kmac

Great work, something different ... loved his non judgemental facial expression in each shot he appeared in.

There's no art in your nudes, they're just women with no cloths on, devoid of any artistic imagination going into the preparation of the posing and lighting.

He's the best wordsmith ever.

Minty looking camera, interesting too. The nearest I have to it is a Dacora Royal, which also has lever advance and cocks the shutter, but must be continually wound to bring the next frame into view in the red window, just like your Agifold. Yes that viewfinder is certainly too far forward ... wonder what the designers were thinking ? Perhaps there was an after-market viewfinder extension that clipped into the cold shoe, it would be very handy.

I would recommend removing the bottom cover and see if something in that mechanism is stuck. The lubricant is probably non-existent by now after all these years and the gears and pins need a smidgen of grease. Returning the camera to the seller is ok, but posting here first was the right thing to do, old early SLRs are usually easily fixed, remembering that your first shot at 500/sec worked, and your next shot at 60/sec, although it didn't work, it doesn't sound like a major catastrophe. A bit of poking around under the bottom cover and little grease on the moving parts will likely fix it.

No ma'am, it's not a joke, I'm quite sincere about it ... is it off-topic ? We need clear definitions, so thanks for raising the issue.

It seems to be about the omission of the word "Electronically" ... as in Electronically Assisted Film Cameras. That's all I've been able to figure out so far. Distinguishing between ultra modern film cameras, and those that are manually operated (Classic manual cameras) I'm sure the problem arising from the definition could have been avoided if the title had been "Electronically Assisted" in the first instance, rather than just "Assisted". At least that way we would have known the way in which the film cameras were being "assisted", without vaguish meanings. Perhaps management could go back and re-title the heading to "Electronically Assisted Film Cameras", or even "Electronically Controlled" ... that would be my suggestion and input to the discussion.

Well in that case, the automatic cam/pawl to stop the counter at "12" is gummed up and/or it's spring has come off. The counter mechanism probably needs cleaning and the spring checked.

Fascinating Bruce, love to see some shots from that combination. I was reading about this modification the other night ... old Kodak lens on an RB67 https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/10vrop7/i_made_a_for_my_mamiya_rb67_prosd_using_a_100/

The wobble is usually caused by a worn focusing helix, after focusing the camera hundreds, possibly thousands of times. But with your camera being stored in it's box for 30 years, that may not be the case. Were those three screws missing when you retrieved the camera from the box for the first time after it's thirty year hibernation? The camera may have developed a fault some time, got stripped to a certain point, and the three screws got lost, hence it went back in the box. Fit three replacement screws and you should be good to go. But a worn focusing helix on my well used Minolta 7s also causes a "wobble". The problem was dried grease after a long while and it became ineffective. Only a half handful of new grease could fix the wobble, to an extent. I searched for another Minolta that I was sure had a good helix, and was lucky enough to get one.

I wouldn't say it is boring, but a little post processing helps IMO. I agree with Jordan, it needs cropping and auto adjust. Hopefully it now looks a little less boring ... cropped, and Levels auto adjusted.

Obviously there is something missing that holds it together. It could be that some screws have been left out. I can see three empty screw holes in photo No2 ... what are they for ? They look like they are meant to hold the shutter on.

That's normal for 120 film. After the 12th exposure, the handle keeps winding the tail end of the backing paper to roll the film up ready for it's removal from the camera. There's no 13th, 14th etc exposures for 120, so it was only backing paper you were winding after the 12th. The question is: Did you see "13" or any number after "12" appear in the counter when you were exposing that 120 film ?

Nah it was a fair statement, quite serious, not meant to be humorous ... but since then I've done a little research and I'm guessing the OP's problem may be a lack of lubrication in the mechanism under the bottom cover.

Perhaps you should return the camera and get one you know for sure works

The C3 is America's Zeiss Ikon Super Nettel 11. I'm reminded of that camera every time I look at a C3 because of it's similar focusing wheel.

I've been experimenting with solar cells from garden lights to replace selenium cells in light meters. So far I'm getting adequate voltage, but haven't yet discovered how to reduce their size to fit in a meter and still retain the two connections. I'm still working on it.

I think there is something more serious going on in the shutter than oil on the blades. The OP's video shows the 1/250 speed firing snappily a few times, then the blades fail to open the next time, snappy a few more times, then fails to open another time. Why that problem is occurring only on the 1/250 speed I'm not real sure, because, and putting simply, all the speeds are interconnected by way of common levers, with only the shutter speed ring dictating how far the levers move for each speed. By rights, all the speeds should have the problem, erratic opening of the blades. There must be more to this particular shutter story than meets the eye. I'm sure it will need a complete disassemble and a trained eye to check all the parts, springs, etc. I would ask the OP to fire all the speeds again to check if there is any, even slight, hesitation of the blades not opening with the other speeds.

Old equipment can be more troublesome than just needing adapters, it could be worn out and a service might cost an arm and a leg. Take my advise and get a new Epson V800 or V850. I have old Microteks and a Nikon LS 8000 and they're just not what they used to be. Software and computer operating systems have changed so much, it all becomes one big headache trying to get old devices to run properly and to keep them running. Updates are non existent for old software. Go for newer equipment.

It can happen in anything with a computer, different faults perhaps, but data need refreshing from time to time. I've lost count of the number of times my satellite TV set top box needed to be turned off, then back on again. My van's "Engine Fault" light used to light up and I had to pull over, switch the engine off, then once I started it again, the light was off and stayed off, that was two years ago. The only fault I've experienced with my digital cameras, was a sliding selection switch not selecting between shooting, movie, and playback, on one of the cameras. The switch would move, but wouldn't select. I tried dropping a drop of alcohol down past the switch, and that worked. Obviously not the same problem as the OP's, but it's the only problem so far since 2006 when I purchased them.

Have you done a factory reset ? That might fix it.

The video clip is a great help. We can see that the shutter is firing healthy enough, but you really should send it back to the repairer to have that 1/250sec fixed under warranty. If you decide to have a go at it yourself, only disassemble as far as the speed selector (leave it on) and dribble a few drops of lighter fluid, through the speed selector, onto the moving parts of the shutter. This will briefly lubricate the moving parts and if there was too much dry friction before, the parts should move more freely and possibly get that 1/250sec working properly. If not, you'll need to search for something more seriously wrong that relates to just that one specific speed.

Here's a good link on the subject of Circle of Confusion ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion However, the question in the opening post is related more to a mechanical issue than an optical one: "How much does the film bow in the camera, and how can it be compensated for ?" A simple answer could be to make sure the film is within the short depth of field of f2.8 ... this, I take it, is what the OP is going to do by using the the ground glass. The image on the ground glass can be checked for sharpness over the whole frame. If any blurriness is picked up on any part of the image, then the bow in the film will be too much for that short depth of field, and f4 will fix it with it's slightly longer depth of field. But this won't happen in the case of a Rolleiflex if it's in good condition, let's be honest about it. Do they get that bad that the film bows excessively and f2.8 is no longer of use ?

How does the winding knob feel without a film in the camera ? If it feels ok, then you could check the metal tensioners in the film bays, see if one is catching the backing paper, or if the film spools are rubbing on something. Does it take 620 film and you've managed to push 120 film into it ? That would cause the spools to rub.

That's why the plate is there, to keep the film within the given space, designed into the camera, so that curly films are "restrained" (Joe's description, and a good one) in place to be within the shortest depth of field of f2.8. The "space" is the film + backing paper + clearance of about three to four thousands of an inch. A film might not be dead flat within that given space, but it should still be within the shortest depth of field ... and what would that be in reality, 12inches ? Look up the DOF chart for a Rolleiflex, has your Rollei got a chart on it's back door ? I beg to differ about roll film having cross-sectional curve when it is initially wound off it's spool. I haven't come across that yet, only after processing have I seen it, the emulsion changes and causes that cross sectional curve, but it's not there when you're taking pics. Perhaps with long expired film there might be a little, but not with fresh film. To my mind, the only curve you should be concerned about is longitudinal curve, caused by the film rolled up on it's spool, the film "sets" with that curve in it and has "memory" of that curve after it leaves the spool, hence the plate to keep it from moving away from the film gate. If, as you say, your Rollei has rollers that are below the level of the film rails, this would be a case of the film running firmly on the film rails and the few thou clearance provided for free travel, would be at the back of the backing paper, or in the case of 220 film, at the back of the film. When you get your ground glass, it seems with your Rollei, it will have to be held down firmly on the film rails, without a paper spacer as discussed before, because if it's true that the rollers are below the film rail level, then the film will run along the rails, and not above them. I would double check the rollers with a good straight edge and try slipping a thin piece of paper between the straight edge and the rollers, and make sure of it.