george_carpenter1

<p>I have a Pentax 5.5X and a Rodenstock 3X and both are just fine. The Pentax has an extra skirt which you can buy to convert it from reflective (clear sides) to transmission (black skirt) use. The Rodenstock has a reversible skirt that accomplishes the same thing.<br>

The last time I looked Gil Ghitelman has some Rodenstocks that were NIB, old stock for a very reasonable price. The last link that I have is <a href="http://www.gilghitelman.com/lenses.html">http://www.gilghitelman.com/lenses.html</a> .</p>

<p>If you have the time, there is a relatively easy way. Simply seal the camera in a mite-proof plastic bag and leave it for 30 days or so. Most of these little arthropods have relatively short life spans and even shorter times over which they must reproduce or die, without issue. With time and isolation, the problem becomes self-limiting. The 30 day number is based on head lice, but mites can't be any longer, I would think.</p>

<p>Well, I have had one since they first arrived. The previous comments are pretty close.<br>

I really like the idea of the "quadruple-format" features. Well, I think they are good ideas and it pleases me that I can shoot 6x6 or 6x7 and 120 or 220 film. However, the 220 option is fast becoming only of historical interest.<br>

The rangefinder-viewfinder is nice, big, and bright: bright enough even for my damaged eyes. That is great, but it also contributes to the overall size of the camera, which is not too bad, but big enough. Since I do not take close-ups with this camera, parallax is not an issue for me and I cannot comment on that.<br>

The folding nose on this is a bit of a sticky wicket. The latch mechanism is a little fussy, but works well nontheless. One must, however, focus the lens to infinity to make certain there is adequate room to close the camera, else one might jam the front cover. Fuji does not warranty any problems caused by your failure to set the lens to infinity.<br>

The lens hood is adequate and fits well; it must be removed before folding. There is a peculiar arrangement whereby one seats a thin-line filter into the hood, locking it there with a lock ring, before putting the hood plus filter onto the camera. I had more than a little trouble finding thin-line 40.5mm filters in more than just UV-A and still being able to get them multicoated. Apparently, it is not a popular size anymore and thin mounts aggravate the problem. I got a Heliopan from Amazon and found that Rodenstock makes them, but found no U.S. dealers.<br>

The E.B.C. Fujinon lens is really up to the job. I won't wax poetic about it, but if I only had one camer, it would do just fine. I have only shot B&W, so I cannot comment on the color rendition of the lens, but other Fuji lenses are just fine. Likewise, someone else will have to comment about the bokeh, as I do little shooting where that is an issue.<br>

The soft cover covers the camera very tightly. Mine took some persuading to get it on the camera, but it eventually got there. It is soft and does nothing but protect from minor scrapes and scratches.<br>

Because this camera has a BTL shutter, the light meter sensor is on the outside of the camera and measures the whole scene. If you want to do sophisticated metering, take along your Sekonic or your Zone VI spotmeter. Having written that, I am bound, also, to say that the attached meter is quite accurate and I have had no problems.<br>

Hope that helps.</p>

 

<p>I use an Epson V750 PRO. I think that the 750 PRO designation may only refer to the number of accessory gizmos that come with the machine.<br>

It became apparent early on that the included Epson film holders for 120 and 4x5 were inadequate. To that end, I bought the aftermarket Better Scanning holders. This is an absolute must if you want decent negative flatness and there is a glass option for them that can improve things, too. In addition, the better scanning holders are adjustable so you can match them to your machine, if you want.<br>

I finally gave up and went to liquid scanning for the best of all of the options. It is an involved process, but produces superior results. The V750 comes with a fluid mounting accessory and that accessory is available separately and should fit your scanner. One does not necessarily need to fluid scan every negative/transparency as the Better Scanning options will do for most.</p>

<p>I know that this is really no help, but I had the same problem and had a devil of a time finding one; it took a month or better to locate one. Hasselblad no longer makes or stocks them, either. Zeiss is still making their versions of some of the classic Hasselblad lenses, so if the 40mm is one of them, maybe a Zeiss cover would work. I got mine from this guy: <a href="http://www.filterfind.net/Home.html">http://www.filterfind.net/Home.html</a> at what seemed a reasonable price, all things considered.</p>

<p>>>...Try asking him?...<<<br>

Yes, they have a rep who frequents these fora. However, I doubt that it is a B&H problem simply because B&H is only a common denominator because they are one of the few places left where these can be obtained. It is likely that it is a B+W issue and the guys on the other forum will likely address that eventually.<br>

I really could care less how they secure the filter element, but the reports of them popping out are disturbing. It bothers me, too, that these seem not to be marked as B+W and every other B+W filter that I have is so marked.</p>

<p>Over on APUG, there is now a thread about B+W filters. All concern Bay-series I.II, or III. All seem to have been purchased from B&H. There seems to be a new method of construction--gluing the element in instead of using a retaining ring. Several users have reported that the element has popped out of the mount.<br>

I looked at mine, a Bay-III special ordered from B&H, and it really does have what looks like silicone bathtub caulking compound holding the filter element. There are front, internal threads, but no retaining ring. I am a little disconcerted after paying a lot of money for a B+W filter.<br>

Anybody know anything about this?</p>

<p>You will have to destroy a roll of film and see if that row of numbers has a "12" on it. If it does, you might be able to leave the counter mechanism loose during the loading process and then not set/re-engage the counter. This camera has a convoluted loading sequence and such a thing might be possible. I have never tried it with mine. It's a fun, old camera and takes very respectably decent pictures, so have fun.</p>

<p>"...I've heard that Zeiss lenses are good, of course, but never used one..."</p>

<p>I am not a lens designer and make no pretense towards that, but the G-series 45mm f/2 Zeiss Planar is, I am told, is viftually the same as an older Schneider 50mm F/1.9 Xenon that I had on an Instamatic SLR. Both of mine are/were stellar performers, giving sharp, snappy-crisp images. When it comes to the Contax-G series, there really isn't a dog in the bunch, either.</p>

<p>Metz 54 or 45 series, depending on your wishes. I really do not know if they have adapter modules for all the cameras that you list but they have quite a few. A list of possible adapters can be found on the Metz website and older, out of production, models can be found in the websites of places like KEH.<br>

I have a 45xxx, something-or-other series and a 54xxx, something-or other series. I can use the same adapters on both. I have adapters for fully manual, Hasselblad, Nikon D and I TTL, Contax-G (and other Contax/Yashica), Rolleiflex, and probably the manual one even takes a pc cord. Quite a number of others are available.<br>

The Metz flashes take power packs, NiMH batteries (but not any Lithium batteries), alkaline, and Ni-Cd batteries. I have two Quantums and they work just fine. The 54 has a quick-change battery pack that fits into the bottom of the unit and must be there, regardless of any external battery packs.</p>

<p>Will wrote: "...As a former camera seller like George, I have a slightly different take on the camera/film market of the 1970s. The Instamatic and Pocket Instamatic lines of cameras, film and processing were just an extension of the 127/120/620 box camera lineage for the family snapshooter. The 35mm shooter was in a class by himself, and it wasn't a very big one until Canon introduced the AE-1 and began a heavy TV advertising campaign. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Minolta and Konica all followed suit with easy-to-use, heavily advertised automatic 35mm cameras. Consumers (family snapshooters) no longer believed the 35mm camera to be too technically sophisticated for their casual use."<br>

Yes, I can agree with most of that. However, I am sure, by what you say, that your market and mine were very different. My market sold mostly the low-end stuff. While that was going on, my bother-in-law bought a Minolta SRT101 and I lusted after an SLR like his. I had my Agfa folder and that was going to be my only decent 35mm camera until the 80s, when I bought a Canon F1-N. The 1970s Instamatic Reflex took a lot of pictures, though.</p>

<p>Well, it's been fun to get through this one. One person wrote that Tri-X was not readily available in 126, but I shot the stuff many times. It is probable that local dealers simply did not carry it. It had a drawback and that was that the Instamatics, including my Reflex, only had limited (then) ASA capability. The people who shot Tri-X relied on its ability to be shot within the ASA limits of the camera and still yield a usable image with commercial procissing.<br>

You had better believe that Kodak made a bunch of money on the Instamatic line, an incredible amount. Still, Kodak's, main interest was in the processing where they (at the time) had scant competition. It was not long, however, until others caught on and more of them offered competition.</p>

<p>Well, as being one who lived through that process, sold cameras, and owned cameras, here is a thought or two:<br>

Kodak never really meant to make any money on the cameras; they wanted the processing business and that means volume is king. The 110 format was mechanically like the 126, so it did not solve the flatness issue; its intent was an easy-to-load, easy-to-carry, and cheap cameras. They were all of that, never mind the photo quality, which people didn't seem to mind.<br>

I had a Kodak Instamatic Reflex camera with a wonderful Schneider f/1,9 Xenon lens. It gave crisp and snappy clear images on the 126 film and the then-available Ektachrome 64 slides were grand. The whole 126 Instamatic line was foisted off on the public with the implication that the public was, on average, too stupid or too lazy to load a 35mm camera properly. Besides, most 35mm cameras were expensive and expensive costs volume. Back then, there were only metal-mechanical 35mm cameras like Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon. As a kid, I had an Ansco Regent (still have it). I paid $50.00 for it, used, in 1956. When the Instamatics came along, you could buy one for, IIRC, less than $20.00. They even had a plethora of graduated price levels, so that one could buy a crappy camera for more money, if one wanted.<br>

Prior to the advent of the 126 format, the only other options were 127, 120, and 620. I remember that film in the really old sizes, e.g. 116, was available quite late, but Kodak had run the course with variations, <em>ad nauseam</em>, on those sizes. It really has been a continual series of downsized cameras as film quality allowed smaller negative sizes.<br>

In the 1950s, Tri-X was a whole different film than it is now and grain was a real problem. By the time the smaller negative formats hit, films had improved to where small negatives were viable. Well, O.K., I know that does not account for the crappy cameras and crappy lenses, but that is the progression.<br>

Somewhere along in there, probably with the Instamatics, Kodak went to moulded plastic lenses instead of glass. That really didn't help much. When the dealers and the public found out about the cheap plastic lenses, there was some B.S. propaganda spread to cover it over. Some people even bought the nonsense and there was , for a short while, a step in the price-step progression where one could get a glass-lensed camera. What this overlooks is that many of the manufacturers of cheap cameras had, for a long time, perfected the art of making a relatively cheap, barely-passable, glass lenses and that some of the better plastic lenses were their equal, just cheaper to manufacture.<br>

Hoe that helps.</p>

<p>Thanks to all, especially Colin. They replied this AM (Monday) to yesterday's new email. They were nice enough, but so much time had passed that the item was already sold. Its hard to find a Minolta Autocord in mint condition for a reasonable price these days.</p>

<p>Thanks to all who replied. I'll fill in some of the details.<br>

This has been going on for a couple of weeks now and there have been two emails. No, I do not remember what days of the week I sent the emails. but any business could be expected to come in on Monday morining and take care of the weekend's mail.<br>

What I am after is not more expensive there, especially subtracting VAT. However, by the time I pay conversion rates and fees, along with overseas Royal Mail, it will be more expensive. Nevertheless, he has exactly what I am after and KEH, <em>et al.</em>, do not.</p>

<p>Do any of our U.K. members know anything about Carmarthen Cameras, apparently in Wales? I wish to purchase a camera from them (Wales to U.S.) and have sent two emails that have gone unanswered, Not only that, but their website has no provision for ordering from the U.S.<br>

I'd call these people overseas, but with unanswered email, I'm reluctant to spend the money for the call. They have the following web address: <a href="http://www.carmarthencameras.co.uk">http://www.carmarthencameras.co.uk</a> . Help is appreciated.</p>

<p>Try the information at this<strong><a href="http://losangeles.citysearch.com/profile/55388/los_angeles_ca/quality_light_metric_co.html"> LINK</a></strong></p>

<p>"I occasionally read good accounts of a place called Quality Light Metric in San Francisco."<br>

I had them fix and calibrate my WMV and they did a splendid job. Price was around $80 US, IIRC.</p>

<p>Call Quantum.</p>

<p>Well, Hasselblad makes three screen types for this camera--as far as I can tell:<br>

Regular brightness--regardless of the particular screen's configuration, I find it too dark.<br>

Accumatte--Much brighter, but still has quite a bit of definition for focusing. Comes in all styles. This is my standard.<br>

Accumatte-D--Very bright, but indistinct focusing as far as I am concerned. Comes in all styles.<br>

All of those are available on the used market, too.</p>

<p>>>...good deal for an original Rollei Lens Hood<<<br>

Those words/phrases are not often found together in one sentence. I looked around and paid the price, but I would not, again. Buy the imitation, because as long as it works, it works.</p>

<p>Some of these finders were compound optical systems and the same diopter lens would be a different value, depending on which finder one was using. The moral of the story is to have access to several strengths that are made for your model and test until you get the right one. Your optician may be able to calculate what is needed on top of what you have, but the value may only be relative to that particular optical system and not be a true, or base, value. For a long time, I was severely nearsighted and purchased and tried several until I got the right one for my viewfinders. Many had different markings for different finders, e.g., 45 or 90 degree. There is, also, one of the finders that has an adjustable diopter. It is adjustable over a relatively narrow range, but adjustable nevertheless. Not only that, I think that is was for one of the 90 degree models. You might want to call Hasselblad tech support. I'd loan you mine, but they were all in the -4 and -5 category and most people are not that far out. I no longer have to use them after cataract surgery, or maybe only -1 at the most for my left eye.</p>

<p>Do opt for one with a brighter screen. I have a very early 500C/M that has some 500C-only features on it and the screen was really dark. The Accumat screen I added fixed that, nicely.<br>

In addition, consider buying your camera from <strong><a href="http://www.david-odess.com/">David Odess</a></strong>, a Hasselblad trained repair man who frequents these forums. It is likely that if you buy an Ebay camera, you will want to have it CLA'd. You will pay normal retail from David, but the cameral will have already been spiffed up when you buy it.</p>

<p>These are tapered threads, in order that they screw on and tighten up quickly--even with a relatively large number of threads. If the threads in the button are deformed and/or cross-threaded, then a new button probably is in order.</p>

<p>The Hasselblad projectors show up on the web on occasion and usually for big money. There is a place <strong><a href="http://www.kxcamera.com/PCP-80.html">Here</a></strong> and they seem to pretty much know their stuff.</p>