home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: thull@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Scott Thull)
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:02:56 GMT
- Subject: Re: Using a Polaroid back
- Message-ID: <122380039@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
- Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!scd.hp.com!hpscdm!hplextra!hpfcso!thull
- Newsgroups: rec.photo
- References: <1992Nov18.155557.21780@athena.mit.edu>
- Lines: 28
-
- In rec.photo, sli@athena.mit.edu (Sheung L Li) writes:
-
- > Does anyone have any experiences with NPC backs? Specifically, I'm
- > interested in the difference between the NPC back and the various
- > incarnations of the Mamiya RZ Polaroid back.
- >
- The main difference in the Mamiya backs that I am aware of is that their
- support for the RZ film advance interlock mechanism.
-
- The older backs (Pre-model 3) required the camera be placed in
- the multi-exposure mode to allow the shutter to be cocked. This is
- because there is a gear drive on the RZ body that expects to have
- some amount of resistance applied by the film back. The older
- Polaroid backs did not apply this resistance, therefore the body
- had to be told to ignore this interlock.
-
- The model 3 back applies the necessary resistance (although I think the
- gear actually does nothing) so that the user can leave the body in the
- normal exposure mode. Evidently people would use the older polaroid backs
- and then mount their roll film backs but forget the multi-exposure setting
- was enabled. Several wasted shots later ;-( they would discover the
- error. The new back prevents most of these errors.
-
- There may be other differences but this is the only one I've heard of.
-
- >
- Scott Thull
- thull@fc.hp.com
-