rlouzan
Well-known
Get an RZ screen from KEH camera, and have your camera repairman install-it.
T
tedwhite
Guest
As I may have noted earlier, I bought the Maxwell screen and had Ross Yerkes in L.A. do the installation (plus a CLA). From a camera I rarely used (because I couldn't see through the dim screen well enough to focus) to a camera I use whenever I get a chance - that's the difference the new screen made. It's truly amazing.
Ted
Ted
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I have Maxwell screens in two of my Rolleiflexes,
and Beatty screens in the other two. Both screens
are amazingly bright. More than a few people who
have looked at them think they are LCD displays
at first. The Maxwell screen comes in two types --
one with a center split/microprism focusing aid,
the other without. The one without the aid is MUCH
better: brighter, uniformly lit across the screen,
easier to snap into focus. I find the Maxwell without
the focusing aid to be the best screen; the Beatty
(which has a focusing aid) a close second; and the
Maxwell with the aid the least impressive of the
three, though still a vast improvement over the
other available options.
Sanders
and Beatty screens in the other two. Both screens
are amazingly bright. More than a few people who
have looked at them think they are LCD displays
at first. The Maxwell screen comes in two types --
one with a center split/microprism focusing aid,
the other without. The one without the aid is MUCH
better: brighter, uniformly lit across the screen,
easier to snap into focus. I find the Maxwell without
the focusing aid to be the best screen; the Beatty
(which has a focusing aid) a close second; and the
Maxwell with the aid the least impressive of the
three, though still a vast improvement over the
other available options.
Sanders
ZaphodB
Newbie
I wanted to get into TLRs and within a few months acquired a Richohmatic 225, a Minolta Autocord (Seikosha-MX export model 1958 according to this site), and a Yashica Mat 124G. All from a certain auction site.
The Ricoh had a sticky shutter and I couldn't justify having them all serviced so I passed it on. The Autocord is my favourite, but having been serviced a year ago, the shutter is now sticky again (this despite fairly regular use and being kept dry). Not sure I can justify the cost of servicing it every year, so may be selling this too... finally the 124G, not exactly the most elegant, horrible winding sound, but being a lot newer it is in much better condition overall... except for one part - guess what? The taking lens. Inside of rear elements was covered in fungus; had it cleaned but there's still marks and the rear of the lens looks a bit foggy. Probably going to sell this one for parts/repair too...
I enjoyed using TLRs but to be honest I couldn't see myself using them much now that I've acquired a 6x7 SLR. Having said that I am hoping to get a Mamiya or even a Rollei TLR later on.
The Ricoh had a sticky shutter and I couldn't justify having them all serviced so I passed it on. The Autocord is my favourite, but having been serviced a year ago, the shutter is now sticky again (this despite fairly regular use and being kept dry). Not sure I can justify the cost of servicing it every year, so may be selling this too... finally the 124G, not exactly the most elegant, horrible winding sound, but being a lot newer it is in much better condition overall... except for one part - guess what? The taking lens. Inside of rear elements was covered in fungus; had it cleaned but there's still marks and the rear of the lens looks a bit foggy. Probably going to sell this one for parts/repair too...
I enjoyed using TLRs but to be honest I couldn't see myself using them much now that I've acquired a 6x7 SLR. Having said that I am hoping to get a Mamiya or even a Rollei TLR later on.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Yes, I have a TLR. In fact, I have half a dozen. I don't use them much since I discovered 120 rangefinders though. The folders (Bessas, Isolettes, Rollfixes et al) do at least as good a job at half the weight and it is a whole lot easier to track a moving object with them.
Anyway, a Ciroflex was one of my very first restoration projects and I still have it. It isn't one of my better jobs though. I made a few mistakes. They are correctable and cosmetic though and one day I'll probably take it apart, strip it down, and do it over again. I cobbled mine together from three rusted out and dented wrecks found on ebay. Between the three of them there were just enough good parts to make one fairly decent camera. One had a pretty good body, but the faceplate was bent. I managed to get it off though, in spite of the focusing rod being also bent. The film door was badly rusted too, and I took that off. The folding viewfinder was rusted in place and the glass was rust stained. I got a folding viewfinder and Rapax shutter from another camera, and the film door and face plate came from yet another. I just wish one of the things had a pair of Velostigmat lenses.
Anyway, a Ciroflex was one of my very first restoration projects and I still have it. It isn't one of my better jobs though. I made a few mistakes. They are correctable and cosmetic though and one day I'll probably take it apart, strip it down, and do it over again. I cobbled mine together from three rusted out and dented wrecks found on ebay. Between the three of them there were just enough good parts to make one fairly decent camera. One had a pretty good body, but the faceplate was bent. I managed to get it off though, in spite of the focusing rod being also bent. The film door was badly rusted too, and I took that off. The folding viewfinder was rusted in place and the glass was rust stained. I got a folding viewfinder and Rapax shutter from another camera, and the film door and face plate came from yet another. I just wish one of the things had a pair of Velostigmat lenses.
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
FallisPhoto said:
Mistake #1: The guy at the hardware store told me that "Testors" brand enamel would work fine for this. It doesn't. Testors is meant for plastic models, and it probably does a fine job at sticking to them, but it doesn't stick to metal very well without primer, and it doesn't get hard enough, even when baked. Also, the stuff I used developed an irridescent "oil slick" kind of shine. I don't know if this last is common to Testors or whether I just got a bad bottle of it though. Automotive grade enamel or lacquer, applied with an air brush, is what I use now.
Mistake #2: Again, I'm blaming this one on the guy at the hardware store. He told me that if I thinned it to 50%, then I could apply the Testors paint he sold me with a brush and it would self-level. Well, you can't and it won't. You need better paint and an air brush.
Mistake #3: Polishing compound is not a polish. It's an abrasive. When you use it on a buffing wheel, even a very small one (like for a Dremel) it's a good idea to keep it moving pretty quickly. The stuff will eat through chrome fast. On the upper right corner of the decorative trim plate, on the front of the camera, is a spot where it burned through it.
historicist
Well-known
Rolleiflex 3.5T, my first medium format. Wonderful lens and it seems to be possible to hand hold it really slow, however the dim screen and irritating shutter speed/aperture selection (different to most other Rolleis and TLRs, I managed to pick the worst one in terms of setting the speeds and aperture) so I don't use it so much.
alternatve
Well-known
I have a Minolta TLR, and I went out shooting with it with my regular shooting buddy a few days before. He usually finishes his 35mm roll before me, but when I was using the TLR, I was so excited that I finished TWO rolls before he used up his one.
Samuel
Samuel
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
FallisPhoto said:
I must disagree here. I have several folders
-- an Agfa Record, a Super Baldax, a Super
Ikonta -- all restored by Jurgen Krekel (certo6).
They do not come close to the optical performance
of a Rolleiflex.
The reasons are obvious. A Rolleiflex starts with
superior optics. They are mounted in fixed housings
to ensure precise alignment of the lens to the film
plane. A folder, on the other hand, has the lens
set in a moving frame relative to the film plane.
Even new, these cameras were less precise. Now,
50 years after their construction, the variations
are worse.
The differences are obvious in my own use of
the cameras. Moreover, they are corroborated
by people who have bothered to test the lenses:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
The chart there shows that a Rolleiflex 3.5E resolves
3 to 4 times the detail of a Zeiss Super Ikonta, which
is typically considered the best of the folders. The
worst-performing Rolleiflex on the chart still doubled
the resolution of the Super Ikonta. The tester's margin
notes state that this Rolleiflex "must have been out of
alignment" yet it still outperformed the folders.
Resolution isn't everything. When I want a fuzzier
picture, I'll use a folder. But for photos where
crispness is important, they belong on the shelf.
Sanders
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Sanders McNew said:
All I can say to that is that my Ansco Speedex Special R is sharper than my Rolleiflex 2.8. I'm not sure that the Rollei is in perfect alignment though. It is about as sharp as I can get it using a sheet of ground glass on the film plane to adjust the focus, but then that is how I adjusted the Speedex too.
jvr
Well-known
I have a Rolleiflex Planar 3.5F and I use it some, maybe one roll per month. I love the camera and image quality is miles better than the Moskva 6x9, even after carefully collimate the Moskva. In fact, image quality from the Rollei is on par with the (cropped) image from my 6x17 Fotoman+Super-Angulon 90/4 and that is saying as lot, believe me.
I use it mainly for posed portraits, it gives a very different point-of view and people "interact" with it on a different basis than, say, a SLR or even a rangefinder. Although I tend to use B&W, everytime I load a roll of Provia 100F I get amazed by the quality of the pictures.
Moreover, it was bought by my father on the day I was born, it has "some" sentimental value...
I use it mainly for posed portraits, it gives a very different point-of view and people "interact" with it on a different basis than, say, a SLR or even a rangefinder. Although I tend to use B&W, everytime I load a roll of Provia 100F I get amazed by the quality of the pictures.
Moreover, it was bought by my father on the day I was born, it has "some" sentimental value...
Anglekat
Member
I have a Rolleicord V with Xenar 75 lens. Picked it up a few years ago with a decent case. It works a treat & has that gorgeous old camera smell
I also have a Weston master V to go with it (same smell !!)
I try to use it every couple of months, last time was in the lake district (uk) in september with a couple of rolls of FP4 & a tripod.
It`s a great thing to be able to take my time with & just enjoy it.
I also have a Weston master V to go with it (same smell !!)
I try to use it every couple of months, last time was in the lake district (uk) in september with a couple of rolls of FP4 & a tripod.
It`s a great thing to be able to take my time with & just enjoy it.
Last edited:
EcoLeica
Check out my blog!!!
manfromh
I'm not there
I got a YashicaMat (the first one) few days ago. Its so beautiful.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Hey TLR lovers...
I am looking for a lens cap (not hood! cap) for my Bay II rolleiflex.
Any colour, material, brand will do, as long as it is functional!
Open for a trade, but i could pay as well, if really necessary.
Sorry for the plug
I am looking for a lens cap (not hood! cap) for my Bay II rolleiflex.
Any colour, material, brand will do, as long as it is functional!
Open for a trade, but i could pay as well, if really necessary.
Sorry for the plug
T
tedwhite
Guest
Manfromh:
That is an excellent example. You should have much fun with it.
Ted
That is an excellent example. You should have much fun with it.
Ted
manfromh
I'm not there
Senecabud
Pat Trent
My current pet is a Yashica Mat 124G. Had many different brands/models over the years then went to 4x5 before the bulk and weight got too much for me. Now I'm back to MF and 35mm.
Eric T
Well-known
I am considering getting a TLR. As a novice in this area, why are the Rollei Rolleiflexes so expensive? Is it lens quality?
Is it true that the Mamiya TLRs are the only ones with interchangeable lenses?
Thanks,
Eric
Is it true that the Mamiya TLRs are the only ones with interchangeable lenses?
Thanks,
Eric
T
tedwhite
Guest
Eric:
Rolleiflexes are the standard by which all other TLR's are judged, as Leicas are with 35mm rangefinder cameras. As you no doubt have noticed, both are German and represent an extremely high quality of workmanship. As for the glass - Schneider, Carl Zeiss, Leitz - most knowledgeable camera people consider them to be also the best.
This is a brief and decidely un-technical answer, but I have been around cameras since I was ten and this is my take on it. AFAIK the Mamiyas are the only TLR's with interchangeable lenses; however in medium format SLR cameras Pentax, Hasselblad, Kowa, Bronica, and others all have interchangeable lenses. The Kowa Six is the real sleeper in the bunch. Looks exactly like a Hasselblad and the Kowa's 80mm normal lens is to die for.
New Rolleiflex cameras are priced out of sight, but it is quite possible to find old Rolleis at reasonable prices - I'd say $800 for a very good one with the f:2.8 lens, and less for one with the f:3.5 lens. Even less for a Rolleicord - every bit a fine camera.
Ted
Rolleiflexes are the standard by which all other TLR's are judged, as Leicas are with 35mm rangefinder cameras. As you no doubt have noticed, both are German and represent an extremely high quality of workmanship. As for the glass - Schneider, Carl Zeiss, Leitz - most knowledgeable camera people consider them to be also the best.
This is a brief and decidely un-technical answer, but I have been around cameras since I was ten and this is my take on it. AFAIK the Mamiyas are the only TLR's with interchangeable lenses; however in medium format SLR cameras Pentax, Hasselblad, Kowa, Bronica, and others all have interchangeable lenses. The Kowa Six is the real sleeper in the bunch. Looks exactly like a Hasselblad and the Kowa's 80mm normal lens is to die for.
New Rolleiflex cameras are priced out of sight, but it is quite possible to find old Rolleis at reasonable prices - I'd say $800 for a very good one with the f:2.8 lens, and less for one with the f:3.5 lens. Even less for a Rolleicord - every bit a fine camera.
Ted