[rollei_list] Re: "There is a 220 Rollei T"
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:23:12 -0700
Peter,
It was not an error and there were no special runs.
Glaube mir
Jerry
"Peter K." wrote:
> 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:
