[QUOTE=Pere Casals;1401999]Someone should remind Leica of that.German material is usually intended to last for ever
[QUOTE=Pere Casals;1401999]Someone should remind Leica of that.German material is usually intended to last for ever
B&H's price of $605 for the 001015 is probably due to Omega-Brandess's (The U.S. Linhof distributor) price of $677. Linhof Studio's price is 249 GBP or $323. They get these from Linhof in Germany. Linhof's September 2016 price list shows 286 Euros or $336 for the 001015. Linhof's website shows a new price list is coming and invites price inquiries in the mean time. Caveats: I've rounded off the prices. Dollar equivalents based on an online currency converter yesterday for GBP to USD and today for Euros to USD. None of this is intended to be nor should be taken as financial advice...
David
[QUOTE=Jac@stafford.net;1402026]I've never used a true Leica... but FED "temperamental"Originally Posted by Pere Casals
copies...
Anyway 1925 Leica-I series are still riding. The Barnak prototype was from 1913... a landmark, as he invented the 135 format...
I like the mechanical motor "Mooly" , no battery, just a crank
But I don't realy know anything about M9 and the like...
But speaking about LF german gear, no doubt that Linhofs are a piece of gear, refined, sturdy and life lasting.
You need to be more careful with your wording. Dickson created the 135 format decades before:
W.K.L. Dickson, in an article that he wrote for the SMPTE Journal in 1933, described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and Kinetograph. It gives us a look at how 35mm film and still cameras evolved. Dickson was a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in 1887. By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using multipe rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.
Coincidentally, in late 1888, George Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at the New York Camera Club, which Dickson happened to attend. He immediately opened discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater flexibility of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the product right from the beginning. Dickson's account gives the impression that the flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his first 50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that:
"All these samples and experiments were made exclusively for us by Mr. Eastman, who took an ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."
The Edison people had to cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear what the exact width these first 50 foot rolls were. Dickson goes on:
"At the end of the year 1889, I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for perforations now punched on both edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture, which perforations were a shade smaller than those now in use. This standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation, unaltered to date."
This was true in 1889, and it's still true today. It's interesting that he gives the dimensions in inches, not millimeters. If you measure a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's exactly 1 3/8 inches across (only 34.8mm). So when people ask me what type of film I shoot, I tell the "one and three eigths"!
So in sum, Eastman's flexible base film was developed for motion picture use from its earliest stages, even before it was publicly announced, by a close collaboration between Eastman and the Edison company, and the 35mm format was standardized as early as 1889. The first still cameras that used 35mm film (approximately 1914) used the same style and format as the movie picture cameras of the time. The film ran vertically in these still cameras and produced an image of about 18mm x 24mm. Later, when the first horizontally-styled cameras using 35mm film were designed, they were called double frame to separate them from the original format -- which was dubbed single-frame. These later evolved into the terms -- full-frame and half-frame. What a history!
Back to the OP's situation re a first lens---here's my thoughts:
You need a lens to tell you what lens you'll want.
Marginal coverage, broken shutters, wanky cell spacing, or extreme focal lengths are all counter productive to this end.
Just about any un-bubba-fied lens from 120 to 210mm that has a modicum of wiggle room and roosts in a reliable shutter that will fit on your camera's schnozzle is enough to start. Shoot with that for awhile and see before investing big bucks.
My 2-cents, and certainly debatable.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I did forget to specify. Everything I tried was on a normal flat board, as Jac was asking about. I have no reason to use any of my 150mm lenses on recessed boards, but I assume from your question that perhaps the APO Symmar works on the "comfort" board. However I don't need to fit it inside the Technika and secondly, as mentioned, the prices on boards from Linhof are exorbitant. It's a piece of metal with some extra bits. And don't get me started about how the Linhof QR socket is utter garbage.
Okay, back to the thread...
The old QR socket is no longer used and a newer version has been in use for several heats now. It is easy to tell them apart as the old one uses a wire from the socket to the shutter and the new one uses a very short cable release from the socket to the shutter.
As for the 150 mounted and closing into the camera, this requires the recessed board with modern 150 lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider in 0 shutters.
Actually the lens has to fit into the circular hole between the tracks when the bed is closed. Measure the diameter of that hole and you will know what diameter lens will fit when closed. Then you need to know how far the lens will protrude when it is fully retracted into the body. If it protrudes to far on a flat board then you need the recessed board.
Bob is mostly right.
Yeah that's basically the conclusion I'm reaching as well. For the most part, I've been using standard prime focals lengths in my forray back into film photography (so 50mm for 35, 80mm for 645). Not for necessarily any major reason other than only having 1 lens for my Mamiya 1000s currently. I have a few carry-overs on 35mm from my DSLR but even then I still find if I'm shooting on my Nikon N80 I still tend to use the 50mm most (though I'd had a lot of fun with my 17-35). Thus simply getting a 150mm and calling it done would probably less of a change given LF itself is a pretty big change.
135mm was mostly for the idea of saving marginal amounts of weight, but seems like if I really wanna do that, the 150 6.3 is the lens to get there. I _think_ I'm gonna go for a 150/5.6 just because that seems a lot more common (and the Intrepid focus screen is known for being pretty dim stock).
Who knows though, I have lots of time to figure this out until my 4x5 camera gets here
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks