stephen_mcateer

@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.

@Moto-Uno Thanks Peter. The Mamiya 7 is even more expensive than the 6 — I see examples of the 7ii from Japan for £4000+. I think the 6x7 format appeals to more people than 6x6, which maybe explains the price difference. I may get another 6 if I have the spare cash and one appears on eBay at the right price.

@orsetto Thanks for that. I'll keep what you say in mind if I decide to get a 6 at some point down the road. I like rangefinders and I prefer the 6x6 aspect ratio. Just a shame they're so expensive, though I suppose they're only going to go up in price. I did like the pictures I got from the 6s I owned before, though I found the metering to be off — I've read that the 6 uses an average metering pattern, whereas the 7 is spot. The ones I had before both came with a 75mm lens. It was very sharp / had good contrast but I think next time I would maybe go for a 50mm. Anyway, thanks again for the insights. Cheers.

@arthur_gottschalk Thanks Arthur. I've put this idea on the back burner for now but I may return to it. I wasn't aware of the advance problem till I made the original post here — something to look out for if I change my mind.

@orsetto Thanks very much for that detailed reply. Just the information I was looking for. (Thanks for the history of the development and marketing of the 6 & 7 too.) I think, on balance, and after reading your comments about the fragility of the film advance and the rangefinder / lens matching problems, I am going to leave it for now. As I said, I have owned a couple of these cameras in the past, and while I got some reasonable pictures with them, I never really took to them the same way as I did my Rollei and Hasselblad. Cheers.

@robert_bowring Thanks Robert. I don't think I gave the two cameras I owned enough time to get used to them — I only put maybe three or four rolls though each. The pictures I did take came out well though. 6x6 is my favourite format and I think the only other recent 6x6 rangefinder is the Fuji one that also does 6x7. (I've read that rangefinder accuracy can be a problem with those cameras though.) I think I'll sell off some of my excess camera gear first, then look for another 6. Cheers.

I have owned a couple of these cameras over the years but never really got along with them for whatever reason. However, I'm thinking about trying again, mainly because the lenses are outstanding as I recall; also they're good for low light without a tripod. The only question I have is: how robust are these cameras? I've read elsewhere that they can be a bit fragile and some parts are no longer available. Thanks for any info.

@AJG Thanks. Hadn't thought of that.

@Niels - NHSN Just FYI Niels, here is a picture of the refurbished strap. Price was so reasonable I can hardly believe it. And the workmanship is excellent.

@ajg Thanks for that. I see some reasonably-priced LED studio lights on Amazon which might fit the bill.

I'm looking for a light that produces sharply-defined shadows on small / medium-sized products. Preferably nothing too expensive. *I would prefer a constant light to a strobe.* I'm attaching an example of the look I hope to achieve. Can anyone tell me what sort of light I'm looking for? Thanks.

Thanks Robert. I've only put one roll through it since the CLA, so I'll see how it is next roll and take it from there. It's not a huge problem, I just wondered if it was normal.

Yes it does Niels. The shop who did the CLA said they put two rolls through it to test it and it was all okay, but I'm not so sure…

Another Rollei question: this 3.5 F I have — I just had it serviced and the wind-on is much smoother than it was. However, once the roll is finished and I'm winding in the end-paper, there's quite a lot of resistance at the film advance lever. I would have expected it to stay the same or be less. Can someone tell me what is normal for these cameras? Thanks.

Okay thanks for that. The Oleson screen I have doesn't have a tab on it. Hadn't occurred to me that it might be fitted incorrectly. My feeling is it's probably just my eyes but I'll go and look at the Oleson website & see what I can see. Cheers.

Cheers. I shall look into it.

Yes — YouTube videos are one other possibility I've thought about. I've dabbled in video editing — I think I could pick it up well enough without too much difficulty. [I have a Scottish accent, which does not travel well in my experience but I suppose subtitles instead of voice is an option.]

@c_watson1 Thanks C. You're probably right. [I have scanning pretty well sorted-out for myself. For example.] Hmm... need to keep on thinking. Cheers.

I'm looking around for ways to supplement my income in the near-to-mid future [Might be losing my job]. Do we think scanning film with an SLR would be viable as a way to make a small income? I'm not looking to make huge amounts of money.... [I have intermediate Photoshop skills and can build WordPress websites.] I would rather not be digitising thousands of old Kodachromes — I'm thinking more about medium format film 'Scanning' for enthusiasts. Thanks for any insights.