joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Hi,
have you seen this:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008/06/rolleiflex-t.html ?
They show a comparison between of the finder brightness between a Rolleiflex T and a Rolleicord. Doesn't give which 'cord it is. Is that really that dramatic? Or is he showing a really ancient 'cord (from the knobs it is at most a V though I think it is older than this). The brightness difference of the finder lenses between a T and a 'cord is about .4 stops. While I expect this to be significant, I wouldn't have thought that is that dramatic.
Comments?
have you seen this:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008/06/rolleiflex-t.html ?
They show a comparison between of the finder brightness between a Rolleiflex T and a Rolleicord. Doesn't give which 'cord it is. Is that really that dramatic? Or is he showing a really ancient 'cord (from the knobs it is at most a V though I think it is older than this). The brightness difference of the finder lenses between a T and a 'cord is about .4 stops. While I expect this to be significant, I wouldn't have thought that is that dramatic.
Comments?
mfogiel
Veteran
Well, this is not really the point. the real point is, the difference between these two and a Maxwell screen - like day and night... I have one installed on a 2.8F, and the difference respect to the original one is in the ballpark of 3 stops...
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I don't think stock Cords and Flexes are much different other than a 2.8 will always be a bit brighter than a 3.5.
Cleanliness is the biggest factor, and a Maxwell screen is probably good although I have never had one, my impression is that it is harder to focus with them sometimes. I like a straight GG on my 4x5 too.
Cleanliness is the biggest factor, and a Maxwell screen is probably good although I have never had one, my impression is that it is harder to focus with them sometimes. I like a straight GG on my 4x5 too.
furcafe
Veteran
The type of screen does make a difference. I personally find the split image spots on SLR & TLR screens to be really only useful for rough/approximate focusing & use ground glass for fine adjustments. Although his "standard," or maybe just most popular, screen has the split image w/microprism collar, Maxwell does sells a straight ground glass screen (which I prefer for my Tele-Rolleiflex).
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have those two cameras mentioned and the diffrence in finder brightness is dramatic ... the Rolleicord is all but useless in poor light but can be fine with a decent screen apparently.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Keith, which vintage are your T and your 'cord? Any idea? Apparently around 1960 Rollei started shipping cameras with Fresnel lenses integrated into the screen, which made a huge difference. On my 'cord V, a previous owner seems to have swapped the screen for a Fresnel one.
micek
Member
maxwell screen
maxwell screen
I have had a maxwell screen installed in my Rolleicord V. It is much, much brighter than even the screen in the Rolleiflex GX that I have recently sold. And I don't find it difficult to focus at all.
maxwell screen
I have had a maxwell screen installed in my Rolleicord V. It is much, much brighter than even the screen in the Rolleiflex GX that I have recently sold. And I don't find it difficult to focus at all.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think the cord is a III if that makes sense, I know it's definitely not the later version ... It's not here at the moment. The T is a fairly late model and really is very good.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
If it is a III and nobody changed (upgraded) the screen, I am not surprised that it is dim.
Ta
Joachim
edodo
Well-known
I have the rolleicord III and the original focusing screen must have been every bit as good as the one in the flex T from what I recall, it wasn't that bad! I've done my search, and the cord on the blog is probably a rolleicord II, since cord III to V has half circle chrome embelishments on the edge of the finder hood, but this cord has nothing.
The mamiya 67 screen looks good, in my cord, I might transfer it to the 2.8E that's coming. I once tried the chinese screen with a really crappy construction and split circle, it was 2 stop brighter but, was an awful piece of junk! Lightness is not all in a GG, that's true, I focussed more easily on the original plain glass cord III screen than on the chinese fresnel even though the corner were brighter. But the RZ67 screen is the best I have used, matte with microprism large circle, very comfortable. Still wish Santa Claus will bring me a Maxwell for Xmass!
The mamiya 67 screen looks good, in my cord, I might transfer it to the 2.8E that's coming. I once tried the chinese screen with a really crappy construction and split circle, it was 2 stop brighter but, was an awful piece of junk! Lightness is not all in a GG, that's true, I focussed more easily on the original plain glass cord III screen than on the chinese fresnel even though the corner were brighter. But the RZ67 screen is the best I have used, matte with microprism large circle, very comfortable. Still wish Santa Claus will bring me a Maxwell for Xmass!
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
Back in the 1940's people must have ate more carrots and had better night vision. It's not the finder thats the problem... blame the dimmness on a cruddy diet.
Wayno
Well-known
All Rolleis with the non-removeable WLF had a plain ground glass screen while all models with a removeable WLF had a bright plastic frenel screen. It makes a huge difference in brightness, especially in the corners. Also the Rollei T has an f2.8 viewing lens whereas that Rolleicord would be f3.2.
Come and claim them sometime Keith, otherwise they'll start feeling at home at my place...
Come and claim them sometime Keith, otherwise they'll start feeling at home at my place...
notturtle
Well-known
My cord Va was dingy. The finder was terrible to use in poor light.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
All Rolleis with the non-removeable WLF had a plain ground glass screen while all models with a removeable WLF had a bright plastic frenel screen. It makes a huge difference in brightness, especially in the corners. Also the Rollei T has an f2.8 viewing lens whereas that Rolleicord would be f3.2.
Come and claim them sometime Keith, otherwise they'll start feeling at home at my place...
LOL ... I was thinking about you and my cameras as I typed that post Wayne.
I've been shooting my little Voigtlander Brilliant over the last two weeks and I'm starting to really like 6x6 but the Voigtlander's scale focusing is starting to lose it's shine for me ... I think I want the real thing now and may in fact use the 'T' for my 14 day challenge!
You should be seeing me quite soon!
furcafe
Veteran
That, & probably the fact that few people shot available light in dim or nighttime conditions since the fastest films were ISO 100.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Also at this point these dim screens were state of the art. People must have thought "That's how it is".
edodo
Well-known
On the left is the rolleicord III with RZ67 focusing screen (fresnel). On the right is an genuine Rolleiflex 2.8E.
The rolleicord has a 3.2 viewing lens VS 2.8 for the flex. The corners are better but the contrast is really poor since 75mm Heidosmat is full of haze! Now I hesitate to switch the screen as the Rolleiflex 2.8E is fully usable like this! I like the grid too, but the microprism from the mamiya is really confortable. Dilemna
The rolleicord has a 3.2 viewing lens VS 2.8 for the flex. The corners are better but the contrast is really poor since 75mm Heidosmat is full of haze! Now I hesitate to switch the screen as the Rolleiflex 2.8E is fully usable like this! I like the grid too, but the microprism from the mamiya is really confortable. Dilemna
