Rolleiflex 3.5C, 3.5E and lens cap, lens hood questions

[steven woody]

because i am about to buy a lens cap and hood in the used market such
as ebay.com, i think i have carefully determind Bay-what mount i
really need. but i am not sure my camera is actually a 3.5E or 3.5C.
i need your help.

some info of the camera,

1, the serial number is 1748514
2, a f/3.5 plannar taking lens and a 2.8 heldosmat viewing lens
3, gets a uncoupled meter, film speed can be set by the meter ring.
4, the sutter ring can apperture ring can set to be coupled or
uncoupled by rotate a level on the apperture ring.
5, i am not sure whether the viewfinder hood is removable, but i can
remove it by take of the four screws acound the hood.
6, the distance scale is in feets only, not meets.


my question is

1, is it a 3.5C or 3.5E
2, if that is a 3.5C, Bay-what accessoies should i need ?

thanks in advance.

[Jeff Kelley]

http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm

http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35_TLR.htm

Both the above links show your serial number as a 3.5E made approximately
1956.
Bay II according to the chart.


-Jeff-

Post by steven woody
some info of the camera,
1, the serial number is 1748514

[steven woody]

i hope you're right. but it seems the web page you refered don't list
3.5E at all, it might be possible that the serial number range it
listed for 3.5E actually covered 3.5C also. check this page:
http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm, you will find,

Start End S/N Prochnow Parker Evans
...
1.740.000 1.787.999 Rolleiflex 3,5 C Rolleiflex 3.5 E Rolleiflex 3.5 E
(type 1)

so still no evidence to confirm my serial number is a 3.5E not 3.5C, is it?

Post by Jeff Kelley
http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm
http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35_TLR.htm
Both the above links show your serial number as a 3.5E made approximately
1956.
Bay II according to the chart.
-Jeff-

Post by steven woody
some info of the camera,
1, the serial number is 1748514

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[todd belcher]

3.5 E and 3.5 C are the same, just different ways of describing
exactly the same camera.

todd

Post by steven woody
i hope you're right. but it seems the web page you refered don't list
3.5E at all, it might be possible that the serial number range it
http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm, you will find,
Start End S/N Prochnow Parker Evans
...
1.740.000 1.787.999 Rolleiflex 3,5 C Rolleiflex 3.5 E Rolleiflex 3.5 E
(type 1)
so still no evidence to confirm my serial number is a 3.5E not
3.5C, is it?

Post by Jeff Kelley
http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm
http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35_TLR.htm
Both the above links show your serial number as a 3.5E made
approximately
1956.
Bay II according to the chart.
-Jeff-

Post by steven woody
some info of the camera,
1, the serial number is 1748514

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

--
¡¦ ¡¦ ¡ñ
¡¦ ¨Ž ¡¦
¨ áê¨Ú©d¦ç
¨‰¨‰ ©¯ ©¯
¨}¨|¨{¨z¨y¨x¨y¨z¨{¨z¨y¨x¨y¨z¨{¨|¨}¨~¨}©¯¨}©«
Ìý,´óº£µÄÉùÒô... ¨u ¨---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
u

[steven woody]

ok. can i deduced that,

my camera use Bayonet II acceessories. so any lens cap, lens hood,
filters or other accessories clarmed to be Bay-II mount can be used
for my camera? ( i heard some Bay-II lens cap are not same, if so, i
wanna get know what kind of Bay-II lens cap i should go to buy )

thanks.

-
woody

Post by todd belcher
3.5 E and 3.5 C are the same, just different ways of describing
exactly the same camera.
todd

Post by steven woody
i hope you're right. but it seems the web page you refered don't list
3.5E at all, it might be possible that the serial number range it
http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm, you will find,
Start End S/N Prochnow Parker Evans
...
1.740.000 1.787.999 Rolleiflex 3,5 C Rolleiflex 3.5 E Rolleiflex 3.5 E
(type 1)
so still no evidence to confirm my serial number is a 3.5E not 3.5C, is it?

Post by Jeff Kelley
http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm
http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35_TLR.htm
Both the above links show your serial number as a 3.5E made
approximately
1956.
Bay II according to the chart.
-Jeff-

Post by steven woody
some info of the camera,
1, the serial number is 1748514

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

--
¡¦ ¡¦ ¡ñ
¡¦ ¨Ž ¡¦
¨ áê¨Ú(c)d¦ç
¨‰¨‰ (c)¯ (c)¯
¨}¨|¨{¨z¨y¨x¨y¨z¨{¨z¨y¨x¨y¨z¨{¨|¨}¨~¨}(c)¯¨}(c)«
Ìý,´óº£µÄÉùÒô... ¨u ¨---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
u

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[b***@ens2m.fr]

ok. can i deduced that, my camera use Bayonet II acceessories. so
any lens cap, lens hood, filters or other accessories clarmed to be
Bay-II mount can be used for my camera? ( i heard some Bay-II lens
cap are not same, if so, i wanna get know what kind of Bay-II lens
cap i should go to buy ) thanks. - woody

The only accessory in Bayonet II which depends on the type of camera
is the twin-lens-cap. Because, as explained by Carlos, Rollei changed
the distance between lenses at some time in the production of the 3.5
planar-xenotar series. Probably your camera has 42 mm distance.
tessar-xenat models remained @42 mm where as the 3.5 planar xenotar
were upgraded to 45mm like the 2.8 planar-xenotar models.

As far as filters are concerned I would go for modern B+W or heliopan
bayonet filters, available in all Rollei bayonets. For the lens hood I
would go for a used original one since it fits the outer bayonet and
allows to use filters simultaneously.

So the twin-lens-cap in bayonet II is the only exception I am aware
of. To the best of my knowledge, all other bayonet II accessory i.e. :
lens hood, filters, rolleinars, mutars, microscope attachments, etc..
will fit on your camera.

The only accessory I can think of, decribed by Claus Prochnow, which
depends on the inter-lens distance is an accessory sold by a German
company allowing to attach a pair of binoculars to the Rollei TLR ;
but all binoculars can adjust the inter-lens distance, so no problem
if you find this accessory ;-)

[steven woody]

Post by b***@ens2m.fr

ok. can i deduced that, my camera use Bayonet II acceessories. so
any lens cap, lens hood, filters or other accessories clarmed to be
Bay-II mount can be used for my camera? ( i heard some Bay-II lens
cap are not same, if so, i wanna get know what kind of Bay-II lens
cap i should go to buy ) thanks. - woody

The only accessory in Bayonet II which depends on the type of camera
is the twin-lens-cap. Because, as explained by Carlos, Rollei changed
the distance between lenses at some time in the production of the 3.5
planar-xenotar series. Probably your camera has 42 mm distance.
were upgraded to 45mm like the 2.8 planar-xenotar models.
As far as filters are concerned I would go for modern B+W or heliopan
bayonet filters, available in all Rollei bayonets. For the lens hood I
would go for a used original one since it fits the outer bayonet and
allows to use filters simultaneously.
So the twin-lens-cap in bayonet II is the only exception I am aware
lens hood, filters, rolleinars, mutars, microscope attachments, etc..
will fit on your camera.
The only accessory I can think of, decribed by Claus Prochnow, which
depends on the inter-lens distance is an accessory sold by a German
company allowing to attach a pair of binoculars to the Rollei TLR ;
but all binoculars can adjust the inter-lens distance, so no problem
if you find this accessory ;-)
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
---

Bigler,

thanks for such a definitly clear answer!

-
woody

[Jerry Lehrer]

I guess that Bigler has never been aware of the Mutars

Post by steven woody

Post by b***@ens2m.fr

ok. can i deduced that, my camera use Bayonet II acceessories. so
any lens cap, lens hood, filters or other accessories clarmed to be
Bay-II mount can be used for my camera? ( i heard some Bay-II lens
cap are not same, if so, i wanna get know what kind of Bay-II lens
cap i should go to buy ) thanks. - woody

The only accessory in Bayonet II which depends on the type of camera
is the twin-lens-cap. Because, as explained by Carlos, Rollei changed
the distance between lenses at some time in the production of the 3.5
planar-xenotar series. Probably your camera has 42 mm distance.
were upgraded to 45mm like the 2.8 planar-xenotar models.
As far as filters are concerned I would go for modern B+W or heliopan
bayonet filters, available in all Rollei bayonets. For the lens hood I
would go for a used original one since it fits the outer bayonet and
allows to use filters simultaneously.
So the twin-lens-cap in bayonet II is the only exception I am aware
lens hood, filters, rolleinars, mutars, microscope attachments, etc..
will fit on your camera.
The only accessory I can think of, decribed by Claus Prochnow, which
depends on the inter-lens distance is an accessory sold by a German
company allowing to attach a pair of binoculars to the Rollei TLR ;
but all binoculars can adjust the inter-lens distance, so no problem
if you find this accessory ;-)
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
---

Bigler,
thanks for such a definitly clear answer!
-
woody
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 07/18/2006

[Carlos Manuel Freaza]

Hello Emmanuel:
That was a very complete explanation,
I'd only add the Mutar lenses within the accesories to
consider for both lenses distance (Report II 24-504).
Bad news about Digistar really, your FAQ is an
excellent web source for Rollei topics.-

All the best
Carlos

Post by b***@ens2m.fr
The only accessory in Bayonet II which depends on
the type of camera
is the twin-lens-cap. Because, as explained by
Carlos, Rollei changed
the distance between lenses at some time in the
production of the 3.5
planar-xenotar series. Probably your camera has 42
mm distance.
planar xenotar
were upgraded to 45mm like the 2.8 planar-xenotar
models.
As far as filters are concerned I would go for
modern B+W or heliopan
bayonet filters, available in all Rollei bayonets.
For the lens hood I
would go for a used original one since it fits the
outer bayonet and
allows to use filters simultaneously.
So the twin-lens-cap in bayonet II is the only
exception I am aware
of. To the best of my knowledge, all other bayonet
lens hood, filters, rolleinars, mutars, microscope
attachments, etc..
will fit on your camera.
The only accessory I can think of, decribed by Claus
Prochnow, which
depends on the inter-lens distance is an accessory
sold by a German
company allowing to attach a pair of binoculars to
the Rollei TLR ;
but all binoculars can adjust the inter-lens
distance, so no problem
if you find this accessory ;-)
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

[Carlos Manuel Freaza]

... and to be brief:
BII 3.5F and 3.5E3: 45mm between lenses
BII 3.5E(or C) and 3.5E2: 42mm between lenses

Carlos

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
That was a very complete
explanation,
I'd only add the Mutar lenses within the accesories
to
consider for both lenses distance (Report II
24-504).
Bad news about Digistar really, your FAQ is an
excellent web source for Rollei topics.-
All the best
Carlos

Post by b***@ens2m.fr
The only accessory in Bayonet II which depends on
the type of camera
is the twin-lens-cap. Because, as explained by
Carlos, Rollei changed
the distance between lenses at some time in the
production of the 3.5
planar-xenotar series. Probably your camera has 42
mm distance.

3.5

Post by b***@ens2m.fr
planar xenotar
were upgraded to 45mm like the 2.8 planar-xenotar
models.
As far as filters are concerned I would go for
modern B+W or heliopan
bayonet filters, available in all Rollei bayonets.
For the lens hood I
would go for a used original one since it fits the
outer bayonet and
allows to use filters simultaneously.
So the twin-lens-cap in bayonet II is the only
exception I am aware
of. To the best of my knowledge, all other bayonet
lens hood, filters, rolleinars, mutars, microscope
attachments, etc..
will fit on your camera.
The only accessory I can think of, decribed by

Claus

Post by b***@ens2m.fr
Prochnow, which
depends on the inter-lens distance is an accessory
sold by a German
company allowing to attach a pair of binoculars to
the Rollei TLR ;
but all binoculars can adjust the inter-lens
distance, so no problem
if you find this accessory ;-)
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

[b***@ens2m.fr]

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
BII 3.5F and 3.5E3: 45mm between lenses
BII 3.5E(or C) and 3.5E2: 42mm between lenses

Thanks carlos : of course I forgot the Mutar ! Shame on me !;-)

so the updated list is
twin lens cap
mutars

for which the inter-lens distance is critical on 3.5 planar/xenotar models

[todd belcher]

The 2.8 A lens shade is bay II and does not fit the later 3.5 bay II
cameras. Actually to be more exact, it fits, but comes to rest in a
skewed position.

todd

Post by b***@ens2m.fr

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
BII 3.5F and 3.5E3: 45mm between lenses
BII 3.5E(or C) and 3.5E2: 42mm between lenses

Thanks carlos : of course I forgot the Mutar ! Shame on me !;-)
so the updated list is
twin lens cap
mutars
for which the inter-lens distance is critical on 3.5 planar/xenotar models
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Carlos Manuel Freaza]

The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site about
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading the
article are that film and microfilm are still the best
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very expensive
in part because they demand an upgrading for short
periods:

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html

All the best
Carlos





__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

[b***@ens2m.fr]

The RUG Digistar archives loss....digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to preserve these
documents and they are very expensive in part because they demand an
http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html
All the best Carlos

Thanks for the link, Carlos. This is extremely interesting.

For my leisure activity in photography, I came to the conclusion that
my images will be on film as long as film is available. Not that I do
not use digital images, on the contrary, I use them for my job and for
home use, for a nominal fee, I can have my color negs scanned and
transferred to a CD-ROM so that I can share the image with friends
easily.

But I still have the film as the master archive. Even is I do
absolutely nothing, I still have film stacked somewhere under a pile
of newspapers of Prochnow volumes. Sorting things from time to time,
you re-discover your images without need for electricity, computers or
software ;-)

The other reason is that I'm perfectly happy with my collection of
mechanical film cameras, I let others support research and
development, I have a thought for professionals that *have* to go
digital in order to keep-up with the competition. So, dear
professionals and other digital friends, please, do buy a lot of
digital cameras and sell a lot of images and please support as much as
you can a quick turn-around of digital tehnology so that we amateurs
can eventually benefit of large size sensors at a reasonable price in
the next future.

So I'll re-consider the issue

- either when color film will be wiped out of this planet, then I can
always do tri-chromatic images on 3 B&W color-filtered slides like
Prokudin-Gorskii in Russia one century ago ;-) or re-do Autochromes
with potatoe starch and hand-picked RGB colors ;-)

- or that 56x56mm silicon sensors are available at a price that does
not exceed the price for a good-user second-hand Rollei TLR.

- the ultimate wish (already discussed here, pardon for redundancy,
biut for the moment the old RUG archives are hard to access ;-)
being that this 56x56mm sensor does not need more energy that a
wind/rewind movement of the crank a Rollei TLR fitted with the
"electrical generator" option ;-);-)

[Jeff Kelley]

Carlos, museums and similar organizations have struggled with this issue of
digital archiving for decades. It is not easily solved.

I think it telling that I can still easily view and print my
great-grandfather's film negatives but can no longer access 5.25 inch
computer floppy diskettes that I, myself, produced not that many years
ago....

-Jeff-

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site about
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading the
article are that film and microfilm are still the best
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very expensive
in part because they demand an upgrading for short
http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html
All the best
Carlos
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Nick Roberts]

I've been dabbling with digital imaging for13-14 years now, and I've not yet lost an image. I keep two copies of everything, one off-site, and migrate everything every time I change a storage medium (and keep the old ones! - I've actually still got a PC with Windows 3.11 and a 5.25 inch floppy drive mothballed just in case...).

So as far as I'm concerned, my digital files are actually safer than my negs and slides. Indeed my original digital dabbling was to give me electronic backup of my film records just in case of a fire.

Nick

----- Original Message ----
From: Jeff Kelley <***@hotmail.com>
To: ***@freelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, 19 July, 2006 4:00:46 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve archives


Carlos, museums and similar organizations have struggled with this issue of
digital archiving for decades. It is not easily solved.

I think it telling that I can still easily view and print my
great-grandfather's film negatives but can no longer access 5.25 inch
computer floppy diskettes that I, myself, produced not that many years
ago....

-Jeff-

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site about
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading the
article are that film and microfilm are still the best
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very expensive
in part because they demand an upgrading for short
http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html
All the best
Carlos
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List

- Post to ***@freelists.org

- Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Carlos Manuel Freaza]

That is the problem for the institutions about digital
image, they need to maintain obsolete equipment and to
upgrade to newer systems simultaneously and even more,
to migrate a lot of digital files for newer formats,
those are the reasons digital image is expensive too
much for the institutions that must to preserve
documents.
In the other hand film and microfilm documents could
be maintained for 500 years without changes.-

All the best
Carlos

Post by Nick Roberts
I've been dabbling with digital imaging for13-14
years now, and I've not yet lost an image. I keep
two copies of everything, one off-site, and migrate
everything every time I change a storage medium (and
keep the old ones! - I've actually still got a PC
with Windows 3.11 and a 5.25 inch floppy drive
mothballed just in case...).
So as far as I'm concerned, my digital files are
actually safer than my negs and slides. Indeed my
original digital dabbling was to give me electronic
backup of my film records just in case of a fire.
Nick
----- Original Message ----
Sent: Wednesday, 19 July, 2006 4:00:46 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to
preserve archives
Carlos, museums and similar organizations have
struggled with this issue of
digital archiving for decades. It is not easily
solved.
I think it telling that I can still easily view and
print my
great-grandfather's film negatives but can no longer
access 5.25 inch
computer floppy diskettes that I, myself, produced
not that many years
ago....
-Jeff-

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site

about

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading

the

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
article are that film and microfilm are still the

best

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very

expensive

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
in part because they demand an upgrading for short

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
All the best
Carlos
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List

with 'subscribe'

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org
with

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging

into www.freelists.org

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Roberts" <***@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:29 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve
archives


I've been dabbling with digital imaging for13-14 years now,
and I've not yet lost an image. I keep two copies of
everything, one off-site, and migrate everything every time
I change a storage medium (and keep the old ones! - I've
actually still got a PC with Windows 3.11 and a 5.25 inch
floppy drive mothballed just in case...).

So as far as I'm concerned, my digital files are actually
safer than my negs and slides. Indeed my original digital
dabbling was to give me electronic backup of my film records
just in case of a fire.

Nick

This is fine as long as someone is dedicated to updating
the storage periodically. In this sense, it is not really
archival because that implys storage which is very long term
without a lot of attention. Very often examples are given of
people being able to recover images from negatives which
have been in storage for on the order of 100 years, and
prints that old are fairly common.
One advantage digital storage has over analogue is that
the original data can usually be recovered without change or
loss where there is always some loss for analogue methods.
I suspect that there may be better ways of storing
digital data than the current magnetic media and the current
applications of optical media, but those are in the future.
Even of the media are very long lasting there remains
the problem of being able to recover it and decode it. The
concern here is being able to duplicate the mechanism, both
mechanical and electronic, needed for such recovery, at some
time in the distant future. Of course, the same thing
applies to photographic materials but is not so obvious.
Photographic materials have been enormously improved but not
changed in principal for nearly two centuries. The process
is very stable, the oldest photographic records can be read
by eye and can be duplicated with modern materials. However,
if we consider a future time, when photographic materials
will no longer be available commercially, a problem similar
to digital will exist. That is, it might be necessary to
make a photographic material in order to recover and
preserve existing information. The technology of the
photograhic chemistry needed to make modern materials is not
trivial and may be more difficult to duplicate in the
distant future than precision machinery (disc drive) and
electronic circuits capable of emulating the older coding
technology. The reason is that the old digital technology
may then be closer to the practice of the time than chemical
methods.
Those requiring genuine archival storage (100 plus years)
may have to resort to parallel storage methods and, at least
for digital, the frequent transfer of data to newer media
and methods.
I have been taken to task in the past for stating that I
think digital and computer technology is still in a very
early stage of development but I stand by this judgement. We
only think computers are very advanced because we can't see
the future.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Eric Goldstein]

Folks, we've had this discussion before (ad nauseum). It's all in the
archives. If there were a secure and reliable method of digital
archiving, museums across the known universe would be using it and the
Library of Congress would be spending $40 Million to find it. It does
not exists. Right now your best bet is probably to make one of your
parallel back-ups a major corporate web player such as Yahoo or Google
and let them worry about it...

BTW I have a nice Webster in working condition, Richard. You are free
to make use of it any time you need it. I've made quite a few wire
recordings on it myself. It is a beautiful piece of period design.
This is model I have:

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/wire.html


Eric Goldstein

--

Post by Richard Knoppow
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:29 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve
archives
I've been dabbling with digital imaging for13-14 years now,
and I've not yet lost an image. I keep two copies of
everything, one off-site, and migrate everything every time
I change a storage medium (and keep the old ones! - I've
actually still got a PC with Windows 3.11 and a 5.25 inch
floppy drive mothballed just in case...).
So as far as I'm concerned, my digital files are actually
safer than my negs and slides. Indeed my original digital
dabbling was to give me electronic backup of my film records
just in case of a fire.
Nick
This is fine as long as someone is dedicated to updating
the storage periodically. In this sense, it is not really
archival because that implys storage which is very long term
without a lot of attention. Very often examples are given of
people being able to recover images from negatives which
have been in storage for on the order of 100 years, and
prints that old are fairly common.
One advantage digital storage has over analogue is that
the original data can usually be recovered without change or
loss where there is always some loss for analogue methods.
I suspect that there may be better ways of storing
digital data than the current magnetic media and the current
applications of optical media, but those are in the future.
Even of the media are very long lasting there remains
the problem of being able to recover it and decode it. The
concern here is being able to duplicate the mechanism, both
mechanical and electronic, needed for such recovery, at some
time in the distant future. Of course, the same thing
applies to photographic materials but is not so obvious.
Photographic materials have been enormously improved but not
changed in principal for nearly two centuries. The process
is very stable, the oldest photographic records can be read
by eye and can be duplicated with modern materials. However,
if we consider a future time, when photographic materials
will no longer be available commercially, a problem similar
to digital will exist. That is, it might be necessary to
make a photographic material in order to recover and
preserve existing information. The technology of the
photograhic chemistry needed to make modern materials is not
trivial and may be more difficult to duplicate in the
distant future than precision machinery (disc drive) and
electronic circuits capable of emulating the older coding
technology. The reason is that the old digital technology
may then be closer to the practice of the time than chemical
methods.
Those requiring genuine archival storage (100 plus years)
may have to resort to parallel storage methods and, at least
for digital, the frequent transfer of data to newer media
and methods.
I have been taken to task in the past for stating that I
think digital and computer technology is still in a very
early stage of development but I stand by this judgement. We
only think computers are very advanced because we can't see
the future.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

[Jerry Lehrer]

Steven,

Look, forget serial numbers, If it has a 3.5 Planar it is a Bay II.

End of discussion.

Jerry

Post by steven woody
i hope you're right. but it seems the web page you refered don't list
3.5E at all, it might be possible that the serial number range it
http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm, you will find,
Start End S/N Prochnow Parker Evans
...
1.740.000 1.787.999 Rolleiflex 3,5 C Rolleiflex 3.5 E Rolleiflex 3.5 E
(type 1)
so still no evidence to confirm my serial number is a 3.5E not 3.5C, is it?

Post by Jeff Kelley
http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm
http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35_TLR.htm
Both the above links show your serial number as a 3.5E made approximately
1956.
Bay II according to the chart.
-Jeff-

Post by steven woody
some info of the camera,
1, the serial number is 1748514

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

--
¡¦ ¡¦ ¡ñ
¡¦ ¨Ž ¡¦
¨ áê¨Ú©d¦ç
¨‰¨‰ ©¯ ©¯
¨}¨|¨{¨z¨y¨x¨y¨z¨{¨z¨y¨x¨y¨z¨{¨|¨}¨~¨}©¯¨}©«
Ìý,´óº£µÄÉùÒô... ¨u ¨u
F‰ez"â>‹-¶Šè–W¢–+-~·ž–+-²ŠàJæìr¸›y«k¢Y^ŠX¬¶·ª¹ë-~·ž–+-²ŠàÂ+a²æìr¸›z)í…ë.n7œµøž•Ó‘o)h‚§‚)í£0~·ž–+-²ŠàR{.nÇ+‰·š¶º%•è¥ŠËkz«ž²×ëyéb²Û(®"¶§²æìr¸›z)í…ë.n7œµøž•Ó‘o)h‚§‚)í£0~·ž–+-²Šà:ybëj·!i¹^j·!Š÷¬j·š½¨¥i¹^jØm¶Ÿÿí祊Ël¢¸?j·!Š÷¬þº%•è¥
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/390 - Release Date: 07/17/2006

[s***@dds.nl]

Post by steven woody
so still no evidence to confirm my serial number is a 3.5E not 3.5C, is it?

AFAIK, the 3.5C and 3.5E are the same model. Prochnow calls this the 3.5C
while other calls this the C. Overall, the 3.5 series does niet have the same
logical alphabetical model sequence as the 2.8 models.

Siu Fai

[Jerry Lehrer]

Jeff,

Yes, but there are TWO different sizes of Bay II lenscaps.

You should be able to find them easily. I had both kinds
available but there was only one taker,

Jerry

Post by Jeff Kelley
http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm
http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35_TLR.htm
Both the above links show your serial number as a 3.5E made approximately
1956.
Bay II according to the chart.
-Jeff-

Post by steven woody
some info of the camera,
1, the serial number is 1748514

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/390 - Release Date: 07/17/2006

[Peter J Nebergall]

My first wife helped develop the IBM Displaywriter, with its 2 8-inch
floppies, the "toaster" -- ever even SEEN an 8-inch floppy? And I'm not
that ancient.

Pick up an 8 year old 3.5 floppy. Odds are it will be DS, and you can't
rven read it. Unless you regularly transfer data, hard drive to hard
drive, digital data is FAR MORE FRAGILE than the human memory. At least
it takes 75+ years for a human to become obsolete...

Its all just a way for manufacturers to shove you the latest trendy &^%$.
"Practical?" who you kiddin? Whatever can be portrayed as fashionable
to the rich and clueless...

PJ Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley
Carlos, museums and similar organizations have struggled with this
issue of
digital archiving for decades. It is not easily solved.
I think it telling that I can still easily view and print my
great-grandfather's film negatives but can no longer access 5.25
inch
computer floppy diskettes that I, myself, produced not that many
years
ago....
-Jeff-

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site about
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading the
article are that film and microfilm are still the best
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very expensive
in part because they demand an upgrading for short

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
All the best
Carlos
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Jeff Kelley]

Peter, I agree with what you write.

I worked as an Engineer with Sony for several years. I was dealling with
CDROM hardware and software when it first appeared. A blank CD cost about
$30 then. That's $30 EACH!

CDROM is no different than hard drive technology as far as how fragile it
is. I've had several failures of GOLD CDROMs over the years. These were
state-of-the-art-quality gold blanks, stored in cases, in the dark, at
normal room temperatures and humidity.

These were verified byte by byte as good when written and stored, but when
pulled out of storage approximately 5 years later were unreadable. It was
random and occasional but scared me enough to never trust priceless stuff to
any digital backup method unless making two or three redundant copies. I've
had my share of hard drive failures as well....

I've actually reverted to film for much of my photography after going
digital a few years back. I was down to one 35mm film camera last year but
now have 2 medium format systems, one being my Rolleiflex MX-EVS, and 3 35mm
film cameras.

Our grandchildren won't be seeing many photos of their grandparents in 30
years if those photos are being stored digitally.

I can't read an 8 inch floppy disk, or play a spool of wire recorded on a
wire-recorder. In 30 years, my grandkids will no doubt look at my DVD R+
disc and wonder what in the world it might be.

-Jeff-

Post by Peter J Nebergall
My first wife helped develop the IBM Displaywriter, with its 2 8-inch
floppies, the "toaster" -- ever even SEEN an 8-inch floppy? And I'm not
that ancient.
Pick up an 8 year old 3.5 floppy. Odds are it will be DS, and you can't
rven read it. Unless you regularly transfer data, hard drive to hard
drive, digital data is FAR MORE FRAGILE than the human memory. At least
it takes 75+ years for a human to become obsolete...
Its all just a way for manufacturers to shove you the latest trendy &^%$.
"Practical?" who you kiddin? Whatever can be portrayed as fashionable
to the rich and clueless...
PJ Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley
Carlos, museums and similar organizations have struggled with this
issue of
digital archiving for decades. It is not easily solved.
I think it telling that I can still easily view and print my
great-grandfather's film negatives but can no longer access 5.25
inch
computer floppy diskettes that I, myself, produced not that many
years
ago....
-Jeff-

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site about
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading the
article are that film and microfilm are still the best
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very expensive
in part because they demand an upgrading for short

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
All the best
Carlos
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Craig Roberts]

I''m sure this has been mentioned before, but....

I just upgraded my SL66 considerably for less than $150.00. I bought a
Kiev TTL metering prism from an eBay vendor and installed an SL66
adapter on it that I obtained from Rolf-Dieter Baier
(www.baierphoto.com). The prism fits perfectly, meters accurately
(after easy calibration with my Luna Pro) and has increased the
convenience of my camera dramatically .

Herr Baier also sells the Kiev prisms -- both unmetered and metered --
with the Rollei adapters (for both TLR and SL66 models) installed. His
service is friendly and his shipping is very fast. I ordered my adapter
this past Saturday and received it this morning (Wednesday) with no
unusual express charges.

Thanks,

Craig
Washington, DC

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Kelley" <***@hotmail.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve
archives

Post by Jeff Kelley
Peter, I agree with what you write.
I worked as an Engineer with Sony for several years. I
was dealling with CDROM hardware and software when it
first appeared. A blank CD cost about $30 then. That's
$30 EACH!
CDROM is no different than hard drive technology as far as
how fragile it is. I've had several failures of GOLD
CDROMs over the years. These were
state-of-the-art-quality gold blanks, stored in cases, in
the dark, at normal room temperatures and humidity.
These were verified byte by byte as good when written and
stored, but when pulled out of storage approximately 5
years later were unreadable. It was random and occasional
but scared me enough to never trust priceless stuff to any
digital backup method unless making two or three redundant
copies. I've had my share of hard drive failures as
well....
I've actually reverted to film for much of my photography
after going digital a few years back. I was down to one
35mm film camera last year but now have 2 medium format
systems, one being my Rolleiflex MX-EVS, and 3 35mm film
cameras.
Our grandchildren won't be seeing many photos of their
grandparents in 30 years if those photos are being stored
digitally.
I can't read an 8 inch floppy disk, or play a spool of
wire recorded on a wire-recorder. In 30 years, my
grandkids will no doubt look at my DVD R+ disc and wonder
what in the world it might be.
-Jeff-

It is possible to find wire recorders in working
condition, I know of at least three which belong to friends.
The quality of the recovered sound may not be so good but it
can be recovered.
The chances of fifty-five year old wire being playable is
pretty good, probably better than tape from the 1970's or
80's, which has some notorious problems.
The two main brands of wire recorders were
Webster-Chicago and Pentron. These machines often had built
in radio tuners and means to play phonograph records. I
don't know if the recordings were compatible from machine to
machine.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Jerry Lehrer]

Peter,

Obsolete, am I? I just started a full time job in Aerospace engineering
the day after my 77th birthday!!

Jerry

Post by Peter J Nebergall
My first wife helped develop the IBM Displaywriter, with its 2 8-inch
floppies, the "toaster" -- ever even SEEN an 8-inch floppy? And I'm not
that ancient.
Pick up an 8 year old 3.5 floppy. Odds are it will be DS, and you can't
rven read it. Unless you regularly transfer data, hard drive to hard
drive, digital data is FAR MORE FRAGILE than the human memory. At least
it takes 75+ years for a human to become obsolete...
Its all just a way for manufacturers to shove you the latest trendy &^%$.
"Practical?" who you kiddin? Whatever can be portrayed as fashionable
to the rich and clueless...
PJ Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley
Carlos, museums and similar organizations have struggled with this
issue of
digital archiving for decades. It is not easily solved.
I think it telling that I can still easily view and print my
great-grandfather's film negatives but can no longer access 5.25
inch
computer floppy diskettes that I, myself, produced not that many
years
ago....
-Jeff-

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site about
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading the
article are that film and microfilm are still the best
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very expensive
in part because they demand an upgrading for short

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
All the best
Carlos
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 07/18/2006

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Lehrer" <***@pacbell.net>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve
archives

Post by Jeff Kelley
Peter,
Obsolete, am I? I just started a full time job in
Aerospace engineering
the day after my 77th birthday!!
Jerry

Congratulations both on the job and the birthday. I hope
you are around for a lot longer.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Jim Brick]

How did you do that?

Do you have an H1-B visa? ;-)

Jim

Post by Jeff Kelley
Peter,
Obsolete, am I? I just started a full time job in Aerospace engineering
the day after my 77th birthday!!
Jerry

[A. Lal]

Perhaps Jerry is heading a US based outsourcing operation for an
aerospacecompany headquarted in the Far East? I expect they are looking to
take advantage of very bright, but lower cost surplus engineering labour in
the US.

:-).



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brick" <***@brick.org>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve archives

Post by Jim Brick
How did you do that?
Do you have an H1-B visa? ;-)
Jim

Post by Jeff Kelley
Peter,
Obsolete, am I? I just started a full time job in Aerospace engineering
the day after my 77th birthday!!
Jerry

---
Rollei List
subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
__________ NOD32 1.1668 (20060719) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

[Jerry Lehrer]

Akhil,

I guarantee that I am not lower cost engineering labour!

Jerry

Post by A. Lal
Perhaps Jerry is heading a US based outsourcing operation for an
aerospacecompany headquarted in the Far East? I expect they are looking to
take advantage of very bright, but lower cost surplus engineering labour in
the US.
:-).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve archives

Post by Jim Brick
How did you do that?
Do you have an H1-B visa? ;-)
Jim

Post by Jeff Kelley
Peter,
Obsolete, am I? I just started a full time job in Aerospace engineering
the day after my 77th birthday!!
Jerry

---
Rollei List
subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
__________ NOD32 1.1668 (20060719) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 07/18/2006

[Jeffery Smith]

After cleaning up a Rolleiflex using the products y'all suggested to me last
week, I posted a brief review of them on my blog if you are interested.

http://400tx.blogspot.com/

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA
http://www.400tx.com
http://400tx.blogspot.com/

[Richard Knoppow]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffery Smith" <***@runbox.com>
To: <***@freelists.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 1:13 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Pecard and Lexol leather care (on
Rolleis)

Post by Jeffery Smith
After cleaning up a Rolleiflex using the products y'all
suggested to me last
week, I posted a brief review of them on my blog if you
are interested.
http://400tx.blogspot.com/
Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA
http://www.400tx.com
http://400tx.blogspot.com/
---

It would be interesting to know more about the
ingredients of Pecard dressing compared to Lexol. Lexol MSDS
just says it contains no hazardous ingredients, Pecard does
not seem to have on-line MSDS and I can't find them
elswhere. I suspect the two may not be much different.
I suggest reading the material on leather at the
Conservation On Line site <http://palimpsest.stanford.edu>
for more about dressings. Evidently the use of wax is
controversial. These two dressings appear not to contain
wax.
Another source of these products is tack shops for those
who live in horse country.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
***@ix.netcom.com

[Jerry Lehrer]

Jim,

Ummm--- WTF is an H1-B visa? I use Master Charge or AMEX.

Jerry

Post by Jim Brick
How did you do that?
Do you have an H1-B visa? ;-)
Jim

Post by Jeff Kelley
Peter,
Obsolete, am I? I just started a full time job in Aerospace engineering
the day after my 77th birthday!!
Jerry

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 07/18/2006

[Jim Brick]

Post by Jerry Lehrer
Ummm--- WTF is an H1-B visa? I use Master Charge or AMEX.

http://www.usavisanow.com/h1bvisafaq.html

http://www.onlypunjab.com

[Jerry Lehrer]

Jim,

Now he tells me!

The only visas that I have ever had were to work in Japan, Israel,
France and Taiwan. I never thought I needed one to work in the
US.

Jerry

Post by Jim Brick

Post by Jerry Lehrer
Ummm--- WTF is an H1-B visa? I use Master Charge or AMEX.

http://www.usavisanow.com/h1bvisafaq.html
http://www.onlypunjab.com
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 07/18/2006

[Peter K.]

You mean in Southern California you need a Visa these days? Man, has SD and
LA changed. :-)

Post by Jerry Lehrer
Jim,
Now he tells me!
The only visas that I have ever had were to work in Japan, Israel,
France and Taiwan. I never thought I needed one to work in the
US.
Jerry

Post by Jim Brick

Post by Jerry Lehrer
Ummm--- WTF is an H1-B visa? I use Master Charge or AMEX.

http://www.usavisanow.com/h1bvisafaq.html
http://www.onlypunjab.com
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.

07/18/2006
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Neil Gould]

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:07:11 -0400
Folks, we've had this discussion before (ad nauseum). It's all in the
archives. If there were a secure and reliable method of digital
archiving, museums across the known universe would be using it and the
Library of Congress would be spending $40 Million to find it. It does
not exists.

Exactly!

If there were a secure and reliable method of digital archiving, we could
read the archives of the previous discussions on this topic. ;-)

Neil

[Eric Goldstein]

:-) Good point. A list I'm on is experiencing archive failure even as
we speak...

BTW my original post should read "Library of Congress would_N'T_ be
spending $40 Million" to find a digital archival solution. They are,
because thur far it does not exist.


Eric Goldstein

--

Post by Neil Gould

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:07:11 -0400
Folks, we've had this discussion before (ad nauseum). It's all in the
archives. If there were a secure and reliable method of digital
archiving, museums across the known universe would be using it and the
Library of Congress would be spending $40 Million to find it. It does
not exists.

Exactly!
If there were a secure and reliable method of digital archiving, we could
read the archives of the previous discussions on this topic. ;-)
Neil

[Nick Roberts]

I should add that I wasn't referring to digital archiving in the strict sense, nor for public bodies in any sense - but that for a home user, it's not actually that onerous and can actually increase the security of one's images. I am in complete agreement with everything that has been said concerning genuine archiving, and of course if I were to pop my clogs tomorrow there is no guarantee that anyone would find my digitally-stored images, wherease my film archive could not be missed. I'm not in any way trying to suggest that digital is superior to film in any way, merely that for home users, this issue of storage is overplayed.

Nick

----- Original Message ----
From: Eric Goldstein <***@gmail.com>
To: ***@freelists.org
Sent: Thursday, 20 July, 2006 2:20:44 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Film vs Digital to preserve archives


:-) Good point. A list I'm on is experiencing archive failure even as
we speak...

BTW my original post should read "Library of Congress would_N'T_ be
spending $40 Million" to find a digital archival solution. They are,
because thur far it does not exist.


Eric Goldstein

--

Post by Neil Gould

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:07:11 -0400
Folks, we've had this discussion before (ad nauseum). It's all in the
archives. If there were a secure and reliable method of digital
archiving, museums across the known universe would be using it and the
Library of Congress would be spending $40 Million to find it. It does
not exists.

Exactly!
If there were a secure and reliable method of digital archiving, we could
read the archives of the previous discussions on this topic. ;-)
Neil

---
Rollei List

- Post to ***@freelists.org

- Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Jeffery Smith]

Does the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (Rolleiflex 2.8F Coupled
meter 2451851-......... III 1969 ) have a selenium meter or a CdS
meter (requiring a battery)?

Jeffery

[Carlos Manuel Freaza]

Except for the GX/FX, all Rolleiflex TLR cameras with
lightmeter use selenium cells. There was a complete
prototype, an impressive camera, that had a Cds
lightmeter, but it was never manufactured for the
market.-

All the best
Carlos

Post by Jeffery Smith
Does the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (Rolleiflex 2.8F
Coupled
meter 2451851-......... III 1969 ) have a selenium
meter or a CdS
meter (requiring a battery)?
Jeffery
---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

[Jeffery Smith]

Allen, Carlos, thanks much. Are there still parts
available for these meters, or do they have to be
cannibalized from old, broken cameras?

Jeffery

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
Except for the GX/FX, all Rolleiflex TLR cameras with
lightmeter use selenium cells. There was a complete
prototype, an impressive camera, that had a Cds
lightmeter, but it was never manufactured for the
market.-
All the best
Carlos

Post by Jeffery Smith
Does the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (Rolleiflex 2.8F
Coupled
meter 2451851-......... III 1969 ) have a selenium
meter or a CdS
meter (requiring a battery)?
Jeffery
---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Carlos Manuel Freaza]

The lightmeter replacement parts are becoming
difficult to find, the selenium cells specially.
I remember three or four years ago Marflex had new
selenium cells even for the large and rare Rolleimagic
lightmeter, but I don't know now, perhaps Todd on this
list, perhaps Harry F, perhaps Jurgen K, perhaps
Klikor...

All the best
Carlos

Post by Jeffery Smith
Allen, Carlos, thanks much. Are there still parts
available for these meters, or do they have to be
cannibalized from old, broken cameras?
Jeffery

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
Except for the GX/FX, all Rolleiflex TLR cameras

with

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
lightmeter use selenium cells. There was a complete
prototype, an impressive camera, that had a Cds
lightmeter, but it was never manufactured for the
market.-
All the best
Carlos

Post by Jeffery Smith
Does the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (Rolleiflex 2.8F
Coupled
meter 2451851-......... III 1969 ) have a

selenium

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza

Post by Jeffery Smith
meter or a CdS
meter (requiring a battery)?
Jeffery
---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List

with 'subscribe'

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org
with

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging

into www.freelists.org

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

[b***@ens2m.fr]

Post by Jeffery Smith
Does the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (Rolleiflex 2.8F Coupled
meter 2451851-......... III 1969 ) have a selenium meter or a CdS
meter (requiring a battery)?
Jeffery

Even if most 2,8F and 3,5F models were fitted with a selenium meter,
it is not uncommon to find those F-models without meter on the second
hand market. I mean a real F model, not an E-model.

I think in the sixties you could buy a F-model without meter.

or those you find now without meter might have been stripped off ther
metering system.

[Nick Roberts]

My 3.5F Planar is meterless - I suspect they muet've left the meter out of the lower-quality versions. ;)

Nick

----- Original Message ----
From: ***@ens2m.fr
To: ***@freelists.org
Sent: Thursday, 20 July, 2006 4:15:49 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar, some do not have a meter

Post by Jeffery Smith
Does the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (Rolleiflex 2.8F Coupled
meter 2451851-......... III 1969 ) have a selenium meter or a CdS
meter (requiring a battery)?
Jeffery

Even if most 2,8F and 3,5F models were fitted with a selenium meter,
it is not uncommon to find those F-models without meter on the second
hand market. I mean a real F model, not an E-model.

I think in the sixties you could buy a F-model without meter.

or those you find now without meter might have been stripped off ther
metering system.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
<***@ens2m.fr>
---
Rollei List

- Post to ***@freelists.org

- Subscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-***@freelists.org with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Jerry Lehrer]

Manny,

Some people think that 2.8F cameras built without meters were called
2.8E3.

Jerry

Post by b***@ens2m.fr

Post by Jeffery Smith
Does the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (Rolleiflex 2.8F Coupled
meter 2451851-......... III 1969 ) have a selenium meter or a CdS
meter (requiring a battery)?
Jeffery

Even if most 2,8F and 3,5F models were fitted with a selenium meter,
it is not uncommon to find those F-models without meter on the second
hand market. I mean a real F model, not an E-model.
I think in the sixties you could buy a F-model without meter.
or those you find now without meter might have been stripped off ther
metering system.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 07/18/2006

[Don Williams]

Post by Nick Roberts
I should add that I wasn't referring to digital archiving in the
strict sense, nor for public bodies in any sense - but that for a
home user, it's not actually that onerous and can actually increase
the security of one's images. I am in complete agreement with
everything that has been said concerning genuine archiving, and of
course if I were to pop my clogs tomorrow there is no guarantee that
anyone would find my digitally-stored images, whereas my film
archive could not be missed. I'm not in any way trying to suggest
that digital is superior to film in any way, merely that for home
users, this issue of storage is overplayed.
Nick

There's a nice article about backup of home computers in the current
issue of Consumer Reports.

Only problem for me is that they discuss 200-300 Gb backup
devices. I have 6 200-300 Gb drives in my system, admittedly all far
from full, however.

Anyone every try the free (was free) Microsoft OneCare system. It
does a nice job of picking out files to backup (digital photo files
and financial files for example) and backs them up only when they
change. OneCare is mentioned in Consumer Reports with a comment that
it will be review in detail in a future issue. I think when you
combine the free (for now) Microsoft Defender, with OneCare, you get
a pretty stable system and a good set of backup programs.

DAW



Don Williams
La Jolla, CA

[WILLIAM SCHILLEREFF]

anyone home these days

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

[ERoustom]

Home is where you store your film.

Post by WILLIAM SCHILLEREFF
anyone home these days
_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office
Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Jerry Lehrer]

Post by WILLIAM SCHILLEREFF
anyone home these days
_________________________________________________________________
William et al,

Yes, I am home, weeding thru over 200 messages from the LUG and just TWO
from the RUG.

Jerry Lehrer

[Peter J Nebergall]

My dad is still commanding ships, and he is in his 80s. my friend Leni
Riefenstahl put out her last film (asked Dad to review it -- IMPRESSIONEN
UNTER WASSER) at age 100... But I know too many folks who are kaputt at
72 or so... I did say 75+ years...

Sorta like my National Graflex... Average age of my cameras is about
1940...
and I prefer the lenses that don't have that blue stuff on the glass...

P.J. Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley
Peter,
Obsolete, am I? I just started a full time job in Aerospace
engineering
the day after my 77th birthday!!
Jerry

Post by Peter J Nebergall
My first wife helped develop the IBM Displaywriter, with its 2

8-inch

Post by Peter J Nebergall
floppies, the "toaster" -- ever even SEEN an 8-inch floppy? And

I'm not

Post by Peter J Nebergall
that ancient.
Pick up an 8 year old 3.5 floppy. Odds are it will be DS, and you

can't

Post by Peter J Nebergall
rven read it. Unless you regularly transfer data, hard drive to

hard

Post by Peter J Nebergall
drive, digital data is FAR MORE FRAGILE than the human memory. At

least

Post by Peter J Nebergall
it takes 75+ years for a human to become obsolete...
Its all just a way for manufacturers to shove you the latest

trendy &^%$.

Post by Peter J Nebergall
"Practical?" who you kiddin? Whatever can be portrayed as

fashionable

Post by Peter J Nebergall
to the rich and clueless...
PJ Nebergall
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:00:46 -0700 "Jeff Kelley"

Post by Jeff Kelley
Carlos, museums and similar organizations have struggled with

this

Post by Peter J Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley
issue of
digital archiving for decades. It is not easily solved.
I think it telling that I can still easily view and print my
great-grandfather's film negatives but can no longer access 5.25
inch
computer floppy diskettes that I, myself, produced not that many
years
ago....
-Jeff-

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site about
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading the
article are that film and microfilm are still the best
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very expensive
in part because they demand an upgrading for short

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html

Post by Peter J Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
All the best
Carlos
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List

'subscribe'

Post by Peter J Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org

Post by Peter J Nebergall
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.

07/18/2006
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[Jerry Lehrer]

Peter,

Right! In the words of G. Marx, "If I knew I was going to live this long, I
would
have taken better care of myself".

Jerry

Post by Peter J Nebergall
My dad is still commanding ships, and he is in his 80s. my friend Leni
Riefenstahl put out her last film (asked Dad to review it -- IMPRESSIONEN
UNTER WASSER) at age 100... But I know too many folks who are kaputt at
72 or so... I did say 75+ years...
Sorta like my National Graflex... Average age of my cameras is about
1940...
and I prefer the lenses that don't have that blue stuff on the glass...
P.J. Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley
Peter,
Obsolete, am I? I just started a full time job in Aerospace
engineering
the day after my 77th birthday!!
Jerry

Post by Peter J Nebergall
My first wife helped develop the IBM Displaywriter, with its 2

8-inch

Post by Peter J Nebergall
floppies, the "toaster" -- ever even SEEN an 8-inch floppy? And

I'm not

Post by Peter J Nebergall
that ancient.
Pick up an 8 year old 3.5 floppy. Odds are it will be DS, and you

can't

Post by Peter J Nebergall
rven read it. Unless you regularly transfer data, hard drive to

hard

Post by Peter J Nebergall
drive, digital data is FAR MORE FRAGILE than the human memory. At

least

Post by Peter J Nebergall
it takes 75+ years for a human to become obsolete...
Its all just a way for manufacturers to shove you the latest

trendy &^%$.

Post by Peter J Nebergall
"Practical?" who you kiddin? Whatever can be portrayed as

fashionable

Post by Peter J Nebergall
to the rich and clueless...
PJ Nebergall
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:00:46 -0700 "Jeff Kelley"

Post by Jeff Kelley
Carlos, museums and similar organizations have struggled with

this

Post by Peter J Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley
issue of
digital archiving for decades. It is not easily solved.
I think it telling that I can still easily view and print my
great-grandfather's film negatives but can no longer access 5.25
inch
computer floppy diskettes that I, myself, produced not that many
years
ago....
-Jeff-

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
The RUG Digistar archives loss due to a disk crack
recalled me the issue about to image and data in
general preservation; I found an official site about
the issue containing an expert conference on the
topic, some of my very general conclusions reading the
article are that film and microfilm are still the best
and cheapest way to archive images and documents,
however the fact digital technology is producing
valuable documents requires to establish systems to
preserve these documents and they are very expensive
in part because they demand an upgrading for short

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/conferences/papers-2003/puglia.html

Post by Peter J Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
All the best
Carlos
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List

'subscribe'

Post by Peter J Nebergall

Post by Jeff Kelley

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org

Post by Carlos Manuel Freaza
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org

Post by Peter J Nebergall
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.

07/18/2006
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 07/18/2006

[Allen Graves]

Selenium.

Allen
--- Original Message ---
From: Jeffery Smith <***@runbox.com>
To: ***@freelists.org
Subject: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar

Post by Jeffery Smith
Does the Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (Rolleiflex 2.8F

Coupled

Post by Jeffery Smith
meter 2451851-......... III 1969 ) have a selenium

meter or a CdS

Post by Jeffery Smith
meter (requiring a battery)?
Jeffery
---
Rollei List

with 'subscribe'

Post by Jeffery Smith
in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org
with

Post by Jeffery Smith
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into

www.freelists.org

Post by Jeffery Smith
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

[John Lehman]

Post by Craig Roberts
I just upgraded my SL66 considerably for less than $150.00. I bought

a

Post by Craig Roberts
Kiev TTL metering prism from .... Rolf-Dieter Baier
(www.baierphoto.com). The prism ... has increased the
convenience of my camera dramatically .
Herr Baier also sells the Kiev prisms -- both unmetered and metered

--

Post by Craig Roberts
with the Rollei adapters (for both TLR and SL66 models) installed....

I got one for my E3 TLR when he first came out with the TLR model -- it
is great, and he is a pleasure to deal with.

John Lehman
College, Alaska USA

[Ruben]

http://www.baierfoto.de/index.html#english this link will get you there
:-) ruben

Post by John Lehman

Post by Craig Roberts
I just upgraded my SL66 considerably for less than $150.00. I bought

a

Post by Craig Roberts
Kiev TTL metering prism from .... Rolf-Dieter Baier
(www.baierphoto.com). The prism ... has increased the
convenience of my camera dramatically .
Herr Baier also sells the Kiev prisms -- both unmetered and metered

--

Post by Craig Roberts
with the Rollei adapters (for both TLR and SL66 models) installed....

I got one for my E3 TLR when he first came out with the TLR model -- it
is great, and he is a pleasure to deal with.
John Lehman
College, Alaska USA
---
Rollei List
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denne meddelelse er IKKE blevet klassificeret som spam. Hvis denne e-mail er uønsket (spam), kan du klassificere den igen ved at klikke på dette hyperlink: http://127.0.0.1:6083/Panda?ID=pav_38174&SPAM=true
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Peter J Nebergall]

Post by Peter K.
You mean in Southern California you need a Visa these days? Man, has
SD and
LA changed. :-)

Why is this not a surprise? Hey, its another planet out there! You need
a political test and a loyalty oath too...

PJ Nebergall

[Bob McClelland]

Sorry for the OT posting, but you guys are more likely than anyone else to
know about availability of this item:

I'm looking for a quick focus ring that would work on my 18-70mm AF Nikkor.
The ring is quite small and hard to find for manual focusing and would
benefit from such an aid. The diameter is 66mm.

Anyone know of such an item?

Many Thanks,

Bob McClelland