mark_erickson

$750 is high for a 2.8E with worn lens coating. I paid around $400--$500 for a 2.8E with a really clean lens from a commercial shop (Kohs Cameras, I think) a couple of years ago. Rollei prices seem to be relatively stable, so I think that price still applies. Regarding the lenses, the Xenotar and Planar perform essentially identically according to all of the tests that I have seen. Zeiss glass seems to be a little more desirable to collectors, so the price for a Planar-equipped camera may be a little higher.

<i>Robert Capa used a Zeiss Ikon Contax II or IIa 35mm rangefinder for his famous shots on Omaha Beach. (His archives also contained over 10,000 6x6 negs shot with his Rollei TLRs.)</i>

<p>

The Contax IIa was not introduced until well after WWII, so it would have been a Contax II.

This is kind of a crossover topic, but here it is anyway. For those of you who

shoot classic (i.e., obsolete) film sizes like 127, how do you get the results

into your computer? Custom made film holders for flatbed scanners? Scan

prints? Or some other method?

 

Inquiring minds want to know....

Voigtlander built Bessamatic and Ultramatic SLRs with leaf shutters built into the camera body. As I understand it, the main disadvantage with this design is that it is almost impossible to design wide angle lenses that work.

I my father passed my grandmother's Kodak Vest Pocket Model B camera along to me

a few years ago to add to my camera collection. The original paper bellows was

almost completely disintegrated, but the rest of the camera was in remarkably

good shape. Being a little nutty, I sent it to Jurgen Kreckel to have the

bellows replaced (don't ask how much it cost). I just ran a roll of Efke 100

through it to see if it works. These pictures were taken early in April 2007 in

the Sacramento area. I scanned a contact sheet, dust and all, and put the

better shots into a little web page:

 

http://www.westerickson.net/vestpocketmodelb

You should have no problem putting a 90mm Angulon onto a Wista lensboard. I owned one and used it on a lightweight Ikeda Anba field camera that took Linhof-clone lensboards. I used my lens for landscape shots, typically with a bit of rear standard tilt and stopped down to f/16. My lens was plenty sharp in the center and just a wee bit soft right at the corners. As other posters have noted, you might consider a different lens if you plan to use shift. Otherwise, the 90mm f/6.8 Angulon should do just fine.

 

If you don't mind using older single-coated lenses, you might also consider picking up a Kodak 100mm Wide Field Ektar. It's not quite as wide as the Angulon, but is quite sharp and has some coverage for movements.

 

Hope this helps,

The answer depends largely on what you mean by "quality". If you're talking about absolute sharpness, then a Rolleiflex in good repair with a Xenotar or Planar should be able to deliver. Both Schneider and Zeiss achieved resolution performance back in the 1950's that is the equal to anything shipping today. If you're talking about "leica glow", or "bokeh", or some other quality, Rolleiflex lenses may or may not give you what you want.

 

I have gotten really, really, really sharp results with the 75mm Xenotar lens on my Rolleiflex 3.5E. These results appear to be backed up by tests that Chris Perez performed a few years ago:

 

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

 

Note that several Rolleiflex TLRs did about as well as a Mamiya 7, a system with legendary sharpness. Note also that Chris observed disappointing results that appear to be due to lens/focus misalignment.

I just spent way too much $$$ having Jurgen Kreckel (at http://www.certo6.com) replace the bellows on my grandmother's Vest Pocket Model B. It now has a beautiful nice leather bellows that he sourced from England (much nicer than the original paper bellows). I'm waiting for some 127 film in the mail and some time off from my recent 7-day work weeks to test it out. You might try contacting him for advice on how to remove the existing bellows.

I suggest you get a clean Mamiya C220 and 55mm lens (you can get both from, for example, KEH for around $500). Try out and see if it does what you want. If so, you can either keep it or upgrade to the FW. If not, you can sell it and get most of your $$$ back.

As referenced above, contact John Van Stelten at Focal Point Lens (http://www.focalpointlens.com). When he recoats a lens, I believe that he normally removes the old coating first.

Ellis,

 

I agree that the detail is probably there in your subject, but I'm looking to change the "eye-brain-filtering" part of the test. One aspect of the drapery that would be worth changing is the fact that it has black and white edges that are fairly far apart. A more difficult test would include subject matter with really fine texture. A subject like some of the gritty picture ones in this folder, for example:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=571195

 

I think my "eye-brain-filter" will expect to see more fine detail in such and image and differences between images might "pop out" a little more. Maybe even a "brick wall test" (yes, I know it's a bit of a cliche) like in this gallery:

 

http://www.westerickson.net/brickwork

Ellis,

 

Do you think a different subject might affect the results for typical viewers? I believe that my eye is a little more forgiving of image softness when the subject is a portrait like the one you used in your experiment. I find myself more aware of sharpness and fine detail (or lack thereof) when I view a landscape image where the fine detail is the essense of the image. I think that an image with more high-spatial-frequency content might expose differences more clearly to viewers.

 

Just a thought....

Stan,

 

The article does state near the end that 5 or 6 megapixels is plenty, but it also clearly states near the beginning that the camera lens, circuitry, and sensor are far more important factors. To pull the former statement out of context and accuse the author or misleading the public is not fair to either him or Mr. Vener.

John Van Stelten at http://www.focalpointlens.com can recement lenses suffering from separation. It's not cheap, but he appears to be well-regarded and did a great job for me on a Rolleiflex Planar that was separating.

 

The Heliar is a classic design that might be worth saving....

Mike Johnston wrote a nice article describing how to get <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-04-28.shtml">The Glow</a>. It's not really Leica-centric, but it makes good reading....

Here's another widelux shot. Much less flexible than an XPan, but, as described above, fun....<div></div>

Widelux cameras seem to go for around $500-$800 depending on model and condition. The price has come down a bit lately (probably due to the digital revolution). The Widelux is a pretty different animal compared to the XPan, however--fixed focus, 28mm lens only, and rotating panorama lens with curved film plane rather than the flat film plane of the XPan.

I believe that Justin mischaracterized Michael Reichmann. Ken Rockwell, however, is another matter. In 2005, he published an article on his website titled "Pentax *ist DS *istDS Test Review". Buried in the text, however, he says, "I have not played with one, only read the press info".

 

So, we have a "test review" based solely on reading spec sheets and press releases. I doubt he'll bother with the K10D, which is just fine as far as I am concerned.

Justin's comments above about Michael Reichmann betray a disappointing ignorance of Mr. Reichmann's background and point of view.

 

Mr. Reichmann is not a "Nikanon" fanboy. He has used the Pentax 645Nii and 67ii extensively in the past and, according to reviews still on his website, was quite happy with them. More recently, he shot with a Contax 645 system and several really expensive digital backs. He has also used Canon DSLR products quite a bit. His current "toy du jour" seems to be the Leica M8.

 

If Mr. Reichmann has a bias, it seems to be towards the latest really expensive "shiny object" from the photographic world. His gear articles do exhibit occasional inconsistencies. For example, he praised the use of rechargable AA batteries in his review of the Fuji S2, then turned around and criticized their use in the Pentax *ist-D.

 

I disagree with some of Reichmann's opinions, but I do believe that they come from an informed, experienced, and largely brand-bias-free viewpoint. Justin's opinion, on the other hand, reads like typical brand-biased fanboy response to a realistic gear appraisal.

Physical balance. I have a 3.5E and a 2.8E. Both cameras take exceptionally sharp pictures, but the 2.8E is significantly more front-heavy in my hands. I prefer to carry the 3.5E.

So I've gotten a little spoiled by my DSLR. I'd like to get a

workflow going with my Rolleiflex TLR that's somewhere in the same

realm of convenience. My dream workflow would be to send out exposed

color negative 120 film and have it come back processed with a CDROM

that contains 16-bit TIFF scans of the images. As of Spring 2006 does

anyone offer such a service?

 

Thanks....

I have a 2x3 Galvin. I really like it. I wouldn't call the design "rough" but rather a bit "imprecise." For example, the only geared adjustment is the focus along the monorail--all other adjustments are friction with teflon pads. It is certainly not in the same league as an Arca-Swiss, Toyo, or other 2x3 monorail cameras. On the other hand, it is much lighter and more compact. My 2x3 Galvin, along with three compact lenses on boards, a loupe, a darkcloth, and a film back, fits into a LowePro Trekker AW waistpack. It's about as compact a view camera setup as I can imagine.

Gene M's and Roger P's recent thread about the Butcher Watch Pocket

Carbine reminded me about an artifact that I recently inherited--my

grandmother's old Kodak Vest Pocket Model B folding camera. It's in

wonderful condition with the exception of the bellows, which is

completely shot. Can anyone point me to a source for replacement

bellows for this camera?

 

Thanks.

Anyone who has used both care to comment on the merits of a Vitessa

with an F2.8 or F3.5 Skopar as compared to a IIIf with, say, an Elmar

lens?

This question is more about your photographic style than about equipment. When you look at a subject to photograph, is your vision wide or narrow? If you take a look at the images you really like and they're mostly one or the other, then choosing an equivalent large format lens should be easy.