[rollei_list] Re: OT Re: Is the RUG still up? 620 film foolery
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:02:44 -0500
Whether a Triplet or a Tessar-type, there seems to be little dispute
that were are are cameras with good lenses...
Eric Goldstein
--
On 2/3/08, Gene Johnson <genej2ster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I had one. Beautifully made. I think it is a triplet too.
>
> On Feb 3, 2008 7:30 AM, Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Jerry -
> >
> > There seems to be some dispute about whether the Duo 620's Anastigmat
> > is a Triplet-type or a Tessar-Type...
> >
> > http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JueI
> >
> >
> > Eric Goldstein
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > On 2/3/08, Jerry Friedman <tinycameraco@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I have a danger cam too. You might also want to consider a
> > > Kodak duo 620, a good folder with a four element Tessar
> > > type lens and a compure shutter with speeds to 1/500
> > > second. It is small and easy to carry about. And it makes
> > > 16 (actually 17) 6x45 images which is good for travel.
> > > Very well made from a Nagel design.
> > >
> > > Loading 620 to 120 spools is a matter of habit. After
> > > spending 20 years cutting 35mm film down into 9mm strips
> > > for a Minox in war conditions has left me feeling that
> > > respooling 120 is a simple task that gets easier and easier
> > > the more you do it.
> > >
> > > For awhile i used a Kodak Tourist with the 1/800 second
> > > shutter and four element Anastar lens. Also a good shotter
> > > but lens is still softer than I like. I used a medalist for
> > > a couple of years and I liked its smaller size for a 6x9
> > > image but I still found that the lens, while good, is still
> > > not as good as those on a Rollei and other cameras making a
> > > smaller 6x6 image. It might be a film flateness issue and
> > > perhaps someone more used to Medalist will know. One thing
> > > though: I have found that 6x9 cameras have grater flatness
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > I am glad that others also find time for their older
> > > cameras. Perhaps i have simply reached that age of
> > > nostalgia where yesterday's cameras seem new again. Yet, i
> > > am always surprised at how good many of these simpler
> > > cameras were/are.
> > >
> > > Recently, I received an Exlim for a present. It is small,
> > > well made but.......you know, the thing doesn't have a
> > > viewfinder???? Please, no explanations are necessary. But
> > > shouldn't a cameras have a viewfinder??????
> > >
> > > Jjerry Friedman
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Gene Johnson <genej2ster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I use a Reflex II as my "Danger Cam". I take it with me
> > > > to places
> > > > where I will not take my Rolleiflexes. I've been able to
> > > > open up the
> > > > supply side to accomodate a 120 roll, but I still have to
> > > > use 620
> > > > spools for the take up side. I have several. It's not a
> > > > problem.
> > > > The theory here is if I drop it, or a bunch of spray from
> > > > an
> > > > unexpected ocean wave hits it, I won't cry, because it's
> > > > worth maybe
> > > > 25 bucks. Probably for this very reason, it has never
> > > > failed me.
> > > > Nice and sharp too :)
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 2, 2008 3:23 PM, <Choiliefan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > I'm certainly not one of the bright lights of the RUG.
> > > > > I even miss Friday's Administrative Announcements...
> > > > > Grabbed a camera bag off the top of the pile as I left
> > > > the house today.
> > > > > It contains a '47 Kodak Medalist ll loaded with a fresh
> > > > roll of 120 film
> > > > > which I turned down a bit on my shop lathe to
> > > > approximate the length and
> > > > > diameter of a 620 spool. Will be interesting to see
> > > > how it works out.
> > > > > I'm not so keen at respooling the stuff and this
> > > > operation shouldn't have
> > > > > damaged the film stock in any way. Perhaps the edges
> > > > will fog a bit?
> > > > > Health, Peace
> > > > > Lance
> > > > > Selma, NC 27576
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 2/2/2008 10:52:41 A.M. Eastern
> > > > Standard Time,
> > > > > dlp4777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > > > > I got your message. Perhaps we are both banished.
> > > > The lists seem very
> > > > > quiet for quite awhile now. I think perhaps a lot of
> > > > the activity was
> > > > > driven by just a few people who started the
> > > > conversations and those few
> > > > > people are less active. Just a theory.
> > > > > dennis
> > > > > On Feb 1, 2008, at 19:32, Choiliefan@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Not been getting the RUG past week or so.
> > > > > > Have I been banished or need to re-register or what?
> > > > > > Hope not, I love this group!
> > > > > > Someone, please write and let me know.
> > > > > > Health, peace
> > > > > > Lance
> > > > > > Selma, NC 27576
> >
> > ---
> > Rollei List
> >
> > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Be Just and Fear Not
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
