lutz
-
Posts
2,888 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by lutz
-
-
Hey Niels, that's excellent advice! Thank you, too for your insightful answers. Much appreciated! :-)
-
Wow, Orsetto! I love the depth of your advice. That certainly gives me plenty to chew on...! :-)
-
Thank you both for your precious input! I really appreciate the technical details and the memories connected to this type of camera. IMHO cameras are as much about their optical as their handling qualities, i.e. ergonomics. Some just *feel* right. So did the Leica M6 for me and previously the Olympus OM1.
-
Hi, having tried almost any kind of analogue camera in the past (but never any TLR) I would like to try a Rolleiflex.
Could you give me an introduction? Or point me to a comprehensive source?
As far as I have understood so far, there are just slight but maybe decisive differences between models, for instance 3.5 vs. 2.8 aperture lenses (Tessar vs. Planar?), EV-lock setting (or not), sports VF (or not)...
What to look out for when trying to find a sample? And what would be a reasonable price range for a optically and mechanically sound model?
Thanks for your input in advance!
Lutz
-
<p>Hi, please check out my actual listings on the 'bay:<br>
There's some very fine glass (21, 28, 50 macro, 90 macro...) and a lot more.<br>
Thanks for looking!</p>
-
<p>Hey all, thanks so much for your generous advice - it's very much appreciated! Well, frankly, I could never bear the thought of just dumping the gear. If I were ever to give it up, donating it would be the right way to go, I totally agree. On the other hand, your confidence in being able to find paper and chemicals 10 to 15 years from now is somewhat reassuring.</p>
<p>I think David has quite nailed it by suggesting to invest the money saved in terms of storage space into hired muscle/vehicle to get the stuff to the place in the countryside where one day it might eventually be put to good use again. Having some innocent dreams to cling to sounds like a good idea, after all... And you're right: while the stuff won't sell for any price worth mentioning these days, it might be of some value again sometime in the future. Add to it the saved effort of piecing together a perfectly working darkroom from scratch...</p>
<p>Okay, so I'll book the van and clear that storage space asap! Will report.</p>
-
<p><img src="http://www.konermann.net/darkroom.2.web.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="426" /><br>
<br />Hi, it's been a while since I last set foot in either this forum or in what you see above, my beloved darkroom. In fact, it has been sitting idle in a storage space - and here comes the tough question to answer: to keep it ... or to dump it?<br>
Where I am living now, I can't set it up because of space restraints. I would love to set it up in a country house but that would require a major effort, transport-wise as well as even separating a dedicated space for it (walls and all...).<br>
My biggest issue however is the nagging fear, that by the time that I might finally find the peace of mind to go through my many negs and print a few of them - will there still be paper and chemicals available? I'm talking 10 to 15 years from now...<br>
Seriously, what are your prognostics? Where do you see yourselves and your darkrooms, 10 to 15 years down the road? And which are your strategies to cope with prospective shortages of the aforementioned raw materials?<br>
<br />Thanks for any input that will help me take this tough decision.</p>
-
<p>Well, Michael, than you ain't seen nothing yet... ;-)</p>
-
-
<p>Thanks, Godfrey! I see a Leica M to m4/3 adapter by cirrusadapter for 80 bucks on the 'bay. Are you happy with their adapters' quality?</p>
-
<p>Olympus OM glass, that is...</p>
-
<p>Hi, new to this 4/3 world... Is there a chance to control manual focus in live view and/or through the add-on electronic VF with the Panasonic DMC-GF1? I'm very tempted to get that camera if I can use (i.e. focus) both Olympus and Leica M glass. Also, which adapters would be recommended in that case? Thanks, Lutz</p>
-
<p>Snake</p><div>
</div>
-
-
Thanks for taking interest. What struck me was the apparent juxtaposition of religious, hmm, insignia - aureola vs. burka. As far as being interviewed is concerned, when taking the picture I was in fact the one being questioned by these girls' arts teacher who wanted to know what exactly I was interested in. I explained it to her, she asked me where I came from and was surprised to learn that an equally apparent cultural mix isn't as common in Switzerland as it is in London. So she just asked me to respect the girls' anonymity, which I did. I'm still wondering if the reverse situation (i.e. Christians studying Muslim art) would present itself as equally photogenic...
-
<center><img src="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/a28.new.vign.web.jpg"><p><i>London, Tate Britain</i></center>
-
Great pictures, Jari. Why would you want to see this lens tested? It appears to be working beautifully for you. Once you find a lens that does it for you, stop obsessing about potential alternatives - it's a complete waste of time and energy which would be so much better invested in actually photographing. I have to admit, though, that I had to come a long way to arrive at this conclusion... ;-)
-
Raid, have a look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003VfI">this thread</a>.<p>
I can't detect anything surprising in your samples. In the kid's shot, the focus is very narrow, it's on her left shoulder as well as on part of the frontmost chair, the pic must have been taken @1.5. There is motion blur in part of the child's body and white dress will certainly have favored flare. All in all, no surprises here, given the characteristics of the Summarit, wide open.<p>The same pretty much applies for the crop of the lady's portrait. Not knowing by how much you cropped it is hard to tell if resolution is beneath of what to expect. same applies to the aperture used. If the Summarit was wide open in this very contrasty lighting situation there is really nothing to wonder about - flare is perfectly unavoidable under such circumstances. <p>Enjoy the lens for what it is and can offer you in terms of look. It certainly isn't a replacement for a fast modern design 50mm lens. Cheers!
-
Hmm, that could be an alternative. The RF action would be perfect, at least in relation to the barrel scale - but I'm not optician enough to tell if a different lens group would require the same amount of focusing travel within the barrel as the original Fujinon. If not, a mechanism would be needed that interacts between the two given focusing requirements - the one dictated by the alternative elements and the one dictated by the barrel - AND fits within the tiny amount of space between the two... So apart from this approach being costly in terms of raw materials, it also appears to be trickier than starting a barrel design from scratch.
-
Err..., yes. ;-) <p>
<i>The 2/45 Planar would be an excellent choice; however the G mount has a smaller flange to mount distance than the Xpan (http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html); this would probably require major surgery.</i><p>
As I said, it's not an "add-an-adapter" thing - rather, the lens head would have to be extracted and mounted into an appropriate focusing barrel. But that should be doable, similar jobs have been done for all kinds of glass to fit Leica M mounts.<p>
Good luck with your own surgery attempts. I myself wouldn't spend another hour on anything like it, rather invest in an expert's labor. But that's me. Have fun and report. :-)
-
Warwick, as I wrote in my earlier post, critical flange to film tolerances are in the 0.02mm ballpark - I suppose the very same applies for RF cam issues. So, that rules out anything but the high precision tools you mention not to have at your disposal. Been there, done that - handmade stuff just doesn't cut it, unfortunately :-(<p>
My last approach was to find a person with the right tools and craftsmanship to rework the mount of a 2/45 Planar, available for comparably small change (150-200 USD) and of excellent optical quality for the Contax G. Unfortunately, I haven't found the person yet to be interested enough in coming up with the necessary focussing mount for that lens head. It would be just perfect... I'm sure the cost of a prototype development would very soon be recooped. I'd be willing to spend 500 USD for a conversion, pronto. And I guess many other afficionados would, too.
-
Thanks for your update, Warwick. It's comforting to read that I haven't been the only one to spend (waste?) so much time on the issue... ;-)<p>
As for the RF-coupling issue: <p><i>
Looking at the lenses closely, and I think contradictory to what Huw Finney said about SLR lenses, the Distagons rear element does move exactly like the Xpan lenses. Ie: closer to infinity closer to the film plane. This then gives a potential for the much sought after range finder coupling! Since the spacer width is 10mm or so, plenty of room is availble to install linkage cams between the lens and Xpan range findr couping wheel. My preliminary estimates are this is very feasable, and more so it looks like the Xpan range finder mechanism could support the Distagons long lens travel adaquatly.</i><p>
Hmm, the crucial question is: Is the Zeiss rear lens mount rotating or not while moving into the body when focusing? If it's not, then chances are high that it is not advancing into the camera body in the right progression required by the RF lever. If it IS rotating and if there is enough space to fit a cam (like a circular ramp) between lens mount and RF lever, then there is potential for a solution...<p>Enjoy your Hassy and lets see some results. :-) Cheers
-
-
Dan, I disagree. Dave's post well illustrates my point.
Eyeing a Rolleiflex...
in Medium Format
Posted
Thanks SCL, AJG and orsetto for your additional contributions. Choices, choices...! :-)
As far as I am concerned, going back to the Hasselblad 6x6 system is not an option. Too unwieldy. I'd rather tinker with a high quality, slo-pho alternative to the ubiquitous cell phone/P&S shooting. Certainly, a TLR is not exactly pocketable, LOL, but I like the idea of a neat and restricted package, with only the most basic of parameters to select from (aperture and shutter speed). For me, it promises a welcome challenge, entirely focusing on composition/decisive moment. And a 75/80mm field of view is what I feel very comfortable with.