richard_fateman

Why don't you try auxiliary closeup lenses. They

cost a lot less, and you won't get corner sharpness

on photos of flowers unless they are very flat

flowers, so you might not tell the difference between

this and extension tubes.

You can get a bayonet VI to 67mm and a set of 3

closeup lenses for under $100.

RJF

I think you should also set the pressure plate on the inside of the back to 220 film, to adjust for the different thickness of 120 vs 220 film.

 

(I do not have a camera with this 120/220 feature, but I think all the backs have the pressure plate setting.)

The person who was shafted was the original owner, I think.

He/she used an ebay-selling service that (a) did not post

the lens in the right category (Rollei) but in "miscellaneous"

and (b) claimed it was damaged. So the owner probably got

40% of the amount collected; much less than it should sell for.

 

The buyer got a good deal on an 80mm PQS Rollei lens, unless

the lens really is damaged in some other way.

There are two versions. They provide an offset to the tripod socket that allows you to rotate the camera around the proper axis (at the lens nodal point), with click-stops so that you will advance the camera the right angle to the next image. You need something like 11 images to cover 360 degrees if you are so inclined.

 

For an example see the pictures from Washburn point in Yosemite Park..

http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/photos.html

 

It is a far bigger pain to merge the photos in photoshop than to use a digital camera from the start. I mounted the separate photos in a multiple-window mat, but that too is a pain.

 

The tripod adaptor is not a "really useful" accessory like, say, a lens shade, or the rolleifix quick-release tripod mount, and is mostly of interest to gadget collectors. It is, however, more useful than some other gadgets sold for rolleis.

 

Here are some gotchas, some probably common to ANY panorama camera:

1. The camera must be very accurately level. 2. The scenery should be both above and below, otherwise you will be taking photos of either dull foreground (your feet, perhaps) or too much sky. 3. You can have difficult exposure situations if part of the expanse is in shadow and part in bright light. 4. If the objects in the panorama are not all at about the same distance, you will have difficulty matching the objects. 5. Scenes that include straight lines not at the horizon, e.g. railroad tracks, will probably not look right.

 

Best situation is if your camera is set up on a cliff edge viewing

a scene that is interesting both above and below you, and extends horizontally for 180 degrees or so; the lighting (sun) is not in the scene. And you have a fair amount of time to do all this. Realize that if you bracket exposures you will run through a roll of film or two for one photograph.

 

 

RJF

The inconvenience may be irrelevant if the readings are

inaccurate, as is likely. A 50 year old rollei

meter tends to be insensitive in low light and non-linear.

The selectivity of the meter (angle of acceptance) is

on the broad side. There may be meters that are

more accurate, but one I own is essentially able to

confirm "sunny 16" and minor steps down from that.

 

You can get a much smaller meter and hang it

on your camera strap, and be much better off.

 

Good luck.

I have a Fujica GS645 folder. The lens has a deservedly high

reputation. Although

I do not have any experience with the Super Ikonta A, I would

not expect its Tessar lens to be better.

 

Most criticism of the Fuji has to do with the bellows, which

eventual need to be replaced, the difficulty in finding

the lens hood, and the fact that Fuji itself seems to not

want to repair the camera any more.

Some foam is apparently unsuitable for use with camera equipment because it outgasses something that could either coat your equipment or corrode

it. Some foam also crumbles as it ages. Check with your foam supplier perhaps.

 

I associate the better foam (also more expensive) with the dark-gray color you see in Pelican cases.

 

In USA, check your yellow pages for foam, or try to Google:

foam, name_of_nearby_city, state

Shift- probably yes.

That is, you can fix keystoning pretty well.

Tilt - I doubt it. You would not be able to change

the plane of focus. But maybe you don't need this.

 

Are you asking if the photoshop software will handle

scanned 6x7cm negatives for an eventual output of

16x20 inches at say 300 dpi? Probably, if you have

enough memory in your computer.

 

You should be able to get a trial photoshop.

I have a Vivitar 285, and it comes with a PC cable, so you can

use that rather than a hotshoe adapter. I recommend mounting

it on an L-bracket and a rolleifix (quick release) and if you

can find a neat L-bracket with a cable release, it really makes

the whole setup work ergonomically. These flashes have poorly

designed plastic hot shoes that are prone to breaking off.

 

Some Vivitar 283 flash units have very high trigger voltages

(like 200 volts), according to web info. If you are thinking of

buying one, you might be wary of this. Such a flash can damage

modern cameras, and it might not be so great even on a mechanical

one. I don't know about all vivitar 285, but mine has a trigger

voltage of about 6.8 volts (4 X 1.5 volts nominally).

see

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0015wQ

for general tips.

 

You might inquire of fujifilm to see if they could send

you a manual.

You have to get the whole enlarger clean. Maybe even the whole room.

Here are some ideas.

 

1. vacuum clean, or wash every internal part of your enlarger,

especially above the negative carrier where dust can fall. This may

include filter drawers, filters, condensors, reflectors, bulbs.

Maybe also the area around and above your enlarger.

 

2. attach a ground wire to your enlarger frame.

 

3. Get a HEPA filter system for the air in your room and run

it for an hour or two before working in the darkroom.

 

4. Canned air is a problem because it may also put a static

charge on the glass, and in my experience the mild condensation

causes Newton rings.

 

5. Learn to use Spotone.

 

6. Probably you should check out the darkroom forum on this topic.

 

Good luck.

Some more ideas.

 

Go on a diet, lose 20 pounds. This might also be good

for your knee.

 

Hire an assistant and split the load.

 

Hire a pack animal.

 

Hike with a compact folding camera.

 

I hope you get some good photos with that heavy gear.

it works with an ISO 100 film-speed default setting. The 6008

backs allow you to alter the ISO rating, which is read

by the camera. You can use non-ISO 100 speed film

in a 6006 back by using exposure compensation.

 

There are other (minor) engineering changes that

improve the later model backs, maybe to improve

the spacing between exposures.

 

So yes, it is usable. but not fully compatible.

1. are you using any filters or shades, which could cause vignetting?

2. what makes you think you are experiencing abnormal light falloff?

If the light meter is behind the mirror, you probably

need a circular polarizer, at least if you expect

the meter to be accurate. I have no special knowledge

of the Pentax 645, though. I suspect that the two

previous responders also don't know for sure.

Circular will work, just costs more.

It always surprises me that people omit the obvious in comparisons between the Rollei 6008 and Hasselblad.

1. The Rollei has an instant return mirror.

2. The Rollei has a built-in motor drive.

3. The Rollei has an accurate versatile light meter in the

body (not in a prism finder).

4. The electronically governed Rollei shutter is extremely accurate

and goes to 1/1000 sec for PQS lenses.

 

You might look at the 6008 -2 which is newer, based on the automatic

focus body without the automatic focus. It corrects what most people

view as a brain-damaged implementation of automatic flash-fill on

the 6008i. Otherwise it's not clear how it is better.

Good luck.

A rolleifix works with a rollei 3.5E.

It doesn't actually use the tripod hole, but the circular

knob around it, as well as two dimples on the front panel.

 

A rollei pistol grip does contain the main component

of the rolleifix. It is not intended to be removed to use

with a tripod, I think.

Sometimes there are variations in the take-up spools, so the problem may not be in the film that you have in the camera, but the reel from the film you had in the camera BEFORE.

 

Anyway, you said, "Any ideas?"

 

RJF

See

http://rurmonas.cust.nearlyfreespeech.net/manuals/rollei-prac-acc-54/rollei-prac-acc-54.html

for a copy of the pages of the the rolleimeter manual. There are several sets of adjustments. You may also have a slightly out-of-line waist-level hood, which may make exact adjustment difficult, or the rolleimeter arm or its mirror may be bent (somehow).

 

The advantages: you are viewing an un-reversed image, at eye-level,

bright and fairly easy to focus even in dim light.

 

The disadvantages: a somewhat delicate instrument is perched in front of your camera; you cannot protect the mechanism by folding the viewer or using a case.

 

Part of its attraction is in seeing how such a neat gadget can be engineered to be attached to the camera.

I have a rollei IR filter, bay II, and it works very well with Maco IR

film. I bought the filter on-line from a used camera store. It was about $45, I think.

As far as the weak correction... The lens looks planar on both

surfaces. I have not had focus problems, though most of the

photos have been focused at infinity, with the lens closed down, and the camera on a tripod.

 

While a TLR might seem to be great for IR (because you don't have to actually look through the filter as on a SLR), sad to say, it may be easier overall (and certainly provides faster feedback on what

you are getting) to use a digital camera for IR. You can read about this on the internet.

 

RJF

Assuming you are talking about an original meter on a camera that is about 40 years old, I would say it has already lasted a long time, and this is not likely to change suddenly. It will probably be OK in bright light.

 

On the other hand, it is (a) probably not accurate over the full range of exposure, especially low light, even if it was at one time. (b) not particularly accurate in terms of framing or averaging. © ergonomically speaking, hard to couple with the lens settings.

 

A small hand-held modern lightmeter will be much more accurate.

 

If you wish to revive the meter with a new selenium cell, you can possibly get one for a huge amount of money. If you also need a new galvanometer (the moving needle part), that would also be a huge amount of money.

 

I hope you continue to enjoy the camera!

RJF

If you bought a 1960's vintage Rollei, and it has the original screen, I doubt it is plastic. I think you are looking at the (removable) plastic cover over the ground glass. The old and very low-quality fresnel plastic lenses from 1960 or so Rollei's just drop in over the ground-glass. The new aftermarket replacements for vintage ground glass are much brighter and are, indeed, plastic fresnel lenses that provide a uniform corner-to-corner bright image. The best ones do this without sacrificing much contrast or resolution. I like Maxwell's.

I am sure there are lots of people doing landscape photography with

Rollei 6000 systems. If you compare it to a Hasselblad comparably

equipped (which would require motor and TTL metering) it may not

be heavier. Besides, if you are serious about landscape photos, you

may be carrying a tripod and a few lenses.

Rollei metering is highly accurate; 6008i has spot metering.

 

 

If you compare it to a 4X5, you don't have shift/tilt capability.

Some people complain about battery power, but they probably don't

have a Rollei. You get hundreds of photos per battery charge; you

can recharge from a car, but frankly I run out of film before

batteries.

 

A 645 might save some weight and usually provide enough film

for a horizontal layout, but some landscapes are in fact square.

 

If you want to save weight, consider a (Rollei) TLR also.

Describe the fog. Is it uniform all over the whole film? Near the edges? between the exposures? Can you see the exposures at all?

 

Are you developing the film yourself? How?

 

Infrared film in an SLR is a pain in the butt; I have had success

with a Rollei TLR and Maco IR, and fogging when loading is NOT

a problem.

Unless you have a source of free film and processing, you will

rapidly exceed the $150 limit on expendables. Considering that,

maybe you should reconsider the price to pay for a camera.

 

Good luck in any case.