First chromes back from Rolleicord 1V

[remrf]

I picked up two rolls of Ektachrome today . One was from the Rolleicord 1V I mentioned in a previous thread. The other roll was from the Yashica 124G I bought that had horrible fungus on the taking lens( also mentioned in a previous thread.)

I was surprised at the Yashica. The fungus/separation on the taking lens was so severe that I thought you would see only a smeary image at best. Not so. The lens is still pretty sharp but there is a fair amount of haze.

The Rolleicord just plain kicks a**. Very sharp. The shutter speeds seem spot on and it is a very sharp lens even after 50 years of use. The micro separation I noticed on the Schneider Zenar lens cannot be detected.

The Rollei is actually slightly smaller and lighter than the Yashica and I have the camera mounted on a right angle grip which makes it a very easy camera to use.

I will try and scan some of the chromes but my Umax scanner does weird things with 120 chromes. I don't know why. It will scan a neg of that format but it goes crazy on 120 chromes. And even when it scans 4x5 chromes I can't say I'm very happy with the results. We'll see.

At any rate. For $42.00 plus shipping I scored a winner with the Rolleicord . A great old camera.

 

[FrankS]

Agreed! Super cameras.

 

[raid]

The Rollei TLR is my all-time favorite camera. I use a 2.8D and a Rolleicord with the Tessar 3.5 lens. Both are very sharp and reliable.

 

[dkapp]

I just got back my first slides from a Rollei knockoff today and was really surprised at the quality. It's a chinese camera called Eastar 120 that I found for $20. My goal is a Rollei 2.8 one day, but until then, the Eastar will work.

Here is one image from the roll, scanned on an Epson 3170.
http://dkapp.smugmug.com/photos/47295145-L.jpg

Dave

 

[Pherdinand]

The Xenar lens is definitely a good performer. Also the rolleicords seem to have suffered less from intensive use - probably the 'serious' high volume photographers used rolleiflex, not 'cords.
That's a great shot dkapp.

 

[payasam]

I used a Rolleicord (Xenar) from the early 1960s until the early 1990s. The only difficulties I faced were caused by all the dust here (northern India). The shutter, for example, needed attention every two or three years. The presence only of M synch became a problem once bulbs began to disappear: but then flash is an abomination anyway. The performance of the lens was such that 20" by 30" prints, after some cropping, were never a problem. The first "fast" film I used was Agfa Isopan ISS (ASA 100, for those who don't know or who have forgotten). It was seen as something of a miracle at the time, and it could be speeded up without adding grain by processing in Promicrol (May and Baker), though the slightest over-development would make the negatives unusably dense. When I sold the camera, some fifty years after it had been bought, the lens was just as it must have been when it left the factory: no haze, no fungus, coating intact. Much used, of course, but carefully.

 

[sf]

Yeah, my scanner doesn't handle chromes well either. Only negatives. I find them fuzzy and under exposed (though they are not). Also, sometimes my scanner just plain freaks out when it is asked to do chromes.

Rolleis are incredible cameras, and seem to last forever. And for the price, you can't beat it.

 

[remrf]

I used a Rolleicord (Xenar) from the early 1960s until the early 1990s. The only difficulties I faced were caused by all the dust here (northern India). The shutter, for example, needed attention every two or three years. The presence only of M synch became a problem once bulbs began to disappear: but then flash is an abomination anyway. The performance of the lens was such that 20" by 30" prints, after some cropping, were never a problem. The first "fast" film I used was Agfa Isopan ISS (ASA 100, for those who don't know or who have forgotten). It was seen as something of a miracle at the time, and it could be speeded up without adding grain by processing in Promicrol (May and Baker), though the slightest over-development would make the negatives unusably dense. When I sold the camera, some fifty years after it had been bought, the lens was just as it must have been when it left the factory: no haze, no fungus, coating intact. Much used, of course, but carefully.

We have a fair amount of dust as a constant here in Arizona as well. It remains to be seen how it will affect the 1V . There is a "Steet fair" going on today in Tucson and a biker's toy ride tomorrow. I have the Rollei loaded with Tri-x 320 asa and a yellow filter. I usually ride in the toy run but this year I am going to stand on the sidelines and grab some shots of 4000 motorcycles as they ride across town.

And I agree with you about flash. Single point frontal flash anyway. I have gotten some interesting shots using a single flash but never when pointed directly at the subject from the front.

Thank you for sharing your memories of a great camera.

 

[remrf]

Yeah, my scanner doesn't handle chromes well either. Only negatives. I find them fuzzy and under exposed (though they are not). Also, sometimes my scanner just plain freaks out when it is asked to do chromes.

Rolleis are incredible cameras, and seem to last forever. And for the price, you can't beat it.

Has anyone ever addressed this problem with 120 chrome scanning here? My scanner (Umax Astra 2200) is supposed to be photographer friendly and comes with a 4x5 transparency holder and does 4x5 chromes well enough. I have tried several times to scan the 120 size and get what looks like random color splotches in the 120 film outline.

As you said though it will scan 120 negs as well as it will do anything.
????????????

 

[aad]

I can't figure out why scanners have such odd problems-mine does great with Kodachrome, but ektachrome takes a lot of "punching up" to look right.

 

[remrf]

I can't figure out why scanners have such odd problems-mine does great with Kodachrome, but ektachrome takes a lot of "punching up" to look right.

This is a different issue I think than the problem I was talking about but now that you mention it my scanner does better with Fugi Velvia than it does with Ektachrome.
The ektachrome comes out way too blue without compensation but the chromes look normal when viewed on a light table.


And better is a relative term here. The best results I've gotten with this scanner so far is with prints. Large prints. I have yet to scan a chrome where I thought the sharpness was up to snuff. I though flatness might be the problem and had some glass cut to 4x5 to lay on top of the neg. Duh..newton rings anyone?

 

[dkapp]

I was really surprised at how well my 3170 handled the Provia last week. I even used the bundled software.

Have you tried VueScan? I've heard a lot of good things about it.

Dave

 

[remrf]

I was really surprised at how well my 3170 handled the Provia last week. I even used the bundled software.

Have you tried VueScan? I've heard a lot of good things about it.

Dave

I tried to use vuescan but my computer doesn't like or something. It tell me it can't find my scanner.

 

[dkapp]

I tried to use vuescan but my computer doesn't like or something. It tell me it can't find my scanner.

I just checked the vuescan website & it looks like your scanner is only supported as a scsi connection. How do you have it connected to the computer?

http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#umax

Dave

 

[remrf]

I just checked the vuescan website & it looks like your scanner is only supported as a scsi connection. How do you have it connected to the computer?

http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#umax

Dave

Its a USB connection.