[rollei_list] Re: "There is a 220 Rollei T"

  • From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:13:51 -0700

I have the T with the mask. I can do 12 exposures of 6x6cm without
mask, and 16 exposures of 6x4.5cm with the mask.
WHen you insert the mask, it pushes a small metal rod of sorts that
move the counter from 12 to 16. I also have a Rolleikin for the T, and
when I use this the only thing I need do is make sure the pressure
plate on the back is set to 36mmx 24mm.

I do not doubt the claim that somewhere in existence is a custom T
that is capable of 24 exposures, but according to Prochnow himself Ts
NEVER had 220 capability.
So this must have either been an error or it was a special run that
was never sold.

Peter K=20

On 4/22/05, David Seifert <dseifert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jim,
>=20
> My reference was only to the first model (PR184 and PR184/1).  The later
> models (beginning with S/N T2,157,000 - July 1961) are, indeed equipped
> for the Rolleikin 2.  According to Prochnow, these cameras are equipped
> to do the 12/16 trick as well and have the option of either 4x4
> (Superslide) or 4x5.5 masks.  The pressure plate would remain in the 6x6
> position and insertion of the film mask would set the film counter and
> transport to 4cm frame height (and thus 16 frames per roll).
>=20
> David
>=20
> Jim Somberg wrote:
>=20
> >According to my two Rollei T's, the film pressure plate is settable to e=
ither  6X6 cm or 24X36MM, the latter with a Rolleikin, of course.
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: David Seifert
> >  To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >  Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 6:34 PM
> >  Subject: [rollei_list] Re: "There is a 220 Rollei T"
> >
> >  Ardeshir Mehta wrote:
> >
> >  >On Friday, April 22, 2005, at 07:02  PM, David Seifert wrote:
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >>Marc,
> >  >>
> >  >>You were only partially in error. The units in question were equippe=
d
> >  >>with a 24 frame counter. The camera still used 120 film but produced
> >  >>24 smaller (24x36?) on the film via a masking system. We went throug=
h
> >  >>this last year in more detail than anyone cares to recall.
> >  >>
> >  >>Best Regards,
> >  >>David
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  >Oh? This is interesting! Are you sure the prints were as small as 24x=
36
> >  >mm? Could they have been 30x60 mm?
> >  >
> >  >A.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  Ardeshir,
> >
> >  Just for you, I look this up again.  According to Prochnow in Rollei
> >  Report 2 page 409 there were 250 units of this type built in June 1961=
.
> >  He notes that these were "Direktverkauf, nicht gelistet", direct sale,
> >  no price listed.  I interpret that to mean that these were a custom
> >  order batch.  The customer is not mentioned.  They used 120 film and
> >  produced either 12 6x6 images per roll or 24 24x36 images per roll usi=
ng
> >  the special mask kit.  Thus, they had a 12/24 frame counter.
> >
> >  For the record, the standard model of that run (56,000 units) came wit=
h
> >  a 12/16 frame counter equipped to do 12 or 16 exposures per 120 roll.
> >  The mask kit produced 16 4.5x5 images.
> >
> >  Thus spake Prochnow!
> >
> >  David
> >
> >
> >
> >
>=20
>=20


--=20
Peter K
=D3=BF=D5=AC

Other related posts: