Photography for Profit or Fun

More Mamiya RB67 Pictures and a Third Party Review

   

Above lenses go to my first RB67 Pro, recently listed in Ebay. The pictures below all go to the second RB67 Pro-S just lited. Both cameras, lenses and, backs are in good to excellent shape.

 

 

(90 mm Lens from my first RB67 Pro pictured last, RB67 Pro-S Pictured Second.

The excerpt from this site, tickled me a little, as I thought myself the only camera writer to equate cameras to other things, such as automobiles, rifles, or even people. This writer declares big as better, when referring to the RB67. In this he also shares my understanding of the benefits of large cameras as stressed thoughout my blog. The whole article is worth the read if one desires to know more about the Mamiya RB67.

CeanImages.com.

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/12/mamiya-shakes-things-up-with-the-rb67-camera-system-in-1970.htmlYou may be thinking that I'm a little nutty for writing about big cars, when you wanted to read about RB67 cameras. But, I am trying to make a point…big is better! If a http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2009/01/cleanimagescom p

On

One of the above 120 backs has a slide and one does not. One is in good condition--showing slight rust on hinges, the other is excellent. The better of the two 120 backs anlong with another pictured with the camera in the other post--goes with the first camera (not this one).

And finally, the other 120 back and polorodid back goes with the cameraq in these pictures. It is the Mamiya Pro-Steeny Toyota, I bet they use a little "point and shoot" 35mm. Not me! I like big cars, big lenses, big negatives, and big cameras. (No…my wife is normal size) Something about that bigness transmits a feeling of quality that few little things in life can. I do have a soft spot for my Nikon cameras, but I bet you can't guess that I use a Nikon F5, a BIG, heavy 35mm professional camera. The RB67 is a big camera. Some say it is a studio only camera, but I have

 not found that to be the case. I use my RB in the Great Smoky Mountains for nature and landscape work. While not as convenient as a little 35mm, the b ig, d

http://stores.ebay.com/Military-Optics-Vintage-Camera-Saleit

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photographhttp://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/12/mamiya-shakes-things-up-with-the-rb67-camera-system-in-1970.htmly_for_profit_or/2008/12/mamiya-shakes-t

Vintage TLR's EVERYWHERE! Common & Unusual

 Until I do this check out this series of links.

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/12/rollei-6x6-twin-lens-reflex-cameras.html

Asahi Pentax 6x7, 67, 67 II

This is another resource link regarding the previous post.

Asahi Pentax 6x7, 67, 67 II.

Pentax 67 SLR Camera

". . . it is one of the cult classics. They are being snatched up left and right."

I thought writing this review would be a cinch. I lived it. But writing the review was much like the actual advent of this interesting and stable workhorse camera. That is, anti-climactic. I had a hard time actually pegging this guy. I long anticipated its arrival, I have used it sufficiently to know it well, and yet I still don't really know where to fit it. I like it. It does some jobs, if not most, very well.But if I had to hypothetically have done without any one camera that I have used professionally in my lifetime--this great little gigantic camera would probably be it. I'll try to help you understand why.  

". . . writing the review was much like the actual advent of this interesting and stable workhorse camera. That is, anti-climactic."

But regardless of my own personal experiences and my conclusions, this camera has made an immovable case for itself in the minds and hearts of many users--to the extent that it is one of the cult classics. They are being snatched up left and right. They are actually very hard to find now, and command a good price as a collector.

I could could clean this one up--not that ti is actually dirty--but the large black lens housings in particular seem to collect  all the little scratches into one big scratch-fest. It is all cosmetic, because you can barely damage one of these by dropping from one of those U-2 spy-planes I often cuss myself for not getting a photograph of when I was in the fifth grade thirty miles above the Arctic Circle in a BIA School in Kotzebue, Alaska.

       

Back in the day, as we say, in this case referring to the late fifties and early sixties, there seemed to be ths expectation among many photographers that any time now we are going to have a blown-up big brother to the 35mm camera design. Little thought was given or even know about the design and manufacture challenges such a camera would pose. We did know that a Hasselblad cost way more than many of us could afford, so it seemed reasonable to assume that a medium format camera made like those less-expensive 35mm cameras would not cost near as much and would function just fine.

 

Well, in 1969 it finally came to pass. Pentax, a fairly well-known and respected name in photography came out with our dream camera. It was in almost every regard an over-grown 35mm camera that took 120 film and made the so-called ideal format, 6cm x 7cm.

(You know, they told us in Miss Kanopka's 4th grade class back in 1962, I think, that we all had to learn the metric system, and quickly, because it would all switch over from the English System. That's also the year they introduced so-called new math. New math never flew.I don't even know what it was. And all that stuff about the metric system, was either a big fat lie, or grossly miscalculated. But poor little dumb me--expend all those brain cells actually learning the Metric System--probably because I had a hard crush on Miss Kanoka. So, for those who still don't know, 1 inch is approximately 2.546cm. Can you Metrics make the reverse conversion?)

"We did know that a Hasselblad cost way more than many of us could afford. . ."

The ideal format meant that it was ideal for making an 8x10 print, then so popular, without any cropping. This rationale is debatable, but it has its proponents even today.

Although the Pentax 6x7 Camera did create a lot of excitement, it was greatly difussed by quite a number of other medium format designs, mostly knock-offs or at least inspirational design children of the Hasselblad designs. And since weddings was one of the big driving forces behind the need in the market-place for such cameras, interchangeable backs were the order of the day.

If you were not around then, we had no such luxuries of computers and PhotoShop back in the stone-age. Creative photographer-marketers had used what they had to make double and triple exposure magic as it were yo enhance their competitive edge. This became the consumers' expectations and consequently it became the wedding photographers' need--to have interchangeable backs.

There were also the medium format range finder cameras in full evolution such as the Konica-Omega Rapid and the Mamiya 23 series of cameras. Also, by sandwiching negatives to provide a similar effect as a double-exposure, coupled with the capabilities of many TLR medium format cameras to double expose back-to-back images, creative outcomes were not so hard to do.

Any decent creative photographer of this vintage could use a 35mm camera to produce double exposures and a host of other camera magic which was faddish, but essential for time.  But only some of these techniques could be replicated with the Pentax 67. Had this camera come out just a few year's earlier, it would undoubtedly have changed the course of photogrpahic history. As it were, it only made a mild impact, and generated only a mild demand.

The Pentax 67 was build on the same design principles and actual frame, although inflated, as was the famous Pentax Spotmatic 35mm cameras, which was one of the great landmark camera designs for several reasons. I'm nor saying that the Pentax 67 camera was a lousy camera, far from it, it was and is a great camera--but I am saying that for many photographers of this era--it was simply too little, too late.

"Had this camera come out just a few year's earlier, it would undoubtedly have changed the course of photogrpahic history."

After all , Hasselblad had been immortalized by all the press and advertising mileage as being "good enough for the moon astronauts", Bronica and Kowa among others had formidable medium format design options, Mamiya was rumored to be about to release what became known as the RB 67, newer better models of the "press cameras, seemed to be coming out almost monthly, four pr five Mamiya C-330's could be purchased for the same amount as one Pentax 67. And there were other things on the horizon. And this is all saying nothing of what was available behind the curtain in the East.

That the well-designed Pentax 67 was sold at all against such a back-drop, is a testament of its quality, uniqueness, and sheer toughness. The essentially same camera, with very few tweaks was still being manufactured and sold steadily twenty years later. In the ever-changing camera world, this is no small feat. So what makes this camera a contender in the aforesaid environment?

The camera has been referred to as the behemoth and the the Arnold Terminator (can't spell it) of cameras. The following link give a good overview of the history of the Pentax 67 if you want all the technical dope. For me, it suffices my needs to say that the camera is tough as nails. I won't say that it is indestructible, but when I have needed a really tough medium-format camera within an almost disposable price-range ($600---$1200 most recently over the Internet with a couple of lenses), offering excellent optics, lens interchangeability, fast on the draw, and easy to operate--this has often been my

choice.

 

Because of my incurable addiction to the advantages of medium-format over 35mm, the Pentax 67 has been my number one choice for adventure photography and wild-life photography. I have not often achieved the apex of my quintessential goals of my ideal photographer--established when I was but a teen and young adult--but I HAVE almost always tried to do so. This has necessarily injected me into virtually every crazy situation or cause on this planet. 

So please understand that when I mention Adventure Photography--it is not said as a casual endeavor. That this camera could begin to stand up to the rigors that I expect out of a camera required to follow me around during portions of my life is not so much an endorsement as it is an admission. I never really liked the camera--for no good reason except that they were late to market.

 

As a field camera, if we digress to that as a particular kind of camera today,the Pentax can't be beat. Given the one big improvement since origination--namely the mirror lock-up system--the camera is also hard to beat for landscapes, and is at least usable professionally in the studio.

Although I have owned but one of these cameras, I heartily recommend it for those types of work that it was truly designed ot do. Though it is a big, relatively heavy camera, and understanding that I LIKE big heavy cameras, the handling of the Pentax 67 is easier than is many cameras. It is balanced well enough, and it can steadied easily enough. The 35mm-like design, with handles designed into each side, is fairly intuitive and feels good in ones hands. At least in mine.

 

As with all of my cameras, I feel a little twinge of emotion as I prepare to sell this camera system.  And maybe, by sheer longevity of use, a little more with this one than some others.

  

 

Asahi Pentax 6x7, 67, 67 II

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?AsahiPentax67.html~mainFrame

Several More Uncommon 127 4x4 Vintage Camera Modela

Sawyer's Apparently brought out their Model IV, a well made Baby Rollei copy featuring a unique 2.8 taking lens, too late to be a significant success. As a camera it was, but both the Super Slide market and their own distribution methods were not at theri best for such cameras.

Both Kodak and the camera manufacturers beat the drum of the Super Slide to drive the market for TLR 127 cameras. Hind-sidghr is always clearer, but I wonder if they had billed the cameras as a Medium Format Alternative to 35mm with all the advantages thereof, if the 127 TLR wave might have been ridden a bit longer.

  Made by Topcon and Marketed under both Topcon an Sawyer's Label, my Model iV is the best camera of the Japanese copies. Still, it doesn't offer the construction nor frills and packaging offered by the fine Baby Rollei's of the same vintage. Except for normal body wear (and a sharp dent pictured below), my Sayer's IV works as new. Notice the 3.8 taking and viewing lenses. These were made by Topcon, a prominet player in the camera market of the time.

It provides a rapid-wind crank, and an lense adjustment scheme similar to a Yashica 44 LM, with easily accessed thumbwheels and small windows viewable from above. 

adjustment   

My last remaining Baby Rollei RLR is a nice speciment. It shows very little wear. Notice on the front bottom, near the the PC Sync attacment socket it is lacking the small piece of gray leather. It came with the black leather case, which I believe was how these were marketed in Japan in the sixties. It also comes with a book as pictured.

          Below are pictued my two working Kamoflex S SLR 127 4x4 Cameras, If they look susspiciously like a later vintage Kawa 6--the were effectively Kawas first foray into the medium format SLR market. The Kawa Six owes its design largely to the efforts made designing this Kowaflex S. I don't know what other models may have been produced for this one to have to be distiguished by addin gan S. I have been told that the S means SLR, but this doesn't wash completely with me.

These are quite rare and even more so when they are working (both of these are). There was a design flaw found in some of these cameras, which predesposed them to the shutter linkage breaking if the specific seqence was not followed. I have a book that tells the proper sequence. I am guessing that maybe this flaw was fixed and perhaps this is why the S was added. But this is reaching. I have had no problem with these little jewels--but most Kamoflexes I have encountered, do not work, adding credence to the above-posed theory. These are said to have come in black too although I have never seen one.

There are two cameras pictured below. One with a yellow filter, one with half a black leather cse. They both work well. The dark stain on one is merely cosmetic and will clean up. Such stains come from the glue that holds the leatherette on not being completely dry when issued. Often Japanese manufacturers used the protective varnish that was used to coat the bare metal with before covering  with leatherette to play a dual role and act as the glue too. It worked just fine--except for these stains.

         

                            

Another Pro 127 TLR Artical

127TLRs.

Dad said, "Start with 1/60th Shutter Speed." Manual Camera Adjustments without a Light Meter

Start with 60 or Higher as the Shutter Speed

Later Dad went through and made a cursory explanation of all the controls and told me that I wouldn't need B right away, but that it kept the shutter open as long as the trip-button was held down. He also explained how to take a proper reading for a face by reading about a eight inches away from my hand.  Anyway, I figuerd it out and it stuck much more solidly than it would have had he given me a straight answer earlier. But I guess I thought he was just being difficult until just now. I wonder what my kids think.

It was proper advice. You are probably safe using 60 (1/60th second) as a starting shutter speed, if your subject is not moving. This gives you a good chance of havinf an f/stop that will work wiht it. You increase it to stop motion as needed and allowed by film speed (ISO) and aperture. Sometimes you will stop speed by following the moving, called panning. Sometimes you want all or part of the motion to show blur. Sometimes you just take what the light, film, and lens allows you. Sometimes it will allow nothing. This is about the time when the flash and or the tripod was invented. Actually it likely happened almost in reverse.

I had the Yashica 44 LM (or EM). It had a built in light meter. I was really rock'n and roll'n. Of the more than a dozen 44 TLR cameras that I have now, only one has such a feature. What was don eprior to such advances? If your answer invloves a stand-alone light meter, you are only partially correct. It was considered living in tall cotten as one of my old farmer uncles used to say. Or maybe it was high-cotten. Anyway, it was a luxuary to have a light meter of any kind. Photographers had gotten along for a century os more with out light meters.

I must say that I never used an extinction meter, but I knew what one was and I have seen a couple of them. They were non-electric devices that were to light meters what pinhole cameras are to cameras with lenses. They worked on principles that i won't get into right now, but which have something to do with squinting your eyes until you get a suitable image. And they are about as effective. Although I have heard that some peopel became quite ept at nailing the proper light readings with them.

For the most part, photographers used to rely on charts that came with their film (and still do), either rprinted inside th ebox or on the piece of instruction paper printed in seven languages all of which are in characters to small to be anythign other than Greek as you get older. But if you squint you can read the tables that were once relied on so often. Pictured below is a typical chart as was often printed on the back of TLR cameras.

I didn't take this picture the crooked angle makes me crazy. I grabbed it off of a hndy eBay listing, but it was not water-marked. I do like it for illustrative purposes regarding depth of fiesld. Notice how the nubers below, being farther away from the lens begin to blur. This is a example of where the depth of field is too shallow. It could be cleared up by selecting a smaller aperature, using a wider-angle lens, backing up increasing the ISO, or increasing the illumination. And actually part of the blur may be due to lens aberration from being close to the edge of the image. But more on all that later.

This was the basis of most properly exposed film. Beleive it or not once you learn to identify the lighting conditions refered to, the tables absolutely nail the correc camera settings. These can be further transposed on the fly for different film speeds once you memorize these.

At the top of the table it assumes an ASA (ISO) of 100. If your are using a faster or slower speed, you merely adjust by either halving or doubling the number previous to or subsequent to the last doubled number. In other words, if you are using ISO 400 film, it is first doubled once to 200, then the 200 is doubled to 400. ISO is calcualted an dexpressed by doubling or halving the film sensitivity. The higher the number, the more sensitive, or faster the film is.

As guess we say faster to refer to both the light gathering power of films and lenses, because they would enable you to come closer to freezing faster moving subjects than would slower films or lenses. It doesn't make much sense otherwise, but I didn't make it up. Actually with films it probably originally had to do with the faster chemical action cause by light on the silver halide film emulsion, and then the lenses were called the same because of the similar end results. You know--I don't know. I'll have to research this--in the next life. It only matters to the inherently curious.

The top part of the table evne qualifies the numbers by the time of year hen the suns rays would be effectively brighter (except of smog and such). The top line then has a row of succesively larger f/stop numbers, which means successively smaller aperture openings: f/ 3.5, 5.6, 8, 11, 16. Below these f/stop are lines pointing to shutter-speed numbers starting at the cameras highest--1/500th (500) and descending through the numbers to 1/2 second at the very bottom. Incidentally, each incremental increas eor decrease of either f/stop or shutter speed exactly decreases or increase the amount of light reaching the film. Very easy to work wiht this way.

The bottom of the table also does some of the thinking for you and provides a set of f/stop numbers for use with ASA 50 film, which is not used that much today, except by professionals for specific applications requiring ultra-fine grain and other characteristics. But notice that all the chart-maker has done is to shift the numbers to the right one f/stop to reflect the less-sensitive film of 50 ASA sensitivity.

Then in a finalo attemt to assist our inferior English-language ignorance, the helpful chart-maker tells us that during the months of April, September, October, November and when there, curiously, is no sun--that we must double the above f/stop numbers. Again the theme of halving or doubling comes handily into play. Our friends at Kodak a century and a half ago helped standardize these numbers to keep it simple. Yes, I think I will increase my shares of Kodak stock at once.

Now if you are still with me, run your finger, or at least your eyes down the extreme left column of the back-of-the Rollieflex chart where there is listed a ariety of potential lighting conditions.  (1) Sea-shore, or high mountains is the first conditions, followed by Sports scenes, bright lights squares, land dscapes, distant views. And on down the column different potential lighting situations are proposed. 

The trick is to understand what each of these references to lighting situations actjually mean. They are a lot less subjective than you might think. The camera book or any good camera manual will tell you more precisely what comprises each of these lighting conditions. and although this is not the same set of standard lighting conditions that I learned and still often use today--it is based upon the same priniples. 

At a much earlier post regarding ourdoor portraiture, as I recall, I explained my system. It is based on one one f/stop and shutter combination, namely f/5.6 at 1/125th (125) shutter speed. This is using ISO 100 film--and is based on a fairly definable lighting condition called open shade.  Note that some cameras have settings of 100 instead of 125 and so forth. Don't worry, it will work well enough.

This is the earlier post and it is discussed for the next couple of posts following this link. Bookmark it and come back to finish this post: http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2007/05/outdoor_portrai.html

From this one combo, any lighting situation at any film speed at any location between dusk and dawn can be nailed--given some practice and use of the system. Although each person mayh percieve lighting differentlyh, that is subjectively, it doesn't matter, once he know how the system works for him it always works with or without batteries, I guess as long as this person can see.

The human eye, with a bunch of help from the brain, can be trained to distinguish 256 theoretical shades of greys, reds, greens, or blues--using one particular color model--this translates into 16.7 million color/lighting combinations. So it is certainly reasonable to expect virtually anyone who can see, to learn a dozen or less different lighting conditions.

From these and the one magic combination of 5.6 at 125 with 100 speed film can be used to extrapoloate, on the fly any camera setting required.  Amazing but true.  wiuth me,m it works a lot like listening to Morse code, which I leaned at about the same time in life--the fourth and fifth grades. If I was asleep and heard proper Morse code blaring from a shortwave radio, I would not be able to sleep for autonomically and involuntariloy interpreting the code into letters, words, numbers, sumblos, acronyms, sentences, paragraphs, and ideas.

This should not strike anyone who is bilingual as strange. You hear it or you see it, and you understand it even before you can translate it. It is the same when you understand the language as it were, of lighting, f/stops shutter and film speeds. I have an unnticed, but constant dialog about the light around me. After a lifetime of use, many photographers can fairly nail the proper manual camera settings without much trouble. But it is a dying art, rendered mostly unnecessary by the marvels of science--but it is still useful. And this was the way it used ot be done.

These sytems were and are commonly used to determine setting for manual cameras without the benefit of light meters or extinction meters. I thrill at the wonderful science of modern computerized electronic metering systems (this is exactly what is on board any new camera). But i also marvel at the capacity of the human mind to do the sme things, often faster and better than any current device.

What about flash photography? Glad you asked. I will one day soon make a blog entry regarding how to use the magic of guide numbers to determine what setting for your camera and one or more flash units. It is even easier than the method for determining natural lighting settings.

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/12/more-127-4x4s-from-camerapediaorg.html

A Secret that's Almost Magic. Read the Instruction Manual.

You Can Learn All you Need to Know Quickly by Reading the Instruction Manual

When I first started reading about taking a light-meter reading and setting the correct shutter and f/stop combination on the Yashica 44, I was confused because it appeared that all of the combinations were correct. I consulted my dad, who was a practical electrical engineer, and lived and breathed numbers and knew all this stuff in his sleep, being an advanced amateur photographer and all.

Dad had a rare voice condition that had started about the time I, the baby of the family, was born, and got gradually worse. It's all I knew, but he spoke in a gruff, raspy cross between a whisper and a cough. It usually terrified my friends when he answered the door or the phone. He was part American Indian and looked the part, except for the part that isn't very hairy. Dad developed a four O'clock shadow by about ten O'clock AM. On weekends he would usually not shave. He was stern looking to begin with. Handsome, but stern, or maybe even mean-looking.

Because it was difficult for him to speak, Dad didn't speak much. When he did, he was carefully listened to. It was also hard to know when you were being scolded and when you weren't. To be safe I generally assumed a guilty-though-penitent demeanor until I understood his intent. It was also advisable to not ask Dad any unnecessary questions for the risk involved in interpreting the good or bad humor of his replies. Dad seldom lifted a finger toward any of his kids. He never had to.

Things were not like they often are today. Kids were to be not seen, and not heard, as far as most adults especially dads were concerned. Dads worked their butts off and wanted their space and quiet when they were not working. If you were included in some activity that included dads it was because they had included you.  Dad, as with other dads I knew about, ruled the roost. Not in a bad way but in the simply-the-way-it-was way. Those must have been good days for dads.

Sometimes I forgot myself and approached Dad as a human. This particular Saturday, I was struggling to make sense of the Deapth of Field table and f/stop combinations to be used with shutter speeds. I explained my rough findings to Dad--then asked him the central question.

"Which one is correct? . . .I mean. . .how do I know which one to set on the camera. They ALL look right to me [as technically they were]." He was expressionless. Speechless. His eyes were burning me though. "Uhh, which one is right?" I finally blurted in my own defense for I know what infraction I had commited. I hope none.

Dad had his own cryptic way of teaching. It was the Socratic Method--or something akin to it, although I didn't know that at the time. It worked alright--meaning that the lessons stayed with you, but it was not necessarily good PR with your kids. I didn't appreciate it even though to this day I have an image burned into my mind where my knowledge of depth-of-field is rooted. It's a clearly glaring page out of that stupid Yashica 44 operators manual.

"Right," he said, "They are all correct." No explanation followed as he turned away.

"But, Dad, which one do I use!" I was treading on ice, thin or otherwise, and it was a slippery slope.

Dad looked at me. He started to speak, but I guess decided it wasn't necessary.He walked on out of the room.

What have I been doing all this time? I thought to myself. I was getting a headache and was tired of the stupid book. Fifth graders are not intended to read this kind of stuff, I thought. I would have given up and gone outside, but it was winter in Fairbanks, Alaska. This was back when it got cold in Alaska--and it was sixty-something below zero and storming snow. I couldn't have found anyone to come out and play war with me. I really couldn't have found them. It was a white-out.

Back then, before the world shifted on its axis, or hydrocarbons punched holes in theionosphere, or we came a little farther out of the last ice-age, or the Japanese stream changed its ocean flow (take your pick)--in pre-nineteen-seventy-five Alaska, it got way cold. Fairbanks is way on up there. I've seen the thermeter outside our door, once we got the ice chipped off of it, rea 72 below zero. But that was usually on clear days. It was not as cold with cloud cover, but often snowing and windy. Not only was it cold in the winter, it was dark for long periods of time.

About the time my head-ache was going away and my eyes were glazed over in disbelief at how unfortunate I was, some hour and a half later, Dad came back. I had by then gained a hazy understanding of the implications of shutter speeds concerning motion blur, and an even more tentative understanding of the relationship between f/stops and focus. But I STILL had no idea of which combination was correct.

"Try 60 or higher to start with, and whatever f/stop goes with it. Or any combination higher than that." Dad said softly and scratched my head as he did, and walked away.

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2009/01/dad-said-start-with-160th-shutter-speed.html

How to Use the Zone Focusing Scales (Example is with Yashica TLR)

How to Use the Zone Focusing Option on the TLR (or Virtually any Adjustable Camera)

Most film cameras and/or lenses have some method for determining the depth of field quickly with. Knowing how one works easily translates to other styles of cameras and Scales

As with many cameras, the zone focusing depth-of-field scale is easy to use, once you know how it works. It is really very logical and simple. As you make the setting for f/stop and shutter speed on these two brands of 4x4 TLR's you will view the setting through two small pains one on top of the other just above the lens. Or in some other models on the lens barrel itself or in a pane to the left or right of the viewing lens.

A circular dial is easily accessed by  your thumbs on these models. You don't even have to raise your head from the viewfinder. By just glancing slightly forward, you can view all of the settings including the light meter, which may or may not be automatically coupled to the lens settings. And you can also see the dept-of-field marks on top of the viewing lens.

Once the numbers are understood as arranged, determining acceptable focus in feet or meters is easy enough. Looking to the right side of the lens you will note a set of decending numbers, one atop the other. A reverse order of the same scale is evident on the right side. These two scales correspond with two rows of numbers that change with the focus. One set is feet, the other meters. It is a good thing they included feet for us Americans.

Feet and Meters Scales

When I was in the fourth grade at Fox Elementary in Fairbanks, My all-time favorite school teacher Mrs. Kanopka, explained that the USAn was unlike any other country because we use the English system instead of the much more logical and usable metric system. It was imperative she said, that we learn the metric system, which we were working hard at to learn the conversions for, because we would soon move entirely away from inches and feet and so forth. Mrs. Kanopka, good teacher though she was, couldn't forecast the future. I still know my conversions, but America is no closer togoing metric than we ever were.

One f/stop is displayed only once, in the center of the unchanging lens scale. 2.8, is the largest diaphram opening, and will take pictures with the least amount of depth-of-field. Right? It makes good common sense. If you have trouble keepin gthisstraight, just think that when you squint, you can see more clearly; that's exactly whay we squint. When we squint, we are effectively using a smaller aperture setting for our eyes.  That's simple enough, isn't it?

Mrs. Kanoka gave me confidence to undertakie reading an understanding the fairly technical Yashica book that initiated me to these basic photographic concepts at this fairly young age, of 9 and 10, while attending her fourth grade class. She always praised me for mky strength. I had a love for the sciences including physics and chemistry. Believe it or not, these were very cool things to be interested in during the beginning of our Space Age. Children could be motivated to do just about anything if it was credibly linked with the Solor System, space travel, and astronauts--including Chuck Yeager and the heros of The Right Stuff, which had not yet been written but which was being lived during the time.

How to Load Film In a TLR Camera 

Open the back for film loading by turning the disk on the bottom of the camera. There is also a mount for use with a tripod there or to mount a side-mount flash bracket. Make sure the take-up roll gets started evenly. Wind film to the correct red dot if you know which one to use. It is explained in each manual. Each manual is available somewhere online. You can also use the ruby window on the back of the camera bakc to locate the number one frame (#1). Don't let sunlight shine in through the ruby window and don't keep it open too long. Films are different these days.

All of these cameras are more or less the same. By understanding these concepts you will be able to figure out the workings of all TLR's--I am betting. Ther are litterally hundreds of different makes of TLR vintage cameras. There are just a handful of 4x4 127 TLR's. There is a Minolta 4x4, a Ricoh, a Topcon Primo Junior (also marketed under the American name Sawyer 4x4), The most valuable are the Rollei Models. They are also decidedly the best-made. The Topcon/Sawyer, Ricoh, Minolta models are quite rare. Grab 'em if you get a chance. The Minolta is probably the next highest qualty to the Baby Rollei, with an excellent Rokor lens. All are geting harder to find.

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2009/01/read-the-instruction-manual-.html

Good Resource for Camera Repairs

Good vintage cameras are beginning to cost a lot more now, as I predicted. If you want to buy a less-than-perfect camera you may be able to fix it or have it fixed and/or restore it. This is one of several useful resources I've run across. I can't vouch for them yet, but I do plan to try them for parts--if I get to it.

ACE Index FAQ, Camera Parts and Camera Repair, Projector Parts, Projection Bulbs, Photo Equipment Parts.

Camera Review Forums

This is another source of subjective camera reviews. It is old, and it wouldn't accept one of my reviews saying the site is bein g updated, but it seems perpetual.

http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/12/mamiya-cameras-unique-in-the-pnotographic-marketplace.html

Camera Review Forums.

This is a link to my site on topic: http://notesandnods.typepad.com/photography_for_profit_or/2008/12/mamiya-cameras-unique-in-the-pnotographic-marketplace.html

Classic Camera Contest

Classic Camera Contest.

Check this out. It looks pretty cool. I know noithing more about it than is stated here, but if it is legit, it may be fun for some of you vintage camera owners.