Niels - NHSN

I have no recollection of such a camera, but one could skim through the product timeline of DPReview covering that era and see if something rings a bell: https://www.dpreview.com/products/timeline?year=1999&category=cameras

A TTL speed-light native to the system will correctly adjust for the WB. You may want to play with exposure compensation to account for the orange mask. 20MP and above is more than enough for camera scanning IMO.

Wouldn’t badmouth my Barnacks - I love them - but the M series is so much more luxurious in operation and feel. Barnack is a venture into photographic history.

As I hinted in an earlier post, evaporation of lubricants used in the shutter/aperture assembly may have deposited on the two optical surfaces on each side of the assembly. It is very common on older lenses although there may be other causes and other surfaces affected. Can it be removed? Often yes, that is at least my experience with other lenses. Some lenses have ultra soft coatings inside which may be affected by cleaning. Sometimes haze may occur in the cement that glues lens elements together which is rarely economically feasible to remove. As recently as yesterday I learned that a Rolleiflex Planar 3.5E2 I was looking at, had a-hard-to-spot separation issue. According to the person I talked to, this a not uncommon issue with Carl Zeiss lenses during the transition from organic canadian balsam to the new synthetic materials used for gluing lens elements together. I have no idea if a separation issue would result in the issues you see in your photos. Neither do I have the abilities to judge from your photos what may be the best way forward for your lens. I personally would not hesitate to have a great camera such as yours professionally evaluated.

Of course - typical Leica to have special tools for each of their unique archaic processes 😄. This is an ABLON and it makes life a little easier but it is not something you really need. And probably not something you would buy if you looked up the price on ebay. I hate to be made conscious of some current absurd value of a Leica tool - suddenly something easily lost becomes to valuable to carry along in the bag. Luckily there are often copies if you need it for practical purposes.

This week I got a pristine Gossen Lunasix F (aka LunaPro F) light meter, produced around 1982. Readings are responsive and in line with my Sekonic L308B reference meter but it is much more bulky and quite a bit slower to operate due to the match-needle principle. This weekend I’ll be checking if it could work in the already slow workflow of my Leica IIIf. I will use some expired Acros 100II and my Summaron 3.5cm f3.5

I have heard others say similar things, but with the samples I have it worked out the opposite way. I do have another 55/3.5 which I haven’t used in this setup - maybe I should try.

ES-2 is designed for use with the two lenses you mention and the box includes what you need for them to work. However, the front of the ES-2 moves back and forth to allow for minor fine adjustments of cropping so it has a little flexibility. I used mine with a 55mm Micro-Nikkor and all I had to do to make it work was to add a glassless filter ring to extend the tube half a cm. I disliked the whole setup. Slow to work with and load with strips. Due to it's flimsy construction, I felt the need to check focus for every frame. The ES-2 slide holder only takes very thin mounted slides, such as Kodachrome cardboard or commercially mounted glassless. My home framed glassless GEPE mounts did not fit. Chance had it that I was offered that exact combo including an old pre-ai Micro-Nikkor for the same as I paid for the ES-2, and I haven't looked back since. I use a newer Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS (set to f/8), but the old 55/3.5 is quite capable and would have been OK. The solid PB/PS-4 combo can be firmly locked down and I rarely have to adjust focus. A huge benefit is that the PS-4 front allows me to scan whole uncut rolls in no time - mainly relevant for newly developed film because my archive is already cut. But not having to mount every strip in the flimsy ES-2 holder also saves a lot of time. I use a Nikon SC-17 TTL sync cable on my Z6ii and position a flash (SB-400) in front of the PS-4 (plus a little LED pilot light to allow for framing). Quick to setup as that is all I use the bellows for. I convert negatives to positive with FilmLab.

Ask the seller. Make sure to get a return option. You are firstly buying the seller. If you don’t trust them, walk away. lenses are almost impossible to evaluate from a photograph.

Konica FS-1 circa 1980 with Hexanon AR 28mm f/3.5 Probably not a particularly interesting camera by todays standards, but quite remarkable and innovative in its own time (1979). It was the first 35mm camera with integrated motorised film advance. Way out of my teenager budget at the time, but I was fascinated by the advanced technology. I recall that it was favourably reviewed in the magazines I consumed at the time. It was normally sold with a very nice 40mm f/1.8 pancake lens as standard, which was supposedly also good. This sample has been stored somewhere dusty and dirty. Paint drops here and there, so probably a garage. Wiped quickly for this photo. Green oxidised battery compartment 🤮 Luckily the compartment is separated from the rest of the body in the removable handle, so I hope it hasn't migrated into the camera. I first need to successfully clean the oxidation to see if it comes to life before I can say for sure it is my weekend camera - crossing fingers. The lens mounted is a Hexanon AR 28mm f/3.5 which had a lot of nicotine gunk outside, but luckily had a UV filter and looks clean inside. No decision as to which film yet. Camera wiki has a strange warning against the use of rechargeables: "Use of rechargeables is dangerous for the circuitry". I wonder what that is about, and if NimH with its 1.2V really could damage anything that expects 1.5V ???

I better follow this thread. I only use the multi selector on my Z6ii and would love to make sensible use of the joystick - if there is anything in it for me, that is. I heard a well know local photo journalist had epoxied the joystick on his Sony(?). He didn't bother to check if it could be disabled in the menus. Gluing the joystick worked for him - no problem - except perhaps affecting the resale value.

Why turn it off in the first place? Nikon claims VR in lenses can detect the use of tripod and panning on F mount cameras? I have it constantly turned on on my Z6ii and I haven't seen results that would indicate I shouldn't. It would be odd if the Z system is less advanced than F. Any Nikon Z specific data that show evidence of situations it should be turned off?

I know. Funny how quickly a roll of 36 disappears but 72 seems to go on forever.

@stephen_mcateer A few more thoughts: What you have shown above looks almost as bad as what came out of my 1937 Rolleiflex Automat when I first got it. It was an uncoated pre-WW2 Tessar, mind you, and it was fairly easy to see when looking through the lens to my eyes at least. I learned that I could easily unscrew the front group and thereby clean the optical surfaces on either side of the shutter/aperture - which took care of the problem. For all the following Tessar Rolleis I have owned, cleaning those two glass surfaces became standard procedure and always yielded improvements. I seem to recall that when I got my 3.5E (Planar) , the front group could turn without much force applied. I don't remember if I unscrewed it, but my first testing of the camera showed a more dire need for shutter service and it went out. When it came back I could see no need for cleaning the lens (I would expect the repair tech would have cleaned those two surfaces anyway as they are on either side of the shutter - although it wasn't out for a CLA, more like the old fashioned "check and fix what is wrong"). I just checked now on the 3.5E and the front group is tight. I don't want to apply force to prove a point that I may be misremembering. All I mean to say is that if you educate yourself and have a realistic assessment of your own DIY abilities you may be able to do something yourself. After all, the two surfaces mentioned are the most likely culprit.

The clothespin photo is difficult to comment on as I don't know exactly where the sun was, but I do see the obvious hot spot in the center. The poplars are more problematic. I would not expect the obvious flare in the center of such a straight-forward photo from a clean 1970's Planar. The last photo is taken under difficult circumstances where some flare should be expected, but I do subjectively think there is more flare than I would expect from a clean Planar of that vintage. Seeing these photos, I certainly understand why you are not completely happy. I would see if I could find a professional to take a look through the lens and get an assessment of how they see it. Just a competent repair tech, not necessary a Rollei specialist.

Konica EYE half frame camera (1965) This little thing came my way in time for the week-end. A Konica Half-frame camera with a luxurious 6 element 30mm f/1.9 Hexanon lens. It is the second incarnation of the EYE model produced from 1964-1967. The only difference from the first is the added accessory shoe. (EYE v2 should not to be confused with EYE 2 produced from 1967 - the latter had a CdS cell and a different lens.) This one has full automation. The camera's selected shutter speed is visible in the viewfinder along with the user selected distance. Speeds range from 1/30-1/800+B and aperture from F/1.9 to F/16. ASA from 10 to 400. If the shutter speed need to be below 1/30, a red flag will appear in the viewfinder and the shutter blocked - very much like Olympus Trip 35. The user can take some control, as one can half press the shutter button and thereby lock the reading, on say the shadows, and then recompose and press the button fully. It is a common undocumented functionality of these types of cameras including the Trip 35. Manual aperture can be selected for flash, and the shutter speed will then default to 1/25. You cannot select aperture when using B. It will always be wide open. The automation on this camera still seems to be working, and I will check the approximate accuracy with a roll of Fujifilm 200 (aka Kodak Gold 200) over the weekend.

I’m not familiar with the specifics of type IV 3.5f or it’s specific lens properties, but I would think we are talking early 70’s? If so, I hope you don’t mind if I challenge your assessment that it is clean/free of haze? Unless you have had the lens competently CLA’d in recent years (or have documentation of such) there may easily be evaporated minute deposits from shutter/aperture lubricants on inner lens surfaces: 40-50 years is a long time. Shining a strong LED light through a vintage lens is not something I normally do or recommend because I know it will likely look terrible, and it doesn’t reflect normal use-case scenarios, but when you’re are actually admitting to photographing contre-jour, then the test makes sense. Set to B and max aperture: Take the strongest light you own, or the sun. Look from the back and shine from the front while moving the camera around to look at a dark area while the strong light passes through. Does it look like there may be any deposits between the lens elements that could cause haze? If so, maybe it may be worthwhile having the lens competently cleaned before you consider an upgrade.

And please share some more photos of the beast when you have it in hand. I love cameras that displays what they have been through - Mint cameras are boring😉. Should you decide to have it CLA’d; “before and after” photos will be precious when you pass it on one day.

Wow! Rough all right! I don’t know what part of the world you’re living in, but I’ve had success in consulting this list for EU repairs - but it has US suggestions as well. An inherited camera is something real special - especially when you share the interest. Worth a go even if Rollei CLA prices are in the high end. Good luck. http://www.sl66.com/pg/repair.shtml

In my head it is meaningless. It indicates that you decide if you want to supplement your photo with words or not. In other words, just a normal thread.

I made a similar decision when upgrading a dark original 3.5E (aka 3.5C) screen. The Chinese screen I purchased from a reputable eBay seller was claimed to fit my model but I had to sand it down by a mm or so to make it fit. The screen is much brighter than the original, but I can only focus with the center split screen - the surrounding area can only be used for composing. I did not have to adjust for infinity- that part was OK. However, the standard screen in my later (70’s) Rolleiflex T is much better. The split image alignment on the Chinese screen is not quite as confirmative as I am otherwise used to from 35mm cameras, but it allows for faster focusing than the original dark screen. For critical focusing the original screen is no doubt more precise.

Weekend cameras: Leica IIIg (1957) w. uncoated Leitz Summar 50/2 (1934) & Nikon F2 Photomic (1973) w. Nikkor N-C Auto 24/2.8 (1973). The weather calls for color, but I have 2 BW rolls to finish first: HP5+ in the IIIg and Fujifilm Acros II (IE80). When finished I’ll have a few rolls of Fujifilm C200 ready in my bag.

Is "the optical signal" the actual flash or some sort of IR communication? I imagined some more advanced TTL communication and thought it might be IR - (founded in nothing but my imagination). Do you have a suggestion as to how I could minimise the output? Perhaps minus XX EV to as low as it will go on the SB-700 and point it to the ceiling? and that would then let the SB-5000 do the heavy lifting? I think I use flash too little for a radio trigger to be relevant. I'll be fine with a SC-24 if the dual flash setup becomes too complicated.

Most of my +45 years photographic life I have avoided flash like the plague but when I got my Z6ii, I also got a used SB-400 and was happily snapping along when a little extra light was needed. No settings, no thinking - It did what it did and that was OK until it broke. A year and a half ago I replaced it with a SB-700 and have been pleased with more light and the more articulate head - and have also used it off-camera with a SC-24 TTL cable - but always in complete ignorance. Fast forward to Friday where I was generously given a used SB-5000 - more flash than I will ever need. Before my brain imploded from trying to comprehend it's functions, I discovered that the SB-700 could be used to control the SB-5000 - And I thought I could avoid the SC-24 cable and get a little more reach. And the question: With the SB-700 on the camera, can it control the SB-5000 without the SB-700 fires? So far I seem to have success with getting a balanced exposure with the settings shown below where both flashes goes off. But I'd rather not have the SB-700 fire - is that even possible? I'm totally flash-illiterate so I'll appreciate any answers to assume I were 6 years old 🙂

Leica IIIf RDST (1954) w. Summicron 5cm f/2 v1 (1954) and SBOOI Finder I acquired yet another 50mm lens in Leica 39mm screw-mount - as if I needed it 🙄 This first collapsible version of the Leitz Summicron 5cm (as well as the second version) had very soft front element glass and/or coating and samples free of scratches & cleaning marks are rare and far between. Ironically it seems that it is often the cosmetically worn samples that have the better looking glass. My theory is that those who used their equipment intensively didn’t feel a constant need for cleaning the tiniest speck off the glass, whereas the typical anal Leica user would obsessively polish the front. This sample fits into the category of intensively used by the look of the outside, but yet it has beautiful pristine glass. The serial number indicates 1954 as production year - same year as the IIIf body which I owned already, nice coincidence. I am using one of my last rolls of the now seemingly discontinued Fujifilm C200.