yefei_he1

<p>The only thing that one needs to be careful about regarding the DKL mount adapter is that, there is a version of the DKL mount used by Voigtlander Vitessa T and Braun Colorette, which is for rangefinder cameras only and is best identified from the lenses -- like usual rangefinder lenses, they have the aperture rings on the lenses rather than on the camera bodies. I see them being sold on eBay as well. They are described as DKL mount adapters, for use with Voigtlander Vitessa T lenses, so it is not difficult to tell them apart from the adapters for Retina and Bessamatic lenses.</p>

<p>I have a page with photos of many DKL mount bodies and lenses, including both versions:</p>

<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/yefeihe/sets/72157624475091295/">Deckel Mount</a></p>

<p>Yefei</p>

<p>Brad,</p>

<p> You've got to try the SMC-M 40/2.8 Pancake lens. That will make the package that much more compact.</p>

<p> Yefei</p>

 

<p>JDM,</p>

<p> "Rear Window" has a Blu Ray version now. So you should be able to get a higher resolution image if you upgrade:-)<br>

Yefei</p>

 

<p>I really liked AX because one could use a whole range of older lenses with adapters to achieve auto focus, among which the M42 screw mount lenses and many types of lenses for medium format cameras. I have since tempered my enthusiasm for exercising such combinations a little bit since I acquired a Fuji XPro-1, which can take on a even larger arsenal of odd lenses. I can't do auto focus on the XPro-1, but can achieve precise focusing using the zoom feature. Anyway it is fun to adapt!</p>

<p>Yes. Search "Prominent adapter" under the "Cameras & Photo" category on eBay and you will find several for sale. It preserves infinity focus. I'm not certain if any of those are rangefinder coupled, though.</p>

<p>Also note that there are two types of DKL mounts, the one for SLR cameras that has aperture ring on the mount, and the other that's exclusively for rangefinder cameras, where the aperture ring is on the lens. I'm only aware of two camera bodies for the second type, the Voigtlander Vitessa T and the Braun Colorette. Retina IIIs is a rangefinder body, but it uses the same mount as the Retina Reflex SLRs. As is the case for a few other rangefinder cameras from Iloca and Balda. And the SLR type DKL mount should be called a group, not a single mount, since different camera manufacturers used different shapes of cutout on the flange to intentionally make their lenses not interchangeable. For example, Voigtlander Bessamatic lenses can't be mounted on Retinas, and vice versa. However, the adapter for the SLR type DKL mounts works for all types of lenses that belong to the first category. The two rangefinder type DKL mount cameras do match each other so their lenses are interchangeable.<br>

<br /> Take a lens made for Retina Reflex and one for Retina IIIs, there are still differences between them. The lens for the rangefinder camera has the rangefinder coupling cam, the one for the SLR does not. I'm not sure how strictly enforced this rule was by Kodak, but at least the 180mm Schneider lens for Retina Reflex definitely does not have the coupling cam, since its long focal length makes it unfeasible to be used on a rangefinder body and achieve accurate focus. However, shorter focal length lenses may have the coupling cam so that they can be used on both the Retina Reflex and the Retina IIIs.</p>

<p>You can search for "Bessamatic adapter" on eBay to find the adapter for the SLR type of DKL mount. You can see an aperture ring on it. Search for "Vitessa adapter" and you'll find the adapter for the rangefinder type of DKL mount. There's no aperture ring on the adapter.</p>

<p>The most expensive DKL mount lenses I have seen are the ones made by Rodenstock. The Voigtlander ones aren't cheap either, but not at the level of the Rodenstocks. The Schneider lenses made for Retinas and a number of other cameras are quite inexpensive. Steinheil made some, Enna too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For some reason I just can't get my mitts on any camera with an F2 Heligon. Even my Diax collection only has a single Rodenstock triplet Triotar lens on the L-1.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi, Peter, I got my Retina rangefinder with Heligon lens. I think those are relatively easy to find compared to Heligon-equipped Karats. I also have a Certo Super Dolina 35 with the Heligon. And it is said that the Cintagon 48/2 lens on Argus V-100 camera is actually a Heligon. Those are also fairly common and inexpensive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm keeping an eye out for the early Yashica AFs and such, but they will need to meet my stringent criterion for acquisition - i.e., cheapness. ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Yashica AFs shouldn't be expensive. I got mine for under $50 with lens, if I remember correctly, both the 230 and 230 Super. I got my Chinon in a package, with multiple lenses. That set cost me quite a lot more.</p>

<p>Aha, just found the Mirex tilt-shift adapter from Mamiya 645 lens to M42 mount, but for a cool 400 Euros. Pentax, Hasselblad, and Bronica medium format lenses can be adaptered to the Mamiya 645 mount first. But I guess my urge to use those lenses in AF is not strong enough. Although it will be cool to have tilt-shift. It may just be worthwhile though, as the native tilt-shift lenses are silly expensive.</p>

<p>The AF camera that really intrigues me is the Contax AX. It's not one of the early adopters, but it is the first one for the Contax brand. Although Kyocera had its Yashica 230 AF SLR much earlier than the Contax AX. What's really interesting is that it can autofocus any lens that can be mounted on the body. I am able to use for example the M42 screwmount lenses and the Retina S mount (Deckel) lenses on the AX via adapters. So I have Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, Steinheil, and Voigtlaender lenses in glorious autofocus.<br /> Now I would really like to adapt those medium format lenses to AX. But I can't find any adapters from medium format lenses to either the Contax C/Y mount or M42 mount, even though it should be possible. Looks like Canon EOS mount gets all the attention.</p>

<p>My reply probably came too late, but anyways, I believe the SL66E and SL66SE cameras require lenses with a cam to turn on the meter. The older lenses that came out with the SL66 do not have that. You can, however, have the cam added to the older lenses. There are even official DIY kits for the conversion. Just need to line up the ring with the cam correctly. Different lenses require different conversion rings.</p>

<p>Futura range finders. The bodies are as solid as Leicas and use interchangeable lenses, including a 50/1.5 and a 70/1.5!</p>

<p>Hi, JDM,</p>

<p> I didn't know you live in Carbondale. Somehow I thought you were somewhere near Leipzig or Jena. Anyway, I actually have a few of those early AF SLRs: Minolta Maxxum 7000 and 9000, Chinon CP-9 AF, Yashica 230AF and 270AF, Olympus OM-77AF, and Pentax SF-1n. Sorry to say I never used any of them:-( I think I'll dust them off sometime and play around a bit. The oldest AF cameras that I actually used a fair amount are Nikon F4 and Pentax PZ-1P. But I use manual focus lenses on them. It happened that both Nikon and Pentax kept their lens mount compatibility when they moved on to AF.</p>

<p>Mamiya Super 23. It's a 6x9 rangefinder with movement on the film back but not the lens. 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 and polaroid backs were also produced. of course when you are using movement, the rangefinder doesn't work any more. But there is a ground glass back available, too.</p>

<p>Hello, Graham,</p>

<p> The dots are patterns from the backing paper of the 120 film. The lab is right that the film spool was not wound tight enough, and light leaked onto the film after it was taken out of the camera. Could be a spring at the take up spool location that was missing or not pressing the film tight enough. I have some photos taken with a Fuji G690BL that had exactly the same problem:</p>

<p> <a href=" Leak on G690BL</a></p>

<p> I fixed it by adding some foam and tape on the weakened metal leaf at the take up spool location that is supposed to press the film against the spool firmly.</p>

 

<p>Ken,</p>

<p> If focusing is the problem, perhaps you can look for a Contax AX body. It achieves auto focus with the manual focus C/Y mount lenses by moving the film plane. It's AF likely is worse than the N bodies, but it is AF. I have one and it works OK. The AX body is a very thick one, bigger than the N1. The good part, of course, is that you can use all the lenses you use now on the RX.</p>

<p> The even BETTER part, for me, is that, with appropriate lens adapters, I can have AF with many old lenses! For example, with a Deckel - M42 and a M42 - C/Y adapter stacked together, I get AF with some nifty Voigtlander, Schneider, Rodenstock and Steinheil lenses originally made for those German leaf shutter SLRs. You can get AF with Pentax 67, 645, Mamiya 645, Pentacon Six, and Hassy lenses too. How is that?</p>

<p>Hi, Paulo,</p>

<p> Just to clarify, is the lens for Contax N1 a Makro-Planar or Makro-Sonnar? I only know of a Makro-Sonnar for N1. Not that it matters to the question you were asking. But if it is indeed a Makro-Planar, perhaps it's not made for N1.</p>

<p>Pete,</p>

<p> I did have a conversation with you about Miranda cameras some time ago. And right, it wasn't me who was from Israel. The 70/1.5 Frilon lens is sadly in pretty bad shape, with fungus and lens element separation. I'll have to see if I can get it fixed up before I'll be able to use it.<br>

All these very fast lenses (f/1.5 and up) from different makers are fascinating, especially the ones not from the usual suspects: Enna, Steinheil, Futura, Aires, Kowa... Would like to do a comparison someday.</p>

<p>Hi, Peter,</p>

<p>I hope you get your lens soon. I own two Futura-S's, but one with the 50/1.5 and the other with the 35mm lens. So I don't have a spare Frilon to dispense with. Watch out for that other Frilon -- the 70/1.5! I don't think I ever saw that one for sale on eBay. Well, not exactly. I won an 70/1.5. But it was in (not rangefinder coupled) 39mm screw mount. I'm guessing it's an after market conversion. The Futuras are very solid cameras indeed.</p>

<p>Could it be sticky shutter blades in the lens, since you said the shutter blades froze in mid-shot? Obviously in that case the shutter didn't complete its firing circle and could not be re-cocked.</p>

<p>Yefei</p>

 

<p>There's a bit of connection between Omega and Mamiya. Simmon Omega 120 was redesigned as Koni-Omega, with Konica lenses. It later evolved into Rapid Omega, which looked identical to Koni-Omega, but the lenses were made by Mamiya.</p>

<p>In case you want to see its vivid incarnation on human flesh, at the <a href="http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/top-secret-affair-v114137">allrovi site</a> you can find a trailer of the film showing the opening scene. There's no mistake of the thing at 30 feet away! To all's disappointment though, the flash attachment is not included.</p>

<p>As you may have known by now, my classic camera sightings often happen in a movie, usually shown on the Turner Classic Movies channel. Today is another comedy gem showing the bigwig publisher played by Susan Hayward having a personal vendetta against army general Kirk Douglas, in the 1957 "Top Secret Affair". Of course, the real star is the camera. Right at the beginning of the film in Susan Hayward's luxurious office, her photographer lackey sports nothing else but a Simmon Brothers Omega 120 press camera. Very fitting for the time and role. The <a href="http://www.novacon.com.br/odditycameras/omega120.htm">Omega 120</a>, one of the ugliest cameras of the day, was the predecessor of the slightly better looking but equally quirky Koni-Omega 120 series of medium format rangefinder cameras. It's interesting to know that the original Omega 120 did have a bit of market penetration!</p>

<p>By the way, the photographer has his secret weapon hidden under the monstrous figure of the Omega 120 -- an original Minox spy camera, which he used in the attempt to capture the general in awkward moments, which he failed miserably, not due to his ineptitude, rather the general's iron clad discipline.</p>

<p>Yefei</p>

<p>Thanks folks for the replies. Sounds like I had better accept the camera as is. 11 shots is a small sacrifice for being able to use a wonderful camera from the '30s. Heck, it wasn't until late '90s that the 645 format SLRs became capable of making 16 shots. Used to be only 15 shots whether it's Pentax, Mamiya or Bronica.</p>