stephen_mcateer

Thanks John. yes, I'm pretty sure I'm loading it correctly. Not sure what's going on with it.

Thanks for that link. His problem is similar to mine. I'm waiting to hear from the repairer. Will report back here when I have more information.

@kmac Thanks for that. I'm running the film under the first roller and over the other two. I think that's the correct method but I'll double-check. Thanks for suggesting I check the backing paper for scuffs — I hadn't thought of that. I'll try Google and see what others are saying about this particular problem. I've emailed the repairer — maybe they can suggest something. Cheers.

@Colin O Thanks for that insight, Colin. I had a CLA done recently and they fixed what was previously a lumpy wind-on. However, although it's now perfect otherwise, it is very stiff after the last frame is through. I can live with it but as I said, I don't want to break or damage anything. I think I'll ping the repairer and see what they say. Cheers.

My Rolleiflex 3.5F has noticeably more resistance at the wind-on lever after the last frame has been shot. Is this normal? I mean quite a lot more resistance. I don't want to damage or break anything. ( I think I asked this question here before somewhere but I can't remember.) Cheers.

Hmm. This lab is otherwise very good. Prices are reasonable too. I'll do a search for a 'Dip and dunk' lab and see what I turn up though. Cheers.

You're right — I hadn't noticed that. The lab say they use a "short-leader transport processor". Not sure what that is exactly. Anyway, I do occasionally shoot in low-light situations with colour negative film, so I'm not sure what the ansewer is here...

Yes — I plan on using it, John. The lens on my last 501 made photographs that were outstanding. The Rollei I have — I like it a lot too, and have been using it exclusively the past while. As for service for the Rollei, there's a factory-trained Rollei repair man in England plus Newton Ellis, who also have a good reputation. I've used both recently and was happy with the results. The Rollei is 50+ years old though, whereas I think my 501 is from 1996 or thereabouts. (It's not a youngster either, I suppose, but it looks like it's had very little use, so hopefully will have some miles left in it.) Your Rolleiflex SL66 is a camera I know nothing about — I'll Google it and take a look though. Cheers.

@orsetto Apologies for the late response to this detailed post — I only just discovered it. There's a lot to think about here. Thanks for putting together such a lot of useful information. In essence, I think you're saying I should hold onto the 501CM if I can, and that's what I've decided to do. My reasons for selling were financial in the main. (Also, I have a nice Rollei, which I've been using quite a lot lately and which I really like and which thought might be a good substitute for the Hasselblad.) The 501 is, as you say, worth a lot: it was playing on my mind having that much money sitting on a shelf. (I'm also a little bit wary of using it in the field in case I damage it.) However, I took some of my favourite photographs with a 501 and I expect I'll take more with this one. It has the 'Crosshairs' acute matte D screen. It's also gererally pristine, apart from a <1mm bubble in the chrome on the body, which is a cosmetic flaw only. (As for the 500C/M, I decided to pass on it, which I think was the correct decision, given what you say here.) Anyway, thanks again. I'm going to go and check to see what other messages I've missed. Cheers.

@rick_drawbridge Thanks Rick. Yes — I checked the rollers and the other bits of the camera that might come into contact with the film, and as far as I could see they were pretty clean. It's something I'll have to look out for in future. Having said that, most of the negs I get back from this lab are great — it was just these few very thin ones that the scratches were visible on.

UPDATE: I pinged the lab & it turns out they don't use dip & dunk for C41.

Yes, the Technika is a nice piece of engineering. The only downside is that Linhof stuff is expensive, which is something to think about for me personally. I don't really go out in the field with the 4x5, just take pictures in the garden here and at my table-top studio, so maybe an F1 would work. I will look at fresnel prices and decide if I want to splash out, but first I'll see how the view is through this right-angle viewer without one. Cheers.

@jose_angel Thanks for that information Jose. I really don't want to buy a fresnel unless it's absolutely necessary. This is just a little project to photograph some flowers and I've spent enough on it already. I think you're correct to say that the Technica uses an over-the -ground-glass fresnel. The reason for wanting a right-angle viewer is that the camera is quite high off the floor in this set-up I have. (I suppose maybe a simpler answer would be to lower the camera but I can't see how to do that with the light source being my bedroom window.) The lens I have for the Linhof is 135mm — it does tend to have a bit of a hotspot with the ground glass, so I expect it'll be much the same with the angle viewer. Anyway, this right-angle viewer is in the post — I should have it next week, so I'll report back here with information on hotspot or not. Cheers. P.S. You mention Sinar — the F1 looks like a useful 4x5 for my purposes and it's only about a quarter of the price of my Technika V... I can see me listing the Linhof on eBay soon.

@ajkocu Thanks AJ.

@ajkocu It's okay AJ — no need to dig the camera out. I went ahead & purchased the finder. If it's no good I can just recyle it on eBay. Cheers.

@dan_fromm2 Thanks Dan. I went ahead and ordered the Linhof Right-Angle Viewer [From Roberts Camera in Illinois]. It was the cheapest one I could find, in case it doesn't work out. The lens I have for my Linhof is 135mm. I'm encouraged that you say a fresnel would only be required for short focal lengths — I know nothing about fresnels and have never used one. The 'Hotspot' problem is what I was thinking about when I posted this question. I see some Chinese right-angle viewers for 4x5 but they're not exactly cheap — I could get a used, recent model Linhof one for not much more. I'll see how this Linhof one I've ordered works out & report back here. Cheers.

@bob_salomon Would you know anything about this, Bob? Thanks.

I'm looking at right-angle viewers for my Linhof Technika V 4x5. I saw a comment somewhere saying that these viewers are 'Useless' without a fresnel. Can anyone verify that? If I do need a fresnel, does it have to be a genuine Linhof item, or will a cheap one suffice? Thanks for any info.

@orsetto Thanks for this detailed information: as much as I could have hoped for. From what you say here, I think the difference between these two lenses will be undetectable. I'm trying to think of something else to add here to reciprocate the time you must have spent putting this response together but I think you've covered every aspect, so there's not much to add. I just have to decide whether or not I want to let go of the 501, which I really like, and which is immaculate, or not... (On closer inspection of the photographs of the 500CM on this auction site, it looks like it may have belonged to a 'Pro' and therefore perhaps have led a hard life. I don't know. I have ten days to make my mind up though.) Thanks again.

@James BryantThanks James. The CB Planar on the 501 CM makes beautiful photographs. If the Planar on the 500 CM is much the same, I think I'll go for it. (I suppose there will be some detailed technical information on Google somewhere about lens construction etc. but I haven't looked yet.)

I see a nice 1986 Hasselblad 500 CM at an auction site. I currently have a 501CM with the CB Planar 80mm. It is the nicest lens I've ever had, in terms of results. However, I'm selling the 501CM for financial reasons. Would the lens on the cheaper 500CM be the same optically as the one on the 501CM, or did the design change? Thanks for any info.

UPDATE: I did some Googling and it may be that the face is slightly out of focus because I focused the camera at eye-level, then moved it to waist-level to take the picture, resulting in the face being slightly further away.

I just got some negatives back from the lab today, from my Rollei 3.5 F Planar. In a couple of portraits, the face is very slightly out of focus. [See pic below — I think the aperture was maybe 5.6 or 8.0. The logo on her jacket is perfectly in focus.]. This camera was away at the repairers a couple of months ago for a CLA. When I got it back, I did a quick focus check as best I could — with some tissue paper — which looked okay. Anyway, do I need to do a more thorough focus test, or do I need a diopter (I wear prescription glasses of -1.50), or should I use a chimney finder for better magnification of the focus screen? I have a Hasselblad chimney finder plus a 3D printed adapter for the Rollei, which is a good setup but it makes the camera a bit unwieldy, plus you can't hold the camera at waist-level to get a better view for composing. Thanks for your opinion.

Thanks. It hadn't occurred to me that the rollers might be dirty, though thinking about it now, the camera had probably been out of use for a long time before I got it. I will go now and clean them. Cheers.

I notice some fine vertical lines in this image, which I take to be scratches on the negative. The camera was my Rolleiflex 3.5F. Film was Portra 400. [It's a very thin negative, almost completely transparent.] I'm wondering if the scratches are happening during film transport through the camera, or if they're being caused at the lab? [I believe this lab uses 'Dip and dunk'.] It's not a huge problem — it's not often I'll be shooting at dusk, and I hope if I do so in future, I'll give it a bit more exposure so the neg is not quite so thin. Thanks for any insights.