tito sobrinho

Raid:

 

I don't understand your question.You're a seasoned photographer and in the past as I remember, you took your students to Europe for photography classes.Which cameras did you tell your students to carry?

 

If your trip is short, I would carry a digital for snapshots of family and friends. If you're planing a long stay, an 8x10 will do the job.

 

Is this thread a way to show off your mint condition cameras?

"Leica glass is the envy of most other camera users" G. Hodges.

 

Really!!!

Cliff: I have the 6x9 Super Ikonta with the mask for 4.5x6; a Moskva-5 with the mask for 6x6 as well as a 6x9 Voigtlander with the 4.5x6 mask. None of them are interchangeable.

Mr. Paul Dimodica, just posted 4 comments on this site since 2007 concerning the 55's demise. Perhaps, he works for a digital camera distributor!

Antonio:

 

Yes I read the manual, however, it does not teach you how to overcome the 1/3 lower obstruction imposed by the lens barrel when looking through that sorry finder. Perhaps, I missed something like: going to the nearest Home Depot and cutting the upper part of the lens barrel:~)

 

Yes Antonio, I work everyday from 9 to 8, and I think I did well for just exposing 4 rolls in 14 days. Pardon me, but my real work is not a joke.

Antonio, I'm very familiar with an extreme wide-angle and its usage, of handling a tripod and a spirit level, as for years I follow the LF discipline with a 4x5 and a 8x10.

 

The gripe concerning the finder, (obstructed by the lens mount) is that, I did not see the vase on the lower right thus, from round, it became oval. If I had a 40 Distagon, this would not happen as I had excluded the vase changing the camera position.

 

I do think that 4 rolls of TRI-X 320 exposed during the 14 days trial period with the SWC would have given me a pretty good knowledge about the camera.

The Hesper lens is a Triplet as oposed to the Neo-Hesper a Tessar clone.

After 14 days of using the SWCM/CF I sent it back and got my money.

 

Reason: Awkward finder that did not show the field of view in its entirety; being obstructed by the lens mount. I exposed a picture on my porch using a tripod and a cable release. I missed a round vase on the bottom right corner of the composition...the round vase became oval. Yes, even the famous Biogon shows distortion.

 

I'll bet, the Fiorio's picture of the running Asian people, was cropped, and the swimming pool done with a Rolleiwide was not.

"I think it is better to forget it" J-L Llech

 

Yes, indeed!!!

Mike, you have got a pristine Original example. Congratulations!!!

Jorge, that was (is) the stay for the little cable release, as it was (is) easier to photograph with your left thumb squeezing the trigger at the finder level.

Yannick, very interesting as my lens hood for my Old Standards doesn't fit my Original. As a matter of fact, the twin lens cap from the Original doesn't fit my Standards as well as my Art-Deco Rolleicord.

 

Mike, my f3.8 Original # 54,302 with a 3.1 viewing lens #54,928 doesn't have the large diameter 3.1 depicted on your camera. Looks like, it was an improvement by F&H.

The lettering also, on the taking lens is outside i.e. around the lens mount.

 

I cannot see the first pages (TLR) on the Rollei Club...1/3 vertically obstructed by "Ad by Google" even so I have the pop-ups blocked. Any suggestions?

The flash cord locking mechanism, started on the Rolleicord V of 1954. The Rolleiflex with the locking was introduced on the 3.5 MX-EVS of 1954 as well as on the 2.8 C in 1953.

 

The simple socket as depicted on Yannick's Original was common on the first synch Rolleicord III in 1950 as well as on the Rolleicord IV of 1953. The 3.5 Rolleiflex X of 1949 and on the MX of 1951. The Rolleiflex 2.8A didn't have the locking as well as the 2.8B

 

The Rolleiflexes with a flash synch, were used extensively by the photojournalists in the fifties thus, leading to the Graphic's demise as a primo camera for the newspapers.

 

Since the Rolleiflex were expensive, a cheaper solution, was to add a synch to the older ones.

I would agree with Jorge i.e. if it does not affect the image, leave it alone. If it bothers you much, send the lens to John van Stelten/Focal Point for cleaning, or better yet...return to sender.

Dennis, lens color coating doesn't affect the final color image. As Ronald said, the culprit was film and or processing as well as what Mike said.

Nice pictures from the Yashica A. I love old cameras as well as old cars.

 

The pictured car, is a 1959 Thunderbird with a 1960 Thunderbird's grille.

Gene, excellent TLRs collection as well as the pictures from the Tri-Lausar.

 

Ian Parker wrote in his book: "The 1950's were considered the golden years of the TLR with many manufacturers jumping on the bandwagon. Collating all known TLRs took me many months. Somehow I managed to lose the list. The number exceeded a staggering 500 with 294 made in Japan alone. Nearly all the cameras had, I remember, an f3.5 lens with only 22 with the f2.8" -Rollei T.L.R. - The History- pg.113

You can take color pictures with the single coated Optar+lens hood. You don't need a multicoated lens for that.

Dan is right:

 

Since 1956, I`ve been photographing with a YashicaFlex and later a Retina IIc.

 

In 1968 I came to the USA as a tourist with the idea and money to buy "The Camera" after reading several issues of MP & PF.

 

I looked for a M4+50/Summicron...$600.00.

 

Hasselblad Planar 80...more than 1,000.00.

 

I bought the Nikon FTn + Nikkor 50/1.4 + 28/3.5 + 200/4 at the Bahamas duty free store after just one day trip from Miami. Paid $500,00. Exposed rolls and rolls of Kodachrome 25 in my tour...USA and Mexico. After 1 month, I returned to Brasil. Interesting is that the Nikon din't have any warranty whatsoever! After all these years, it still works flawlesly.

Excellent photos. The contrast is wonderful and the Canon 50 rocks as well as your compositions. "Muy lindo". Continue taking pictures and posting them.

Congratulations on your find.

 

The # 2 Brownie Camera was especially made for the newly introduced 120 film in 1901 with an image of 2-1/4 X 3-1/4. The # 1 Brownie, used the defunct 117 film with an image of 2-1/4 X 2-1/4. Interesting is that, the 1929 Rolleiflex Original used the 117 film and image size.

Raid, where is the link?

Dan Chang: With all your negative comments concerning this lens... and you bought one?

Slight OT:

 

My older Fujinon-W 210/5.6 (58mm filter size), covers 80 degrees, with an image circle of 352mm. It is mounted on a Technika board.

 

Normal lens for the 5x7, long lens for the 4x5 and a wide angle lens for the 8x10.

Q.G. When I write something here, I always have the back up of a reference. Obviously, by doing so I don't let opinions just fly off my head. This was the reason I`ve asked you for the reference.

 

Another point, for years, the professionals were using the Polaroid film in order to do the final exposure on film, and not rushing the negative to a lab for processing (sic). Nowadays, the digital capture facilitates the process.

 

Another point: The "silly" apron that Bill is wearing, is called an overhall. I have one and it's rugged, has many pockets, which makes it the ideal outfit for taking pictures in a wooded area. I can send you the "apron" upon request. I'll bet you you'll like to wear it for your landscape photography outings.