[rollei_list] Re: "There is a 220 Rollei T" (BS!)
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:29:39 -0700
So Jerry,=20
What camera do yo uuse your adapter in? Is this a special T wih a
12/24 exposure mechanism? I think someone stated that, so excuse me if
I am asking something that was already answered.
Peter K
On 4/22/05, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter, Peter, Peter,
>=20
> Horizontal, horizontal, horizontal! The film only advances about 28/30 m=
m
> with each stroke of the crank. Confirmed on page 18-409 of Prochnow.
> Referred to as K8K (T24) Special production, 250 cameras made. PR 184/1
> Direct order, No price listed. Serial #s 156000 to 156249.
>=20
> But still no 220 capability. But if it were, just think, 48 exposures pe=
r roll!
>=20
> Jerry
>=20
> "Peter K." wrote:
>=20
> > What horizontal 24x36. Do you mean 6x4.5cm? There is also a mask you
> > place on the viewing screen for 4x4cm (Superslide format) but the
> > actual film is recorded as 6x4.5cm.
> >
> > Jerry, you are a man of many cameras.
> >
> > Peter K
> > "Der Grieche" mit einem T
> >
> > On 4/22/05, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Jim
> > >=3D20
> > > The Rolleikin was set for VERTICAL 24x36 exposures. The Spezial T ki=
t
> > > was for HORIZONTAL 24x36. I have the frame/mask for that.
> > >=3D20
> > > It is still not for 220 film!
> > >=3D20
> > > Jerry
> > >=3D20
> > > Jim Somberg wrote:
> > >=3D20
> > > > According to my two Rollei T's, the film pressure plate is settable=
to =3D
> > either 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 eq=
uipp=3D
> > ed
> > > > >>with a 24 frame counter. The camera still used 120 film but pro=
duce=3D
> > d
> > > > >>24 smaller (24x36?) on the film via a masking system. We went t=
hrou=3D
> > gh
> > > > >>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 a=
s 24=3D
> > x36
> > > > >mm? Could they have been 30x60 mm?
> > > > >
> > > > >A.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Ardeshir,
> > > >
> > > > Just for you, I look this up again. According to Prochnow in Rol=
lei
> > > > Report 2 page 409 there were 250 units of this type built in June=
196=3D
> > 1.
> > > > He notes that these were "Direktverkauf, nicht gelistet", direct =
sale=3D
> > ,
> > > > no price listed. I interpret that to mean that these were a cust=
om
> > > > order batch. The customer is not mentioned. They used 120 film =
and
> > > > produced either 12 6x6 images per roll or 24 24x36 images per rol=
l us=3D
> > ing
> > > > the special mask kit. Thus, they had a 12/24 frame counter.
> > > >
> > > > For the record, the standard model of that run (56,000 units) cam=
e wi=3D
> > th
> > > > a 12/16 frame counter equipped to do 12 or 16 exposures per 120 r=
oll.
> > > > The mask kit produced 16 4.5x5 images.
> > > >
> > > > Thus spake Prochnow!
> > > >
> > > > David
> > >=3D20
> > >=3D20
> >
> > --=3D20
> > Peter K
> > =3DD3=3DBF=3DD5=3DAC
>=20
>=20
--=20
Peter K
=D3=BF=D5=AC
Other related posts:
