barry_schweda

Included in a recent lot purchase I made was a Sekonic L-216 Auto Range light

meter. I also have a Auto-Leader model L-188 which I carry around when shooting

my Baby Bessa 46, which has generally been adequate for this camera. Comparing

the two I noticed a difference in the exposure calculator wheel which I am

curious as to the reason/rational. Seaches so far have not identified anything.

 

The ASA/ISO to DIN on both models are the same, example ASA/ISO 200 = 24 DIN.

Setting both units to EV 10, the L-216 shows f11 @ 1/60sec and f5.6 @ 1/250

sec. Where the L-188 calculator calls out f4 and f2 respectively, for a 3 stop

difference. When checking at other EV's and comparing a consistent 3 stop

difference is present.

 

Note that this just involves the exposure calculator wheel of the units and I

not actually measuring with the meters for this question. They both work and

with a 1.5v battery in the older L-216 they are about 0.5 EV apart.

 

Any input into this 3 stop difference in the calculator from the same meter

manufacturer would be appreciated. It is becoming on of those "burrs under the

saddle" things. Thanks

Hello Ron, nice shot indeed. I would be curious to see some of your Perkeo shots when you have some. In my small portfolio there are some 1st roll shots from my Voigtlander Bessa 46, if you are interested. It is a mid-1930's model, Prontor/Voigtar, with the elusive yellow flip filter.

Dean's notes are excellant, but I found a discrepancies from his comments during my re-build.

 

The front cover was not tight to the camera when the taking lens was actually focused to infinity. A very small gap measured at .010 inches was present on my unit. This gap should be consistant all around it's perimeter. Focus was set to infinity using a ground glass at the film plane with an 8x loupe while adjusting the focusing knob. When adjusted to the zero gap the taking lens was slightly out.

 

With the taking lens set to infinity per above, the adjusting knob can be set against it's travel stop and the lock nut tightened.

 

The tracking of the viewing lens can be checked using the loupe on the focusing screen.

Same subject, but a bit overcast on a different day shot later in evening.<div></div>

Mike:

Very nice shots indeed. In my limited experience I think the optics on the Mat are quite comparable to the similiar vintage Rollei, at least in my amateur hands anyways. I have a ressurected $25 Cdn yashica-wreck, recently rebuilt with the help of several photo-netters, as well a 3.5MX xenar. Very similar specifications and both bay I accessory mounts.

 

While I don't have a 100% apples to apples comparison the following two pictures are as close as I can offer for evaluations. The Mat and 3.5 MX, same film (TMax 100), same subject, but different days and thus different lighting conditions. Hoping these are of interest and my web scanning doesn't fail me now.<div></div>

Lester:

 

No apologies are necessary in the slightest way. I enjoy this forum for what it is, an open multi-faceted discussion of old and sometimes new cameras, their capabilites, weaknesses and how to use them and keep them clicking. There are enough lessons to be had by all in the School of Hard Knocks and this forum and participants have already saved me a few.

 

If I can save a knock or two for someone else, so much the better.

Thank you all for the encouraging comments, but believe me I was more than surprised myself, especially with my scanning technique improvement for posting these.

 

Graham: The "thank you" que features over-stuffed chairs and a wet bar, while the "curse" line is outside. Due to the recent weather here I would recommend a plastic chair and non-metallic umbrella. Lightning has been known to strike twice.

 

Being just an over zealous amateur with limited TLR experience I can only say again I was surprised.

 

The Rolleikin handled 35mm film transport just fine, which now allows me to practice and use the Rolleiflex at significant cost savings per attempt.

 

The Rolleinar optics and parallax correction are useable and probably the best compromise for a TLR design of this era. The "sky" was seen in the shot sequence, it was actually the background trees I wanted to study DOF, I had another sequence using foreground material.

 

I routinely find some of my extension tube or macro zooms 35mm nikon shots should be cropped. Most SLR viewfinders are less than 100% of the actual frame and in not slowing down I get "zoned" into the minute centre of focus of the shot and neglect the big picture.

 

FYI this "Iris" sequence was setup to shoot at the "closest" focusing range area for each Rolleinar with that thing in the middle of the flower, which my wife informs me is the "beard", centered in the bulleye of the ground glass. This was not the case for the following non-Rolleinar picture of this sequence picking up a bit of fore and background.

 

Personally the hardest aspect of this was getting my old hazy eyes to focus but that's another thread for a different forum.

 

Enjoy and capture the moment the best you can.<div></div>

Iris to Iris Sequence; Rolleinar #3

 

Trust these are of interest or use to others, I was delightfully surprised by most of the shots in terms of details and textures captured.<div></div>

Iris to Iris Sequence; Rolleinar #2<div></div>

Iris to Iris Sequence; Rolleinar #1<div></div>

I am in-process of reviewing my 1st 35mm test roll evaluating

Rolleinar close ups (#1,#2 and #3). I thought I would share some of

my initial results if of interest. Most shots were in a 1-2-3

Rolleinar closeup sequence with the subject being one where I could

easily move ever closer with the triopod mounted camera without

major view changes on the subject.

 

Below is a one of the "spur of the moment" samles taken perhaps a

bit more artistic than the sequences.

 

Camera was a ~1953 3.5 MX Rolleiflex, xenar lens, with a Rolleikin 2

and Rolleinar #3 installed. Film was Fugi Reala 100, local 1

hour "shake n bake" processing. Morning shot in the backyard.<div></div>

Mike the picture you found is a slightly later version. Mine has the pop-up viewfinder, which plays havoc with my bifocals.

 

The train station shots were hand-held (about 1/50-1/100), while the bridge and beaver dam shots were tripod shots. The dam shot was 1/10 of a second with a mild breeze, metered with a Minolta IV and ranged with an FM2n.

The complete image set is <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=290255">here.</a></div>

My first roll following a shutter rebuild and light seal replacement

on this 4.5x6 German folder. Camera is a 1930's vintage Voigtlander

Bessa 46, Prontor II shutter with T/B and 1/175 max shutter speed,

Voigtar 3.5 lens I believe, nameplate ring on the lens is long

missing. It sports the flip up Moment yellow filter.

 

Film was Fugi 100 Acros commercially processed. Scans are from

prints on an HP 4070 flatbed, 1200dpi. My apologies if my first

scans attempts to this forum are lacking.

 

Train pictures were taken on an overcast/intermittent rain day while

the Beaver Dam, along the Trans Canada Trail near my home, was about

1 hour before sunset down in a creek ravine with the black flies.<div></div>

My notes show GE (#5 or #5B) or Sylvania (25 or 25B) are the most common bulbs. The "B" I believe is for the blue tinted bulbs for colour balance with daylight film.

The "C" versus "N" difference, from my information hunt prior to purchase, is in the lens coating. Sorry I can't recall the particular specs etc of the coatings. I went with the "C", beautiful lens and very nice portrait results from my initial experiences. Plan on a tripod, it is a bit of a bazooka.

I have just started shooting my first roll of film following a

shutter R&R on the subject 1930 vintage folder. I have the 30mm

nominal diameter press in "Moment" filter in the classic medium

yellow. I have yet to see other filters on this make/style and was

wondering if other colours etc. were made for this camera besides

the yellow.

 

If not any adaptations users would like to share would be

appreciated. Primarily looking for B&W film filters using the slower

films available today.

Gene is right, but in this case a metric thread pitch gauge and your other dimensions should keep you safe.

Try the following if in your neighbourhood, they both ship internationally I believe.

 

McMaster Carr; www.mcmaster.com (USA)

Spaenaur; www.spaenaur.com (Canada)

 

Sorry, couldn't figure out how to make the above address links.

Could you post the make of the shutter, typically a prontor or compur model.

 

I have an earlier model Bessa 46 with a Prontor II. Doing something similiar I noticed a bit of rotational play in the shutter mount, allowing the shutter to rotate as a whole. There is an indexing pin on my model, but is does allow some rotation. The direction could reduce the ability of the normal trip to the fire the shutter. Inside the camera at the front inside face of the bellows is the nut mounting the shutter to the bellows flange. If overly loose careful tightening is needed to avoid bellows damage.

 

Sorry, can't help with the counter/film advance issue, my version is more bare-bones.

With the damage to the shutter housing itself I am assumming the shutter "assembly" is a write-off. Perhaps some of the bits n pieces maybe usable in another shutter. I have removed the actual lens cells and I believe their inter-changability would be a function of the mounting threads and relative positions in other models and shutters.

The camera was ones of those $ 20 Cdn flea market buys, shutter/timer etc. worked fine but aperature seemed stiff, so I took a chance. At home discovered the aperature was stiff due to two leafs out of the track.

Disassembly revealed a section of the aluminum shutter housing had failed. My thought was to repair another optical wreck with these lens. Curious if these lens are only suitable for the "Yashica-Mat" model or other earlier/later versions.

Hello:

 

A slightly different twist to this. I've been doing a CL without the adjustment so far on a Voigtlander Bessa 46, Prontor II. Have shot 3 rolls of film and achieved acceptable speed results but with an intermittent hessitation in the intitial shutter trip, producing unexpected "pan" shots.

 

Another go at the solvent clean including several submerged shutter firings finally got the zip back into the shutter. I've been using clock oil with a syringe for lubrication. Further exercising the shutter at it's new zip prior to re-assembly finally resulted in a spring fatigue failure in a catch pawl spring. I am now learning a new trade in spring winding.

 

Since I have partially opened and dis-assembled the shutter I am debating a combination of clock oil and teflon powder to establish a boundary lubrication film in the sliding/oscillating areas. The teflon I have is very fine perhaps similiar to talcom powder in consistancy and should easily perform better than any graphite or "moly" based product. Any thought or comments?

Hello:

 

I just completed the same decision process and went with the Mamiya M645 1000s for what it's worth. I have both the PDs and waist level finder.

 

My predominate prior amateur experience has been metered/manual focus 35mm, Nikkormat and Nikon. Although I recently got a long closetted Voigtlander Bessa 46 taking pictures.

 

My initial M645 experience have been good both in ease of handling and picture quality. I found the price/availability of used equipment to be excellent during the last few months.

I am new to this site and have a question regarding the Yashica TLR.

Having a Yashica-Mat Copal MXV with a damaged aperature track in the

shutter housing, I am curious as to the inter-changeability of the

Yashinon 80mm 3.2/3.5 lens set in other yashica TLR camera models.