kristian_heitkamp

I also bought a Jupiter-9 within the first weeks of the war. I had it on my wishlist for years and thought it is a good opportunity to help someone in a miserable situation.

it took some time, but finally arrived.

I had the same problem with my Nikonos IV.

what worked for me, was replacing with brand new batteries and cleaning the contacts inside the camera and in the cover with an erasure.

i also cleaned the cover‘s thread and it’s counterpart, using my fingernails. The batteries‘ minus is connected through the thread.

I've acquired a Nikonos I with a UW-Nikkor 15 2.8 old version. The kit was described as functional and nice condition. But the camera's shutter does not work properly and the lens has two cracks in its depth of field window glass.

Since the lens is the old version that does not fit on the Nikonos IV and V but due to its retro-focus design is supposed to be superior to the new version. So I am not sure if I should keep it in order to get it repaired or send it back for refund.

What do you think? Is it still possible to repair them? Does anybody knows a place that is able to repair it? Could I get custom made round shaped glass and repair it myself? I am living in Germany btw.

Is it worth the trouble?

I made a short video of the set:

 

Thank you for your advice.

I own a Canon L1 and a P. Yesterday my 7 arrived and I don’t have my first roll through it but am sure that it is the winner against the other two.

Of course the P and L1 look awesome, especially their rewind cranks are just too cool. And the P‘s 100% viewfinder magnification is a dream. But the focusing spot at the P is too dimm for my taste, I am already loving the 7 over the P.

And build quality wise I don‘t see a difference among the three.

As others said before, the cold shoe will hardly be missed on the 7. If I want to attach a viewfinder for ultra wide lenses I could even take a zorki 1 as a second body, because I will hardly need the rangefinder of it anyway. I bought the 7 for it‘s viewfinder, so I am not complaining about it‘s missing ability to add an external one.

I own an A1 for some years, I’ve bought it together with an MA motor drive because I wanted the portrait mode grip and second release button together with the aperture priority.

When it started to drain the batteries when I did not switch it off within a day, I tried to get another one, which had the EE EEEE error.

Also both A1s have broken battery doors.

To be fair, I must say that the first A was a bit beaten up, the brass coating came out underneath the black paint, but on the other side this to me is a sign that the camera did not hum up through missing use.

 

So now I got an New F1 together with the power winder, so again I got aperture priority and the vertical grip.

Of course the f1 is much better build and even though mine saw heavy use (even the paint on the lever is off) everything feels accurate and works fine.

One big advantage is that the Power winder only uses 4 AA batteries so it is much lighter than the A1 with MA motor drive and it’s 12 AA batteries (of course only 2 frames per second but I never shoot in continuous mode).

One big disadvantage of the F1 is, that if you are shooting in aperture priority mode you can not illuminate the match needle in the finder. Since I am shooting a lot indoors and at night I am thinking of installing a little led light on top of the viewfinder which shines on the light window which illuminates the match needle of the finder.

Anyway I believe that you will hardly find a more rugged 35 mm camera than the New F1 and I am sure that it will still work and be serviceable in the next 40 years.

<p>Both no crop, no close up. <a href="/bboard/"http:/wp.ki-online.net/rolleiflex-35-f-xenotar-tlr-portraet/">Rolleiflex 3.5 F Xenotar</a>:<br /> <a title="Clemens Scan-140724-0001" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5551/14707918700_f2fa6566ff_b.jpg" alt="Clemens Scan-140724-0001" width="993" height="1024" /></a><br /> <a title="2014-06-20 Stefan S." href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/14480423851_c0516775ba_b.jpg" alt="2014-06-20 Stefan S." width="1002" height="1024" /></a></p>

<p>Rolleiflex 3.5 E Xenotar, rolleinar 1 close up, no crop:<br>

<a title="Ole in may 2009" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5098/5439574647_ca5db239b8_b.jpg" alt="Ole in may 2009" width="1024" height="1018" /></a><br>

The image is slightly out of focus, I should have even got a bit closer, as you can see, the focus is in the hair, which is a bit in front of the eyes.<br>

Another one without a close up, this was shot on a Rolleiflex 3,5 F Xenotar:<br>

<a title="christoph march 2011" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6478962661_5c884e02a7_b.jpg" alt="christoph march 2011" width="1004" height="1024" /></a><br>

Both were not cropped.</p>

<p>To me it seems as the new F2 mainly changed from flourescend light to LED. The optical resolution stayed the same.<br>

There is a scanner review of the F1 on the german site <br>

http://www.filmscanner.info/MicrotekArtixScanF1.html<br>

Which states the scanner only about 2000 dpi versus its optical 4800 dpi.</p>

<p>But what I think one should consider is, that following the nyquist shannon sampling theorem the scanning resolution needs to be double of the resolving resolution. That means, that by chance it might happen that the scan lines perfectly match the pattern of the scanned object – than you would receive a scan pairing the otpical resolution. But most of the time the details in the scanned image do not pair the scan lines and therefore the scanning resolution will be smaller. </p>

<p>Nyquist and Shannon pointed out that this resolution will go down to just the half of the scanners optical resolution.</p>

<p>Also you have to mind that the resolution tests are made with the USAF Testchart, which means that a person has to decide weather she/he is able to see a difference between two lines or not. Since this relies only on the personal and subjective view of a reviewer one should question these result either.<br>

Even the same person would judge the same test scan differently if he repeats the test a certain time later. Reason for this can be, how fit he feels on the certain moment (daytime) but also if the reviewer has prejudices against a certain trademark etc.<br>

To make this test relieable it should be repeated with a larger amount of people, where the average result should be taken. Also the recipients should not know which scanner is to be tested.<br>

Here I have written an explanation about the nyquist shannon sampling theorem (sorry – it is in german only – but the pictures might speak for themselfs):<br>

http://wp.ki-online.net/das-nyquist-shannon-abtasttheorem-und-seine-relevanz-fuer-das-scannen-und-die-wiedergabe-von-bildern/<br>

But wikipedia has it in english (but much more scientiphic): <br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem</p>

<p>I know that this is an old thread but I just wanted to add the information that there is indeed a company that develops a new film for these holders:</p>

<p>http://new55project.blogspot.de</p>

<p>Would be interesting if your DIY solution worked and if you could give some hints on how you actually did it. I also purchased a Flash Meter IV with the incident dome only.<br /> Only difference is that I also found a reasonably priced 5 degree spot attachment. But still a reflective light attachment would be just a nice add on.</p>

<p>regards</p>

<p>Kristian</p>

<p>It's a bit late and a bit off-topic regarding the threads initial question, but the sixtron is useful, because it is a flash meter, what the lunasix 3 can not do.<br>

You find a lot of information at this site:<br>

http://www.myphotoweb.com/Gossen/index.htm</p>

<p>regards</p>

<p>jon:<br>

This is exactly the same what I did on my Rolleiflex 3.5 E.<br>

The only difference is, that the taking lens stayes in place when you take off the front plate. This makes it even easier to compare the focus, while you use a piece of ground glass on the back of the taking lens (place it, where the film should normaly be positioned).<br>

I also would recommend using a stronger loupe than the build in one. I took a 10 x magnifying loupe, which made adjusting very easy.</p>

<p>jon:<br>

This is exactly the same what I did on my Rolleiflex 3.5 E.<br>

The only difference is, that the taking lens stayes in place when you take off the front plate. This makes it even easier to compare the focus, while you use a piece of ground glass on the back of the taking lens (place it, where the film should normaly be positioned).<br>

I also would recommend using a stronger loupe than the build in one. I took a 10 x magnifying loupe, which made adjusting very easy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Les: <br>

The light source for which it is programmed to properly expose for would have to be simulated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Greg supposes, the light must not be that strong. So maybe the aperture of the enlarging-lense would be the apropiate tool to adjust the light properly. Otherwise a stronger bulb needs to be installed.<br>

The different color-temperature of the bulb could be corrected by using VueScans function of producing raw-scans which would need to be white-balanced in Photoshop for example.<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Robert:<br>

What a great idea!</p>

 

</blockquote>

Thank you very much!

<br />

<br />

<br />

So, who's got the equipment, time and interest to try it?

<p>If you use a b/w neg it would also work with a non-see-thru scanner I think. But for color images the problem ist, that the light comes from three different lightsources in the colors red, green and blue, which is than reflected and read out by the very same scanner-line. <br>

That's why I thought a see-thru-scanner would solve this problem.<br>

Or you dissasemble the light-source inside the scanner and put a color-filter-wheel between the scanner and the enlarger. (If you use a color-enlarger you just need to change the color of its light-source.)</p>

<p>

 

<p>I think you could just put a sheet of paper on the glass-plate of the scanner for fokusing, and then take it away in order to scan.<br>

Also I think you should wrap some dark cloth or better a bellow around the scanner and the lens, to prevent surrounding light to hit the scan-line. This would probably also eleminate the problem with the weak light-source as mentioned by Terence.<br>

In the Heidrich-Paper (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~heidrich/Papers/EG.04.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~heidrich/Papers/EG.04.pdf</a>) they do not put a groundglass between the scanner and the lens of the large-format camera. So why shouldn't it work with the enlarger as well?</p>

 

</p>

<p>Les:<br /> I would get a higher resolution, because the enlarger would upscale the image. (While I could scan a 6x6 slide with 2400 dpi, scaling it to the double size would give it a 4800 dpi resolution.)<br /> Also there should be no problems with newton-rings.</p>

<p>I've read somewhere about a large-format camera connected to a scanner in order to get really high resolution images. If I find the article, I will post the link.</p>

<p>Thanks so far for your answers!</p>

<p>Edit: I found the link:</p>

<p>http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~heidrich/Papers/EG.04.pdf</p>

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>has anybody ever tried to put a flatbed scanner under an enlarger, set it on see-thru and scan?<br>

I wonder if this would give any results, but optically it should just happen the same as with a negative lying right on the glas plate of the scanner. <br>

Sadly I don't have a scanner to try this setting, but maybe someone tried it before and can tell about her/his results?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Jonathan,</p>

<p>I've been searching the whole kyphoto site but could not find anything about the rollei 35. Could you post a link – please? <br>

And please also the link to the PN Classic Cameras forum where you found the repair-manual? I am desperately looking for one, because at mine the meter does not work any more.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>Kristian</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I tried to download the repair manual but unfortunately the file has been deleted. Could anybody post it again?</p>

<p>A big Thank You</p>

<p>Kristian</p>

<p>I've got an old Distagon from the 80ies with Rollei-Mount. I use it together with an adaptor on my EOS 20D and like it very much there.<br>

But I got the problem, that I can only use it in the 1.4 aperture setting on the adaptor. Because the diameter of the lens is so big and there is a little "step" on the outside of the adapter you can't screw it all the way down onto the adaptor. Therefore the piece of the adaptor that pushes the switch/needle to close the aperture to the selected size can't reach just this switch/needle. (I hope you understand what I mean).<br>

But you won't need this lens if you don't work it on f 1.4, so this ain't no real problem to me.<br>

Reagrding the Discussion about colour: I made the same experience, the colours on the zeiss lenses (50 mm 1,4 and 35mm 1,4) just look much more brilliant than using my canon lenses (which are just cheap standard lenses: 50mm 2.8 and the cheap standard zoom on the 20D – so this is probably not very informative, since you guys dont use these cheap lenses)<br>

Hope my information is relevant to anyone at all</p>