dave_flanagan

On a related note, I'd like to know if people have had good luck with either older or Voigtlander screw-mount lenses with an adapter on a CL.

<p>

Thanks!

Dave

I recently acquired a Leica CL, and I have a question about the framelines. Basically, when I attach a Summicron-C 40 mm lens, the 50 mm framelines appear (the 40 mm lines are always visible, of course). When I borrow my friend's 90 mm lens, the 50 mm lines disappear, and the 90 mm lines appear.

<p>

So, why do the 50 mm lines appear with my 40 mm lens? Is it a simple switch between A and B? I would have expected the viewfinder to be clear with only the 40 mm lines with the corresponding lens attached. We tried it with his Leica CL, and it was the same. If this is intentional, what's the logic?

<p>

Thanks,

Dave

Also, I would recommend asking for a split-prism focussing aid in your screen. I have one without for my Rolleiflex, and the increased brightness results in less contrast and more difficult focussing.

Cheers,

Dave

Vartan said: "The TLR's can certainly be good value and produce excellent results. That said, I personally hate the TLR design for its ridiculous ergonomics."

I have to disagree. I use a Rolleiflex, and it's amazing how the controls just fall into the proper place when you hold it properly-- especially considering that a rectangular box looks so unwieldy at first. Additionally, if the definition of "ergonomics" includes simplicity of use as well, then I have to vote again for the Rollei. Aperture, speed, and focus-- much simpler than the super-modern SLRs we have at work.

Cheers,

Dave

<A HREF="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/DOFTables/Rollei_DOF.html"> Depth of field tables </A> for the Rolleinars are provided by <A href="mailto:ramarren@bayarea.net">Godfrey DiGiorgi</A>.

<P>

Cheers,<BR>

<A HREF="mailto:dwf@caltech.edu">Dave</A>

I recently noticed a strange artifact in my negatives, taken with a

Rolleiflex 2.8F. The corners are not square, but rather are

curved, like arrowheads. Is this a result of the camera (film

loading, maybe) or processing (overvigorous agitation during

processing)? Or, is it normal? They are only a millimeter or two

across. The negatives otherwise are fine (such a difference,

upgrading from 35 mm!).

Thanks,

Dave