[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Rollei] Can someone describe the Rollei 2.8 FX?
- Subject: RE: [Rollei] Can someone describe the Rollei 2.8 FX?
- From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom >
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:28:03 -0500
> >What is "out of my hat"? That mechanisms typically have ranges of
> >operation? That certainly is just a fact.
> What I mean is that you are surmising rather than going on fact that
> one persons opinion is dismissive, because Jerry does have a lot of
> experience with Rollei TLR.
> I was not talking about ranges of operation when refering to 'talking
> out of your hat', rather that you probably have experience with several
> Rollei TLRs while Jerry and I have experience with over a hundred of them.
Yes, you guys DO have a lot of experience with them, and that is entirely
valid but that doesn't negate the fact that the statement was summarily
dismissive, and even more so, possibly wrong.
> > And does that also accommodate the same maximum thicker stock after
> > adjustment? How about holding adjustment across the entire range?
> > many factors that manufacturers have to consider over and above what we
> > consider.
> Absolutely to all of the above. If you had experience with the mechanisnm
you would know that.
Experience has nothing to do with it. It's called design. The mechanism
was designed to operate in a certain range, and I haven't reviewed the
design to see what it was designed for. There is nothing wrong with
adjusting it and just using it, that's entirely valid...but I wouldn't
manufacture something from just that alone, it would be foolish. At least
according to the 75 year book, my concern was entirely valid, at least
Rollei believed so, or at least someone said Rollei believed so!
> So being an engineer automatically means that you know all about the
> internal workings of a Rollei TLR?
It means I understand a LOT about mechanical systems, and how they are
designed and work.
> But your statement doesn't really entitle you to speak of this particular
> mechaism with authority. It does entitle you to knowlegeable conjecture.
> But it is conjecture nontheless.
>and, oh, guess what? Rollei apparently believed
>exactly what I said. See the post by Bernard, which I will reference here
>for your convenience:
>"he (Prochnow) states that the automat mechanism was not implemented on the
>GX partly because "film makers used ever thinner backing paper and
>tape so that problems were encountered with one make or another."
Prochnow can make mistakes.
I love it. (this is not aimed at you, BTW)... When Prochnow (or anyone)
says what someone believes, he is right on the money, and THE authority,
when he says something that doesn't agree, well, then he is mistaken. We
all do it ;-)
> > I have no doubt it is reasonably reliable. I have never had a problem
> > mine...but that doesn't mean it was 1) designed to operate in the range
> > accommodate the range of films available,
> Agreed it was never designed that way. But the FACT is, it will and does.
It will and does for the ones that YOU know of...
> E-mail is a difficult medium sometimes. Visible nuances of human
> are lost to the reader. Have you ever spoken to Jerry?
> Have you had only e-mail
> "conversation" with him?
> I think you would have a different opinion of the man
> and realize most of what he is saying is said with a great big grin!
I think what was said was out of line, and that's must my opinion...but
interestingly enough, what was said to be "bullshit" has now been shown to
be entirely true. The initial statement that was claimed "bullshit" was
that someone saw what was said in the 75th book...which was stated as "saw
somewhere", and now we have identified the source...so the source is real,
the statement is real...now what the truth of the statement is, I can't say
for sure...but it does make sense, didn't say it's right or not, but it does
make sense, at least to me.
Horse <= dead...I hope ;-)