mark_eban

I have used this camera quite a bit for architectural purposes. The key is to level it first

using the built-in spirit levels and then to shift up until you the vertical edge of the object

parallel to the viewfinder line. I find doing this by eye gives spot on results but I agree it

may take a bit of practice.

I shoot a lot of portraits with the Hasselblad 503CW and 120mm makro lens usually on a tripod. I shoot similar portraits with the tele rollei with the 0.35 close up device. I tend to use this either on a tripod or with a pistol grip and the 90 degree prism. I tend to work wide open with both lenses. I find I have slightly more just missed focus shots with the rollei than the hasselblad with the acute matte screen and it is slower to work with than a blad with a winder. When everything is just right, I have a preference at 20x24 size for the pictures taken on the telerollei based on the smoothness of tones and the out-of-focus rendition. I am talking about protraits here, of course. For representations of face suitable for a dermatology journal, I would use a Nikon with a micro lens.

I have a number of compact cameras as carry round alternatives to a Leica. These include the rollei 35s, Olympus XA4, Hexar orginal, Minox ML and the Contax T2. The T2 is not the smallest or lightest nor is it the most flexible but it does represent the best compromise of these features out of all these cameras. I do not use filters on any of these cameras so cant help you there. I can thoroughly recommend it as a quality camera.

It is almost impossible to overpraise this camera. It has a fantastic lens, it is quick and easy to use, you see what you get through the viewfinder and 20x24 prints combine sharpness (lets not forget film plane flatness etc) and tonality. It falls into that small group of cameras that one should never sell.

mwclassic.com

Actually if it were complete and MIB, USD3000 would be a steal. Incomplete, it becomes almost impossible to sell.

In the days when I developed my own 120 film in Patterson tanks I had this problem on HP5. Almost impossible to see until you printed it up. My technique was always to inserst the same end of the 120 film into the spiral first (forgive me but I cant remember which end). Someone pointed out that the two ends of the film are not congruent because one has the masking tape on it which attaches it to the film backing. This piece bends differently in the spiral and can create a differential flow in the developer. I thought this sounded utterly unlikely - however I tried reversing the end of the 120 film I put into the spiral first. The problem went away! It works in practice but I am sure it will never work in theory!

The poster of this question has a good point. It is very difficult to use any ilford film in a hasselblad camera if you have the films developed by dip and dunk. The reason for this is that the paper leader of ilford film is a different length to Kodak film. The hasselblad is set up for Kodak film. Therefore if one lines up the arrows on the hasselblad insert, you are very likely to get a clip through your last frame. One workaround is to align the arrows at 11 O'clock rather than 12 O'clock (although this is a bit and miss).

 

The good news is that the this is irrelvant in every other medium format camera either because of automatic starts (2.8F, super isolette, modern autofocus fujis etc) or becuase the spacing is narrow enough to compensate (Old fuji rangefinders, all 645 cameras etc).

 

I use Ilford Delta 400 if all my medium format cameras but I have to use Tri-X in the hasselblad. Someday, I will seek to have all my backs adjusted by the manufacturer.

I use a Polaroid Sprintscan 120. I find that if I scan as a 16 bit greyscale and then invert in photoshop, I get a very sharp fully detailed image. It is however grainy. Alternatively I can scan in RGB mode and then imagage>mode>greyscale. This softens the grain and to some extent the detail. I am not sure about tonal ranges betweent the two methods but I think there is not a lot in it.

 

Almost any manipulation in 8 bit mode leads to posterisation. This rules out layers and the dodge burn tools. Therefore for anything other than minor manipulation one really has to use the lassoo tool following it up with level.

 

Epson inks take a lot of time in my experience to set up so that you get the tone you want. I am now using VT blax from permajet (permajet.com) which gives something very similar to a carbon print and makes life a lot easier.

Thanks for the link and the prompt response.

Does anyone know if the the Tele Arton 270mm f5.5 will cover 5x7?

Thanks to James for the prompt and helpful response. In terms of modern money try: http://eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/ which would indicate that the current leica is MORE expensive now than than it was in 1931. That doesn't strike me as right intuitively. However,I don't think the car question is a good one because mass production techniques have significantly lowered the cost of things like cars since then.

 

I think the average wage question is a better one to ask but then one has to take account of the greater distribution of wealth and demographic changes.

 

Perhaps the best question is what did a doctor earn then in today's money....

I am trying to ascertain the new selling price of the Leica 1 A in

England in 1930 in pounds sterling (for reasons too dull to go into

here). I would be grateful if anyone can give me any information on

this from contemporary adverising literature, the Amateur

Photographer or some other such source.

 

Thanking you all in anticipation.

Silverprint in London has HP5 and FP4 in stock in this size.

I recently ran the following comparison: 50mm f1.4 canon screwmount, nokton, 50mm summilux. I took a picture of a bookshelf from about 9ft away, tripod mounted on fine grain film. Nokton clearly superior to Canon both center and edge at all apertures with a 10x loupe. Really no comparison.

 

I then examined the nokton versus the summilux negatives. The summilux looked somewhat better with a 10x loupe and this was confirmed with a 30x binocular microscope. How big was the difference? Not as big as between the canon and the nokton; probably would be lost if using it hand-held on 400ASA film; visible in ideal conditions such as those of the test.

 

Hope this helps.

Absolutely right. Inherent in the lens. Great for landscapes. For architecture you need a plaubel proshift or equivalent.

For portraits the 0.35 rolleinar is ideal. Degrade the image? Well, yes - I suppose it must. However, with a tripod and slightly stopped down, I can see no practical degradation in a 20x24 print versus my 120 macro planar on the hasselblad. That said, areas of critical detail for my portraits are likely to be in the golden third of the frame rather than right on the edge where you might see the most fall-off in quality. I find it a lovely quick easy camera to use and because there is no mirror black-out, ideal for portraits. As to price - condition is everything. USD750 for a real user, USD2000 MIB perhaps...

I run both wet and digital in parallel. To be pedantic this would exclude me from answering your question by the criteria you have set but I guess you did not mean that.

 

I use a wet darkroom infrequently (say every 3 months or less) for an intensive period (say 7 8 hour days). My frustrations were (1) time to produce "work prints" needed to decide (a) whether to spend the time on a fine art print (b) not having time to think about that decision at leisure (2) the time needed to "play around" with a print before producing a fine art print (3) the time needed for "give-away" prints to people who would be happy with a lower quality result but which I could not bring myself to compromise on.

 

I now produce "proofs" on epson heavyweight matt paper. This solves all the above problems. It even solved the last one because I did not feel that I had to work really hard on a print if it was "just" digital output. The quality of these photographs is different to a silver print. I believe that the silver prints are better but annoyingly, people to whom I have given digital prints have asked me what that great paper I am now printing on is....

I have seen excactly the same metering problem on an SE and a GX. It is bug that you need to have fixed. The slack is normal.

Try using the collapsible rubber hood. Then with a normal leather case, you can collapse the hood and close the case...

I had the GR1 and was not bowled over by the quatlity of the lens. I was offered the CV 28 f1.9 for the same price as the Ricoh in screw mount. I went for the former on the basis of the greater aperture and my previous experience.

I think the two most collectible items are the chrome 50mm and 35mm

lenses made for the original leicaflex. From memory less than 200

were made. I have seen them sell easily in Germany for USD2,000 each.

In fact the rubber hood for the 35mm went in one morning for USD300!

There is a little button on the bottom of the hotshoe. If it is

depressed the flash will fire. If it isn't, say because you are

pushing the test button but the flash is off camera, it won't. I

found this out after finding 4 "non-working" flashguns in a row....

Recently tested the following lenses: canon f1.4, modern nokton f1.5,

collapsible summicron f2. Nokton is significantly sharper across all

apertures. Summicron was significantly sharper than Nokton across all

apertures (obviously not f1.5 before some helpful person points that

out). Difference between the Nokton and Summicron was such that I

would use both depending on circumstances but I took back the Canon.

BTW, a similar test of the black canon 85 f1.8 was very impressive

although not as good as the 75 1.4 summilux.

I think you will find it is a Bronica in Secrets and Lies