizontal so that to use this camera with 35mm film I would have to be dedicating myself to vertical portraits, something I seldom do. As for the auxiliary lenses because of the aforementioned difficulties, I don’t think I would ever use them again. Almost every TLR user zooms with their feet anyway. I will likely just use the “635” with 120 film only in the future as I expect most owners did. <br> My fantasy about the dream outfit at age 18 was shattered completely but this test was fun. I hope you enjoyed it. I apologize for it being so long.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I used a 24 exposure roll of Ilford HP4+ and I could not get the last frame in without the frame overlapping because I ran out of film. In the future I would just expose for 23 frames. This is probably due to the camera needing a slightly longer leader. Otherwise spacing was perfect. One flaw with my camera was the fresnel viewing lens had a mottled look due to age and the thin red 35mm frame lines were hard to see especially in sunlight.</p><div></div>

<p>Cemetery Building 3 with 35mm film.</p><div></div>

<p>Cemetery Building 2 with 35mm film.</p><div></div>

<p>My theory about the Yashikor lens despite its being a 3 element lens is that the central portion of the 120 format (also the 35mm portion) will be reasonably sharp perhaps through all apertures. Therefore, in my evolving reasoning, it seems plausible that the auxiliary lenses will be sharp also with 35mm film. That is essentially my test. This means the Wide Angle auxiliary at 58mm is now my normal lens, the 80mm camera lens is a short telephoto, and the Telephoto Auxiliary is the maximum telephoto at 112mm. I kept my exposures within the recommended f stops of f/5.6 to f/11. The images were scanned on a 2450 Epson Perfection flatbed which admittedly not the best for 35mm. The film was Ilford HP4+ developed in HC110 dilution B at 9 min.</p><div></div>

<p>35mm frame attachment</p><div></div>

<p>Sportsfinder in use.</p><div></div>

<p>The change to 35mm was fairly simple with 6 separate pieces that made loading the film a piece of cake. The first thing that one realizes is that all 35mm controls are now on the left side of the camera. This is contrary to all my TLR experiences. Advancing the film is by a knob and you must press a film release button to do this. I knew beforehand that all images would be vertical with typical camera orientation. The normal 80mm lens is now a slight telephoto, good for portraits --not so good for landscapes. Now you say just hold the camera on its side at right angles to the subject and compose landscapes. TLR users know the image is reversed so holding the camera in this way <em>makes the image upside down</em>! I have kept an old Popular Photography article from the early 70’s, written by Norman Rothschild called “The guide to the twin-lens reflex.” In it he wrote very favorably about the “635.” Here is what he said about using 35mm for landscapes:</p> <blockquote> <p>“…you can turn the camera on its side for horizontals. The image will be upside down. <em>With a little</em> <em>practice this should not disturb you too much </em>(emphasis is mine). To control the vertical movement of the image, simply rotate the camera on an imaginary axis formed by the eye and the center of the focusing screen. To make the image parallel to the edges of the picture frame, rock the camera body up and down on an imaginary axis formed by the lens and subject.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Bear in mind the image within the 35mm frame lines on the fresnel viewing screen is very small. Using the magnifier helps but I found Mr Rothschid’s description almost impossible to accomplish especially when handholding the camera. I have little experience with view cameras and an upside down 4 X 5 image at does not normally intimidate me. However this tiny upside down 35mm image did intimidate me and I wonder if other TLR users have really ever tried this. My answer to Mr. Rothschild is: “<em>Yes it does disturb me very much!</em>”<br> My solution was to use a tripod, but that proved difficult too, as the “635” along with many TLR’s do not lend themselves to the Hex quick release plate I had on my good Bogen. I had to settle for my old Welt Safe-Lock as long as I oriented the legs in such a way so as to not tip over. Even then I still had difficulties because of the tripods limitations (Note to self: Get a good ball head.) For hand holding the camera, the best way is to pre-focus and then with the 35mm mask installed, to use the Sportsfinder Believe me it will make life a lot simpler.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>35mm kit</p><div></div>

<p>Without the benefit of blowing up the negative in an enlarger the photos appear sharp in the center even with the auxiliary lenses. There was some more fuzziness with the Wide Angle toward the edges. Using the auxiliary lenses was notable in that the taking lenses are quite heavy. Attaching them was easy—too easy in fact. In my examples there was some “slop” in the bayonet mount and while they never fell off the camera, I was constantly in fear that a simple bump could make it crash to the ground. The viewing lens attachment, being smaller and lighter, were much more secure.<br> Now for the 35mm adaptor. </p><div></div>

<p>Despite following the instructions to the letter for the auxiliary lenses, shooting mostly at f/8, I did get significant vignetting. I can only guess that if I shot at f/22, it would have been a lot worse. The other thing I noticed was the small “notch” in the lower right corner of the photo. Every frame had this and I quickly discovered the culprit was the 35mm film release knob <em>in its normal position</em> protrudes just before the film plane on the upper left side of the camera. This is easily remedied by pulling out the knob and twisting it in the “out” position, which to me is counterintuitive. This is not always evident in a lot of photos but every negative clearly shows a clear notch. For full frame aficionados this is a bit disquieting. No mention of this is in the manual. Personally I am kicking myself for not having observed this when I loaded the film.</p> <div></div>

<p>Park Scene 3</p><div></div>

<p>Park Scene 2</p><div></div>