roy_ramavarapu1

<p>Forgot to add: Very, very likely that the spanner wrench would need to be metric - the adjustable type will work in either system - I think; I am certain F&H did everything for the Rolleiflex in the metric system - not the other system; even Britain abandoned it.</p>

<p>Hi Dennis: Thank you for the experience. Did a Google search (images) on spanner wrench, and I see them - different kinds. I think an adjustable spanner wrench will work fine; I wrote about not being able to unscrew with just one side of the slots. Please: would you have any experience/comment on the front "glass" being flat (zero radius of curvature), or not. Thank you very much.<br>

Roy, 13 May 2013</p>

<p>Is there any subject user who has dismantled a Bay 3 Rolleinar viewing lens? This forum has an excellent article on dismantling a Rolleiflex filter, and am wondering if anybody tried to dismantle a Rolleinar viewing lens. I wrote about using the Rolleinar viewing lens attachment as a protection "filter" on a Rolleiflex 2.8 F Planar with a UV filter on the taking lens at the same time - the combination works perfectly in terms of fit, clearance, mounting, but (as pointed out by more experienced users) the combination fails in optical terms - the Rolleinar viewing lens makes the image (on the screen) OOF (out of focus). I looked at my Bay 3 viewing lens attachment (I have only this component, and not the mating attachment for the taking lens). Am wondering (based on Dennis Purdy's feedback comment for my earlier write-up) if I can dismantle the Rolleinar viewing lens, remove the rear lens, re-assemble it (keep only the front glass), I could have a protection "filter". For orientation purposes: the front of the viewing lens has text markings on the black plastic rim; mine has "R III Germany Heidosmat - Rolleinar 2". The rear lens does have a radius of curvature, and the curvature is visible. I could be mistaken, but the front glass MAY just be flat glass with zero radius of curvature (hence my reason for not calling it a lens). The rear lens seems to be held by a ring (collar) with two tiny diametrically opposite slots. I don't think the ring/collar is a pressure fitting, and it may be possible to remove the ring/collar by inserting a device (a steel plate with two projections that fit the slots exactly; must clear the lens beneath; I also see lens spanners on the web) that will fit into both slots, and maybe turn anti-clockwise. Inside the housing, I see another plastic collar with a slot for a tiny guide post that possibly holds the front glass in place.<br>

The ring/collar with the two tiny slots does not seem to rotate with nominal (= finger force) effort; the ring/collar was mounted nearly 50 years ago at time of manufacture/assembly, and is now difficult to rotate. I can try WD-40 (tiny amount); I applied Zeiss lens cleaning liquid with a Q-tip to the ring/collar and did not see any great effect.<br>

Any user experience on this subject will be appreciated. I also would like to know if I am correct in assuming that the front glass is indeed a flat glass with zero radius of curvature. Won't make much sense to dismantle the piece if the front glass is a lens and causes OOF even without the rear lens, no matter how small. Thank you all in advance for any information and feedback.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am reporting on my question (1) above. I received the Rolleinar #2 attachment for Bay3 viewing lens only; this #2 has the usual bayonet type flat "prongs", and one flat edge on the circumference, and has a painted dot on the metal body; see any picture. The reference orientation is: facing the Rolleiflex, and the taking and viewing lenses are facing me. I understand that this #2 has to be mounted on the viewing lens (of the Rolleiflex, mine is a 2.8F Planar), and rotated so that the painted dot is at the 12noon position. Did this, and was somewhat surprised that the flat edge is now at the 9o'clock position. I was under the impression that the flat edge is to provide clearance for any attachment(s) made to the taking lens - this is not the case. The #2 is now mounted. Next, without any hindrance, I was able to attach my Heliopan Bay3 UV filter - there is no interference from the #2 on the viewing lens. Next, I mounted my Bay3 shade (hood) on the taking lens (with the #2 and UV filter still attached), and the hood mounted without any hindrance. Everything worked out fine as far as the (1) question is concerned. Note: I was even able to un-mount/remove the #2 from the viewing lens with the UV & hood (both) still on the taking lens. Works fine, and this is the experimental result for (1) question. Coming to (2) question on the optical performance. Dave Thomas is correct: the combination does not serve the optical performance. I removed the #2 only, focused on an object, mounted back the #2, and the focused image is distorted/out-of-focus. Experiment failure confirmation for question (2). D.Purdy's observation (remove the as-found glass/lens from #2, and replace with UV or plain glass) would work out great, but would involve quite some effort. (There is a write-up in this forum on dismantling a Rolleiflex filter and removing the glass and re-assembling after cleaning). With my best regards to everybody.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu, 02 May 2013</p>

<p>Thank you all for the informed and experience-based opinions. The above responses should answer my questions (1) and (2). I can't help writing why Rolleiflex didn't consider using two protection filters at the same time as a design feature for the 2.8F/3.5F series; I believe (based on some reader comments) that the earlier models will accept two filters. Using an UV filter as a protection is my preference - I prefer to clean the filter and not the lens. Thank you all for the information; I think Dan Daniel's solution would be the most preferable. Also, thanks to D. Purdy for information and experience elsewhere in this forum on the filters with plain glass and the flat bottom edge sold on the auction site from S. Korea: I didn't try any of them. Best regards to all. </p>

<p>I have a rather innocent (read dumb) question on the subject. The Rolleinars come as pairs for the Bayonet III, and are numbered 1, 2, and 3, and are used for increasing order of close-up photography, e.g., #1 is for head+shoulders, #2 is for head, and #3 is for very close-up shots. Each numbered pair has one component for the taking lens (the thinner component), and the thicker component is attached to the viewing lens. I also believe that the numbered pairs are not interchangeable due to their "strengths" (diopter power), i.e., cannot (or, should not?) mix the individual numbered components. Having written all this, can I use any viewing lens Rolleinar attachment as a stand-alone protection "filter", and mount a regular Bayonet III UV filter on the taking lens (again, to protect the taking lens). Two issues: (1) Will such a combination (however odd as it may sound/look) overcome the design limitation of not being able to mount two regular (UV) filters at the same time due to lack of clearance for the two filters?? (2) If the clearance issue is resolved, how would this work from an optics viewpoint: will there be any distortion in the viewing lens, focusing problems, etc. At the time of this writing, I cannot answer either question as I don't have any Rolleinar attachment for the viewing lens (I have a 2.8F Planar, bayonet III type); I did purchase a Rolleinar Bayonet III viewing lens attachment #2 only (the sale didn't have the other component), and will try it out, and provide answer(s) to (1), and (2) - in that order. <br>

Thank you for your experience on this subject, and best regards to everybody.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu, 26 April 2013</p>

<p>John Tonai: Thank you for the suggestion; I think your suggestion is conservative and safe. Hand filing the metal (it is aluminum and soft) avoids handling the glass. I can cover the glass portion in several layers of cloth; I will also provide some backing for the glass by inserting some shock absorber material (styrofoam, cloth, something that will minimize vibration effects) into the filter hollow portion against one side of the glass, and on the other side of the glass also, wrap in cloth to expose only the work portion of the filter rim. This backing will also prevent from pressing on the glass directly while hand filing. Then, can hand file the metal. Will report on this when completed - will take some time to get started and complete due to work load.<br>

Also, got some information from the seller WayneLee72 (from Korea on the auction site). If the viewing lens filter AND Germany Rolleiflex hood AND Rolleiflex lens cap are to be used simultaneously with the taking lens filter mounted, the filter type is the one priced at about USD78. The viewing lens filter + Germany hood + taking lens filter mounted without no cap use is about USD48.<br>

Thank you for your suggestion.<br>

Best regards. Roy R.</p>

<p>Would anybody have information on how to or have actually removed the glass intact from a Rolleiflex Bayonet 3 filter. Following this, the removed intact glass needs to be put back/re-inserted into the same filter. <br>

I am providing some background information. I followed the threads on mounting two filters simultaneously on the taking and viewing lenses - mainly for protection purposes, and found out that the design of the Rolleiflex does not permit this. There is not enough clearance for the second filter on the viewing lens from the first filter mounted on the taking lens (assume no force/crushing of the filter rims is involved). I read on another site where a user machined (using a grinding machine) out filter rim material to create a flat edge on the lower part of the rim of the filter for the viewing lens, and created clearance from the filter on the taking lens. The same user suggested that it would be safer to remove/dismantle the glass from the filter housing before the grinding process, and re-insert the glass into the housing. There was no description on removing/dismantling from, and re-inserting the glass back into the filter housing.<br>

There is a seller from Korea on an auction site offering a Bay 3 UV filter with the lower filter rim machined out, and has a flat edge; there is also a photo showing the clearance from (presumably) the filter on the taking lens. However, I am not sure how this auction site filter actually works in actual use as I have not purchased it. There are different variations and cost from about USD50.00 to USD80.00 (shipping is extra).<br>

Any information on dismantling/re-inserting the glass will be highly appreciated. I don't wish to start grinding the rim as the vibrations may shatter the glass inside the Bay 3 filter housing.<br>

Thanks and best regards to all.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu, 14 April 2013</p>

<p>Please bear with my posting - I am repeating the same experience about mounting two filters at the same time - one on each lens. However, I would like to add some particular details, and request for experiences or opinions from more experienced users.<br>

I have two Heliopan UV filters Bayonet III/2.8, and my intention is to mount BOTH filters (mainly for protection purposes) - one on each of the taking and viewing lenses. In addition, I also would like to use the lens cap (an original Rolleiflex lens cap) also. I have a 2.8 F Planar. <br>

The first Heliopan UV filter mounted on the taking lens smoothly (mate the lips on the filter with the slots on the viewing lens flange, turn clockwise gently, and mounting is completed). Then, I wanted to mount the second Heliopan UV filter on the viewing lens, and find that there is not enough clearance from/with the first filter. From the postings here, I now realize that the system is not designed to take the combination (two filters). I can also write (have not tried it out) that the lens cap would not mount properly with one filter because of the depth difference. PN: I have a old genuine Rolleiflex filter (has Rollei - B -11 and a Gothic R on the rim), and KEH listed/sold it as Bayonet III. I tried to mount this B-11 filter on the viewing lens with the first filter already mounted on the taking lens. Same experience: no clearance (without using force or crushing).<br>

Please, I would like to ask question(s) and request user feedback. Would it be possible to file the second Heliopan UV filter, and build in (or rather, file out) the required clearance (assuming this achieves the objective: would need to know where exactly to file, how much to file, etc.). Has this been tried without damaging the filter frame and glass? I also read about the filters from Korea that will enable two filters to be used. Does the Korea filter mount on the viewing lens and have clearance from/with the Heliopan UV filter on the taking lens? Thank you all for the patience, and will appreciate any feedback.<br>

Best regards.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu, 10 Apr 2013</p>

<p>For those who are interested in knowing more about the subject, I came across a clear and superbly illustrated (with photos in different stages of detaching) at (Author is Hans Kerensky)<br>

accessed on 05 Aprll 2013. PN: You have to scroll on the photos (double click on list of photos) from right to left to get the sequence from start to finish.<br>

There are postings on the photo.net forum that discuss the thread size requirements to adapt/fix the detached Rolleifix to a regular tripod; an adapter is required that will enable the 3/8" on Rolleifix to the 1/4" on the tripod; please read more on the photo.net forums.<br>

Best regards to all.</p>

 

<p>Hi Charles:<br>

Did what you suggested: this is the first paragraph/first page that comes up, and I am putting it in quotes below. Thank you for the information.<br>

"This website is operated soley for the purposes of selling a personal collection of cameras, antiques, and assorted items. Please use the menu on the left to navigate the website or contact an administrator for further assistance."</p>

<p>I came across a website www.emeraldattic.com<br>

I entered this site and see photo equipment for sale/display (medium and large format); I also sent an email to their designated email address at Admin@EmeraldAttic.com.<br>

I get no response or reply. There is also a Gallery page on this site, clicking on this Gallery takes you to another page with camera equipment on display. The top right corner has a "Login", and clicking on this takes you to a login to your account page, with two windows for userid and password. New users cannot create userid and password. There are other pages, e.g., Shipping, About Us<br>

Would anybody have any experience with this website, purchased any item, corresponded with the Admin. I think the site is not active any longer and abandoned.<br>

Thanks for sharing any information on this website.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu, 18 March 2013</p>

<p>D. Purdy posted a response, and I would like to thank you very much for all the information. I will pay the USD10.00 at Harry Fleenor's site and use the information in the download. Thank you again.<br>

Best regards, Roy Ramavarapu, 02 March 2013</p>

<p>Harry Fleenor is a highly regarded Rolleiflex TLR service expert, and has a site at www.rolleirepairs.com, and operates Oceanside Camera Repair in Calif. At this site, a pdf document is available as a download for USD10.00 (PAYPAL) titled, <strong>FINDING YOUR ROLLEIFLEX TLR, 1 B</strong> (I don't know if the 1 B is part of the title). This document gives info on buying a Rolleiflex TLR. I am NOT seeking this document from somebody who purchased it, and will pay the amount myself at Harry Fleenor's site, and obtain a copy. I am writing if anybody has bought this document and found the contents useful/helpful in buying this TLR camera. There is a large amount of information on the Internet on this TLR, and am wondering if this pdf document has something extra.<br>

Thank you very much.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu, 02 March 2013</p>

<p>I am also new to film developing, and thought I can put my question - slightly academic, because I don't plan on using any kind of night vision equipment. I know that the film has to reeled and put into a tank - all in total, pitch black darkness, e.g., in a light tight changing bag, or room. I believe the chemicals can be poured into the tank in (day)light through the small opening in the tank (smaller cap). I was wondering if the light tight actions can be done wearing night vision glasses (the kind used in military). Will these night vision glasses work; if they do, will they fog the film?? I thought the night vision glasses identify heat radiated by live beings, e.g., humans, but cannot do much against non-heat radiating metal objects. That is, one can see the fingers/hands in the dark room, but may not see the reel & film. Am I right?? (This could be a dumb question, but I was wondering anyway.) Thanks for the interest/replies.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu</p>

 

<p>I would like to add my experience to this thread. I have a M6TTL(0.72), and after several months of non-use (stored with no batteries, and shutter un-cocked), I put two fresh Maxell SR44SW silver-oxide (says 1.55v on packing) batteries, made sure proper orientation of batteries, and followed the user manual instructions to turn on the LEDs. There was no response, and the LEDs did not light up. I was quite concerned, and read the experiences from others on this subject (LED not lighting). I purchased Kodak K58L (equivalent to CR1/3N) Lithium 3V battery (from Unique Photo, New Jersey, at USD3.75 each; costs more at other places). I also used a rubber eraser on a pencil to "erase" the contact strip in the battery socket (took care not to use any force to prevent or dislodge the strip), then used a Q-tip very lightly wetted with lens cleaning solution to clean the strip. Also, used the Q-tip to press downwards on the strip. Inserted the Lithium battery (ensured proper orientation), and turned on the LEDs. The LEDs showed very brightly and clearly (all of them: triangular and circular), and also checked their variation by varying the shutter and aperture. Very, very relieved. I cannot say what was causing the problem but the big difference could be the Li battery. I recall that earlier (before the above non-use), with the same SR44W batteries, I had the same no-LED show, but they came on after some time (maybe 5-10 minutes), after varying the shutter and aperture. I thought it was normal, but I will now stick with the Li battery only. I hope this experience helps.<br>

Best regards. Roy Ramavarapu, 06 Jan 2013</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you all for the identification method, and suggestions. What I received is (obviously) F3 screen. I will just it in my F3 (have a standard K screen). <br>

Thanks to Rodeo Joe also; it would be difficult to switch/swap the metal frames for F2/F3 use; besides, I would like to avoid touching (with bare skin/fingers) the glass surface, or worse, scratch it. I have an old F3, and will use it there. BTW: there is a eBay dealer from Germany who has Nikon F2 screen H2 at USD130.00 (!!!; maybe new). The F2 screen H2 does come up on eBay, and at KEH also for about the price I paid.<br>

Roy, 03 Jan 2013</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I apologize: I purchased it for USD29.00. Roy, 03 Jan 2013</p>

<p>I will appreciate any information on the subject.<br>

I purchased a Nikon F2 focusing screen H2, and received it. The labels attached (to the packing) by the shop clearly say F2 and H2 screen. However, the screen itself has (on the black metal frame - short side) H2 followed by Nikon and Japan - all in red lettering. Also, the black metal frame (one long side) has a lip, and the opposite long side has an angular/sloping small notch. BTW: the item came in a plastic box/foam insert, in a Nikon F3 sliding cardboard jacket. I would think that the screen is an F3 screen, type H2. Am I correct?<br>

Setting aside the Nikon cardboard jacket, how would I physically distinguish between and identify the F2 screen from the F3 screen (assume I have nothing else to go by) except the screens, and whatever Nikon lettering they may (or may not) have on the metal frame. <br>

Thank you all for the information. If anybody is interested, I purchased this from KEH (grade EX; looks like new), for USD20.00. <br>

Roy 03 Jan 2013</p>

 

<p>I wrote my info request, and clicked on "Notify me of Responses" and I wanted to click on Submit next, but lost my write-up. I am repeating this: I am new to this forum, and this is my first posting.<br>

Would anybody have any experience, view, or opinion on a hand grip for Leica (M6, and other Leica bodies) on e-bay: this one is made of wood (Chinese Hong-mu wood; this is Chinese mahogany, a hard wood, used in high end furniture), and is quite impressive. Offered for USD190; shipping extra. Please inform.<br>

Many thanks, Roy</p>