richard_oleson

<p>Ditto the card thing: I have one 2GB CF card that works fine on my little Coolpix, and sometimes works fine in the XTi ... but it will occasionally, and regularly, turn up corrupt images like what you describe.</p>

<p>The name designation for Oberkochen lenses changed from "Zeiss-Opton" to "Carl Zeiss" (just Carl Zeiss, no 'Jena') after lawsuits which took the rights to the Carl Zeiss name away from Carl Zeiss Jena and gave them to Carl Zeiss Oberkochen. I don't know the date, but it would be in the latter half of the 1950s, and it might have also varied from one country of sale to another as the case made its way through the courts. The plain "Carl Zeiss" designation was what went onto the later models (E, F, T) of Rollei TLR, and it still continues in current Carl Zeiss lenses.</p>

<p>Actually, I lied: I do have the date. Zeiss-Opton was used through 1953, Carl Zeiss began in 1954. Carl Zeiss serial 149xxxx would date from 1955.</p>

<p>Personally, I would sell it on eBay. With only one body and lens it makes sense to keep them together as a working camera for sale, although since that's not the normal lens it might also make sense to separate that piece from the rest. You're not likely to come across a lot of people who want the body but no 120 back, but there might be someone who wants the 180 lens but doesn't want to have to pay for an unwanted second RB67 body to get the lens.</p>

<p>There is always a risk of getting less than you would like to get, but you will probably get a better response if you start bidding low and let it build up on its own. Chances are you'll get a fair price, and you're almost guaranteed to get more than you would get from KEH or another dealer that has to mark up his cost about 100% to make a living.</p>

<p><a href="http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-111.html">http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-111.html</a></p>

<p>Schneideritis .... cute, hadn't heard that name.</p>

<p>Anyway, these look like either aluminum particles or graphite particles. If the former, I'd be more concerned about what caused tiny chunks to separate from a larger piece of metal inside your lens, than about the particles themselves; if the latter, I would just be disappointed in your serviceman's choice of materials.</p>

<p>A stuck self timer will disable the shutter.</p>

<p>Try Essex Camera in New Jersey. There's also a listing of camera repair services at <a href="http://www.acecam.com/srindex.html">http://www.acecam.com/srindex.html</a> where you can find a lot of them indexed by location.</p>

<p>it sounds like the cam follower that sets the B lever has gotten stuck in the engaged position. This might be from dirt (though it's more common for this to prevent the B setting from operating than for it to operate constantly), or a spring set wrong after servicing, or the cam follower pin being bent or jammed under the shutter speed cam after servicing. If nothing looks bent, broken or loose, I'd look for a mis-set hair spring on the B lever.</p>

<p>I think the retrofocus design has been used pretty much for its obvious purpose - moving the glass forward to clear obsructions - and perhaps a bit more recently to give a more perpendicular ray path to digital sensors. Retrofocus "normal" lenses began as a means of getting a fast lens of less than 58mm onto an SLR; before retrofocus, you could get a 50mm Tessar up to f/2.8 or an f/2 lens at 58mm. I believe the first 50mm SLR lens of f/2 or faster for a 35mm SLR was made by Angenieux, who also introduced the retrofocus wide angle (and coined the word "Retrofocus" as a trade name). I have a 50mm f/1.5 Angenieux in M42 mount that dates from around 1953 .... it would be another decade before the rest of the world caught up with that.</p>

<p>If the lens is far enough forward in a straight Gauss formula, I can't think of any particular reason to build it as a retrofocus.</p>

<p>It's fairly uncommon to have the camera metering properly but no needle operation in the finder... it sounds like either a wire off right at the galvanometer, or worse, a broken connection within the galvanometer itself. I've seen that twice, where the solder connection failed at the end of the little hair spring that runs from the shaft to the frame. Those springs have 2 functions, both to act against the magnetic power of the meter movement and also to conduct the current to the coils. In one of the 2 I encountered, a Pentax Spotmatic, I was able to resolder the connection by wrapping a small diameter wire around the tip of my soldering iron and use the end of the wire as a small tip to reach the joint. I was less lucky with the other one, an Olympus OM-2: too much heat got into the hair spring, traveled to the other end of the spring and desoldered THAT end. At that point it became hopeless, and I was left with a good working OM2 with the finder needle just floating aimlessly around.</p>

<p>In the EM, it MIGHT be worth opening up the camera and trying to find the bad wire, and fixing it if it's in an accessible location. The odds aren't great of sorting it out for less effort than it would take to replace the body, though. If you can live without knowing your shutter speed (just pretend you've got a Pentax MV), I'd probably just keep using it as it is.</p>

<p>rick</p>

<p>sorry about the double post. </p>

<p>I agree - don't wait for next time, send it back immediately. Things can happen when a camera is disassembled for service, and I'm sure the repairer will be happy to set it straight if you make him aware of the problem.</p>

<p>The diameter of the front element is a function of the design of the lens; it is typical, for instance, for a wide angle lens to require a very large, negative element at the front to receive oblique light rays and bend them toward the rest of the lens that sits behind. This does not increase the light gathering power of the lens, it is there for optical reasons.</p>

<p>If the design of the 2 lenses were identical, then the physical diameter would be significant; but of course the optical design of a 50/1.8 is not going to have much in common with that of a wide-to-tele zoom.</p>

<p>Actually, the diamter of the REAR element of a lens is a much better indicator of its relative speed than that of the front. It's still not perfect, but in lenses that have the rear element in roughly the same location relative to the film (in 35mm SLRs, this might be in the 20-100mm range or so), there is some correlation between rear element diameter and speed. But it's easier just to read the number off of the aperture ring.</p>

<p>I have some notes that you're welcome to if you'd like to email me at <a href="mailto:rick_oleson@yahoo.com">rick_oleson@yahoo.com</a> - but some disassembly is going to be required. You might get the general idea from these notes:</p>

<p><a href="http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-158.html">http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-158.html</a></p>

<p>I've been happy with my 10-22 (other than what I had to pay for it). I've never used auto ISO, didn't even remember that was in there. If you don't like what auto ISO does, maybe you shouldn't use it.</p>

<p>Hi Richard:</p>

<p>I don't know if this will be the best solution for you, especially since you already have a 35mm film scanner, but I use an Epson flatbed (an older Photo 3200) and have been happy with it. It came with film holders for 35mm, 120 and 4x5 film, and can handle other sizes if you rig up something to hold the film flat. Since it also functions as a normal document scanner, I got rid of my old paper-only flatbed and replaced it with the Epson. I got mine used on eBay to save money, which always entails a bit of risk but it's been fine.</p>

<p>The one I was thinking of is the Stroboframe Vertiflip... but that "really right stuff" one looks better.</p>

<p>I've never opened up a Kiev 88, but I spent about 18 months inside a Hasselblad 1000F, which is the camera that the Kiev was copied from. This is a place that I NEVER want to see again, and I've repaired hundreds of cameras. Combine that design with Soviet construction, and this is not a camera that I would recommend as a DIY project.</p>

<p>Metering in my 400D gets dodgy at very large apertures using manual stop-down lenses, overexposing as you open up farther. At normal apertures (probably from about f/2.8 down, I haven't paid real close attention to just where it starts) the metering has been okay.</p>

<p>It doesn't look quite like normal separation to me - more like some sort of damage to the adhesive, which may be worse than the usual separation effects on image quality. In separation, you usually get a sort of rainbow-reflective area where it's separated, no distinct rings like your image shows, and the edge of the separated area is typically irregular rather than in a circular shape like yours. The fix is probably the same, though, decementing and recementing the pair.<br>

What lens is this?</p>

<p>fascinating - never seen anything that looks like that, unless it was a development of the Contax rangefinder shutter. the problems that would come with that in the viewfinder area, though, are huge.</p>

<p>I've never seen a Super up close. What sort of a "metal/cloth" shutter does it have?</p>

<p>I think the IA was just a Reflex that had been retrofitted with the brighter screen from the II, and got a new nameplate in the process.</p>

<p>Yes. Email me at <a href="mailto:rick_oleson@yahoo.com">rick_oleson@yahoo.com</a> and I'll send you notes on it.</p>

<p>There may have been a time when I traveled with a flash, but I can't recall ever having done it.</p>