Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Raid, I think you are onto something here. At B&H one of my friends in the used department kinda insisted on showing me a Beatie Intensascreen because I had my Nikon F3P with me that had an E screen.
The Beatie was a lot brighter, but somehow there seemed to be less contrast, and I perfered my Nikon E screen because focusing was easier. Perhaps under dim lighting it would of been the other way around.
On my Rollei it seems that the Maxwell I prefer over the "improved" Rollei screen that came with my 3.5F. Although I got the Maxwell screen with the focus aids for my 3.5F, I will get the bright screen for my Tele Rolleiflex which is supposibly a little brighter.
As you know the viewing lens on a Tele Rolleiflex is only F4.0 and not F2.8 like on my 3.5F. Here the extra brightness will hopefully be a dramatic improvement and as with long lenses focusing aids seem less important.
Cal
JPD
Retina and Rollei user
Hahaha, not long ago I didn't understand why users complained about the "dark screens" in older Rolleis. I had no problems using the really old Rolleicords and the Rolleiflex Standard models from the 30's. But this year it hit me. I thought about loading a Rolleiflex Standard with film, but felt I should play with it first to see if it felt right. Geez, the screen is dark. I'm turning 40 this year, so my eyes just aren't as good as they were ten years ago. This sucks, since I'm also in the middle of my midlife crisis. 
Cool. I was wondering how it went with your 2,8A.
Cool. I was wondering how it went with your 2,8A.
f16sunshine
Moderator
The Tele Rolleiflex may only be f4 but the extra magnification more than makes up for it. By comparison mine is still brighter than with the new screen in my f2.8D. I bought the tele used ( georgeous though ) maybe it has a 3rd party screen already, it's difficult to say.
) maybe it has a 3rd party screen already, it's difficult to say.
Joeys61
Joey
Bill Maxwell performed the upgrades on my F2 screens and for the Pentax 67II. Well worth the price and combined with a solid tripod, invaluable in getting sharp photos!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
The Tele Rolleiflex may only be f4 but the extra magnification more than makes up for it. By comparison mine is still brighter than with the new screen in my f2.8D. I bought the tele used ( georgeous though
You have good taste. LOL. The extra magnification is a great asset, but then again there is the 135/4.0 Sonnar with the wonderful contrast and center sharpness.
We are lucky guys. Ever use the Tele Rolleiflex for landscape? It does urban images in NYC great.
Later this year I'm going to get mine Fleenor'ed and get a Maxwell Bright Screen.
Cal
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
The Tele Rolleiflex may only be f4 but the extra magnification more than makes up for it. By comparison mine is still brighter than with the new screen in my f2.8D. I bought the tele used ( georgeous though
I can focus much faster with the Tele than with the 2.8D, both having the same Maxwell screens.
roboflick
Well-known
I just got lucky enough to find a rolleiflex 2.8d with xenotar and clean intact coating glass, with working shutter and transport for 300 dollars in a local camera store. It also had a bunch of filters, hood and other accesories, including a tiny kodalux light meter which is surprisingly extremely accurate. It is currently in transit to Mr. Fleenor for Maxwell microprism screen installation and overhaul. This thread really convinced me to go with the microprism screen, as well as my own experience with a microprism screen in a medium format 3d camera that I love to use. I really do find it easier to focus on the microprism"donut" Than on the other surface, Hopefully this will be the same case with the maxwell screen, Would anyone that has both mind taking pictures of them looking at a scene?
Thanks for the great info and enjoy your beautiful cameras
Nik
Thanks for the great info and enjoy your beautiful cameras
Nik
roboflick
Well-known
Also how do you guys attach filters uv and other? Do you put a filter on the viewing lens or only taking lens. I'd like to place a filter and never worry about accidentally scratching or needing to clean again. And also use a red filter for black and white
Thanks Nik
Thanks Nik
furcafe
Veteran
Why would you put a colored filter on the viewing lens? For those, you only need it for the taking lens (but you do have to remember the filter factor for metering, like on a meterless RF).
For protection filters, I only use a UV on the taking lens for my Wide-angle Rolleiflex, as the front element is more exposed on that model & the lens hood much shallower. The other Rolleiflex lenses go nekkid.
For protection filters, I only use a UV on the taking lens for my Wide-angle Rolleiflex, as the front element is more exposed on that model & the lens hood much shallower. The other Rolleiflex lenses go nekkid.
Last edited:
roboflick
Well-known
No colored filter for viewing lens just a uv filter for protection. Is there a way to do this? The bay 3 filters do they fit on both lenses or just the taking lens?
Thanks
Nik
Thanks
Nik
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Both lenses.
roboflick
Well-known
Dan Daniel
Well-known
If you have a hood on the taking lens of a Bay III, you cannot attach a standard Bay III filter to the viewing lens. The hood, being an external mount, intrudes into the space that the viewing lens filter would need to be.
There is someone on Ebay who sells a clear glass filter in a Bay III mount that is machined to go on the viewing lens and allow the hood to go on.
I bought a clear Bay III filter and modified it myself. I ground away part of the mount and the glass to clear the hood. I also had to grind away some of the lens hood. It does not cause any obvious vignetting on the focus screen. Technically I think it intrudes but it isn't visible.
Colored filters for the taking lens go on the inside of the bayonet mount. So you can have a filter and the lens hood mounted at the same time.
Here are some photos, of the clear glass filter and lens hood on the camera, and the parts off the camera. Hopefully this gives you some idea of the clearance issues and type of grinding involved. All in all, if you aren't used to using a Dremel to do (semi) precise machine work, I would just let the viewing lens fend for itself- a fair amount of work that could destroy a filter and/or a hood for minimal return.
There is someone on Ebay who sells a clear glass filter in a Bay III mount that is machined to go on the viewing lens and allow the hood to go on.
I bought a clear Bay III filter and modified it myself. I ground away part of the mount and the glass to clear the hood. I also had to grind away some of the lens hood. It does not cause any obvious vignetting on the focus screen. Technically I think it intrudes but it isn't visible.
Colored filters for the taking lens go on the inside of the bayonet mount. So you can have a filter and the lens hood mounted at the same time.
Here are some photos, of the clear glass filter and lens hood on the camera, and the parts off the camera. Hopefully this gives you some idea of the clearance issues and type of grinding involved. All in all, if you aren't used to using a Dremel to do (semi) precise machine work, I would just let the viewing lens fend for itself- a fair amount of work that could destroy a filter and/or a hood for minimal return.
roboflick
Well-known
Thanks for this great information
Nik
Nik