Let's see your gear

Anthony,

Well, you can try it but what happens after you hit 10 exposures? Will the film back be able to wind the remainder of the film onto the take-up spool? For my particular MF camera, there are no 220 film backs and I've encountered a number of people who put 220 film in their 120 backs. Besides the focusing issues there are other things that can occur because the film isn't tensioned properly and held flat by the pressure plate. Uneven exposures for one. Your exposures also can have uneven spacing. People think that you'll get 12 6x6 exposures but end up with only 10 or 11 usable ones because of the spacing issue. I've also heard of film being crinkled up inside the back. I wouldn't chance it. There's a reason why Mamiya made separate film backs for 120 and 220. There are some cameras that can load both but pressure plate is adjusted to accommodate the difference in thickness. In my experience, its usually not good to mix things up. One would think that a fraction of a mm isn't going to matter much but when it comes to optics, it may matter a lot. My 50mm f/1.5 Jupiter-3 that Ken is now using, had to be shimmed a fraction of a mm to comply with the Leica standard mount. It was initially registered for the Contax standard (like all Soviet RF lenses) and before the adjustment was done, I couldn't focus the lens with apertures larger than f/2.8.

I recommend David Yau in Toronto if you want to go through with a repair.
http://harrysproshop.com/Yau/yau.html

It might be cheaper to source working film back on e-Bay and try to sell off your broken one.

In all honesty, I think that a 220 back isn't really worth having just because your choice of 220 film is very limited. Go to any film vendor and I bet that your only film choice for 220 B&W is probably Kodak Tri-X while there will typically be much more to choose from in 120. Even with colour, you're basically going to limit yourself to the more expensive 'pro' films from Fuji and Kodak with 220. When I was looking at the Arax, the lack of a 220 back was a big deal for me at first but because of the lack of 220 film out there, it really became a non-issue.

If you want some extremely nice and cheap B&W films go with Freestyle Photo in Los Angeles and their own Arista line of rebranded films.

AristaEDU Ultra 100, 200 and 400 is Fomapan 100, 200 and 400
Arista II 100 and 400 is Agfa APX100 and APX400
Arista Premium 100 and 400 is Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X

They're just a bit over $2 per roll for 35mm or 120. And this isn't expired film either. Much cheaper than the same films sold under the manufacturers' labels. If you are willing to roll your own film, 35mm films are available in 100ft rolls and it will be even cheaper.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/

Either way (C-41 Porta or B&W PANF) you have to send it away, don't you? Just blow through the PANF and let us know what you think of the camera.

Did you get the 50mm yet? That's going to be awesome.

Yah I paid the balance and he gave me the Porta and 50mm at the same time. To be honest I don't see myself using it a whole lot just yet, but we'll see. 90mm feels so much more comfortable, but I've really only snapped 4 shots off and have yet to develop any, so it's hard to have an opinion I guess.

I have a family birthday/get together tomorrow so I hope to get through a couple rolls of that PanF. 30D = my light meter for now (unless I'm just sunny 16-ing it), but I think I can cope.

Nando wrote:Anthony,

Well, you can try it but what happens after you hit 10 exposures? Will the film back be able to wind the remainder of the film onto the take-up spool? For my particular MF camera, there are no 220 film backs and I've encountered a number of people who put 220 film in their 120 backs. Besides the focusing issues there are other things that can occur because the film isn't tensioned properly and held flat by the pressure plate. Uneven exposures for one. Your exposures also can have uneven spacing. People think that you'll get 12 6x6 exposures but end up with only 10 or 11 usable ones because of the spacing issue. I've also heard of film being crinkled up inside the back. I wouldn't chance it. There's a reason why Mamiya made separate film backs for 120 and 220. There are some cameras that can load both but pressure plate is adjusted to accommodate the difference in thickness. In my experience, its usually not good to mix things up. One would think that a fraction of a mm isn't going to matter much but when it comes to optics, it may matter a lot. My 50mm f/1.5 Jupiter-3 that Ken is now using, had to be shimmed a fraction of a mm to comply with the Leica standard mount. It was initially registered for the Contax standard (like all Soviet RF lenses) and before the adjustment was done, I couldn't focus the lens with apertures larger than f/2.8.

I recommend David Yau in Toronto if you want to go through with a repair.
http://harrysproshop.com/Yau/yau.html

It might be cheaper to source working film back on e-Bay and try to sell off your broken one.

In all honesty, I think that a 220 back isn't really worth having just because your choice of 220 film is very limited. Go to any film vendor and I bet that your only film choice for 220 B&W is probably Kodak Tri-X while there will typically be much more to choose from in 120. Even with colour, you're basically going to limit yourself to the more expensive 'pro' films from Fuji and Kodak with 220. When I was looking at the Arax, the lack of a 220 back was a big deal for me at first but because of the lack of 220 film out there, it really became a non-issue.

If you want some extremely nice and cheap B&W films go with Freestyle Photo in Los Angeles and their own Arista line of rebranded films.

AristaEDU Ultra 100, 200 and 400 is Fomapan 100, 200 and 400
Arista II 100 and 400 is Agfa APX100 and APX400
Arista Premium 100 and 400 is Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X

They're just a bit over $2 per roll for 35mm or 120. And this isn't expired film either. Much cheaper than the same films sold under the manufacturers' labels. If you are willing to roll your own film, 35mm films are available in 100ft rolls and it will be even cheaper.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/

Interesting. What do you suppose I do with the Porta then? Try a roll, and if it doesn't crinkle, develop and see if it really messes up? From what I've read from another RB67 user is that you get 10 shots, then you just wind it out until the remainder is spooled up onto the take-up side.

Or just try to sell the film and the 220 back and put whatever pennies I get from that towards the 37mm fisheye I have my eye on?

I don't know what you ought to do Anthony. If enough RB67 guys say it works... They have more experience with RB67's than I do, obviously, as I never used one. With my particular MF camera, I know it is definitely not a good idea. Processing MF colour film (only half a roll too) is quite expensive for essentially what will amount to test shots. I know that you do intend to make money from photography so your situation is a bit different from mine but I usually tend to keep Kodak Portra and Fuji NPS/H/Z films for special occasions - they're really good but also expensive.

What is wrong with your 220 back? Perhaps it won't be a huge repair.

Fisheyes seem quite popular with photographers shooting those 'extreme sports'. That 37mm is quite an expensive lens. Make sure to try the 50 first before committing to the 37.

The issue with the 220 back is that the crank to advance frames does nothing...you can turn it, it clicks, but there's no turning/winding action on the take-up spool. I guess first of all I should look into that before wasting half (if not all) of those 5 rolls.

As far as the fisheye thing...it's not even a matter of comparing it to the 50mm to me. The difference would be comparable (maybe not exactly, focal length-wise) to say my 17-35mm @ 17mm, and my 10-17mm Tokina fisheye @ 10mm on my 30D body. It's just that different type of distortion, and raw-wideness-feel that I'm going for. Not to say that I don't use non-fisheye wide angle, because I do. I see use in the 50mm, it's just something that has to happen in the future. Not now of course I need to save a bit of money first, but definitely in the future. I just can't see myself having a medium format kit without a fisheye.

It would suck if you loaded the 220 in the 120 back and broke it... Then you'd have no backs.

I have mixed feelings about his work, but you could try to see if the guy who fixed my Hasselblad 120 back can look at it. He was cheap, at least.

Ha. Okay, that's all you had to say.

Maybe I'll poke my head in and see what they have to say.

Just put a limit on it, say you don't want to spend more than X amount of dollars.

Or ask on the forums who is qualified to do a CLA on it (clean, lubricate and adjustment).

I looked into getting the Arsat 30mm Fisheye for my Arax since its quite cheap - around $200. I just don't take photos where that type of distortion would be attractive.

I see quite a few 220 backs on e-Bay for less than $100.

Nando: Neat. By doing a quick Google it looks like the Arsat can be adapted to many systems? I would definitely be down for something like that if it was possible to work on the RB67.

I found a used Mamiya 37mm on B&H for 900~ish. "Scratch on front element" though, and from what I've read on some skate photog forums, 800 is the going rate for a used 37mm, so that might be steep especially considering a scratch.

*EDIT*

Is this discussion is getting a bit off topic for this thread?

With my Arax and all other cameras with the Pentacon-6 mount (Pentacon-6, Exakta 66, Kiev/Arax 60, Kiev 88CM, Salyut, etc) the shutter is in the body and not the lens. The Pentacon-6 mount is almost a universal mount and the lenses can be used in many 645 cameras with in-body shutters via common and inexpensive adapters.

With the RB67, I believe that the shutter is in the lens? I have seen the Arsat fisheye adapted for the Hasselblad. A shutter had to be added to the lens and, as a result, the price increases from around $200 to around $900. Also since the RB67 uses a 6x7 frame instead of a 6x6, I'm not sure if the Arsat will have a large enough image-circle to completely cover the frame.

B&H is always expensive. Keep in mind that you have usually have to add 10-30% (depending on the item) to the 'street-price' if you are buying from a dealer. Normally it will come with some sort of warranty though.

Yes, it is probably getting off topic. I'll post a photo later on today perhaps to get it back on track.

I also read about the focal plane shutter, but didn't know if there was a way to make it work. Apparently, as you said, there is...but definitely not worth the cost if it brings it that high. The image circle problem would probably come in to play as well, and I'm thinking that's why they make the 37mm 37mm...on paper it says that the 37mm covers 180 degrees, so yeah...anything lower than that would at LEAST vig. heavily I'm guessing. If not create a visible circle.

Either way, I think my best bet for now would be to try to push it to the back of my mind, unless I see a decent deal on a used one from that Skate Perception forum I mentioned earlier--which I actually did see about a month ago, but obviously my focus was on getting the actual camera first .

Here's my macro setup. Please excuse the crappy photo.



Arax SE CM/MLU with a Pentacon 15mm extension tube (to clear the shutter-button), Pentacon bellows, Pentacon focusing rail and Hartblei 4x viewfinder. The lens used here is the Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/2.8 Biometar. I could have used the 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar but it would have been overkill and way too heavy. I also have additional 22.5mm, 30mm and 60mm extension tubes not shown here. The tripod and ball-head are both by Feisol. I ran two rolls to test this setup yesterday - one is fresh Tri-X 400 and the other is long-expired Tri-X 320. I wanted to develop them today but had no time. I'll try to get some results up tomorrow.

I don't have too much other macro stuff. I have a really nice 7-element Vivitar 2x Macro-teleconverter that works well. Only used it once though.

My brother-in-law (wife's sister's husband) who has no interest in photography told me last night that his grandfather worked for Zeiss at Jena. He has a microscope whose lenses were made by him. I thought that was pretty cool.

That's cool. Did he work for Zeiss before or after the WWII?

AA. If you're looking for good deals on camera equipment, (and possibly trying to avoid Ebay) I'd suggest looking at KEH.
I'd ignore anything that isn't rated at BGN. I know at least 7 people that bought their BGN kits, payed pennies on the dollar and received beautiful equipment in great working order.
RB67 equipment especially. My old RB was from KEH.
Usually their BGN stuff just has some scuffs, scratches and worn paint but never anything mechanically or optically wrong, and is going for around half price.
If you have any worries, give them a call. They do have great customer service.

Nando, neat set up. I'm dying to see some shots from it.
Do you find that extension tubes work better than proxars?

I'm not planning on using my MF for macro, but to reduce the minimum focus distance, I have a few proxars that I plan on using. Any comments, warnings, suggestions?

As I've got to start saving up again for a few lenses, money is an issue.

Ken, I wonder how much that microscope would be worth.
Neat connection.

AA. I just checked, they don't have what you want. Seeing as how you're putting it on the backburner for now, it would probably be worth looking at their inventory every little while.

I haven't really had extensive experience in macro. Besides these two rolls, I only shot one other roll of macro stuff with my Pentax MX along with a test-shot using the Flexaret's close-up filters. I can't say what I prefer. I do like the precision of a bellows and focusing rail though.

This shot was from the Pentax with the SMC-PM 50mm f/1.7 and Vivitar 2x Macro-Converter. It's a hibiscus.



I do have a prewar close-up adapter called a NOOKY-HESUM that works with my postwar IIIf and 50mm Summitar. It allows for close focusing to about 50cm. I also have the Dual-Range 50mm Summicron for the M's that has a close-range mode that also allows focusing to about 50cm. However, close-focusing on a rangefinder is hardly macro unless we're using Visoflex reflex attachment (that turns a Leica into a really huge SLR) or the new 90mm f/4 Macro-Elmar collapsible lens. So far, I've only used the Nooky and the DR Summicron's close focusing capabilities to do portraits very close-up just for testing purposes. I wouldn't dare post any of the results here for fear of getting smacked. Ralph Gibson used a DR Summicron a lot for close-ups.

Nando wrote:That's cool. Did he work for Zeiss before or after the WWII?

He said he thinks before the war but he's not sure. He was the third wheel in a photo conversation and when the name Zeiss came up he chimed in that his Grandfather worked in Jena, which most non-photo people wouldn't be able to add to a conversation. He didn't even know what a Hasselblad was so I don't think he was BSing.

Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread. Carry on.

Prior to WWII, Carl Zeiss Jena was the largest centre for camera and lens production in the world. Jena is where Carl Zeiss AG started and one of the most beautiful cities in Germany.



The city was occupied by the Americans after the war and they moved the Contessa stuff to the west before it was declared part of the Soviet zone. The Soviets basically took anything they wanted - the tooling along with engineers and workers. The Russians and Ukrainians are still making Zeiss clones today. When Germany reunified, so did Carl Zeiss AG. Carl Zeiss Jena is once again a very high-tech facility. I doubt that the current facilities look as pretty.

Neat stuff RE: the Zeiss factory.

Thanks CP for the link, I'll definitely be checking that site very often.

No problem Anthony. A good spot to start your search is the "Markdowns" link on the first page. Again, I would only buy their BGN stuff.
Happy hunting.

One thing that should be mentioned about KEH is that they only ship to Canada via UPS or FedEx. These couriers are notorious for charging ridiculously high brokerage fees, especially UPS. Just recently, I purchased a non-photography item on eBay for $120 with shipping. I mistakenly misread the eBay description before I bid and thought that shipping was done through USPS instead of UPS. Well, once I won the item, I couldn't go back. For that $90 item with $30 shipping, I had to pay an additional $57 to the delivery person at the door. GST should have only been $7.20 - the rest was the brokerage fee. There is currently a large class action lawsuit against UPS concerning this practise.

I'm not telling you to avoid KEH. Indeed, I've heard of many nice surprises concerning the BGN items. However, you should take the shipping method into consideration.

One word:

Pack N' Ship.

Sekonic = makes me happy.

Velvia 50 (x1), Velvia 100 (x4), Provia (x4), HP5 400 (x2), and the 358. The Kodak 5 pack, Provia 100 (x5) and a couple more HP5 rolls are for my friend, Will.