Photo courtesy of Chuck Rubin [email protected]
Twin Lens Reflex Medium Format
Cameras
by Robert Monaghan
Twin Lens Reflex Medium Format
Cameras
by Robert Monaghan
Related Links:
TLR related posts on Medium Format Digest
What Is a
TLR?
(Dave Wyman)
Emmanuel Bigler's Rollei TLR Guide
[1/2001]
Rollei FAQ (by
Emmanuel Bigler for Rollei User Group) [1/2001]
Describe TLR or twin-lens reflex cameras
TLRs have two lenses, usually a lower lens that actually takes the
picture and an upper lens that is only used for viewing and composing.
The major TLR brands include Rolleiflex, Mamiya, and Yashica. Mamiya TLRs
include some with unique interchangeable lenses and standards. Most of the other
common TLRs are limited to their original lens, although various add-on optics
such as telephoto and wide angle adapters are also available.
TLRs have many advantages, including low weight and very quiet operation.
Since there is no moving mirror, hand-held images are often sharper than
if an SLR was used. These benefits partially explain the popularity of
TLRs among wedding photographers, who value silent operation!
TLR disadvantages center on parallax due to using one lens to compose and
a different lens to take the photograph. In normal use, this isn't a big
problem with portraits or landscapes. Even for closeup work, some clever
paramenders and other devices help reduce if not eliminate parallax effects.
Still, we would recommend an interchangeable lens SLR if you intend to do
much closeup work or need to use different lenses.
Unfortunately, top of the line Rolleiflex TLRs can cost well over $500.
However, many Mamiya and Yashicamat TLRs, such as the Yashicamat 124G,
can be purchased from $100 US up. Yashicamat 124Gs have become quite popular,
and sometimes prices reach $200-250+ on EBAY. The earlier models are often
just as good, and rather less costly. If you are on a restricted budget, look
into the Minolta Autocords and Ricohflex/Ricoh TLRs. They are not as well known,
but often very good optically and mechanically too.
The Russian Lubitel TLRs are
also often found at budget prices ($20-50+). But there are often many glitches with their
mechanics, though the optics can be surprisingly good for this low price. But with
really good TLR models for $50, even less on EBAY, why bother?
Try to get a TLR model with a
four element lens (tessar derivatives), they work better in the corners wide open
and in closer distances as with portraiture. The three element lenses can work well
too at infinity, especially when stopped down to f/8 or f/11.
I personally tend to recommend the later Rolleicord models
as great buys. Rolleicords have the same optics and fine mechanics of the high end Rolleiflex cameras.
But the mechanics are simplified with a separate shutter cocking step, reducing costs, but adding
an extra step when shooting. Costs are often in the $100-150 range.
Chinese seagull cameras are the only "budget" TLRs available new in the USA market from importers.
Unfortunately, prices have jumped from $75 during a 1998/9 closeout at Porter's camera store to
over $200 and up for a new camera of the same model. Ouch! I don't believe the optics of the lower cost
Seagull TLR are sufficiently good for these prices - at under 20 lpmm or so (ugh!).
Seagull 4 element lenses are okay, but the quality varys a good bit and the mechanics are sometimes a
problem on new in the box cameras. For these reasons, I'd suggest you consider a sturdy older TLR of
German, Japanese or USA (!) origin over these more costly new Seagull TLRs. Somebody is paying for a lot
of full page ads - don't let that be you! ;-)
Besides these well known TLRs, you can find a large number of clones with
decent optics and mechanics for under $100 US and often $50 US used.
While you are limited to the one lens, you may find this an attractive
way to get your feet wet with medium format photography. Studies
have shown that circa 80%+ of all contest winning photos were taken with a normal lens, often at slower
f/stops and speeds. So a TLR can do a remarkable amount of photographic tasks, from portraiture to
travel and even street photography work!
Q: What are some representative TLR models?
Roughly two dozen TLR models were available during the heydays of early
1962 for TLR buyers, including:
Mamiya C330f Twin Lens Reflex (interchangeable lenses..)
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
MPP Microcord Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Minolta Autocord Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Ricohmatic 225 Automatic Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Ricoh Auto 66 Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Rolleiflex f/2.8f Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Rolleiflex f/3.5 F Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Rolleiflex T Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Rolleimagic I Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Rolleimagic II Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Rollop Automatic Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Semflex Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Yashicamat EM Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo courtesy of B's Camera Collection Pages!
Source: The Camera in the Middle - 2 1/4 by James M. Zanutto,
p.54, October 1962 Popular Photography.
What, you want more??? Many of the above TLRs are only one in a
long line of TLR cameras, with the two dozen Minolta
Autocords being a good example. Naturally, Rollei TLRs are
even more numerous and diverse.
| Camera | Country | lens | shutter | synch | focusing | Loading | film advance | shutter | dbl exp | prices | notes |
| Aires Reflex 500C | Japan | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/500 | XF | panel and knob | starter marks | knob and auto stop | separate | no | $99.50 | has f/3.2 viewing lens, mechanical parallax compensation |
| Aires Automat | Japan | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/500 | XF | panel and knob | starter marks | lever and auto stop | automatic | yes | $147.50 | has f/3.2", mech.parallax", stops and shutter speeds visible top |
| Amiflex II | Japan | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/300 | X | geared front ele. | red window | knob and manual | separate | no | $29.95 | price includes flashgun and case |
| Beautycord | Japan | 75mm f/3.5 | 1/10-1/200 | X | panel and knob | red window | knob and manual | separate | no | $39.50 | reduced size ground glass for parallax compensation |
| Beautyflex | Japan | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/300 | X | panel and knob | starter marks | knob and auto stop | separate | no | $49.50 | has self-timer, reduced size" |
| Dejur Reflex DR 10 | USA | 85mm f/3.5 | 1/10-1/200 | MFX | panel and knob | red window | knob and manual | self cocking | no | $99.50 | reduced size ground glass for parallax compensation |
| Dejur Reflex DR 20 | USA | 85mm f/3.5 | 1-1/400 | MFX | panel and knob | red window | knob and manual | separate | no | $129.50 | reduced size ground glass for parallax compensation |
| Flektar | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/500 | MF | geared front ele. | red window | knob and manual | self cocking | no | $16.95 | no parallax compensation |
| Firstflex | Japan | 80mm f/3.5 | 1-1/500 | MF | geared front ele. | red window | knob and manual | separate | no | $59.50 | no parallax compensation |
| Flexaret | Czech | 80mm f/3.5 | 1-1/300 | MX | panel and knob | red window | lever and auto stop | separate | no | $99.50 | has f/3 viewing lens, self timer, no parallax compensation |
| Ikoflex Ib | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/300 | MX | panel and knob | starter marks | knob and auto stop | separate | yes | $99.00 | has field lens, self-timer, reduced grnd glass for parallax comp. |
| Ikoflex Ic | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/300 | MX | panel and knob | starter marks | knob and auto stop | separate | yes | $119.00 | has field lens, self-timer, built in exposure meter, reduced " par. |
| Graflex 22 Model 200 | USA | 85mm f/3.5 | 1-1/200 | MFX | panel and knob | red window | knob and manual | self cocking | no | $93.00 | has f/3.2 viewing lens, field lens, mechanical parallax comp. |
| Graflex 22 Model 400 | USA | 85mm f/3.5 | 1-1/400 | MFX | panel and knob | red window | knob and manual | separate | no | $117.50 | has f/3.2 viewing lens, field lens, mechanical parallax comp. |
| Kalloflex | Japan | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/500 | MFX | panel and knob | starter marks | lever and auto stop | automatic | yes | $125.00 | has f/3 viewing lens, aper/shutter visib. at top, reduced " parallax |
| Koniflex | Japan | 85mm f/3.5 | 1-1/400 | F | panel and knob | starter marks | knob and auto stop | separate | no | $169.50 | has f/3 viewing lens, self timer, field lens, reduced " par, compact |
| Minolta Autocord | Japan | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/400 | MX | panel and knob | starter marks | lever and auto stop | automatic | no | $99.50 | f/3.2 viewing lens, self-timer,no parallax comp, aper/shut visible top |
| Minoltacord | Japan | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/300 | MX | panel and knob | starter marks | lever and auto stop | separate | no | $69.50 | f/3.2 viewing lens, no parallax comp |
| Peerflekta | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/200 | X | lens and lever | red window | knob and manual | separate | yes | $21.95 | has self-timer, no parallax comp |
| Penta Reflex | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1/25-1/200 | ? | lens and lever | red window | knob and manual | self cocking | yes | $19.95 | has no parallax comp |
| Photina Reflex | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/300 | MX | geared front ele. | red window | knob and manual | separate | yes | $52.50 | has no parallax comp |
| Reflekta | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1/25-1/100 | X | lens and lever | red window | knob and manual | self cocking | no | $39.95 | has no parallax comp |
| Rocca Automatic | Germany | 85mm f/2.8 | 1-1/300 | MFX | front ele. & lever | red window | lever and auto stop | automatic | yes | $115.00 | has self-timer, no parallax comp |
| Rolleicord V | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/500 | MX | panel and knob | starter marks | knob and auto stop | separate | yes | $134.55 | f/3.2 viewing lens, self-timer, mech parallax comp, coupled ap/sh |
| Rolleiflex Automat 3.5 | Germany | 75mm f/3.5 | 1-1/500 | MX | panel and knob | automatic | lever and auto stop | automatic | yes | $217.50 | has f/2.8, self-timer,cross-coupled shutter, mech par. Comp, vis.top |
| Rolleiflex 2.8 D | Germany | 80mm f/2.8 | 1-1/500 | MX | panel and knob | automatic | lever and auto stop | automatic | yes | $291.50 | has self timer, cross coupled shutter/diap, mech par., vis.@ top |
| Semflex | France | 80mm f/3.5 | 1-1/400 | MX | panel and knob | automatic | automatic stop | automatic | yes | $129.95 | f/2.8 viewing lens, self-timer, reduced size grnd glass par. Comp |
| Soligor Reflex I | Japan | 80mm f/3.5 | 1/5-1/300 | FX | geared front ele. | red window | knob and manual | separate | no | $34.95 | has split image prism rangefinder on grnd glass, no parallax comp |
| Soligor Reflex II | Japan | 80mm f/3.5 | 1/5-1/300 | FX | panel and knob | red window | knob and manual | separate | no | $47.95 | has split image prism rangefinder on grnd glass, no parallax comp |
| Soligor Semi-Auto Reflex | Japan | 80mm f/3.5 | 1-1/300 | FX | panel and knob | starter marks | knob and auto stop | separate | no | $59.95 | self timer, split image prism, rangefinder on ground glass |
| Super Koniflex | Japan | 85mm f/3.5 | 1-1/400 | F | panel and knob | starter marks | knob and auto stop | separate | no | $289.50 | f/3 viewing lens, self-timer, grnd glass marked for parallax, 135mm* |
| Super Ricohflex | Japan | 80mm f/3.5 | 1/10-1/200 | X | geared front ele. | red window | knob and manual | separate | no | $29.95 | automatic film stop is add-on for $5; no parallax compensation |
| *135mm f/4.5 add-on optics for top/bottom (exchanged to view, shoot) | |||||||||||
I added the above chart after feedback that there was very little
available on the WWW outside of these pages on many TLRs. The prices are
also useful as a guide to the construction and optical quality, ranging
from $16.95 to $291.50. The higher dollar cameras are often still in use
or considered collectibles. However, you should be able to locate a decent
twin lens reflex at an affordable price for much less thanks to EBAY and other sources such as camera
shows, garage sales, other online auctions (Yahoo!..) and other
collectors.
Enjoy!
Yashica Model A $49.95 Yashicamat 124G $120.00 Minolta Autocord $126.90 Rolleiflex T $299.50 Mamiyaflex C330 $319.50
| Rolleiflex (1938) 75mm f/3.5 Tessar | ||
|---|---|---|
| f/stop | center | edge |
| 3.5 | 49 | 14 |
| 4 | 55 | 14 |
| 5.6 | 61 | 14 |
| 8 | 61 | 17 |
| 11 | 44 | 22 |
| 16 | 55 | 31 |
| 22 | 49 | 31 |
How good is the original Rolleiflex twin lens reflex from 1938, with 75mm f/3.5 tessar lens?
The above table gives you some insights. Stopped down to f/16 or f/22, the above example
performed surprisingly well by modern standards, both center and edge. If you avoided the
corners, the center area delivered up to a surprising 60+ lpmm! Not bad for a 75 year old design!
Hughes-Banderob wrote:
Trying to break into medium format cheaply. Any advice on this camera?
How does it compare to other budget medium formats? How does it compare
to more expensive ones? How much are they worth used (good condition).
Any help would be appreciated.
RB
They are a good quality camera, a copy of the German Rollieflex. Yashica cameras with the 80mm lens are good picture takers. Prices have risen lately, along with everthing else. Good cameras can be had for about $150 to $300 for one mint in the box from some commercial stores. You should be able to find a very nice one for around $200. Ebay comstantly has them for sale, usually around $175-$225 for nice ones. You might also check out good deals on Rollies. They can be had for very slightly more, and are excellent cameras. Also the Mamiya TLRs. They have the advantage of interchangeable lenses. The Minolta Autocord is another great old TLR with an excellent reputation. Any of the above cameras will take excellent images and each of them has it's followers. My best advice is to look for a good deal on any of them and go burn some film.
From: Jerry Houston [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Inexpensive Medium Format Camera?
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998
The following is personal opinion, based on 30+ years of using many kinds of
cameras. It not intended to start a flame war. With that said, I usually
have some strong reservations about TLR's, which may or may not apply to
your situation. Consider these points:
(1) Compared to an SLR, they're nearly impossible to use with a polarizer
or a gradient ND filter, which is important to me for landscapes and travel
pictures. (This applies to rangefinder cameras as well.)
(2) The angle at which you use the viewfinder may be advantageous in
certain special circumstances (like covert shots), but I find it
uncomfortable to use the waist-level approach for a majority of subjects.
Eye-level nearly always works best for me.
(3) It's quite annoying for me to work with a reversed image. It's hard
for me to compare what I'm seeing in the viewfinder with what I see as I
look at the subject. That's something I thought I'd get used to, but I
never did. (For some reason, I don't have the same problem with the image
on a view-camera's ground glass. I guess because it's rotated instead of
flipped, it's easier for me to relate to it.)
(4) For me, focusing isn't as quick and precise with a TLR as with
either a good rangefinder or an SLR. The viewfinder is usually much
dimmer than that of any other kind of camera.
(5) Except for the occasional subject that demands a square treatment, a
great deal of film area is wasted with every shot.
(6) A related issue is that you must compose much more deliberately than
with a format that more closely matches the shape of the resulting
enlargement. It's hard for me to guess just what will be, and what won't
be, in a 8x10, 11x14 or 16x20 that I make from a square negative until I
actually have it in the enlarger. Quick shots are likely to lead to
disappointment in this respect.
(7) If the anticipated use is for travel pictures, the majority of which
will be saved in an album as snapshots and only a few examples enlarged to
hang on the wall, your shapshots will be small square ones.
If you really do want medium format at an attractive price, and want to keep
the camera small enough to carry conveniently on vacation, consider one of
the older folding cameras, like a Zeiss, or Voitlander. They can take
excellent pictures, yet fit in a jacket pocket as you trek around.
If small size isn't that important for you, consider one of the fine old
rangefinder cameras along the lines of a Rapid Omega, Graflex XL, Mamiya
Press, or others of that type. All offer interchangeable lenses,
interchangeable backs, a more usable format, and are available for not much
more than the price you mentioned. (About the same cost as a typical
Yashica Mat 124g these days.)
And finally, don't totally discount the idea of a good quality 35mm for
travel pictures. Although I have a Pentax 6x7, I routinely carry a 35mm
compact camera with me when I don't want to be burdened with lots of gear.
My choice is the Olympus XA, available used at around $100 in excellent
condition. It's about the same size as a wallet full of credit cards.
There's never any excuse to leave it behind, and I've made 16x20's with it
that are very impressive.
From: [email protected] (E. Ray and Linda Lemar) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: TLR question RE Parallax Date: 25 Feb 1998 LSchu624 ([email protected]) wrote: : Just got an older Rolleiflex TLR 3.5(accustom to 35mm SLR) and wondering how : close one can move in before worrying about parallax? : : Also wondering if there are parallax problems when shooting with camera tipped : (pan, angled) back or forward even at a moderate distance? : : Are there any sites or other resources to help calculate this? : : Thanks, : : Lloyd Measure the distance between the taking lens and the viewing lens. Say they are 2 inches apart. In that case, the film would see 2 inches less of the top of the subject than you see in the viewfinder. This is independent of the distance from the subject. You are always going to lose 2 inches off the top of the subject. Just leave about 2 inches above the subject and you are safe. A related problem is that you are viewing the subject from a slightly different angle than that from which you are taking the picture. This means that you won't be able to "line up" two objects at different distances. If you really have to do that (or do closeup photography) you need to use a tripod and get one of those devices that fits between the tripod head and the camera and allows you to move the camera up (after you frame the shot) the correct distance so that the taking lens is in the exact position the focusing lens was in. (For example, a Mamiya Paramender) If the head of the tripod is not tilted, you can do this by raising the center post of the tripod the correct ammount. If the head is tilted with respect to the center post, you cannot do this. Ray -- E. Ray Lemar [email protected]
From: "bills" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Autocord Anti-Defamation League
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998
You will also notice the Yashika 6 by 6 commands a premium price. Saying
the resale price of the camera is related to quality does not hold up.
I said earlier, they are not a rollei. If you like the Autocord go on
rejoicing. I used on in school and when I got to serious work purchased a
Rollei. I have been using one kind of Rollei or another for over 30 years.
If I were grading the TLR's they would be something like:
2.8 Rollei 3.5 Tessar the Minolta, the rolleicord and other Xenars The Mamiya series of 6 by 6's (some of which perfrom very well The Ricohflex and Yashika Followed by Circoflex, Tower, Graphic then the Stuff from China and Russia
This is only an opinion after using most of them at one time or another
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (CharlesW99)
[1] Re: Lubitel 166 or Chinese Seagull?
Date: Sun Jul 12 20:54:14 CDT 1998
I suspect the optics will be on par with each other (remember, the Lubitel
is f4.5 and the Seagull is f3.5) when stopped down. The problem with the
Lubitel is the usability or lack thereof of the viewfinder. The Lubitel
has a center area to focus on only which is rather dark. The Seagull (at
least the one on my 4B model) has the standard fresnel lens/ground glass
and has a very good (for the money) split center spot rangefinder.
Take heed of the Seagulls manual: they warn that speeds should not be changed
when the shutter is cocked. Cock the shutter only when you are committed to
taking a picture. That's likely why there are all these Seagulls with jammed
shutters.
Also, if you keep your eyes open, you should be able to find a used
Rolleicord for around $75. Look for a model III or IV at that price.
Charlie
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (FIMP519)
[1] Re: Opinions - Seagull 6x6
Date: Fri Sep 04 11:06:44 CDT 1998
Hi Ken:
you could pick up copy of Photo Answer Magazine Sep.98. They have a hands-on
article in it, I think 1 of the cameras they compared it to is the Yashica
124G, and the Rollie............
Its not as romantic as the other cameras but the lens is sharp and it
handles well.........
DH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
From: Mark Walberg [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Large format TLRs
I saw a picture of some BIG TLRs in Shutterbug (Gowlandflex I think). It
looks like they are made in sizes up to 8 x 10! Has anybody here used
such a beast? If not, who does use them? and why? These make the
famous Studio Rolleiflex look sort of puny! I don't suppose anyone is
carrying an 8 x 10 TLR around their neck. So what would these be good for
that a view camera wouldn't do as well or better?
Mark Walberg
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large format TLRs
Peter Gowland is an interesting guy. He really doesn't like doing nudes.
He told me it makes him feel like a doctor giving an exam.
He developed the large TLR cameras because he liked using Rolleiflexes
but needed the larger format for magazines. The TLR type allows seeing the
picture at the instant the shutter is tripped. The cameras are expensive
partly because he uses matched lenses for the finder, so it exactly doubles
the cost of the lens.
Peter grew up in the part of LA I live in, which was the home of the
earliest movie studios. His father was Gibson Gowland, a very famous movie
star of the middle to late silent period.
I met Peter and his wife Alice, who seems to run the business end of
things, at a camera sale in Santa Monica a few years ago.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large format TLRs
Peter Gowland designed the Gowlandflex to shoot glamour photos in the days
when magazines demanded large format transparencies. View cameras are fine
for static subjects, but no good for capturing the quick, fleeting
expression on a model's face. So Peter wanted TTL viewing while shooting,
something he was used to with his Rolleiflex. He basically took the Rollei
design and scaled it up.
Bob
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large format TLRs
Peter still makes the large format TLR cameras. I don't suppose that he
sells many of them these days, though. Joe Dickerson who writes for us at
Shutterbug is Peter's agent these days and sells the cameras for him as
photo swap meets and such. Peter has to be in his late 70s or early 80s
and shows no sign of slowing down.
Magazines, particularly in Europe, used to demand large format
transparencies. This is a thing of the past today, though, and so the
cameras have little practical application. The design is really nifty,
with parallax correction by tilting the top lens.
Alice has always been the business brains for Peter who is more of an
artist. She is also the writer of the duo. They were divorced some years
ago but still live together and work as a team.
I've known Peter for years since he also used to write (actually Alice
wrote) for Shutterbug.
The only other recent large format TLR that I know of is the one Cambo made
until relatively recently. I didn't notice at last photokina, but they
always used to have one in their stand at the show, and probably would make
one on special order if anyone wanted it. Theirs was 4 X 5 only, so far as
I remember.
Bob
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
From: "R. Peters" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Gowlandflex
I have an early Gowlandflex--The early one that looks like a Turbo
Rolleicord. While they are large, they are surprisingly light. And,
especially with an "L" Bracket, they can be hand held, so they handle much
faster than a view camera. The viewing lens on mine is a barrel mount
Xenar with diaphragm so it has something the Rollei TLR generally doesn't:
Depth of field Preview. It has automatic parallax correction via a moving
mask similar to the Rollei TLR. The Gowlandflex uses a revolving Graflok
back from a Super Graphic, so they'll take the Graphic Rollfilm adapter.
When I bought mine, I had never seen another one. Then at the last Puget
Sound Photographic Collectors show in Puyallup last Spring, there were
several of them for sale. Guaranteed to draw people to start a
conversation.
It is surprising how many people have met or talked to Peter Gowland.
When I dropped him a note asking about accessories for mine, he called me
one Sunday afternoon and talked for over an hour. I suspect he is one of
those people who continues to dabble in work just to keep active and
interact with people. Probably what keeps him a "young" 80 year old.
Bob
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
From: Andras Iklody-Szabo [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large format TLRs
Bob Shell wrote:
>The only other recent large format TLR that I know of is the one Cambo made >until relatively recently. I didn't notice at last photokina, but they >always used to have one in their stand at the show, and probably would make >one on special order if anyone wanted it. Theirs was 4 X 5 only, so far as >I remember.
Just to complete the picture, in the sixties Linhof used to have a TLR
adapter for the Technika 4 & 5 4x5" folding cameras, called Technika-Flex.
That was a modified Technika 2x3 front standard with a shutterless lens but
with diaphragm, a short bellows and a huge mirror box (thus not a
straight-through view to a second rear ground glass) which directed the
view to ground glass on the top, slanted back about 30 degrees. It was not
exactly "waist level" viewing but close. The whole device could be mounted
or dismounted without modification. Available focal lengths were 150mm and
270mm only.
It is well known, that the Technika is a rather heavy 4x5 camera. Just
imagine this combination beast! It might have been one of the reasons, body
building became popular. Wasn't that the time of a Mr. Atlas as well?
Andras Iklody-Szabo
Caracas / Venezuela
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998
From: Mark & Sue Hubbard [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Large format TLRs
Many thanks to Mr. Knoppow for his exceptionally informed answer. My
impression is that Peter Gowland is quite accessible, and if the original
poster is interested in pursing more information about the Gowlandflex
cameras, he might wish to contact Mr. Gowland directly in Southern
California. Gowland frequently has an ad in Shutterbug seeking to buy back
his own equipment.
One of the many interesting cameras that Gowland makes/made was a
roll-film-only view camera, a very nice, rather small rail-mounted unit
that allowed the medium-format photographer access to full movements at a
fraction of the cost of a single, limited tilt-lens. I narrowly missed
buying one with a good lens and back for $600 a few years ago and have
always kicked myself for not picking up the phone sooner, especially
since it took the seller months to find a buyer.
Gowland is known for his glamour photography. Back in the 1950's, Gowland
would haul high-wattage tungstens down to the beach and flood his models
(who were already in full sun) with enough light to remove ANY skin
imperfections at all. His book, "How to Photograph Women," published by
Crown in 1953, is both campy and useful. Under the section, "Keep the Model
Happy," he writes: "One of the first questions I ask a girl before we leave
for location is, 'Have you eaten?' If you want a vivacious model, full of
pep and enthusiasm, keep her well fed." Here's another quote that dates the
writing: "My 5x7 enlarger cost twenty-five dollars new, and I've had over
ten years of good use out of it."
Amid the era-specific chuckles is lots of great information, including many
tips on using the Rolleiflex, one of his favorite small cameras. This
little book is hard to find because of its small size (hardback, 5x7
inches), but it is a wonderful addition to a photo library.
Best wishes,
Mark Hubbard
Eureka, California
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Randy Stewart)
Subject: Re: yashica mat 124G (lens quality?)
Date: 4 Oct 98 03:30:05 GMT
:>Sorry for such a long rant, but I felt that an alternative to the mantra of :>"just get a Yashica 124" needed to be voiced. :> :>Gary Helfrich
Hi Gary,
Good of you to take the time to spell it all out. Most, including me, would
not invest the time. Hope you do not take too many hits from the "124G
faithful".
I've owned and used a number of TLRs and several Koni-Omega cameras. Of all
of the used, "entry" TLRs I have examined, my objective lens tests indicate
that the Minolta Autocord, Rolleicord, or Rolleiflex with a Tessar are the
only ones worth considering for the money in a lower cost, fixed lens TLR.
The Ricoh Diacord has several good recommendations from reliable sources as
being in the same class, and has not been discovered by the gear heads. Its
only reported difficiency is that it as an excessive number of holes and
slots
through which more than average amounts of dirt can enter the body.
Your comment that someone moving into medium format might be put off the
whole
subject by getting an over-rated camera and finding loosy results is very
interesting - something worth considering.
As to Yashicas, all prior to the Yashicamat (4 element Yashinon lens,Tessar
style) are little more than shapshot box cameras, based on crappy 3 element
lenses.
While I have repeatedly tested "Mats" with the Yashinon, I have never tested
one which measured up to the other TLRs mentioned above - leaving it (as a
class) "the worst 120 TLR with a Tessar-type lens". As Yashica advanced the
124G to its end in 1989, it is reported to have cheapened down the "build"
with plastic parts in gears sets. As a result, an early 124G, 124, 12, or
Yashicamat may be a more reliable camera.
They all have the same lens but for multicoating toward the end, and
multicoating is a nearly pointless feature on a lens of this design.
Bought, used and sold two Yashica TLRs over the years - no regrets.
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998
From: Richard Lahrson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] (rollei) Focusing method TLR
[email protected] wrote:
> This may make you all say "duh!" , but today while playing around with > my 3.5E, I realized that it's really quick to focus at waist level by > flipping up the magnifier and focusing on the primary area of interest, > then flipping it back down and composing..(all from waist level). > > I had been raising the camera to chest level to get a better view in the > magnifier, but realize it's slower and not necessary. The magnifier is > just as magnified and just as clear from waist level, holding the strap > taught. I could kick myself for not realizing it before...makes me feel > a bit stoopid...Bill Shepard What other tricks am I missing?
Hi,
This is an important point with the Rollei TLR. I can always get pin
point focus using this method. I wear eye glasses and most 35 SLRs are
difficult to focus for me. No small advantage for the Rollei TLR, IMO.
Rich Lahrson
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998
From: "Fanourakis, John (Tokyo)" [email protected]
Subject: Contaflex TLR
Hello,
There still are a few more 35mm TLR's apart from Contaflex and LuckyFlex:
1) Bolsey model "C"
2) Agfa AgfaFlex (I think that this is the name, but I forgot. I
have one, but it's at my friend's
place now. It's a very weird camera. It has two lenses mounted on
one helicoid for focussing,
and the upper lens is for viewing. The image from the upper lens
goes to a fixed mirror, then to
the pentaprism, just like an SLR, and then to the view finder.)
3) Yallu (Made in Japan in the '50s, but the company went bankcrupt,
and only a few
prototypes exist. Traded in Japan for about $10,000, and rarely show
up at camera shows. )
4) Tougou-dou Meikai Reflex (made in the '50s in Japan)
5) Arco 35 (another Japanese 35mm foldable rangefinder camera, which
can be converted to
a TLR camera with a reflex finder attachment which is placed on the
accessory shoe, but the front
part is screwed on to the lens board so as to synchronize the
focussing)
And a few more Japanese brands which I can't remember their names.
I myself own two Contflex TLR cameras, Sonnar 50/1.5, Sonnar 50/2, and
Sonnar 135/4. I use them very often. I just love them for many reasons.
One thing that can be said for sure about Contaflex TLR is that it is the
world's first camera with built in exposure meter.
- John Fanourakis
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Brian Legere [email protected]
Subject: Response to Budget MF: Which one, vote now
Date: 1999-01-13
I have tried a newer Bronica, an older yashica mat g-124,Yashica 'd",
a Rollieflex 3.5 planar,and a minolta autocord.They all take great
pictures and any one of them are a nice alternative to 35mm.What I like
about tlr cameras is the simplicity,quiet operation,and large negative.
Most importantly,using a tlr forces me to slow down,relax and think
about good composition,lighting,shutter speed,multiple exposure etc.
I do not enjoy the point and shoot mentality that I sometimes fall into
with my Nikon n90.shooting with the tlrs has given me an improved
perspective.Try a tlr it takes a while to get used to it but it is well
worth it.
From: greg kerr [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya C330 or Yashica Mat 124?
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
Cy Edison wrote:
Which of these two is a better camera in terms of quality and optics?
The Yashica Mat 124G has a fixed 80 mm lens whereas there are
interchangeable lens options for the C330. However there are quite a few
people who claim that the Yashica Mat lens out performs the 80 for the
C330. In fact some people also claim that it outperforms the Rolliflex
TLR's, although Rollei fans will loudly dispute this. The C330 is a much
heavier camera and because of the lens options it is still a favorite low
budget option for many wedding photographers. It is also I believe the
only TLR with interchangeable lens. To answer your question I would
prefer a C330 as it is more versatile, but you will also pay considerably
more not only for the camera but also when you start collecting lenses.
From: "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie Question
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999
....
> What would be the basic starting point for a medium format camera, and > a lens for portraits. > Thanks.
Robert,
Most medium format beginners start with a twin lens reflex (TLR). Used
Yashica Mat's and Minolta Autocord's are probably the least expensive
'quality' cameras. Rollei's are not inexpensive, but are reasonable and
high quality. The Mamiya TLR's offer interchangeable lenses and metered
prism viewfinders as accessories. A Mamiya C-330 and the F and S models
of it, along with an 80mm (normal) and a 135mm (portrait) lens in good
condition from a reputable dealer, including a short warranty period
should set you back less than $1000. All the TLR's allow flash synch at
all shutter speeds (leaf shutters), making it easy to use fill flash for
outdoor portraits. The TLR's are 6x6 format, requiring you to crop and
use a 6x4.5 portion of the neg for standard rectangular print sizes. You
can compose either vertically or horizontally (rectangular comps) without
rotating the camera. Of course, you can use the entire negative
for compositions that look best when presented as a square print. You
can't change film in the middle of a roll. If you want to use different
films (black and white and color slides, for instance), you'll need a
second body.
If your budget runs a little higher, don't let people fool you. The
Mamiya RB67 single lens reflex (SLR) is NOT "just a studio camera". It's
way too versitile for that. Lenses run from 50mm to 500mm, and the
camera works just fine in bright sunlight. I suppose you could use the
50 and 500 lenses indoors, but I think they were designed for use
outdoors. All lenses focus to infinity (not something you'd need in a
'studio' camera), and the camera's bellows allows extreme closeups. Due
to its weight, it's not a great bacpacker, though I've heard from folks
who use it as such. I haven't found a need to take mine more than a
hundred yards from the road to get the shot, so I'm thoroughly satisfied
with it. The 6x7 neg almost exactly fits standard rectangular print
paper sizes, so little resolution is lost. You get much more negative
area than you do when cropping 6x6 to fit rectangular prints. If you
need to compose square, you still have a full 6x6 square inside each 6x7
frame. This camera is best when mounted on a good tripod so you can get
all the detail that can be captured on a 6x7 negative. All lenses are
leaf shutter types, allowing flash synch at all speeds. The mirror can
be locked up before each shot for nearly vibration-free shooting. The
film back can be rotated to allow vertical or horizontal compositions
without rotating the entire camera.
Hasselblad makes superb SLR's and lenses, but restricts you to 6x6 as
the largest negative size. I believe some of the Hassie boddies have
focal plane shutters, but allow the use of leaf shutter lenses. I have
limited knowledge of these cameras, so I'll leave further details to
others.
Bronica makes several SLR's, ranging from 6x4.5 to 6x7 format. Again,
I'll leave the details to others.
The Pentax 6x7 is built like a 35mm SLR and has a focal plane shutter.
There have been long discussions here regarding whether the shutter
causes camera movement due to quickly moving and stopping that much
mass. I won't join the fracas. A number of interchangeable lenses are
available. The biggest drawback is lack of changeable film holders. The
second biggest drawback is the slow flash synch speed.
There are a number of 6x6, 6x7 and 6x8 rangefinders. Leaf shutters, some
with a limited selection of interchangeable lenses. Again, one film at a
time. You're stuck with what's in the body until the roll is finished.
I think of 6x4.5 cameras as almost miniature 6x7's. They do limit your
shooting options somewhat though. Most have focal plane shutters which
limit flash synch speed. The entire camera must be rotated to change
from vertical to horizontal composition. If you need to shoot square,
the effective negative size is reduced to 4.5x4.5. Not tiny, but not
very cost/benefit effective, either. These cameras are easy to handle
and have a lot of available lenses. Some have changeable film backs,
others, I believe, are fixed.
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Tony K.)
[1] Re: Advice: Ancient Mamiya, Yashica or New Seagull?
Date: Sat Jan 01 05:03:09 CST 2000
Hello. I had been exactly in the same situation as you are now when I
sought out my first medium format camera. First of all, I have to warn you
that getting caught up in collecting the hardware gets pretty addicting (I
had a budget too). How much is your budget? If it is around the $150
range, you can get a Rolleiflex Automat MX (with flash synch) for about
$130. I had gotten a Rolleiflex for $66 once (Automat I with no flash
capability). Others will argue, but to start out, a $66 Rolleiflex (the
original...not a copy like the $300 Yashicamat 124G) is unbeatable.
Rolleiflexes offer no exposure compensation necessary at any focus point,
automatic parallax compensation, and a gridded focusing screen. You get to
learn real quick after about 6 rolls of 120 film if Medium Format is
something that you will stick with. By, the way, I am assuming that you
don't want to meter with the camera (you'll need a handheld light meter or
the recomended film exposure table that comes with every roll of film).
If
you want the ability to change lenses, the Mamiya TLR is your only low
budget choice. They are great if you want a rugged, heavy feeling camera
that is actually built like a tank and can focus REALLY close (about 1 foot
with 80mm normal lens, compared to about 3.5 feet with my Rolleiflex). The
C220 is really simple, but you have to check the scale on the side of the
camera after you focus for the exposure and parallax compensation, as well
as manually cocking the shutter. The C33 is older, but does show you the
exposure and parallax compensations on the focusing screen and cocks the
shutter automatically with every film advance. You can get either the C220
or C33 for about $200 with a working chrome (non-coated) series normal
(80mm f2.8) lens if you are diligent and lucky either on Ebay (remember,
you have to have patience...if something goes beyond your range, there is
always the next one), or if you shop around. I've actually started to buy
so called "needs work" and "parts only" lenses and if all the parts are
there, I can take it apart, clean and lubricate them now to make them work
perfectly (I usually save about half of the cost of that lens since it
"doesn't work".
As for the Seagull camera, don't risk buying one. I have had two of them,
one new and one used. Although the picture quality is OK, the shutters are
too easy to jam (permanently!). The new one was jammed right out of the
box! Apparently, you also cannot change shutter speeds after you advance
the film (cocked shutter) or you will jam the shutter. You can also jam
the shutter while messing with it, to get it to go in and out of the
included leather case. Why bother, get something that works. If it's been
around since the 1940's, then, chances are that it'll be around after we're
all gone. Hope this helps.
Tony
....
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000
From: "David Foy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei or Yashica TLR info
Try http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html. This page is a good
starting point for finding out about various TLR models. As yet I haven't
seen a complete and accurate Yashica TLR list, although there are several
that are quite comprehensive. The Rolleis are well documented.
Another reply offers the opinion that the Rollei and Yashica lenses are
comparable. That is true if you compare the Yashikor to the Triotar (both
triplets), and the Yashinon to the Zeiss Tessar and Schneider Xenar (all
Tessar-formula). The Zeiss Planar and Schneider Xenotar found on more
expensive Rolleiflexes are clearly superior, according to experts who have
tested them (I have no personal experience with the high-end lenses).
Rolleiflex cameras have a film-thickness sensor which considerably
simplifies film loading -- you don't have to align the arrow on the paper
backing before you start winding. That made it a much more efficient
camera back in the days when pros used TLRs like this for wedding
photography. It's a nice feature now, but hardly a productivity-enhancer
any more. Rolleicords and Yashicas do not have it.
The later Yashica-Mats like the 124 and 124-G have brighter viewing
screens than Rollei products in the same price range. I find this a very
great advantage in getting critical focus.
Within the normal price range of a 124-G (say, $175-$200 or so) you are
not likely to find a clearly superior high-end Rolleiflex with a Planar or
Xenotar. You will find good older Rolleiflexes, and the latest Rolleicords
(Va and Vb) with Tessar and Xenar lenses.
The Rollei cameras have a fit and finish advantage. They are very pleasant
to shoot. I do not believe they have any optical advantage in this price
range. The Yashica cameras I find easier to use well because of the
brighter viewscreen.
I believe the 124-G is presently over-priced. It is functionally identical
to the 124 (non-G), which has more chrome and typically goes for 2/3 the
price. If on-board metering and the ability to use 220 film are not
important to you, by far the best choce is a late-model plain-vanilla
Yashica-Mat, which has the Yashinon lens and usually sells for $80 and up.
The late models had the desirable bright viewscreen. Early or late, it is
optically identical to the 124-G, noticably smaller, produces images
comparable to the Rollei Tessar or Xenar, and is a very nice little
machine.
You should try to handle both before buying. If the nicer "feel" of the
Rollei products appeals to you, you will be very happy with a Rolleicord
Va or Vb, or a Tessar or Xenar equipped Rolleiflex.
From: [email protected] (ShadCat11)
Date: 26 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei or Yashica TLR info
Another reply offers the opinion that the Rollei and Yashica lenses are
comparable. That is true if you compare the Yashikor to the Triotar (both
triplets), and the Yashinon to the Zeiss Tessar and Schneider Xenar (all
Tessar-formula). The Zeiss Planar and Schneider Xenotar found on more
expensive Rolleiflexes are clearly superior, according to experts who have
tested them (I have no personal experience with the high-end
lenses).
I have experience with all the above named, several samples each. While
the comments were accurate, I would say that among good samples (they
varied) of the Tessar/Xenar/Yashinon v. Planar/Xenotar, you would be hard
pressed to pick out any of them by f8-11, especially at enlargements 16X20
or less (I have never made a larger print, so I can't comment beyond
that.) Planars and Xenotars show their superiority at wider apertures,
especially at the edges and corners.
Rolleiflex cameras have a film-thickness sensor which considerably
simplifies film loading -- you don't have to align the arrow on the paper
backing before you start winding. That made it a much more efficient
camera back in the days when pros used TLRs like this for wedding
photography. It's a nice feature now, but hardly a productivity-enhancer
any more. Rolleicords and Yashicas do not have it.
When I am using a 'cord or Y'mat, I don't miss the auto film starter.
When I am using 'flexes I just love the feature. It can be really useful
when I have to load film in the dark, for example, and is thumping good
fun the rest of the time!
The later Yashica-Mats like the 124 and 124-G have brighter viewing
screens than Rollei products in the same price range. I find this a very
great advantage in getting critical focus.
True, but there are some outstanding aftermarket screens better than
anything provided by Rollei or Yashica. Perhaps pricy, though.
Within the normal price range of a 124-G (say, $175-$200 or so) you are
not likely to find a clearly superior high-end Rolleiflex with a Planar or
Xenotar. You will find good older Rolleiflexes, and the latest Rolleicords
(Va and Vb) with Tessar and Xenar lenses.
Later 'cords are really great cameras, very well made. They are slightly
slower in operation than flex or Y'mat, but not unhandy, and very
versatile.
The Rollei cameras have a fit and finish advantage. They are very
pleasant to shoot. I do not believe they have any optical advantage in
this price range. The Yashica cameras I find easier to use well because of
the brighter viewscreen.
For what it's worth, my Y'mats were in the repair shop much more often
than any other camera I have owned. At that, it was not awful or chronic.
There was never a shutter problem, though, and all fixes were cheap.
I believe the 124-G is presently over-priced. It is functionally
identical to the 124 (non-G), which has more chrome and typically goes for
2/3 the price. If on-board metering and the ability to use 220 film are
not important to you, by far the best choce is a late-model plain-vanilla
Yashica-Mat, which has the Yashinon lens and usually sells for $80 and up.
The late models had the desirable bright viewscreen. Early or late, it is
optically identical to the 124-G, noticably smaller, produces images
comparable to the Rollei Tessar or Xenar, and is a very nice little
machine.
220 is the bees knees. Y'mat 124 and G gets high marks for that alone,
altho it has other charms as well.
You should try to handle both before buying. If the nicer "feel" of the
Rollei products appeals to you, you will be very happy with a Rolleicord
Va or Vb, or a Tessar or Xenar equipped Rolleiflex.
Correct.
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000
From: [email protected] (David F. Stein)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei or Yashica TLR info
Nice review. Rolleiflexes have one great feature not usually
discussed-the direct vieiwng magnifier (upside down image) for the
sportsfinder. You can really focus and then shoot quickly in direct
vision mode.
Date: 30 Dec 1999
From: Javier Henderson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice: Ancient Mamiya, Yashica or New Seagull?
"Primeval Forest" [email protected] writes:
> I want to get into MF photography but with limited $. I was thinking, a TLR > might be just fine for me. It appears to me that in the NG, many own a > used/old Mamiya or Yashica's TLR, rather then a new Seagull. In comparison, > the money spend on the first and second model should be able to justify for > a new model of Seagull. Could someone please enlighten? Will it be o.k. > if I go for the Seagull? Any pointer to where I can lookup for product > information on the latest Seagull TLR?
I bought a Seagull from Calumet earlier this year, and now own
a Yashica Mat 124G. Here are some basic differences.
The Seagull only accepts 120 film, the Yashica either 120 or 220.
The Seagull will let you do multiple exposures of the same
frame, the Yashica won't.
The Seagull's vignetting wide open is more noticeable than that
of the Yashica with slide film, but just barely.
The Seagull has a split-image focusing aid, the Yashica doesn't.
The Yashica has some red lines on the viewscreen to help you
compose, the Seagull doesn't.
The Yashica has a set of knobs to indicate what film you have
loaded (b&w, color slide, color print), the Seagull doesn't.
The Yashica shutter goes all the way to 1/500, the Seagull only
to 1/250 (or maybe 1/350?)
I think that's about it. The Seagull that Calumet sells new is
a pretty good value at around $100. Yashica Mat 124G's go for about
twice that on eBay and used resellers like KEH.
-jav
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: flyboy803 [email protected]
Subject: Re: Advice: Ancient Mamiya, Yashica or New Seagull?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
....
If you can pick up a Seagull for around a hundred bucks, I say go for
it...mine was $160 brand new from a local shop, which is a bit high,
but it did come with the shop's own one year warranty...and that
warranty came in handy when the first SG's film advance started
slipping after a few rolls of film; the shop just took it back and gave
me another brand new one right off the shelf...
The SG gets beat up pretty bad here at times, and much of the criticism
is undeserved...make no mistake about it, this is not a Rollei or even
a Yashica Mat, but it does take great pictures...among its better
qualities are a very bright focusing screen, the multiple exposure
function, and a pretty darned sharp lens for the price...the biggest
problems with it seem to be the film advance's tendency to slip...
As to the 124G, I have one and love it...my guess is that you may
already be aware that the price of the 124G is totally out of control
at present, with some selling on eBay for over $500...keep in mind that
this is a camera that sold for under $200 when brand new not more than
ten or twelve years ago...here again, if you can find one at a decent
price, which to me is under $200, it really is a nice camera...
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
From: ross bleasdale [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleinar attachments....
Bay 1 will fit the early (post 1939) automats and Rolleicords,later 4x4's
inc 1941 Sport
Bay 2 - 3.5E/E2/E3 & F,Rolleimagic's 1 & 2
Bay 3 - All 2.8's (except 2.8A which accepts Bay 2 and an odd shaped lens
hood) and R-tele
Bay 4 - R-wide(difficult to find)
Ross
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Film, Again!
It is a common problem if your camera puts the first frame closer than
about a half inch from the beginning of the film. The lab needs about
a half inch to 3/4 inch to stick out of the light-tight box that fits
into the processing machine. On cameras where you line up arrows you just
run the film about half an inch past the arrows when loading and the
problem generally goes away, but with a Rollei TLR with the film feeler
system (or the new cameras with IRED sensors) I know of no way to do
this. It is a case of camera makers and lab equipment makers being out
of touch with each other.
Bob
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000
From: speedo [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stepping up to Med. Format
Garry B. wrote:
> One quick follow up... > > Have any of you had experience with the cheaper Rolleicord models. Does the > schneider lens measure up to the qaulity produced by the more popular zeiss > and Mamiya optics?
Personally I think there is very little difference in photo quality
between any of the TLR's previously mentioned. If I was making the choice
and money is no object my preference in order would be
1. Mamiya C330 Advantage is multiple lenses. Disadvantage is heavier
weight.
2. Rolleiflex Legendary reputation for quality of construction/photos.
Disadvantage is high cost for the good models.
3. YashicaMat 124G. Does everything that the Rollei will do but not as
well constructed. Most bang for the buck.
4. Rolleicord. Was a consumer version of the more up model Rolleiflex
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] re: non-Rollei: Advice needed
> It seemed that towards the end of the line Yashica cut costs on the 'Mat > a lot. I believe they went to a cheaper 3 element lens and further pushed > them down the road to extinction. A friend of mine who has the 'Mat as > well as Minolta Autocord and Ricohflex says that of the three, the > Autocord is the best. Finding service for these cameras is possible but > parts are getting hard to come by.
The Ricoh TLR was called the Diacord. I've had a couple of them. They
are better built than the Yashica TLRs and the lens is remarkably sharp.
We did some study years ago of the various Japanese TLRs (there were many
of them) and concluded that the Minolta Autocord may actually have been
made with dies bought from Rollei. The makers marks on the castings were
identical.
Bob
[Ed. note: mutars and related optics mount in front of TLR lens(es) and
provide wider angle of view, or more telephoto view, or closeup
capabilities - see lens adapters for
more...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] mutar substitute
There are several options available:
1.- Yashica, or SUN or Samigon, or Cambron or several other different
brands of Bay 1 tele and wide angle adapters. Some are awful, some are
tolerable, some are OK. It's a craps shoot.
2.- get a Bay 1, 2, or 3 series adapter (about 25 bucks) and then with
step up/down rings you can use a plethora of wide or tele adapters sold by
Kenko and many other firms for prices ranging from about 60 bucks to over
300. the only drawback is that you will have to constantly moce the combo
from the viewing lens to the taking lens. Quality will be pretty good
though and you may even be able to do fisheye stuff.
3.- sell your first born and buy the real Mutars
-_______________
Andrei D. Calciu
NEC America, Inc
....
From: [email protected] (Darrell A. Larose)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.misc
Subject: New Pentax TLR
Date: 3 May 2000
US Patent # US00D421268S, February 29, 2000
Granted to Akira Watanabe, Asahi Kogaku
Sort of an odd looking camera.
From: "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: New Pentax TLR
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000
.....
Mike,
This URL (http://www.patents.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/USD0421268__)
will take you to the patent on the IBM patent server. Full text and
drawings.
The patent granted is a 'design patent', meaning that it protects the
shape and styling of the camera, not necessarily any mechanical
features. It looks as though they may be considering marketing it. It is
an interresting design. It just may capture some of the younger market.
It's compact and, assuming the use of proper materials, could be quite
light weight.
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: Matthew Phillips [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] first rolleiflex
Gene,
If your chief concern in your search for a first Rolleiflex is a 'fine
lens', then I would point out that your Ikoflex IIa's Tessar, and the
Xenar on your Rolleicord IV - essentially the same design from Zeiss and
Schneider - ARE fine lenses, and are of the same design that you'll find
on Rolleiflex models predating about 1956.
The 2.8D and 3.5E models introduced the five (sometimes six) -element
Planar and Xenotar. The greatest improvement you'll see with these lenses
over the Tessar or Xenar is in edge sharpness at larger apertures and
(depending on the age of the Tessar-design lens) an increase in contrast.
Ignore claims that one brand (Zeiss or Schneider) is superior to the
other. The Zeiss name may carry more prestige, and a higher price-tag, but
the performance is comparable.
The 2.8D predates metered Rolleiflex models and may be a good choice for
you if you want a 2.8 model. Most E (including E2 and E3) and nearly all F
cameras with these more complex lenses will also have meters. Thirty and
forty year-old selenium meters frequently either do not work at all, or
have become non-linear in their sensitivity. On the E models, the meter is
uncoupled; after aligning two pointers, you transfer EVS settings to
aperture and shutter speed dials. On the F models, the meter is coupled to
shutter, aperture and filter compensation dial. If you're looking for a
meterless Rolleiflex with a Planar or Xenotar, then you're easiest find
will be a 2.8D, followed by one of the E, E2 or E3 sold without a meter.
The D and E had a fixed waist-level finder. On the E2 and E3, the finder
can be switched for a pentaprism. Modern 'bright' finder screens are
easily installed into cameras with interchangeable finders without partial
disassembly of the camera. Rolleiflex cameras with interchangeable finders
tend to be more expensive than those with fixed hoods.
You may want to also consider the Rolleiflex T. It was introduced as an
intermediate model between the Rolleicords and the high-end Rolleiflex
models. It has a Tessar lens, but one touted by Rollei as 'recomputed'. It
does seem to have an edge over earlier Tessar and Xenar lenses, in my
experience, in terms of contrast and edge definition. The T has some
differences in its control layout and build from other Rolleiflex models:
these can be seen as either pro or con, depending on your sensibilities.
The T freqently is found without a meter, and has interchangeable finders.
The T is usually somewhat less expensive than the 3.5E.
Hope this helps with your search.
M.Phillips
Date: 6 Sep 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Seagull/Lubitel resources?
....
I've got several Lubitels and a Seagull - all of which I have used
successfully. My Seagull is one of the older knob wind models - but I also
have a YashicaMat which is crankwind like the later Seagulls.
I have information relating to all of them on my web site:
http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/
As well as details on many other cameras.
Out of these 3 TLRs I think my favourite is the Seagull as it very solid
and reliable. The Lubitels are a bit flimsy - and my YashicaMat whilst
certainly the best specified has spent too much time in the repair shop
for my liking.
Also out of the 3 - the Seagull is the only one with a rangefinder built
into the focusing screen - which makes focussing much easier.
All are capable of taking decent pictures though.
I bought them all 2nd hand at camera fairs and car boot sales.
:-)
Roland.
From ROllei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: John Milne [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ROLLEI TECHNIQUE.
Sunil,
Your observations are out of keeping with portraiture, as done by painters
anyway. A quick rush around the National Portrait Gallery in London shows
the viewpoint of most paintings going back to the 16th century as being
slightly below the eyeline of the subject. You (the viewer) look up very
slightly into the portrait. Rollei tlr is perfect for recreating this. If
you're down there with the ants-eye-view you're probably missing something
in this technique.
Yours
John
----- Original Message -----
From: sunil manga [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000
Subject: [Rollei] ROLLEI TECHNIQUE.
> HiJOHN, > the Normal TLR Technique is to use the Waist Level Finder alongwith the > magnifying lens for maximum focus and framing. > This is with ref. to ROLLEIFLEX 'E' 2.8PLANAR, only. > For shooting portraits , one tends to stoop down and getting an ants view or in > plain language the TLR has to be tilted in order to frame. > This led to many a ruined portrait session. > Now, using the SLR way is to: > *open the WLF. > *flip the mirror down. > *use the lens and the mirror at eye level for sharp focus. > *shift eye vertically to the framefinder, frame the portrait at eyelevel and > shoot. > MAGIC, No more low angled shots. > The TLR behaves more like an SLR. > John, this should explain what i feel is the right way to shoot a portrait with > a MF SLR or TLR. In the case of an SLR a Right Angled PRISM FINDER would be > required, BUT not for this ROLLEIFLEX TLR. > Sunil.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] ROLLEI TECHNIQUE.
Below the eye level is how almost every glamour portrait it done. Check
out any magazine (inStyle, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, et al). Eye level is a
height used mostly in local portrait studios. Above the eye is when you
want to show more intellect. Check out Halsmann's portraits of Einstein
and others. He shoots at the brow level to show an intelligence.
Peter K
...
FRom Rollei Mailing List:
Hi Shannon, The condition of the particular camera is probably more
important then model. Look for Rolleis late enough to have the internal
light baffles. These were introduced about 1954.
Tessar and Xenar lenses are both excellent.
The Rolleicord should not be bypassed. Especially the Rolleicord IV with
Xenar. This camera was made for only about a year. It has film wind
interlock, which earlier 'cords did not. It also is a light and very easy
camera to operate. I find it easier to hold steady than the 'flex.
Later MX type flexes with light value shutters also have an override for
the double-exposure-prevention, which can be useful.
The later cameas with Xenotar and Planar lenses will be considerably
more expensive than the Tessar and Xenar versions. There has always been
some controversey regarding the relative quality of the Planar vs:
Xenotar, it is nitpicking, both are supberb. The f/3.5 versions are
somewhat lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 cameras. Both the f/3.5 Planar
and Xenotar are six element Biotar types. These are the most common design
for f/2 lenses on 35mm cameras. At f/3.5 a competently designed Biotar
type should be exceedingly well corrected.
None of the Rolleis will focus closer than about 3-1/2 feet. You can get
good close-up lenses for closer focusing. The limit is typical of TLR
cameras due to mechanical limitations and the increasing amount of finder
parallax, which becomes hard to correct at some point.
My main advise is to use some care in shopping. The lenses should be
perfect, do not accept lenses which are scratched, etc., there is no way
of fixing them and scratches do degrade the image quality.
Remember that these are _old_ cameras, they will often need overhauling.
Try to avoid a beater but, remember when buying, that you may have to
spend additional money for repair or just tuning up. If someone tells you
the camera has just been serviced ask who did the service. There are a few
really good Rollei techs out there but a lot of ham-fists. Better to get a
sticky camera that needs service than one which seems OK but has been
worked over by a butcher.
This list is a good source for competent technicians. One of the best is
Harry Fleenor of Oceanside Camera, here in LA, but there are others.
The quality of construction of Rollei cameras is the same for the entire
line. The Roleicord, while it was the economy model, is as well designed
and made as the Rolleiflex. Its lower cost was from not having the
remarkable self-threading feature of the Flex. For some purposes, it is
superior to the Flex, being lighter and, for me, easier to handle.
Rollei leather cases are nearly always falling apart. Usually the
leather is OK but the stitching has rotted away. Sewing them up again is
not a big deal.
There is no analogy suitable for comparing a Rollei to a Lubitel. They
are as much apart as a rock from the garden is from the Rollei. (But I
found an analogy anyway).
This ON TOPIC post is to compensate for my other one on the history of
the phonograph record (another hobby).
----
From Rollei Mailing List:
Gene,
Although a hard core Rollei TLR collector, I do have an eye for the
occasional other TLR. I have Minolta Autocords, AiresFlex (Coral, Zuiko,
and Nikkor lenses), Yashicas, an Olympusflex (with 4 element viewing lens
and 6 element taking lens), a couple of Sawyers 4 x 4s, early Mamiyaflexes
(non-interchangeable lenses), Richoflex 6 x6s, Ansco Automatic Reflex,
Flexarets, Toyocaflexes, etc, etc, etc.
Many of the Japanese TLRs are low in quality, although there is a
cornucopia of them to choose from. I had heard of one fellow who was
trying to collect a Japanese TLR for every letter of the alphabet. I think
he was stuck on X and some other letter.
That is not to say the Japanese TLRs are all low quality. The Minolta and
early Mamiya TLRs are very high quality. The early Mamiya TLRs are more
along Rollei lines rather than the interchangeable behemoths they later
became. The Airesflex are not great quality, but I collect them because of
the lenses they came with - Zuiko and Nikkor. The Sawyers 4 x 4s are great
little cameras, almost up to the build of a Rollei, but not quite there.
There is more solidity in the Rollei. The Ansco Automatic Reflex is a
solid brick of a camera, high quality, but verrrry heavy. It has an 83 mm
lens I think - strange focal length. The Flexarets are Czech cameras
interesting in their later iterations due to the grey leatherette and art
deco design.
There are TONS of other TLRs. The Zeiss ones (the Contaflex 35 mm TLR and
the Ikoflexes), the Welta ones, innumerable others.
Todd
From Rollei Mailing List:
Vicky,
Others on this list will have better qualified advice, but as a
semi-newbie, I will offer my pitch for a Rolleicord IV. You should be
able to find a real nice one for about $120. It has a Schneider Xenar
of f3.5, and a few cool features such as semi-auto film advance(no red
window),and double exposure prevention. I use mine a lot and when I do
my part right, the results are very impressive. Well made too.
Gene Johnson
From Rollei Mailing List:
Did you know the portraits of Avedon and Irving Penn ?
Penn works with and 8 X 10 and a Rollei standard with Tessar 3,5.
Avedon also 8 X 10 and a Rollei 2,8 wih Xenotar (much better than the
Planar)
In France Doisneau and Horst and others have made some of the most
beautifull portraits of the past century with normal Rolleiflex
Do you think that a portrait is only a closeup of a head ?
May be good as an identification photo for a drivers license, but a
portrait is much more than that.
Luis Poirot
From ROllei Mailing List;
Bob Shell:
Not surprising. I can see why both Minolta and Rolleiflex would want to
keep that kind of information under the carpet. Still, Rolleiflex must
have been very secure in their product to sell tooling to a competitor!
I have 2 Ricoh Diacords, and the "Duo-Focusing" feature was the best part
of the camera, IHMO. They seem to be well made units (more than one
service-person I've spoken with raved about the film chamber baffling) but
the Rikenon 3.5 80mm taking lens really falls on its face at wider
aperture settings, producing very grainy results in the units I have
tested. The Seikosha shutters fitted to the Diacords have click-stops for
shutter speed and f-stop settings, while the same (name) shutter fitted to
the Autocord offers a rheostat-like adjustability between f-stop settings.
Nice. A good friend of mine sent me his Diacord L (metered) to try and I
was surprised at the sophistication of its features. It seems to be a more
"professional" camera than the un-metered units I have. I plan on shooting
it very soon.
David Morris asked:
"As we're discussing Minoltas and Yashicas, has anyone any experience or
views of SEM flexes from France and MPP Microcords/Microflexes from
Britain?"
I have over 40 TLR's in my working/user collection, but as yet I have not
picked up either of these. What are your findings David? Seeing as how
this British made TLR doesn't have any electrical componets, I reckon it
might be alright....:-)
Nolan Woodbury
From Rollei Mailing List;
Well, Nolan, if you put something together let me know. I'll happily
contribute what little I know.
One TLR which has always fascinated me is the German Rollop. I only ever
saw one and that was at the old Enna factory in Munich (Enna made the
lenses for this ill-fated venture). The factory was sold some years ago
because the downtown real estate was just worth too much and no one seems
to know what became of the collection of cameras and lenses they had on
display there in big glass cases. Most who have mentioned the Rollop say
the camera was very well made but the lenses were mediocre, but whether
anyone has tried one or is just repeating hearsay I don't know. Enna
generally made very good lenses, so this sound odd.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
--
Just when I think I've heard of most TLR cameras something comes along and
gives me a bunch of new ones. For example I just got the latest catalog
from the Leica Shop in Vienna. They have these for sale:
Azak (Czechoslovakia), Embirflex (Rodenstock lenses), Ontoflex, Fokaflex,
Start 66, Aires (Nikkor lenses), First Reflex, Bioflex, in addition to
well known ones like Ikoflex and Rolleiflex.
I've heard of some of these, but not others. I've always wondered about
the Aires with Nikkor lenses. Sounds interesting, but I've never seen
one.
Bob
[Ed. note: a trivia quiz - interchangeable lens Konica TLR... ;-)]
John,
Konica did get on the band wagon for TLRs in the 50s. They produced a TLR
in about 1952 with an 82/3.5 Hexanon lens and later an 85/3.5 Hexanon. The
really interesting thing is that this lens was interchangeable with a
135/4
TeleKoniflex lens! I would love to find one of these things, but I have
never seen one for sale. McKeown (11th ed pg 383) lists them between
$80-$120). Bring one on.
Todd
==================
[Slap to forehead, really, really HARD] Yes, I
did forget it. Not really difficult, I suppose,
considering its weirdness and scarcity. Do you mean to
tell me that there are other 6x7 TLRs? Now, that's
really strange. Of what possible value could it be
compared to a real TLR like a Rollei? Verticals would
be hell to shoot. I take it the designer, engineer,
and marketer were all lined up against the wall and
shot for their efforts.
[Ed. note: thanks to John for providing this tip for rollei TLR (and
clone) users...]
It sounds as if you may have forgotten to thread the film leader (paper)
under the roller (actually between two rollers) when loading the film. The
effect on not doing this is the same. The film will crank all the way
through
and not stop at each frame. John
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
[email protected] says...
Having had both a Yashicamat and a couple of Mamiya C330 cameras in
the early through the 70s, I think the better service would be had in
a Yashicamat. The only significant advantage of a C220 to someone
just investigating medium format is lens interchangeablility, and that
advantage is to be had only if a person actually buys additional
lenses. It's like buying a semi-tractor for a family car and never
buying a trailer to haul anything.
On a camera-to-camera comparison, the Mamiya C220 is significantly
heavier, bulkier, and much slower to operate. The C330 is somewhat
faster, but not quite as fast as a Yashicamat, and still heavier and
bulkier. The Yashicamat is fairly light and compact--remember that
the classic fixed-lens TLR format was a "candid camera" back in the
40s and 50s, that did everything from some of the most memorable
photojournalism to some of the most memorable portraits, fashion, and
glamour work.
Personally, I'd never buy a C220--it's 'way to inconvenient to
operate--especially at the greater-than-when-new price gouging that's
going on now. There would be much more fun to be had with a
Yashicamat with the rest spent in film.
The Mamiya has a slightly better basic resolution--but in a used
camera, who knows? The Yashicamat is certainly good enough.
--
From Rollei Mailing List;
Lucian,
none of the Rollei TLR backs have a setting for 220. Apparently the range
of pressure exterted by the springs is sufficient to cover both 120 and
220. For the glass option there is a special back with a third position to
accomodate the glass (and has a corresponding bump on the outside). That
back needs to be used with a special case, as the camera will not fit in a
regular ERC when the pro back is in place.
Andrei D. Calciu
From Rollei Mailing LIst:
I have over 30 TLR's in my user/collection, and was convinced that my
Minolta Autocord's, Kalloflex's, Yashica's, ect could shoot with any
Tessar or Xenar equipped Rollei. While I still get great results from
these camera's (especially the Autocord's) a recent purchase of a early
50's Rollei Automat MX (Tessar) has changed my thinking somewhat...if not
completely.
I found this Rollei (I've had/have others; a really beat 3.5F, several
-pre-X-sync- Automats and a MX-EVS) on eBay and bought it for the bargin
price of $75.00 because it had a broken aperture blade. I sent it to Paul
Ebel in Wisconsin for service and was delighted that he could repair and
CLA the camera for under $200. I've since put nearly 50 rolls of chrome
film through the camera, and I'm simply ASTONISHED with the quality of the
optics! Why? Paul told me its very common for camera's of this vintage to
have a light (and hard to see, even with a bright light) haze on the rear
element. My MX had this haze, which had probably accumulated since new.
Now, I wonder about my other shooters? I suspect they could all use this
type of cleaning. I guess my point is all camera's of this vintage
probably work only as well as age and servicing allow them too. One thing
is for sure: this old Automat MX is ready for another 50 years of
producing stunning photographs, and is the best shooting TLR in my
collection.
Nolan Woodbury
From Rollei Mailing List:
The TLRs fit into 3 categories:
The Rolleiflex T:
This is an inbetween model, offering some improvements over the Rolleicord
but not as full featured as the Rolleiflex.
The Lenses:
Planar / Xenotar:
These are the 'top of the line" lenses. Available in f/3,5 and f/2,8.
The f/2,8 cameras tend to be more expensive than the f/3,5, so unless you
intend to do low light work the f/3,5 is the better choice. Excellent
performers at all aperatures.
Tessar / Xenar:
Also excellent performers at aperatures below about f/5,6 or f/8. Tend to
be a bit soft in the corners at larger aperatures.
Points:
- The baffles in the film chamber make a great improvement in contrast.
The baffles were fitted to Roleicord IV and later, Rolleiflex 2.8C and
later, I am not sure about the f/3,5 Rolleiflex.
- Always use a lens shade. This often comes with the camera. There
should also be a leather pouch to store it in.
- A Rolleifix is a good investment. This mounts the Rollei onto a tripod
securely. It also provides a quick release action.
- Lens accessories (filters, close-up lenses) for the Planar/Xenotar
rolleis (Bay II for f/3,5 and Bay III for f/2,8) are more expensive than
the Rolleicord and Tessar / Xenar Rolleilfex (Bay I).
Richard.
Richard Urmonas
From Rollei Mailing List:
Heidi,
Excluding the early cameras.
If you can try to handle both types and see what you like. The best
camera in
the world is not a good camera if it is uncomfortable in your hands.
Richard
Richard Urmonas
From Minolta Mailing List;
Maybe so, but the design still has its advantages, not the least of
which is the benefit of larger medium format slides/negs. Leaf shutter
on the lenses means you can flash synch up to 1/500. No mirror means
no blackout, so you can watch your subject during exposure and see if
anything spoils the shot. No mirror also means no extra vibration,
nice for shots around 1/15 when mirror vibration can really bounce the
camera. And with a roll film camera, there's no nasty rewind!
The TLR definitely isn't a perfect system. Aside from the obvious
parallax error inherent in the design (unless you use a paramender --
essentially a little preset jack for your tripod), you also have to
worry about a mirror image viewfinder (unless you add a bulky prism),
you have no TTL metering, flash or otherwise, and virtually all TLR's
lack depth of field preview. Plus, most TLR lines are fixed-lens
cameras, meaning you're locked in at 75mm unles you want to spend
$2000+ for a 135mm Tele Rollei or $2500+ for a 55mm Rolleiwide.
Fortunately, some of these problems were taken care of by Mamiya. The
C TLR's have interchangeable lenses, with a choice of 55mm f/4, 65mm
f/3.5, 80mm f/2.8 (or the cheapo 80mm f/3.5), 105mm f/3.5, 135mm f/4,
180mm f/4.5, and 250mm f/6.3 lenses. The 105mm f/3.5 DS (my favorite)
also offers DOF preview thanks to an independent diaphragm in the
viewing lens.
I won't say that my C330f is easier to use than my X-570. But it is a
valuable tool and a lot of fun to play around with.
=====
From Rollei Mailing List;
I have a small gizmo made by Tasco. It can be used as a 30x microscope, a
2x magnifier, or a 8x binocular. This device just fits down the WLF.
The advantage is the large adjustment range. This allows it to be
focussed to the bottom of the screen which many magnifiers will not do.
It is also quite tall so it clears the top of the WLF.
Richard
From Rollei Mailing List:
Just a confidence building measure for our group. To me the Rollei is
still the queen of battle. When I'm in doubt as to what I might need,
the option that always wins out is the Rollei with B/W and the digital
camera holding the rear for color work. That means any Rollei, SL66,
TLR, etc.
BY the way, how many of you are always wasting film when you can't
remember what was in the camera. There is a site that sells film tab
holders, the genuine part from Rollei that is on the 6003, SL66E backs.
It cost's $10.00, plus $3.50 priority mail shipping. A pittance when one
thinks back how many rolls of film got trashed. This is a great
accessory for the TLR and SL66
http://www.sl66.com/welcome.htm
Slobodan Dimitrov
From Rollei Mailing List;
I clip a small portion of the film box and use double sided tape to hold
identifyer onto the back edge of the viewfinder lids of my TLRs
pk
From Rollei Mailing LIst;
S Dimitrov wrote:
Henri Cartier-Bresson used to say he picked the Leica because any idiot
can make a masterpiece with a Rolleiflex but it took real talent to crank
one out on a Leica. I've often thought the opposite. But that was probably
on a Thursday or a Saturday.
Mark Rabiner
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
Well, there isn't a lot to say, as these have all become rather expensive
collectors' items now. But here is a brief outline:
4X Carl Zeiss Jena Magnar introduced in 1939, a modified telescope
eyepiece, I believe. Around 1,000 were made but at least half of these
remained unsold when the War broke out and were cannibalized for military
construction. Bayo I only.
2X Carl Zeiss Jena Magnar a Prewar design revived Postwar. Franke &
Heidecke were unhappy with the optical quality of these and refused to
market them, so CZJ supposedly sold at least a few directly in the US.
This is the rarest of these attachments: I have never seen one. Bayo I
only?
2X Carl Zeiss Jena Duonar Mid-'50's. A fine unit, though most survivors
which appear on the market today have been severely run through the
wringer in professional use. These puppies vignette something fierce.
Around 2,000 were made.
1.5X Carl Zeiss Tele-Mutar and 0.7X Carl Zeiss Weitwinkel-Mutar Middle
1960's West German. The best of the lot, though both are subject to some
vignetting. Around 1,000 each were made. Available in Bayo I, II/42,
II/45, and III. (Well, adapters were made for these four fittings --
these adapter rings are changed to convert from one mount to the other.)
Marc
From Rollei Mailing List;
For those interested in the Jones Bracket you can try:
From Rollei Mailing List:
Dear RUGgers,
As usual, the engineers and craftsmen of Francke &
Heidecke were right. But you already knew that,
that's why you're on this list.
1) If using the tripod socket, use a Rolleifix.
The Rolleifix couples securely into the main body
of the camera at two points in addition to
gripping the tripod mount on the camera back.
The Rolleifix is NOT merely a quick release -
it was designed to provide a more SECURE, lower-
stress tripod attachment of the Rollei. The
"quick release" function is secondary.
Checking a dusty dictionary:
FIX [from Latin FIGERE (past participle FIXUS) to fasten]
Judging from the photo: the "Jones" flash bracket
lacks any coupling with a camera body, and so lacks
this primary function of the Rolleifix.
2) If you must hang a flash from the lensboard (but
given better alternatives, why hang extra weight
on one side of a 40-year-old focusing mechanism?),
then attach that flash unit (just like F&H designed
the Rolleiflash) via a flexible spring, so your
cheapo modern flash unit is less likely to be the
lever that destroys your long-out-of-production
Rollei. Regardless, don't hang a flash off the
bayonet thar weighs more than a Rolleiflash.
(Note that only the Rolleiflash M lacks a spring -
because it mounts directly into the side of the
Rollei-Magic body!)
3) The Stroboframe 120 is a nice general-purpose
design. If you can always manage to use it only
as a *platform* on which to rest your Rollei TLR,
it can do an acceptable job without a Rolleifix -
it does offset the flash bracket forward of the
viewing hood, and with a little fiddling can have
all 4 feet on the camera back resting on it, for
slightly better load distribution (all still through
the camera back, though). It's no replacement for a
Rolleifix except in careful hands and a shelteredenvironment, however.
Have any "modern" flash makers used a spring at the
base of their flashes, as F&H did half a century ago?
I'm just wondering what "progress" actually is ...
- - Albert
P.S. Many thanks to Dale ([email protected]) for
the pointer to
http://www.rkwheeldon.freeserve.co.uk/rollei.htm
(And thanks to rkwheeldon, the site owner!)
P.P.S. I just another Rolleifix yesterday to replace
the one I gave my father-in-law for his 3.5E. Now I
don't care if demand and prices go up for Rolleifixes...
From Rollei Mailing List;
Sam,
There are tons of Rolleifix devices available. If you have camera shows in
your area, you can find them there for prices under 40 bucks. Also, you
can buy a pistol grip for about 20 bucks and the Rolleifix is incorporated
within. You can use the pistol grip (takes some getting used to) because
it has a provision for a Rollei-made flash bracket. If you do not have a
complete grip, just dismantle it and salvage the Rolleifix for use. Then
store away the rest of the grip for future use.
This group is another source of goodies like the Rolleifix, and Ebay is
another source if you do not mind that way of buying/selling
Andrei D. Calciu
From: [email protected] (ERNReed)
"Colin McCourt" [email protected]
I'd agree -- for the portrait stuff. Although you should be aware that the
Yashica Mat 124G (by itself) is not suited to head & shoulders portraiture
as it can't be focused close enough. Does nice environmental portraits. I
can't envision using a TLR for "street" photography, though. I find using
my 'Mat a rather slow, deliberate process, partly because of the reversed
image in the viewfinder, and partly because of the need to use the
magnifier to focus it. But maybe it works for some people.
E.R.
From: [email protected] (Bob Hickey)
I used a Mamiya TLR because: ( drum roll )
Bob Hickey
From: [email protected] (FOR7)
I stupidly sold my first medium camera, a YashicaMat 124G. Never compared
it other TLRs but mine was razor sharp and worked flawlessly. Made awesome
pics that I always croped to basically a 645 size. My only problem with it
was that it was a slow shooting process for those times when I wanted a
bigger negative when traveling, especially with wife, and wanting to shoot
quickly, change film quickly, in a more compact and lighter package. The
result was my selling the YashicaMat 124G and buying a Fuji GA645. The
most I ever carry now is my Fuji GA645 and my Canon Elan IIe with the
28-135 Image Stabilized lens. I have gotten to a point where I have
started chucking every damn distracting, space taking and weighty
accessories that I used to carry. One lens for each camera.
Anyway that's another topic I guess.
E.T.
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
If you want to try a Rolleicord inexpensively, look for a later model
Rolleicord III with a Xenar lens. These can be found in clean user
condition for well under $100. Be sure to check the slow shutter speeds
as the oil often gums up, particularly where the camera has been in
storage for a while (easily corrected by a shutter cleaning, but you
will probably pay someone to do this.)
These are rugged, well made cameras without a great deal to go wrong.
Ed Balko
From Rollei Mailing List:
Gene,
Many of the Japanese TLRs are pretty poor quality. But there are some
standouts, most of which I have mentioned.
The Minolta Autocord is a great camera - very good quality, especially the
Rokkor/Chiyoko lenses . A failing of these cameras is the focus lever
found on the bottom of the lensboard - in the same place where the
Rolleicord shutter cocking/release lever is to be found. This lever is
connected to a piece of pot metal (very poor quality) that eventually
connects to the helicoid that moves the front plate in and out. If
thinking of purchasing this camera, check that the piece of metal that the
actual lever knob is riveted to isn't cracked by gently pulling and
pushing on he knob and scrutinizing to see if a crack opens. The crack
develops because the knob is near the bottom of the camera and is subject
to being bonked a lot. This can lead to stress on the pot metal
connector, causing it to eventually break.
The early Mamiyaflex (non interchangeable lenses) is a very well built
camera with some ergonomic improvements on the Rolleicord/flex. Most
people cradle a TLR in their left hand with their right hand on the focus
knob (apologies to left handed people). With the Mamiya TLR, the crafty
engineers have placed the shutter and aperture wheels way down near the
bottom of the camera, so that thumb and index finger can rest on the speed
and aperture wheels respectively. With the right hand on the focus knob,
the right hand's index finger can release the shutter while the rest of
the fingers never leave the focus knob. Quite neat and tidy. The film is
wound on via a knob, while the shutter is cocked, all in one motion, like
a Rolleiflex, except there is no lever, just a knob. The Mamiya flex also
has a nifty sport finder a lot like the Rolleiwide in that it has a glass
lensin front to widen the view when looking through the back of the
finder. Why they did this I don't know as it seems an unusual, additional
cost that could have been avoided as in the Rolleiflex, but it does work.
Interestingly, the lenses on this camera are 75 mm / 3.5 Olympus Zuiko for
both taking and viewing lenses. The serial number on mine appears rather
low ... 4064.
A rather rare camera is the Olympusflex TLR. Mine is the BII. Like the
Mamiyaflex, it too has the shutter release raised quite high on the body
to allow the right hand on the focus knob to release the shutter while
still holding the focus knob. The Mamiya does it one better though,
because you have to move one of your hands to change the shutter or
aperture wheels. The Olympusflex is a very well built camera offering
several unusual features such as (and I quote from the original
instruction manual) 1. Taking lens, colour corrected full coated F Zuiko F
1:2.8, f=75 mm. (6 element) 2. Viewing lens, full coated Zuiko 1:2.8
f=75mm (4 element) 3. Seikosha Rapid shutter with 9 speeds from 1 sec to
1/400 sec and bulb, built in flash synchronization (X-contact), self
timer. 4. Uses 120 film 5. Semi automatic system 6. Film plane corrector
7. Built in flash gun brackets. Can be used without removing case. 8.
Shutter locking mechanism to prevent accidental exposures. Can be used for
time exposures. 9. Coated focusing screen. 10. Self erecting focus hood.
11. Large magnifier for critical focusing. 12. Sport finder. 13. Provision
for correction of parallax (automatic). 14. Bayonet mount for filters and
lens hood. 15. focusing from infinity to 2.7 m. 16. film type reminder
dial. 17. Film speed reminder dial. 18. Overall dimensions 3.03 x 4.05 x
5.7 inches. 19 Weight 2.42 lbs. Although clearly marked on the diagrams
and I can find the button on the camera I still have no idea what the film
plane corrector is. There is no other mention of the "device" in the
manual. The coated viewing screen is very nicely anti reflective, but
quite dim.
Another very unusual TLR is the Goertz Minicord for miniature sized film.
The whole camera will fit in one hand. It is a bit difficult to describe
in that it is completely different from the usual TLR design. It has a
built in viewing prism of some kind because the image viewed is bright and
the right way around. Must be a fresnel screen in there as well. Exposures
and subsequent cocking of the shutter can be made with one finger in rapid
succession, almost motor drive like. The lens is a Helgor 25 mm f2. I have
heard that this lens is a tiny Planar type lens. Not certain though. At
any rate the camera is very well built, although the film advance
sometimes screws up.
Anyways that is enough for now,
Todd
===========================================
Wow Todd, you are a collector.
I know it USED TO BE an old joke; how the Japanese could copy anything
badly and sell it for less and all, but I was curious about the copycats
for a few reasons, one is that at least some of the makers have earned
great reputations on their own and it would be interesting to see what
they brought to their interpretations. Another is that I tend to take
pictures under conditions where I would not like to take the cameras I
want to keep forever and I would still like to use a tlr. So thanks.
By the way, any favourites in the japanese group as users?
Gene
From Rollei Mailing List;
There is a reason that no flash maker has fitted their flash
units with metal feet, and it is not a cost issue. The plastic
foot is designed to be easily replaced, and is intended to break
if the flash takes too strong a whack. This prevents damage to
the camera.
Put a metal foot on your flash only if you intend to mount it on
a bracket for off camera use. I think at least one of the aftermarket
makers of those metal feet even says this in their instructions.
One of them, the Wein unit with built-in slave, is obviously intended
for remote use.
I've got several of them in a drawer in my studio that were given
to me by the makers. I never put them on my 283s because I use them
on camera. Plastic replacement feet are readily available from
Vivitar.
Bob
From ROllei Mailing List;
if you plan on shooting 220 film, the F is the only rollei to accept 220--
and only those F's made after 1968 or so. they are sometimes referred to
as 12/24 models, and may be distinguished by a 12/24 switch next to the
frame counter.
being able to shoot 24 frames between reloads to me is a big deal.
-rei
From ROllei Mailing List;
...
Well, yes-and-no. Franke & Heidecke produced a 220 kit which could be
retrofitted to the earlier F's, at the least. I had Harry add one to my
2.8F, Type 1. It is a tad different from the later production kit but
works flawlessly.
Marc
From ROllei Mailing List;
that's good to know. can this still be done?
my only complaints about 220 in an F are two:
1) it's not entirely intuitive. you need to start with the switch on
"12,"
then switch to "24", shoot 12, then switch back to "12".
2) it leaves a blank from where "13" should be. if you get your negs
developed, you need to let them know to cut out and discard
the "missing 13th frame." and to cut the preceeding and following 12
frames into 3 or 4 sections of 4 or 3 respectively, depending on taste.
-rei
From ROllei Mailing List;
...
The workaround on the last is to have the lab simply spool your negatives
uncut, as they do with slides.
Marc
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
Colin McCourt wrote:
Recommending a TLR for a beginner generally starts a religious war on
this NG. Rollei, of course, if you can afford it; downmarket a bit is
the Minolta Autocord, Ricoh Diacord and YashicaMat(s). A sleeper is the
Kalloflex if you can find one (about $100). Avoid the Chinese and
Russian TLRs to minimize problems and avoid confusion (is it me or is it
the camera?). Browse Robert Monaghan's excellent site for comparative
information. Haunt the garage sales and flea markets - there were some
decent American made TLRs - pre and post war - that you should be able
to find cheap. Make sure what you buy takes 120 film not 620 - which is
unavailable. Shoot lots of film and enjoy.
Regards,
Marv
From Rollei Mailing List;
It's simple, really. Shops and mail order houses (like Porter's for
example) that sell the hell out of Seagull don't carry used cameras at
all. Most Seagull buyers are probably unaware of the used TLR market and
would not know where to look or what to look for.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Here is a short summanry on the lenses:
http://www.williamsphotographic.com/ocr/mf/rollei.html
All of the three cameras you listed are great users. I would suggest you
look for one in the best condition. If possible shoot a test roll in the
camera and see how well it works. A cleaning, luberation and adjustment by
an experienced Rollei repairperson is a good idea on any used camera.
Happy shopping and enjoy a wonderful camera,
Dale
XOSNI wrote:
From ROllei Mailing LIst;
Hi Dale,
Thanks for the link! All the classic Rollei TLRs were in production
in '61: the 2.8F & 3.5F in Xenotar or Planar lens, the E3, the T, the
Tele-Rollei, the Rolleiwide, the Rolleicord Vb, the Magic and the Baby.
Cheers,
Rich Lahrson
Date: 27 Jul 2001
I couldn't disagree with Roy more. TLR's may be an acquired taste, but one
well worth acquiring even if only a stepping stone to something else. I
have a Rollei 2.8E which has been a great intro to MF from 35 especially
making the switch compositionally from rectangles to squares. I have made
probably shot 250+ plus rolls of film through it in the 3 years I've
owned. Sure the images may not snap quite as much as a modern camera but
you can usually sell it for what you paid. I've also recently invested the
$15.00 for a holga 120 camera. You can't get into MF cheaper. A great
camera and lense resource is http://www.rgpins.com/ , a great place to
look for pricing and info . He sends out a periodic catalog and his prices
are the most reasonable I've seen. I bought my Rollei from him and can't
say enough about his service. (I have no affiliation with him). Good luck
with whatever you choose.
Thom
"Roy L. Jacobs" [email protected] wrote
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001
The "sleeper" in the Rolleie is the MX-EVS type I or II. These cameras had
a decent 3.5 lens and all the bells and whistles of the other unmetered
Rollie TLRs, except for removable hood. But the excellent mirrored
sportfinder is more useful IMHO than the dark, heavy prism.
They are always cheaper than their more well-known brothers (or sisters,
what sex is a Rollei?)
John
From: "Siu Fai" <[email protected]> I think I have a similar camera but then brand as Fodorflex. It was probably From: gordito <[email protected]> Mikko Nahkola wrote: From: [email protected] (Tan)
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) said this on the Internet:
FWIW, the nice thing about the Seagull TLRs, is that both current and older
Now, the Seagulls with triplet lenses (you can tell from the marking in front
Third, this lens exhibits very very good contrast for an el cheapo make.
One word of advice with all TLRs - if you want contrasty shots, use a lens
hood.
From: [email protected] (FiskeyTwo)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 02 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: In search of reasonable 2-1/4 sq or 645 camera
I've had very good to excellent luck with three different Yashica's. I use the
D and 635 models and I have a 124G for my son. Optics are good and they are
reliable and simple to use.
The one thing you have to be careful of is that the shutter speeds can get
messed up IF the speed dial is changed after cocking the shutter. (This holds
true for most of that type of leaf shutter, not just Yashica's.
If you want more versatility, you could go to the Mamiya's with interchangeable
lenses. Keep in mind that the Rollei are expensive and do not offer
interchangeable lenses.
I shoot Yashica's, Mamiya's (645, TLRs, and Universal Press) and have a lot of
fun with the Yashica's
From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Flexaret vs Seagull
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002
[email protected] wrote
> Earlier I asked about a 645 TLR and two names in the budget category
> came up: Flexaret and Seagull. I just saw a Flexaret VII go for $112.57
> on eBay and I also know I could also pick up a Seagull for under $200 at
> a camera store in NYC. I've read so many bad things about LOMO's
> (Lubitel 166) contribution to 645 photography and I'm a cheap beginner
> so I'm not looking to go the Rollei route. So which one do y'all think
> is better? Thanks again
There are two types of the current Seagull TLR camera model - one with a
three element lens and another with a four element lens (there are other
minor differences between these models as well...) The lat
preferable. I don't know if there is a web page devoted to the Seagull
cameras, but there is a (factory) site with some details about the Flexaret
camera http://www.meopta.cz/history/ - pick cameras.
About 30 years ago I used to have a Flexaret Automat (model VII) and it was
a decent performer on a strictly amateur level - a f/3.5 80 mm 4-element
anastigmat lens comparable to lesser-quality 6x6 folding cameras;
waist-level finder with "sports" (frame) finder (dark focusing screen,
unfortunately...), auto (crank) film advance, etc. In short - optically a
class or two below the level of performance offered by - say - Yashica Mat
124G, but *much* better (both optically and mechanically) than *any* model -
current or otherwise - of the Lubitiel (LOMO) TLR.
You have to realize that with either of these cameras you are most certainly
NOT going to get the same level of performance like you'd get with a Rollei
or Mamiya TLR, but they are simple to operate, fun to play with and
inexpensive, as long as your life doesn't depend on them :-)
Also, the Flexaret is a *really* old camera (out pf production since 1971)
so getting spare parts, esp. in the US, may be next to impossible.
Good shooting
Michael
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Viewing through the taking lens
Siu Fai at [email protected] wrote:
> That thing is called the Paramender and comes in three varieties. If I
> remember correctly, the distance between the two lenses is 50mm. So you'll
> be overcompensating a little bit. You'll also need to put a spacer between
> the camera and the paramender because there is a pin protruding out base
> that fits in the Mamiya body.
Easiest and by far cheapest way is to measure the distance between the
centers of the lenses on your Rollei and scribe two lines on the center
post of your tripod. Run it down for viewing, up for shooting.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Siu Fai [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Viewing through the taking lens
> Easiest and by far cheapest way is to measure the distance between the
> centers of the lenses on your Rollei and scribe two lines on the center
> post of your tripod. Run it down for viewing, up for shooting.
Bob,
It's not that simple. The camera itself is often not at the same angle as
the center post. The correction will not be perfect, unless you remove the
head and put the camera directly on the center post.
Siu Fai
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Viewing through the taking lens
Siu Fai at [email protected] wrote:
> It's not that simple. The camera itself is often not at the same angle as
> the center post. The correction will not be perfect, unless you remove the
> head and put the camera directly on the center post.
I forgot to say that. Either the camera mounted directly on the center post
or the tripod head adjusted so the film plane is parallel to the tripod
center post.
This is where a Berleback tripod, one of those in which the center post can
be turned to different angles via the big ball and socket, is the perfect
tripod.
Bob
From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Questions about medium-format vs. 35mm
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002
A faster lens has less DoF. Viewing lenses are always wide open so the
notion is that if you have the viewing and taking lens of a TLR properly
focus calibrated, any focus error based on the viewing lens DoF will be
insignificant to the focus of the taking lens since its DoF is greater.
Godfrey
...
> Can someone explain why the viewing lens is faster than the taking lens?
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to match them?
From Leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] OT: 4x5 Japanese TLR
Does anyone have info on a Japanese made 4x5 Twin Lens Reflex, called either the
"Color-Flex" aka "Art-Flex" made by Tomiyama Co, LTD ??
interchangeable lenses with bellows focusing, much like the Mamiya TLRs,
mounted are a pair of 150/6.3 Fujinons. waist level ground glass focusing.
- -- no rotating back -- horizontals only
the only 4x5 TLR I was aware of is the Gowlandflex -- made by glamour photog
Peter Gowland
Thanks,
Stephen
From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie wants to get into MF with a TLR.
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002
There are many design differences between TLRs, but you cannot go wrong
with a good user Rolleiflex 3.5MX from 1951-1956 or so. These were made in
volume and are generally available in pretty good shape for $150-300. They
have either a Schneider Xenar 75/3.5 or Zeiss Tessar 75/3.5 lens, both of
which are excellent, and Rolleis are very well made of good materials.
Rolleicords are the simpler variant of the Rollei TLRs with fewer
conveniences and features but are still well worth the prices if you get a
good one.
The Minolta Autocords are another very good choice, usually available
quite inexpensively. Prices tend to be in the sub=$100 category. Parts and
service are limited, however.
The YashicaMats are also pretty good, although not up to the quality
standards of the above pair. They've become almost as expensive as the
Rolleiflex mentioned above in some cases. I'd take a '54 Rolleiflex over
an '83 YashicaMat 124G, all else being equal.
Godfrey
From: [email protected] (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie wants to get into MF with a TLR.
Date: 30 Apr 2002
Iskandar,
I have a Mamiya C330 that I bought used for $250 with the 80mm black
lens and I'm happy with it. Everything was there and worked, although
I think it would be hard to match this price. I was just in the right
place at the right time. However, film camera prices are down,
especially older ones because of the digital "thing", so always
bargain.
If you think you're going to learn and then sell and move up, I'd
follow the other poster's suggestions. If you think you might keep
your TLR, consider the Mamiya C-330 series. The Mamiya C-series were
systems, and there are tons of stuff for it at reasonable prices.
There were several screens with split image or microprism focusing
aids, reflex viewers, parammenders (parallax correctors for macro
work), lenses from 55mm to 250mm, cut film backs, just to name a few
things. The manuals can still be downloaded from Mamiya's site, and
they still service them and have some parts left.
As others note, it is heavy, but for a reason. It's built like a tank,
and uses a bellows focus like the RBs and RZs. Because of this, you
can go to about 95% life size (macro) on film with the 55mm lens at
maximum extention, but you'll have to figure exposure compensation
manually.
It has interchangeable lenses, which are common and reasonably priced,
especially if you deal or shop around. The quality is quite good if
you get the later coated "black" lenses.
If you don't have sharp eyes, a focusing loupe like the $40 Toyo from
Badger Graphic may help if you use the ground glass without a focusing
aid.
Thanks!
Steve
"Iskandar Samad" [email protected] wrote
> Ive decided to get a cheap TLR to learn abt MF.
> What are the main differences between TLRs, excluding the existence of a
> light meter and the quality of the lens. How does one differ from another.
>
> Oh, what good cheap TLRs are okay to start on.
>
> Many Thanks
From: "r.m.pruitt" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie wants to get into MF with a TLR.
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002
> Oh, what good cheap TLRs are okay to start on.
My highly opinionated choices are as follows....
0. Mamiya C33, C220 - the Mamiya (black) lenses are every bit as good as the Planar.
1. Rolleiflex with Planar
2. Non-Planar Rolleiflex - Xenotar, etc.
3. Rolleiflex T (with Tessar)
4. Minolta Autocord (late model)
5. Yashica (late model)
6. Rolleicord or very early Rolleiflex model
The best choice considering price/quality of the lens, etc. would have to be
the Mamiya C33 which has outstanding optics, built like a tank to take
abuse (don't drop the Rollei ! ) is fairly cheap and there are many repair
shops. The camera will give you room to grow when you decide on other lens
or accessories also.
Date: Sun, 05 May 2002
From: Duncan Ross [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [medium-format] Re: Yashica Mat filters
>Another place to try is -
http://camera-depot.com/TLR.htm
They seem to have a good selection of new stuff
Duncan Ross
http://DuncanRossPhoto.com
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002
From: "Fernando Gomes" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Lubitel-166U
The Lubitel 166B was my first medium format atempt, and I don't recomend
it to anyone. The one I had was more or less ok, all working, lens clean
and shutter ok, but the picture quality was very bad, no contrast at all
(unlike most of the russian cameras). I sold it after using two rolls of
film with it. It was also a bit dificult to focus, the focusing area is
very small. I agree with Steve, the Flexarets are a better approach, or
the Yashicas (the 124G is a bit expensive, but very, very nice). The
Rolleiflexes are still much expensive for my purpose.
Fernando
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Lubitel-166U
Jay Javier at [email protected] wrote:
> The Seagull or an old Yashica TLR will be a better picture taking machine than
> a Lubitel. The Lubitel is for fun and play.
>
> Grab a Lubitel for the ultimate blast-from-the-past picture-taking experience.
> Viewing through its imprecise finder, winding film by watching numbers go past
> its ruby window, bulky boxy body, and a dinosaur of a lens in the form of a
> front-cell focussing triplet all add up to truly 'old-tech' trip. You get to
> worry about forgetting whether the film had been wound or not, if the shutters
> really fired at their marked speed, and it the finder did really show an
> accurate focus, or if the back really held tight enough to prevent light from
> leaking in.
>
> There'd been several times when I wished I lugged a Seagull instead of a
> Lubitel. I know first hand that the Seagulll can be one mean machine.
> But there were more times when I was glad that I had the Lubitel with me.
> I've shot portraits with it and some CD album covers as well- this *cranky
> bakelite camera with an attitude* was chosen precisely because of the charming
> pictorial effects from its 'defects'.
My friend Vladimir Samarin from the Russian magazine Photomagazin came
over for PMA this year. We had dinner night before last and talked for
hours about Russian cameras, a subject on which he is a real expert.
I was surprised in the pronunciation of Lubitel. I had been pronouncing
it like it is spelled and would be in English, Loo - be - tell. He told
me it is pronounced like loo - beetle, accent on second syllable.
Bob
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002
From: Josef Brugger [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Heresy: asking advice for a yashica TLR
If you're looking for a less-expensive TLR, the one that closest approaches
Rollei quality (IMHO) would be the Minolta Autocord, though I have no idea
how easy one would be to find in Spain. $350US sounds about $100US too high
for a 124G, and I think the lens on the Minolta is noticeably better.
Have you looked at Rolleicords or the older Rollei Automats? I bought an
ugly Automat for $100, but everything works.
From rollei mailing list:
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002
From: Roger Wiser [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Heresy: asking advice for a yashica TLR
If ones is looking for economy, there are some fine Ricohflex / Diacord or how
about a new Seagull? There was an article in the May Popular Photography issue
on the Seagull. A while back someone on this list, I believe Bob Shell,
mentioned that some of models have good lens.
I agree on the Yashica, I had a 124G and an earlier model. I also had a Mamiya
330F with 3 lens and many accessories. It performed superlatively but weighed a
ton to carry about..
Good luck on the camera. After owning various TLR's, except for a Seagull, I
would go along with the group seeking MX or a better Rolleicord.
Roger
...
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:26:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Monaghan
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Heresy: asking advice for a yashica TLR
It's not impossible to find a Rolleicord V or Va for around $150, and for
$100 you can find a nice IV. All with Xenar.
/Patric
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002
From: Philip Leeson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Heresy: asking advice for a yashica TLR
Actually, Rolleicord prices seem down lately on Ebay.
Just don't expect cosmetic perfection or slow shutter speeds.
Here's a couple of recent sales:
Item # 1354932989
Item # 1351229191
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Heresy: asking advice for a yashica TLR
Robert Monaghan at [email protected] wrote:
> Similarly, the Seagull TLRs are slightly improved, but mostly better and more
> aggressively marketed, with more ads etc. The price on these cameras has
> jumped from $40 (3 ele. lens) and $79.95 (4 el.) at Porters a few years back
> to $250-ish range and up. I suspect most of the increased price goes for ads?
Bob,
I don't think Porter's ever sold them that low. I was their supplier, and
they would have been losing money at those prices. In the early 80s I tried
my hand at importing and distributing Chinese cameras, but the erratic
delivery schedule and lack of any attempt at quality control made it
impossible and I dropped them after a couple of years of major headaches.
The factory would promise a delivery date and then ship three to six months
after that date. They'd ship out non-functional cameras. They'd fill
orders with the wrong camera model. Etc., etc. They were simply almost
impossible to deal with. Out of every shipment about 1/3 didn't work.
About half of those could be repaired and sold, but the other half were only
good for parts.
I just got a Seagull 4A-109 and must say that it looks like they've really
worked hard at improving their quality. It has Rollei-style controls,
shutter speed and aperture set by two wheels and viewed in a window atop the
viewing lens. But the new nameplate they use is thicker than it used to be
and you can't see this window when the camera is at or near infinity!! They
need to fix this with a thinner nameplate. The shutter in this one goes to
1/500, and they tell me it is a Japanese shutter, so the shutter may well be
the same one used in current Rollei TLRs.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002
From: Roger Wiser [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Heresy: asking advice for a yashica TLR
I recall a couple of years ago that Porters were selling Seagulls very very
reasonable starting at about $19 but those were the ones, probably that Bob
referred to, that were defective.
Roger
From: fotocord [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taking the MF plunge---in the shallow end
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002
Jefro wrote:
> The final questions came down to brand choice and nit-picking. Is a
> crusty Rolleicord a better pick than an Autocord that works well other
> than a missing focus knob?
For using without an upgrade? The minoltacord, but I'd get one without the
broken focus knob, they are a PAIN to use when the knob's broken off. Trust
me I have one I broke the knob off of! The rolleicord with a coated xenar
has a slightly different look to it's images (better?) but the focus
screen is so dim to be almost unusable. I had a maxwell screen installed in
mine but that upgrade was more than a nice minoltacord costs!
--
Stacey
From: "paulisme" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Add-on lenses for Rolleicord?
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002
Hi, I recently acquired a Rolleicord Vb in great shape for $60 (!) and was
wondering if there are any add-on lenses such as wide-angle or telephoto,
similar to those for some digital cameras and camcorders with fixed lenses.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Paul
From: "fbearl" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: TLR for a newbie.
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002
Alright, I have a Seagull with the crank and modified Cooke triplet lens,
which I bought new. Had I not spent about $300 I would trade it staight
across for one of the plastic body Lubitel 166-B's. In this sample of one
(I have owned one Lubitel, also) I think the lens was better on the Lubitel
and the shutter was more reliable. I have a Yashica LM ($50) that fails 1
out of 6 times but takes much better negatives. And I just got another
Yashica with Yashinon lens for $25 that takes very nice shots. For $25 you
can get a Lubitel 166 with slow speeds and adopt the motto "F/32 and be
there" (with a tripod and shutter release) for sharp pictures or "Sunny F/8"
on the street for nice grab shots. Or you could send me $200 and I will
send you the Seagull, and you can still afford the Lubitel :>).
Good luck,
Frank
...
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: TLRs: Minolta Autocord vs. Yashicamat 124G
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
"John" [email protected] wrote:
>I'm curious to know how these two TLRs compare with one another in terms of
>optical quality and their reliability.
>
>In addition, I was wondering if anyone has experience shooting handheld
>using electronic flash with these TLRs.
>
>I'm finding that both are fetching between $250 - $300 for ones in good to
>mint condition.
>
>Thanks in advance for the input.
I'd toss a few more models into the mix. $300 can get you a good
Rollei or Mamiya TLR, and I think it's too high for a Yashicamat. I've
had several Yashicamats and there's no need to pay the premium to get
the 124G. The earlier Mats (with no number or letter after "Mat") were
somewhat flare prone, but after that they all do the same thing.
If you want a cheaper alternative, look for the Ricoh Diacord
models. The Diacord I have (I think it's the "G" model) is kind of a
cross between a Rolleicord and a Minolta with the push-pull focusing
bar. A solid camera that takes good images, and I got it on ebay for
$41 in excellent condition.
The answer to the flash question is simple...get a bracket. A sturdy
flash bracket improves the handling of ALL of these cameras. Any flash
with manual controls will do fine. The cool thing about leaf shutters
is that you can do very interesting daylight/flash combinations.
headscratcher
From: William Mutch [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: TLRs: Minolta Autocord vs. Yashicamat 124G
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002
I'm curious to know how these two TLRs compare with one another in terms of
optical quality and their reliability.
I've owned both. I liked the Yashica but I loved the
Autocord...slighly better lens, better feel, fron level focus more
convenient. But watch out for lensboard focusing helcoids on Autocord which
can vibrate loose over time. I understand it's an easy repair, but still
will cost you...a consideration when buying used.
--
Bill Mutch
From: [email protected] (ShadCat11)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: TLRs: Minolta Autocord vs. Yashicamat 124G
I'm curious to know how these two TLRs compare with one another in terms of
optical quality and their reliability.
I have owned and/or borrowed 4 Yashicamats and 3 Autocords over the years.
Y'mats varied some from one sample to another. The best were optically equal
to the Autocords, which were consistently good, equal to the Rolleiflex Tessars
and Xenars (used several of them, too).
Mechanically, the cameras were also variable. Two of my Yashicas were used
lightly and never needed service. The other two got moderate use. A 124 I had
in 1972 experience one shutter jam, fixed and never another problem. The
other, a 124G, would swoon at the most inopportune moments. Although I used it
least of several cameras, it was in the shop more than all the others combined.
Big frustration; it was the one with the sharpest lens.
Neither of the Minoltas, used light to heavy, ever broke down from use, but
things fell off occasionally. On one, the knob broke off at its attachment to
the winding lever, and there was some internal problem with the sweep focusing
lever. On another, the winding lever came loose at its hub and fell off. The
third worked well while I had it, but I didn't have it long enough to really
test its long term performance.
Bewteen the two, I believe the Minolta has a better build quality and less
variability between samples.
I hope this helps,
Allen Zak
From: Martin Jangowski [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: TLR for a newbie.
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002
Tom Kane [email protected] wrote:
> Hi there. I have recently started looking into getting a TLR for myself, for
> the sheer coolness of having one, and wanting to get some experience with
> medium format. Does anyone have any suggestions on a semi- to almost-decent
> camera for under $300? I have been looking at the Seagulls, the only ones I
> can afford, and they seem like my only option. Any reason not to go with
> one? Thanks in advance.
Try to get a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord. These are simply the best TLRs ever
built, if you don't need to change lenses. The standard optics in the
Rolleicord (Tessar or Xenar) are excellent, the Planar or Xenotar of the
later Rolleiflex models are the equal of the best optics today.
Try to get a late model Rolleicord with a Xenar or Tessar (avoid the older
Triotar models), these are not too expensive, readily serviceable and
very well made. A shabby looking camera with a clean optic is better
than a sparkling one with heavy polish marks on the front lens!
Martin
From: [email protected] (Joe Foto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hacoflex TLR
Date: 17 Aug 2002
Thom,
According to Kadlubek's 96-97 edition, it was made by the W. Haking
Company of Hong Kong. Only made 1 year:1950, has a tri-lauser 3.5/80mm
lens and top shutter speed of 1/300. it is a copy of the Rolleiflex.
In mint condition, with mint case, it is worth $50.
Hope this helps,
JF
[email protected] (Thom) wrote
> Does anyone know anything about the Hacoflex TLR's from the
> mid-50's???
>
> THOM
From: [email protected] (Choiliefan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 17 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Hacoflex TLR
Well, according to '97/'98 McKeown's price guide the camera was produced by
Hachiyo Kogaku Kogyo of Suwa, Japan. It is a Rolleicord copy with Tri-Lausar
f3.5/8cm lens. Shutter speeds: 1-300.
Used market value listed at $80-$120.
An interesting aside is that an earlier, simpler c1952 TLR design mfg'd by Haco
was made for Macy's of New York and badged the Supre-Macy.
Health & Peace!
Uncle Lucky
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 18 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Hacoflex TLR
The camera which was known as the Supre-Macy TLR , was actually the
"Alpenflex".
In order to make the new model the original nameplate with its raised
lettering was ground down flat and then the name Supre-Macy engraved on the
flat surface and filled in with black paint. As a Kid I really wanted one of
those cameras which sold new in the box with case for $39.00.
Now I have a nice one. Sometime I will see if it can take a sharp photo.
Both Supre-Macy and Alpenflex cameras were sold in the US.
- Sam Sherman
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002
From: Jim Williams [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Medium format rangefinder
And Mamiya made an accessory called the Paradjuster specifically for
this purpose. It was a rack-and-pinion device that moved the camera up
or down by exactly the distance between the taking and viewing lenses.
You'd mount the Paradjuster on a tripod, the camera on the Paradjuster,
compose the picture with the Paradjuster in the down position, then
flip a lever to raise the camera so that the taking lens now occupied
the position originally occupied by the viewing lens. Not quick, but
accurate. I shot a lot of copy negatives this way back when I had a
C330.
Many other TLR manufacturers made similar devices -- Minolta's
Paramender is the only one I can think of offhand -- but Mamiya went to
the unusual length of making both a plain Paradjuster and one that had
a built-in pan/tilt head.
But of course none of this has anything to do with RANGEFINDER cameras,
so maybe I'd better drop it...
> The solution is to raise the camera by the distance between the upper and
> lower lens after focusing.
> RMV
>
> But with a focusing distance of 20cm the upper lens can not see the same
> thing the lower one does.
From: [email protected] (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Before moving to medium format....
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002
"Mike Elek" [email protected] wrote:
>If you're testing the waters, you could try an older folding camera, a
>Yashica or Rolleiflex/Rolleicord.
I don't want to start a brand war, but the Ricoh Diacord L and some of
the Diacord Gs have Rikenon 4-element Tessar-style lenses that are
very sharp. They are superior to the Yashicas in terms of mechanical
construction, and the internal light baffling is (as far as I know)
unique in this class. What's more, you can often pick up a Diacord L
(with a built-in selenium meter) in terrific condition for $50 or so.
I have two, and both meters are right on the money. They're not as
sensitive as the Yashica meters, but they're trustworthy (the Yashica
meters are very prone to aging errors). The Yashica 124 and 124G also
suffer from the mercury battery problem.
Bear in mind that all these 40-50 year old cameras need service, at
least to clean the old lubricants out of the shutters and to wipe the
haze off the internal lens surfaces. You'll need to do that even if
it's new in the box.
JL
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Re- East German TLRs and Jena Lenses.
The Reflekta V (a/k/a Peerflekta V - made for Peerless Camera Stores)
was a post war 50s TLR made by Welta and largely sold in the US market.
I have one of the Peerflekta versions with Carl Zeiss Jena "T" coated
Triotar taking lens. When I got the camera the name "Carl Zeiss Jena"
was covered with black paint which I removed to see what was originally written
there. No doub tpart of the Zeiss East/West fight at that time and the Zeiss
name could not be used by the Jena branch in the US.
- Sam Sherman
From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: While we're on the subject of Zeiss Jena...
Date: 9 Nov 2002
[email protected] wrote
> I guess then my follow up questions is what cameras used CZJ lenses from the
> mid-50s to the Pentacon? I find it hard to believe that no Eastern-Bloc TLRs used
> CZJ lenses.
And there are not too many eastern block TLRs. If we exclude the
Lubitel and its predecessors, there are the Flexaret series from
Czechoslowakia and the Weltaflex and Perfekta from East Germany. The
Flexarets used Meopta lenses. I am not sure whether there are any
versions of the Weltaflex/Perfekta with a CZJ Tessar but I have never
heard of such.
Winfried
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 29 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: An eye-level TLR?
Eye Level prisms were made by original manufacturers for
IKOFLEX, ROLLEIFLEX, MAMIYAFLEX
and generic prisms (mirror finders) were made to fit any TLR.
- Sam Sherman
From: Leonard Evens [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: An eye-level TLR?
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002
[email protected] wrote:
> Tonight is the third time I was watching some vintage footage
> (1950s/1960s) where I see some press photographers holding what appear
> to be TLRs to their eyes and apparently using the top lens as a
> viewfinder. I've never seen a TLR set up like this, but I think it's
> conceivable to build one. Were these some special kinds of "press" TLRs
> or do my eyes deceive me.
Both Mamiya and Rolleiflex TLRs had prism finders you could mount on the
top of the camera. That made produced the same effect as looking
through the viewfinder of a single lens reflex.
Without anything, in both cameras, you can push down a section of the
cover and look through an eyelevel frame at the scene. It shows you the
field of view of the normal lens for the camera, but of course you can't
use it to focus, just to frame the scene. You would estimate the
distance and set it on the distance scale or rely on zone focusing.
The Rollei also has a mirror on the section that get's pushed down. It
stops part way down. There is a small lens just below the eyelevel
frame. What you see is an image rotated 180 degrees as in a view
camera, and you don't see the entire image. But it is adequate for
focusing. I bought my Rollei in the mid sixties, and somewhere along
the way I got a prism viewfinder, but for some reason I never noticed
the small lens and extra mirror. That may be because I didn't need an
eye level view until my children got tall enough to make it worthwhile,
and by then I had the prism finder. I did notice it recently and was
surprised I had missed it all that time.
--
Leonard Evens [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Allen Zak)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Yaschimat 124G vs Rolleiflex-T ???
Date: 24 Dec 2002
Stacey [email protected] wrote
> Richard Holliingsworth [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Hi:
> >
> >So, which do you prefer and why. I want to buy an intro 2 1/4 and
> >read that one of these would be good. I found a 'nice' 124G on ebay for
> >249 +/- and saw a Rolli T for 149 +/-.
> >
> >Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> My experiece with rollei's are they are well made cameras that take
> great pictures but the older ones have a dim focus screen. Buy the
> $150 rollei and invest in a $125 maxwell focus screen and you'll have
> a great camera.
>
> Stacey
>
> Stacey
What he said, but with an additional comment. Rolleis are made to
last, but like any other mechanical gadget, need periodic service.
Most Rolleis offered for sale these days probably need cleaning and
adjustment. Due to the intricacies of the camera, it takes a real
expert to work on them. There are few shops that can perform Rollei
service reliably, among them Oceanside Camera Repair in California and
Marflex in New Jersey. There may be others, but those two have an
excellent reputation and I have had good experience with both. Good
repair work does not come cheap, though.
Over years I have owned and used numerous Rolleiflex/cord camera and a
few Yashicamats. A Y'mat can produce surprisingly good results, if
you have a good sample, comes with a brighter focusing screen than
most Rollei models, and it takes 220 film, which most Rollei models do
not. However, I never trusted their mechanical integrity. My Y'mats
were used less but repaired more than any other camera I have ever
owned, I would say more often than all my other equipment combined.
The film transport mechanism was a big problem. Other people have
told me their samples held up well, but my experience was not so
positive. My Rolleis, OTOH, rarely break down, and once CLA'ed will
be good for a decade or more, excepting for the occasional bash or
other outrage that could sideline any camera.
From: "Gear=id + Laoi, Garry Lee" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Yaschimat 124G vs Rolleiflex-T ???
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002
"Godfrey DiGiorgi" [email protected] wrote
> I don't want to start a debate, but having had both of these cameras in
> good condition at the same time, the Rollei's Zeiss Tessar or Schneider
> Xenar lenses are much better performers than the Yashinon in the 124G.
> The differences are immediately noticeable in the negatives.
Nonsense
I've had loads of cameras in my time, including a 635 with a Yashinon and a
124g with Yashinon.
Both lenses were extraordinarily good.
Years ago Amateur Photographer, the top British Magazine did a comparison of
all the current TLR lenses. The Yashinon was right up there with the Rollei
and better than the standard Mamiyaflex, though it admitted you would not
notice the difference between any of them in day to day comparisons.
The best lenses I've ever had have been in my Mamiya 6 outfit, which I still
have.
From: "kab" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Help! Any Ricoh Auto 66 owners????
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002
Hi Tom,
congratulations on your purchase of one of the few auto medium format
cameras made. The Ricoh Auto 66 is very similar in operation to the
RolleiMagic II. The left dial (as you are holding the camera in shooting
position) is for setting the EV programed shutter/aperture combination. The
dial has numbers on it from 17 (actually it is a dot next to the number 16)
to a flash symbol. In order to get it to go to the B or Flash setting, you
need to slide the button between the dials in the direction of the arrow
while turning the left dial to B or Flash Symbol. When the dial is on the B
or FS, the aperture setting dial (right dial) can be set for the appropriate
aperture. When the left dial is on any other setting but B or FS, the
aperture dial is spring loaded and will not stay where you set it. The
method of operation is to set the split ring pointer in the light meter on
top of the light meter needle. Moving the left dial moves the split ring
pointer. Then take your picture. I find that the contact for the light
meter selenium cell sometimes needs a brisk rubbing in order to make the
meter work (rub your finger over the lightmeter cell).
On flash setting, the shutter speed is 1/30 second.
regards,
karl
From: "David Foy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Yaschimat 124G vs Rolleiflex-T ???
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003
I have owned and used several Yashica TLRs with both the Yashikor and
Yashinon lenses. I have, at the same time, owned and used several
Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes with Xenars, and one 'Flex with a Tessar.
Godfrey's experience is different from mine. I have never been able to see
any significant optical advantage using the Rollei products. That is not to
say there is no difference. For one thing, they each impart a different
color cast to transparencies. But I do not interperet the differences as
being differences in quality.
The Yashica cameras I have handled sometimes have rough film wind
mechanisms, but not all do. The Rollei products are invariably smooth. The
Yashicas have much brighter viewscreens, which is important to me.
I recall a private conversation with Godfrey some years ago in which he
talked about a late model of the Yashica 124-G that had a clearly inferior
lens. So obviously it is possible to go wrong if you get one of those.
David Foy
From: "David Foy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Yashica D (was Re: Yaschimat 124G vs Rolleiflex-T ???)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003
I've had the same general experience with several D's. They have never given
me disappointing images. There is a general tendency to under-rate
three-element lenses on principle, when in fact they can be excellent.
Having said that, there are many poor performers out there that are
triplets, which is how the name got tarnished.
David Foy
...
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
From: Dale Dickerson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TLR List] Activity
I use Tessar (2 Rolleiflex Automat not T), Xenar (1 Rolleiflex and 3
Rolleicord) TLRs and a Industar on a Rf 120. My comments are based on my
experience using these cameras. I did not do tests on them. My
experience is using of these examples. I do not how the compare to the
same lens but different examples. The all Xenars had better coverage at
the edge then the Tessars. The center sharpness are near equal on the
Xenars and Tessars. The Industar was better then the Tessar in
performance in sharpness and at the edges. However the Xenars held up at
the edges better then the Industar.
The best TLR lenses I have used are the Rolleiflex 2.8c Xenotar and the
3.5e Xenotar. They are single coated lenses. Using Portra 160 or Reala,
a 30x30 looks great. These optics are simply amazing. The Planar lens
has more elements to correct the edges. However the extra air sides of
the optics off sets any improvement the MC makes on the later CZ
lenses. I point that out because the F series Planar lenses sell for
more. However, I have never seen a 3.5e Xenotar or 2.8c Xenotar
surpassed by any newer lens, equaled but not surpassed.
You may wonder about my using three Xenotar TLRs, four Xenar TLRs and
the Tessar TLRs. Well they do not have interchangeable backs. So I
switch off cameras and not slow down to reload during a wedding or a
shooting session.
Dale
Merritt, Robert wrote:
>I'd love to see a test of all the Tessar-type lenses for TLRs -- besides the
>Tessar (Rolleiflex T, for example), there's the Xenar (Rolleicord)
From: [email protected] (Eric Behr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cheap student camera?
Date: 25 Feb 2003
Bob Stewart [email protected] wrote:
>I'll second David's comments. You can eye-ball the parallax corrections
>in the rare instances where that is an issue. I've done it successfully,
And with a TLR it's particularly simple: for anything less than 4
or so feet away, with normal lens, simply frame/compose, then move
the camera up along its vertical axis by the 3 inches that separate
the viewing and taking lenses (e.g. start with slightly bent knees,
then straighten your legs).
This is probably obvious to everyone in this group, but I've seen
novices trying to somehow estimate the _angle_ by which they need
to _tilt_ the camera up, and it's much harder to get that right.
--
Eric Behr | NIU Mathematical Sciences
From: Bob Stewart [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cheap student camera?
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003
I forgot them. Bought C220s for each of my sons (mid-20s), great cameras
and less than $200. I think the C220 is a better value, the big difference is
manual shutter cocking (no big deal).
MIRROR IMAGE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
> go with a mamiya c220 or the c330, i broke into MF with the
> c330..........
From: "Andy-J" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Yaschimat 124G vs Rolleiflex-T ???
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003
I have a Rolleiflex 2.8E, a Mamiya C330 and a Yashica D. The Yashica D has
the 3-element lens as opposed to the 4-element lens on the 124. Guess what?
For most pics, it really makes no difference at all. There is NO question
but that the 'flex is a better build. Same with the Mamiya. But you don't
tell this by the images they produce--you tell this by picking them up! You
will be hard pressed to destroy these cameras with normal use. The Yashica
is very light and certainly more prone to damage (though in spite of what
anyone says, mine is 30 years old--kinda speaks for itself in that regard).
You will pay more for anything you do on a Rolleiflex (repairs, getting
standard tripod attachment, brighter screen--BIG problem), but then again, a
Yashica is hardly worth fixing if you damage it.
This is all opinion, but I would not spend much over $100 on a Yashica in
any condition. This is not because it is not a good camera--it is. But
once you get into the $150 to $200 mark, you can get a much better built
camera in the older Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords...and if you are headed for
the $250 to $300 mark, you can find a newer Rolleiflex (E series, not F) or,
better yet, one of the Mamiya TLRs.
I think your real issue is whether to get that Rollei for $149 or to keep
your eyes out for a Yashica in good shape for $75 or $80 (or a Minolta
Automat or the like). I love my Yashica. It is light, easy to use, and I
don't have to worry about it. It happily bounces around in the trunk of my
car, and is ready to go at all times. The "D" is a great camera, but you
can get a bit better of a lens in the "Mats" - Yashicamat LM, EM, etc. The
124 and 124G sell for unreasonably high prices in my opinion. Same lens,
though. More plastic, too. For the price of a 124, you can get that Rollei
and pop on brighter focusing screen--or get a CLA, and then have a fine
camera that you don't have to worry about for a long time.
If your choice is really only between these two (and it isn't), and at the
prices you listed, I wouldn't even consider the Yashica.
"Richard Holliingsworth" [email protected] wrote
> Hi:
>
> So, which do you prefer and why. I want to buy an intro 2 1/4 and
> read that one of these would be good. I found a 'nice' 124G on ebay for
> 249 +/- and saw a Rolli T for 149 +/-.
>
> Any comments would be appreciated.
From: [email protected] (James Carpenter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Yaschimat 124G vs Rolleiflex-T ???
Date: 3 Jan 2003
I first tried 120 with a borrowed Rolliecord III. I loved it,
researched TLR's until I was sick of them, and bought a YashicaMat
124G because the price was right and because the optics were spotless.
That said, the build of the YashicaMat 124G is not nearly the same as
a Rolliecord or Rollieflex. The 124G, however, is lighter. Like most
of photography, there is a tradeoff. Personally, I think they are
both fine cameras. I take my 124G everywhere, and even if I had a
Rollie I would treat it with the same gentleness I do my 124G simply
because I wouldn't want to knock anything out of alignment. Film
transport is not as smooth in the 124G, but it works fine, every time.
I did not notice any sharpness difference between the 124G and the
Rolliecord III, (which had a Xenar) but then I never enlarged to more
than 11x14 or 16x20. (Of course, my enlarger & lens might not be
capable of showing the difference.)
$249 for a 124G is very steep. It had better be mint to go that high!
$150 for a Rollie -- provided the optics are clean! -- sounds good.
If you find a Rolliecord, get the IV or a V -- they have better light
baffling.
For 124G repairs, Mark Hama is available via http://www.markhama.com/.
If I had any problems, I'd send my 124G to him.
Honestly, if I had it to do over again, I might go with a Rolliecord V
and get a brighter focusing screen: One with a SPLIT IMAGE would be
nice. Using those little magnifiers is a pain!
james
Clarksville, TN
From: "Paul Heinrich" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bayonet 1 filters
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003
SRB Film Services can supply Bay1 to 46mm screw filter adaptors - bought one
recently
for my own Yashicamat.
SRB Film Service
286 Leagrave Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, England LU3 1RB
Or you can Phone us direct on
+44 (0)1582 572471
http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/index1.html
Paul
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 30 Mar 2003
Subject: Re: Soft photos with TLRs
I have been amazed at the number of 6x6cm SLRs and 6x6cm TLRs
which I have examined where the viewing screen was givng an out of focus image
compared to what the film aperture was receiving.
6x6cm SLRs usually require the viewing screen to be moved critically up or
down. 6x6cm TLRs usually require the viewing lens to be refocused
to the point where it gives a crisp/sharp image at infinity when the
taking lens is doing that on the film.
6x6cm TLRs can usually require adjustment of the focusing knob (if that is the
design of the camera) as well as the viewfinder lens.
The more complex TLR designs with geared lenses or lever focusing
(Autocord, Reflekta, Ricoh) can be more difficult to adjust.
I once examined about 30 Seagull TLR cameras from a distributor
and most had the viewing screen image out of focus with with
the film image. I took the best of these cameras and mine is still slightly out
of alignment - waiting for some spare time to align it and test the camera.
I still advise TLR users to get a good classic Rolleiflex - they are the best.
- Sam Sherman
From: Vincent Becker [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Roland's TLR FAQ #7
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003
> The lens is its twin when it comes to focal length. They are not identical
> twins, except in some cases. So what you see on the viewing screen is whay
> is going to appear on the film and I would have thought that that was the
> whole point of the camera and so it shoul;dn't matter if the viewing lens
> had a slightly larger aperture to gather more light.
In the case of the Contaflex (which started the controversy :-) ) the
viewfinder shows exactly what will appear on the film, except that the
image is enlarged. A 24x36mm viewfinder wouldn' be very helpful! I think
the aim of the Contaflex was to use the accuracy of the TLR design with
a 35mm film at a time when the SLR design wasn't yet invented and most
35mm cameras had an inaccurate standard viewfinder. Then maybe that the
distinctive feature of the TLR design wouldn't be only that it has two
lenses but also a ground glass offering an accurate vision of the
photography and an accurate focusing (which is not the case with boxes
and the weird Ful-Vue you mention).
--
Regards,
Vincent Becker
Photography and classic cameras :
URL:http://www.lumieresenboite.com/
From: Vincent Becker [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Roland's TLR FAQ #7
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003
Roland wrote:
> The "TL" in "TLR" stands for twin lens. --->Twin<--- It would at least have
> to have the same focal length and create an image to view that is the same
> size as the image that would fall on the film itself. Just because it has a
> viewing lens it doesn't mean the viewing lens is a twin of the taking lens.
Mamiya C lenses are real twins, both taking and viewing lenses being
exactly the same. On Yashicas they are of different making and aperture
but of the same focal lens. On the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex, a 24x36 TLR,
the viewing lens had a longer focal length than the taking lens,
allowing the viewing glass to be 4x6cm instead of 24x36mm.
--
Regards,
Vincent Becker
Photography and classic cameras:
URL:http://www.lumieresenboite.com/
From: [email protected] (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 08 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: "TLR" definition ??
Well, if you really really want to you can come up with a FAQ on triple lense
reflexes but I would save it for next April Fools Day so you can say you're
joking if the reception is poor.
The TLR viewing system is based on a viewing lens placed directly over, and in
reasonably close proximity to, the taking lens so as to reflect or closely
approximate what the taking lens will be including in the picture. Most
focussing TLRs, like the Yashicas you are so obviously familiar with (meaning
knowledgeable about rather than having a perverse relationship with) mount the
two lenses on a single front plate and then move the front mounting plate so
that both the viewing/focussing lens and the taking lens move together. Some,
like the Ricohflex, use twin helicoid mounts to achieve the same synchronous
movement. Then there are the oddballs like some of Brillants which use a zone
focussing lens and a fixed lens viewfinder. Finally, there are the cheap
plastic wonders using the TLR form with fixed lenses and view finders. Unless
you wanna go around inventing different restrictive camera classifications (and
maybe that idea grabs you, who knows), I'd suggest you leave TLR as a generic
term describing those cameras with reflex viewers placed directly over the
taking lens in a "twinned" arrangement. The Rolleiflex reflex viewer shows
what will be in the picture and focuses. The Brownie reflex viewer shows what
will be in the picture and does not focus. Other than that, they're the same
beast.
From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "TLR" definition ??
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003
Vincent Becker wrote:
> I have a triple lens reflex :-)
>http://www.lumieresenboite.com/collection2.php?l=2&c=Lomo_Spoutnik
BTW, once upon a time there was a three lens stereo camera called
Rolleidoscop. By removing the other lens and turning the body vertical,
Dr. Heidecke created the Rolleiflex. Lomo Sputnik reversed the
process...
-- Lassi
From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "TLR" definition ??
Date: 10 Apr 2003
Stacey [email protected] wrote
> "Roland" [email protected] wrote:
> >4) The viewing image should be large (at least as large as the image that
> >will fall on the film plane)
You will hardly find this on any TLR. On many the focussing screen is
somewhat smaller than the actual image size on the film, and still a
bit smaller than 6x6 slide masks. On the french Semflex, for example,
the focussing screen is 51x51mm.
There are some odd TLRs which have a focussing screen which is
significantly smaller than the image on the film. The french Atoflex
has a 48x48mm screen only but uses a viewing lens with slightly less
focal length than the taking lens. On the old german folding Perfekta
and Superfekta TLRs it was similar. On the Atoflex, both lenses still
focus together via gears, the difference in necessary travel for both
lenses is compensated by different pitch of the focussing helicoids.
On the (Su)Perfekta they used a somewhat different mechanism. On both
cameras, of course, the 'magnification' of the viewfinder image is
different from that of the film image.
Winfried
From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Photoflex TLR made by Beauty Camera Co?
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003
"edbacsi" [email protected] wrote
> Photoflex TLR, probably made by the Beauty Camera co., Japan... Does anyone
> know anything about this camera? Just bought one (hope I didn't overpay)
> and I don't know much about it. Looks like a Rolleiflex copy, well made,
> but that's about it. Also made 'Beautyflex's, which I think are the same
> camera with different name plate...
Hmm. I can't find anything on Photoflex, but Beautyflexes are a dime a donze
Here's the Beautyflex: http://www3.kiy.jp/~daddy/BEAUTYFLEX.html
Apparently Beautyflex came in a _lot_ of versions, different lenses. This
lens is a Tessar type, but the finder is so dark it's hard to use even
outside.
Here's another.
http://www.urban.ne.jp/home/cvcnet/camera/medium/others/beautyfx.htm
Here's a page for Stacey!
http://rd2h-ari.hp.infoseek.co.jp/2GAN_LIST.htm
(The icon says: "Coming soon!" (Well, actually it says "please wait", but it
means "coming soon")
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
From: Damir Fajdetic [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Buying Used Rolleiflex
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003
Francis A. Miniter "[email protected] wrote:
>One more consideration. The Cord allows double exposures. The Flex
>does not.
I am sorry to inform you that many 'Flexes (if not all) DO have
possibility of double exposure. On quite a few models there's a ring
(partially serrated, with the arrow pointing in the direction it has
to be turned) surrounding the film crank that provides this function.
>Francis A. Miniter
>
>
>Bob & Linda Flood wrote:
>
>>Something else to consider ....
>>
>>The Flex is a two-handed camera, and the Cord is a right-handed camera.
>>
>>This distinction can be important for some users. The Flex has the film
>>advance on the right and the focus knob on the left - think about how you
>>have to change hands when shooting, winding, shooting, etc. Of course, it's
>>a non-issue if the camera is on a tripod, but it is an issue for hand held
>>shooting, especially for us arthritics whose hands don't cooperate any more.
>>
>>The Cord helps greatly by making all the manipulations right-hand only, but
>>that won't be too satisfying to the average left-hander.
As n.t. has pointed out this is true for all 'Cords (including model
V) except Va and Vb (which have focusing knob on the left hand side).
>>My preference is for the Cord, avoiding the Biotar models - the Xenar is
>>everything I need in a lens.
>>
>>Bob in Las Vegas
Back to the OP question...
>I see them in eBay all the time, but I don't know where to begin to learn
>which ones are good. Are there any pointers you can offer?
>
>I'm looking for an economical model, and am interested more in the quality
>of the lense than in the very latest features on the body.
(IMHO) Lens quality - well, it depends on what your needs/subjects are
- if you need something from f: 2.8/3.5 to f: 5.6, and/or if you need
your pictures to be sharp all the way to the edges, definitely go for:
1. 'Flex with 3.5 Planar;
2. 'Flex with 2.8 Planar;
(Xenotar is almost the same - NO FLAME WAR, PLEASE!);
but if you're trying to save some money, and if you're comfortable
working at f: 8 or higher (smaller f stops), you'll be quite well off
with:
1. 'Flex with 3.5 Tessar;
2. 'Flex with 3.5 Xenar;
3. 'Cord with 3.5 Xenar.
>If you were going to buy one cheap, which mofel would you buy?
Well, it depends on what the prices in your part of the world are, but
I'd probably go for 'Cord Vb. (Don't be fooled, I'm 'Flex user and
fan!)
Furthermore:
1. (IMHO) 'Flexes are better built and faster/easier to use. At the
same time they are more complex, many have seen harder (professional)
use, so there are more things to be aware of (that are/or could
possibly go wrong?).
2. There are at least three concepts/ways of handling the camera in
Rollei TLR line:
- 'Flexes (some of them also differ);
- ' Cords Va and Vb;
- V and earlier 'Cords.
Although they are all capable of taking great pictures, if it's
possible, try to handle (at least one of each of) them to see/feel the
advantages/disadvantages of each type before you decide to buy
something you might be uncomfortable with.
3. Be aware that most Rollei's would benefit from CLA...
Good luck with your purchase, and may you put it to good use,
Damir Fajdetic
From: [email protected] (Allen Zak)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleicord vs. rolleiflex TLRs
Date: 18 Jul 2003
Stacey [email protected] wrote
> Mike Elek wrote:
> >
> > "Victor Bazarov" [email protected] wrote
> >> "Valar" [email protected] wrote...
> >> > Thinking of picking one up for street photography, are the rolleiflex TLRs
> >> > bigger than the rolleicords?
> >>
> >> Not really. The biggest difference is the crank and better
> >> optics, IIRC.
> >>
> >> Victor
> >>
> > ... and also the location of the shutter release and on some cameras the
> > frame counter. Some Rolleicords used the same Xenar lens as the
> > Rolleiflexes, believe. Did a Rolleicord ever carry a Tessar lens?
>
> The early ones did. I'm not sure if any of the later ones like the cord V
> etc did? No matter, the coated xenar's are fine optics.
Both flex and cord are beautifully made, rugged and capable equipment.
The 'flex is somewhat heavier than the cord, more so the E and F
models. My experience (I have been using Rolleis since 1954) has been
that Xenar and Tessar lenses on the flexes are indistinguishable from
Xenars on cords. Planars and Xenotars are sharper than Tessar/Xenar
at maximum aperture, but stopped down to f 8-11 there is little, if
any difference. There are handling differences between the types, as
noted, but either is handy to use. Overall, I prefer the flex and
currently own an MX-EVS with Xenar and a 3.5 F with Planar. Both
produce outstanding results and I use them more or less
interchangeably. A cord in good shape can be purchased for less than
a comparable flex and will be just as capable a performer. Try to get
one in top condition and/or budget for a CLA. Rolleis are pretty old
by now and most can benefit from a tuneup. A Rollei in good working
order is a splendid photographic instument
(Did I mention? I am a huge fan of Rollei TLRs).
Allen Zak
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 \
From: bill martin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: The old TLR lenses
If you want to try TLRs go to ebay and buy an old Ciroflex. I can hear
the laughter now: no auto-stop winder, but a red window; the screen's
not bright ( but bright enough for my 72 year-old eyes ). The camera can
be had with a 4-element lens, most ( the early ones ) are 3-element
anastigmats. They take great pictures, are built to last ( what the
words "fine old American craftsmanship" used to mean ) and you can get
one in good condition for under $20, if you're patient on ebay --
certainly under $30 even if you're impatient. When you get tired of it,
you can put it on ebay and get your money back and buy a Rollei. If you
break it ( which you won't, unless you take a hammer to it ) you've lost
$20 - $30, cheap at twice the price. Get the one with the Rapax shutter,
not the alphax shutter. I think the model D has the 4-element lens.
Shutter speeds of B, T, 1 - 400. Try it, you'll be glad you did. Takes
pictures as good as Yashicamat and MUCH cheaper.
Neil Purling wrote:
> I have a question.
> I have been considering getting a Yashica TLR.
> Now then a Yashica Mat may have a Yashikor or a Yashinon lens.
> The Yashinon is a $element/3group Tessar type?
> What of the Yashikor?
> Is it equivalent to the Triotar of a Rolliecord and the simple 3 element
> lens found in older Seagulls.
> Comments appreciated!
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 Aug 2003
Subject: Re: The old TLR lenses
A simple Automatic Rolleiflex (from 1948 to 1956) with
f3.5 75MM Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar (coated version), Zeiss-Opton Tessar
or Schneider Xenar in good clean, unscratched condition and "X" flash sync
- either original or installed later, is the best, economical choice.
All the above are quality 4 element Tessar-type optics and can be very sharp.
The Rolleiflex is a solid camera with steel wind gears and
will really hold up.
The Yashica-Mat has cheap soft-metal wind gears that are easily stripped or can
jam up. The Minolta Autocord is a good camera (better than Yashica) but has a
known defect - the focusing lever is known to snap off easily. Look at the
number of Autocords on Ebay with this key part snapped off and which the
sellers just "overlooked" mentioning.
The Rolleiflex is still the best TLR in the later super-deluxe versions or
in the post '48 versions which sell for lower cost. This is well worth looking
into and evaluating properly.
- Sam Sherman
From: [email protected] (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Yashica Mat 124G Vs Rolleicords
Date: 21 Dec 2003
I have generally recommended rolleicords over other budget TLRs at the
current ($100-ish) price levels, largely because of their robust
mechanics, and the optics are first rate performers for general
photography. The zeiss planar 'flex optics may be better closeup and in
the corners, but it is a modest improvement. The minolta autocords are
often cited as the "next best thing", though there are 'cord and 'flex
copies in many lines, including ricoh, MPP, etc. The 4 element yashica
lenses (tessar etc.) can also be very good performers with a good example.
The yashicamat 124G has been overpriced in the past (over $250 on ebay);
these cameras got recommended as the last production TLR in pop photo and
other mags, esp. when they were closed out new at $99 in the early 1990s.
The chart of lens resolution shows best performance begins at f/11 or so
(see top of http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/yashica124.html), with half the
ratings being either acceptable (5) or good (3), and only one excellent.
By comparison, an autocord of similar vintage scored six excellent ratings
see mf/autocord.html Given the autocord is often less than the
yashicamats, and you can see why they are often recommended ;-)
The seagull TLRs are getting better, esp. with the new shutter, but they
are very marginal performers in the corners; the 3 element models never
score above 50 lpmm center or edge resolution-wise, and even the 4 el.
lens version is below 30 lpmm from wide open to about f/8 ;-( see chart at
mf/seagull.html The bigger problem, if that isn't enough, is that there
are a LOT of in-warranty return problems reported. So you are paying a
premium to buy a new TLR which has poorer optics and much poorer
mechanical quality than the older rolleicord and minolta autocord and
other TLRs of the past (which are often under $100 vs. $185 or more).
Adding insult to injury, the same models of seagulls which were closed out
at Porter's Camera for $39.95 and $79.95 in the '90s are now back at four
times the price. Somebody has to pay for those ads and the warranty return
costs, after all ;-)
in short, I'm still recommending a good used rolleicord or similar vintage
TLR, after testing the lenses and mechanics to ensure no problems, over
new chinese seagull TLRs or even the often touted yashicamats (and yes, I
have one ;-) If you must get a yashicamat, the models before the 124/124G
are similar optics and mechanics at half the price, and a better buy in
most cases than the 124G (the G adds mainly gold plating to some contacts
;-)
grins bobm
From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleiflex question
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003
piterengel wrote:
>
> Hi, I need to know what are the differences between Group I and Group
> II bajonet filters for twin lenses Rolleiflex. Many thanks,
>
> piterengel
Group? If you mean size, Bay I is the smallest. It was used in all
models with 75mm Tessars and Xenars (and in Rolleicords). Bay I is by
far the easiest to find, because the Japanese manufacturers used it also
(a.k.a. B-30).
Bay II is larger. It was used with 75mm/3.5 Planars ('flex 3.5F). It is
the hardest to find. Bay III is used with 80mm/2.8 Planars.
-- Lassi
From: Graham Patterson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: c330 F vs "S"
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003
http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/mfaq/m_faq-1.html#Heading25
for the F,
http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/mfaq/m_faq-1.html#Heading27
for the S.
See the various threads in the medium format forum at
http://photo.net and the Mamiya Older Cameras forum at
http://www.mamiya.com
There is no shortage of fact and opinion around 8-)
Graham
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:08:36 -0800
From: Richard Knoppow
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000
From: todd [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Look alikes
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000
From: Gene Johnson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Newbie - help me select an old Rolleiflex or
Rolliecord
TLR
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001
From: Luis Poirot [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] re: rolleiflex for close portraiture
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001
From: Nolan Woodbury [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord
> He never was able to get a straight answer from anyone at Minolta or
>Rollei about this.
> BTW, talking TLRs, did you ever see a Ricoh Diacord? I used to have one
> of them and always did think it was a much better camera than the
> Yashicamats. I liked the double lever focusing!
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OFF TOPIC - Minolta Autocord/ TLR book
>I'd like to see a McKeown's guide to TLR cameras. They probably have enough
>information and illustrations for a book on TLR cameras.
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
From: todd [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Camera choice
Strange, though, that they never made a
TLR, as far as I know.
From Rollei Mailing LIst;
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Need help
From: Kirk [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Medium Format on a budget
> Look for a Mamiya C220 in good condition w/ back seals recently redone w/80mm
> for around $200-$300. Or, better than a Yashicat 124G IMHO, a Minolta Autocord
> for $100-$150.
Kirk
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Rollei TLR stuff
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000
From: Nolan Woodbury [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Rollei Users list digest V8 #255
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000
> From: "Bill Morgan" [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Look alikes
> Hey, considering the price difference I would be really disappointed in my
> Rollei if it didn't usually give better results than the Yashicamat. But
> dollar for dollar I still think the 124G is a good buy--and a good
> entry-level camera for getting someone started in medium format on a tight
> budget.
> Bill, in KC
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Richard Urmonas [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] What is the difference?
> My problem... What is the difference between
> these types of TLR cameras? For an amateur like myself, what would be both
> a relatively user-friendly camera to purchase and also have really great
> lenses? I know some people buy lots of different models, but I am simply
> not in a financial position to do something like that.
The Rolleiflexes:
- Crank film advance
- Automatic film start sensing (thread the film in, close the back and
wind away until it stops).
- Shutter cocked automatically.
- Shutter speed and aperature visible from the top (in a small window at
the top of the lenses).
- Shutter and aperature set by "wheels".
The Rolleicord:
- Knob film advance
- Film start by ligning up the arrows (like most other MF cameras)
- Shutter cocked manually
- Shutter and aperature set by levers around the taking lens.
- Lightest of the Rollei's
[email protected]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001
From: Richard Urmonas [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] What is the difference?
> What I still do not truly understand, however, is the
> difference between the Rolleicord and the Rolleiflex. To me the only
> difference appears to be that the 'flex has a handle winder on it while the
> 'cord has a knob winder. Am I being too simplistic here?
Rolleiflex:
- lever wind
- Automatic film start sensing. This means you do not need to line-up
anything, just thread the film in, close the back, wind until it stops.
- shutter / aperature can be set and viewed from above (just in front of
the viewfinder.
- Shutter cocks when winding
- Shutter release is on front bottom right and is released by pushing
back.
Rolleicord:
- Knob wind
- Shutter must be cocked manually
- shutter / aperature set by viewing semi or fully side on.
- shutter release is below taking lens and is released by pulling lever to
the left.
- If you shoot available light then try to save for a Planar / Xenotar
Rolleiflex.
- If you need low weight then get the Rolleicord.
- If you need operating speed then go with a Rolleiflex, the autoload and
shutter cocking make it faster than the Rolleicord
- Don't buy in a hurry, check the condition of the camera and buy on
condition. A good Rolleicord is better than a poor Rolleiflex.
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001
From: Christian Deichert [email protected]
Subject: TLR's
> . . . The TLR is really an out-dated design . . .
Christian Deichert
http://members.aol.com/cldphoto/
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V9 #184
> Also, does anybody on the list use an auxiliary fine focusing stage with
> their Rollei when doing close focus work? If so can they give out any tips
> to getting good shots with a TLR/stage. And could they recommend any brand
> of stage?
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001
From: S Dimitrov [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei TLR in use.
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei TLR in use.
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei TLR in use.
> That's what worries me about Leica M's. The ability to shoot intuitively
> as that particular piece of gear seems to demand, takes a long time to
> perfect. I'm wondering, considering the demands of the market place and
> peoples attention spans, if there will be a willingness to invest the
> time that it takes for even a modicum of mastery. I think that time is
> against the M.
>{Snip}
http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Sun telephoto attachment
>I know you must have told us about these before, but I could not really
>find anything in the archive. A small telephoto capability for my
>Automat would be really useful at times. Is this something I should be
>looking for?
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Jones bRacket
Jones Photo Eqpt.
10816 Burbank Blvd.,
No. Hollywood, CA 91601
Tel: +1 (818) 766-7189
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: Albert Weaver [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] TLR Flash
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] TLR Flash
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Beginners Med TLR
>wrote:
>
>>Hi
>>
>>I was wondering if anyone out there could recommend a good TLR for somebody
>>beginning to explore medium format photography.
>>
>>I'm thinking 120 film, portrait oriented stuff and some street photography.
Randy suggested:
>Yashicamat 124g
http://members.aol.com/ernreed
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Wedding Photography
1) you don't have to change for vertical,
2) the door hinge is on the bottom, change film on the monopod.
3) they're cheap,
4) they sync. at any speed, very important,
5) somebody will blink. You'll see it.
6) anybody can fix them,
7) double exposures,
8) change lenses,
9) 120/220,
10) The biggie: I can't see doing all that work just to spend it back on
equipment.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 02 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Advice: best Japan TLR?
>Autocords are rather hard to find, because they stopped making them sometime
>in the early sixties. The Yashicas were made up until the mid seventies, I
>believe and are much easier to find (look on eBay).
>
>I don't know much about the others. I'm sure they were reasonably good, but
>in my mind, the Yashica's and Minolta's were the best. I love my Yashica
>Mat 124 and am looking for another.
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: Ed Balko [email protected]
Subject: RE: OT (Rolleicords)
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000
From: todd [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Look alikes
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] TLR Flash
> From: Gerald Lehrer [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] TLR Flash
>
> The metal base mod should be mandatory for
> the Vivitar 283 and 285. They are still available
> as I see them advertised.
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Choosing TLR
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Choosing TLR
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Choosing TLR
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Choosing TLR
[email protected]
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beginners Med TLR
> Hi
>
> I was wondering if anyone out there could recommend a good TLR for somebody
> beginning to explore medium format photography.
>
> I'm thinking 120 film, portrait oriented stuff and some street photography.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Colin
> [email protected]
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Rollei] age of rollei users?]
> From: Mike Bischof [email protected]
> Date: 27 Jul 2001
> Subject: Re: [Re: [Rollei] age of rollei users?]
>
> I am not sure why anyone would buy a Seagull, when there are so many good used
> R'flexes (R'cords/Ikoflexes/Autocords etc.) around. I guess it is actually a
> good thing, as it keeps them affordable.
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Choosing TLR
> I want to buy a Rolleiflex, but I need help. Can you help me to choose
> between:
> 1. Rolleiflex 35 T
> Tessar
> 2. Rolleiflex 35 E
> Planar 75/35
> 3. Rolleiflex 35 F
> Planar 75/35
>
> What are the differences between the three models (T, E, & F)? And which is
> the best Planar or Tessar lenses?
>
> thanks
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
From: Rich Lahrson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Bayonet Filters, Infra-red
> For a list of the filters in 1961 catalogue check out
> http://www.rkwheeldon.freeserve.co.uk/rollei.htm
> Infra-red filters are listed in each Bayonet size.
> Dale
From: "Thom Mitchell" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF starting point
[email protected]
> TLR's are hard to use. That is one reason that they have died. There are
> others, framing, inability to do close work, reversed image left to right. I
> started with a Rollei 2.8E, and it was a pain to use. I sold it.
>
> Cheap is a relative term. I suggest you purchase a used Pentax 645 off Ebay
> with the standard lens. This should go for around $700-800 depending on
> condition and how many want the camera. This is a quality camera with very
> good optics. Then if you like MF, add the 150mm lens. That should go for
> about $300 on Ebay. If you are not willing to spend at least this, then you
> should reassess your interest in getting into MF. You would be better off
> staying with 35mm.
>
> "Brad Cooke" [email protected] wrote
> >
> > I would like to get a _cheap_ MF camera to play around with for stills,
> > portraits, etc. I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on some readily
> > available, inexpensive MF camera/lens setup that might make a good
> > starting point. I have had some interest in the immense number of
> > Yashica Mat cameras on E-bay - any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Brad.
From: "John Stewart [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei <==> Yashica Mat 124G
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What should I expect of a Beautyflex D?
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
a sample of a serie ordered by a Dutch camera store.
> I'm planning to shoot at least a couple of rolls with it in any case, but
> what kind of quality should I expect? I am pretty much a newbie in MF...
I only shot one roll with mine but the results were very good. The good
thing is that it uses standard Bay I accesories like hoods and filters and
they are not hard to find.
> The manual says it has a "semi-automatic film transport", what does this
> mean? I still have to cock the shutter manually...
It means you need to match the arow of the film with the red dots first and
wind. After each shots just press the button on the winding knob and it
stops automatically at the next frame.
> The manual also says it takes 'No. 120 or "Brownie" size roll film,
> either black/white or in color" so no 220... Isn't Brownie the same as
> 620 and no longer available?
I'm not sure about the 620 but mine definately takes 120.
> Too bad the thingy for attaching a cable release is missing. I could have
> used it. Well, maybe one of my wife's aunts finds it some day in her
> sewing box... not that it'd be hard to machine a new one. It's just a cap
> that fits over the shutter release button, with a thread in it.
If it's simlar as mine than it uses a "female" type of cable release. These
are not as common as the "male" type but it is used on Yashicas Mat for
example.
HTH,
Siu Fai
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What should I expect of a Beautyflex D?
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
> I think I posted here once before about the Beautyflex D, but...
I have one, or at least it's a Beautyflex. I bought it during my
eBay mania because of the name :)
I'm looking at the proofs and even though they were taken
in full sun using TriX (my standard test film for these sorts
of old cameras) it's not very contrasty and not real sharp
(my point of reference for real sharp is the Rollei Xenotar.)
Not funky enough to be interesting, not sharp-uncoated-lens
enough to be interesting (either.) The lens looks clear, though.
Mine takes 120.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Seagull Cameras
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
>see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/seagull.html on seagull models, also
>mf/tlr.html
>
>I agree that they are overpriced at current new prices hitting $175 and
>up; I'd much rather than a nice rolleicord if I wanted another TLR...
>
>see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/budget.html for budget options in
>medium format
>
>hth bobm
Bob's right about the overpriced bit. I can't believe how much Seagulls now
sell for. I have owned the 4A-1 (the predecessor to the 4A-107) and the 4B-1.
A used Rolleicord V in excellent shape is only about the price of a new
Seagull.
Better finished, much more robust. Great lens. Other good choices in the $150+
range include some of the better Yashica TLRs. I am sure Bob's website can give
you an idea of what they are.
models have very bright focussing screens. If you can find a 4A-107 with a 4
element Tessar-type lens, that would be a very very good camera. However, the
crank mechanism for film winding is a little weak for long term use.
Personally, I prefer the cheapest Seagull - the 4B-1
http://members.eisa.net.au/~shutter/cameras/4b_1.html
It is a knob wind camera - crank wind mechanisms tend to wear out over time,
shares the same triplet lens as the more expensive but sleeker 4A-105, has dual
formats, has authentic Chinese lettering (I am not impressed by the cheapo
plastic "SEAGULL" badge on the 4A-107 and 5), and the best bit is that it's
about USD$56, at least in Singapore it is. Finish might not be as good as the
all black models, film back might be a tad soft but, hell, if it works, for
$56, who cares.
"3E, 3G" or 4E, 3G for the Tessar-type) can be pretty spiffy image makers.
Wide open, the lens exhibits very obvious light falloff towards the corners of
the 6X6 frame (not visible if you're shooting 6x4.5). In my experience, light
falloff disappears entirely by f11. Should this bother you? Well, only if
you're shooting evenly lit scenes like blue skies on a bright sunny day.
Secondly, this lens can be VERY sharp across the entire frame - you'd get this
when the lens is well stopped down at f16-f22 (most of the older triplet
designs
are like this). Wide open, the centre is sharp (not razor sharp though), and
the
edges are visibly much less so. I ACTUALLY LIKE this characteristic. It makes
for people pictures with nice feel.
You can see some exceptional samples taken by a Seagull triplet here:
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/asiatlrclubpart2 (you have to register as a member
to see the photos); look in the "Random Melaka Shots" album. You'd be impressed
by the contrast and colour.
If you go over to http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/asiatlrphotographyclub (again
you
need to register to see the photo folders), you can see how one Brit
photographer modified his 4A-105 to become a panoramic camera with a Kiev TTL
prism head (a permanent epoxy mod). He shoots at f22 to get the best performance
from the triplet. The photos are good enough for commercial use.
The front element of the lenses being not well recessed, tend to be very easily
exposed to stray light.
From: [email protected] (William Mutch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vintage MF TLR cameras
Date: 22 Oct 2001
[email protected] says...
>
>New to the group, looking for an inexpensive way into MF just to play
>around. I'm not looking for anything too serious. Mamiya, Bronica,
>Hasselblad, etc SLRs, are pretty much out of my price range for starter
>equipment.
>
>That leaves me looking at other options such as TLR. I've seen the
>Seagulls and for the money they seem ok.
from firsthand experience
Seagull...terrible
Yashica 635 lens OK mechanically SoSo
Yashica D lens slightly better, mechanically OK, but not up to
punishment
Minolta Autocord lens good mechanically OK except watchout for loose
focusing pillars, play in lensboard
Rollei 3.5F all round excellant
Rollei 2.8 Xenotar superb glass, mechanically excellant, may be over
budget.
Anyone want to rate a Meopta IV, Mamiya 220, 330 on this scale?
From: Peter [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vintage MF TLR cameras
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001
Meopta Flexarets have the same lens - Meotar (4/3), which matches
Yashinon? (4/3) in quality. Minolta Autocord has better lens
(resolution is about 10-20% higher). Mechanically Flexarets are worse
than both Japanese TLRs. Problem is not shutter, e.g. German made
Prontor is very good, but focusing is rather troublesome.
Peter
...
From: Peter [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vintage MF TLR cameras
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001
Sorry for a misinformation, the name of a Flexaret lens is Belar
3.5/80. It is a copy of Tessar (4/3). The latest Flexaret VII has a
shutter Prestor (B,1,1/2,..1/500), while previous models have Prontor
(B,1,...1/400). In 1968 a Czech magazine Ceskoslovenska Fotografie
tested both Yashicas (one with 4/3 and the other one with 3/3 lens - I
cannot remember they names), Minolta Autocord and the latest Flexaret.
As long as the optical quality, the Yashica with 3/3 lens was
significantly behind the other three. Yashica with 4/3 lens was on
pair with Flexaret. Minolta delivered higher resolution mainly at the
corners and wide open. Here the difference was about 10-20%. However,
Flexaret price was barely 50% of the price of a cheapest Yashica.
Peter
Peter [email protected] wrote:
>Meopta Flexarets have the same lens - Meotar (4/3), which matches
>Yashinon? (4/3) in quality. Minolta Autocord has better lens
>(resolution is about 10-20% higher). Mechanically Flexarets are worse
>than both Japanese TLRs. Problem is not shutter, e.g. German made
>Prontor is very good, but focusing is rather troublesome.
>
>Peter
From: [email protected] (Mikko Nahkola)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Another old 6x6 TLR - Welta(?) 75mm/3.5
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
Another old 6x6 TLR that is currently not quite functional ... does
anyone know how old this might be, or anything? Would it be worth trying
to repair? (these old family heirlooms are interesting anyway... and
given that it takes 120 film, maybe "useful" too.)
Anyone heard of a "Welta" camera? That's what it says on top of it, on
the sportfinder blind. I haven't been able to find anything else that
looks like a manufacturer name either. On the back, under the ruby
window, there is a triangle with "1" inside, and "37/378/1001" under the
triangle. There is also a DOF table. ("TiefenschSrfentafel f=75mm")
There may have been a nameplate on the top front once, but there isn't
anything now - just blank metal with 2 small holes with roughly 1 mm
screw thread.
On the left side, it says "Made in Germany". Sure enough, all the rest is
in German.
Both lenses say "Meyer-Optik (serial-num) /1\ Trioplan 1:3.5/75 (red V)",
Note that the 1-in-a-triangle, like here --^, is a recurring theme. It
also appears on the shutter (that appears to be a "Vebur"). Looks like
the lenses would take filters and such on a 30mm screw thread.
Shutter times 1/250, 1/100, 1/50, 1/25, 1/10, 1/5, 1/2, 1 and B.
Apertures numbered 3.5 to 16, but it seems to my untrained eye that it'll
go to at least 22 - certainly noticeably smaller than at the 16 mark.
Connector for PC flash sync cord, appears to be X and working. Just that
the shutter appears to be playing lottery with times, I got something
like 1/10 from setting it to B last time... and 1s the previous time.
Shutter has to be cocked manually, and film advance is completely manual
- ruby window only. Except that there is some kind of a double-exposure
prevention device, which will naturally prevent the single exposure too
if you press the button without cocking the shutter. (someone'd had a
nice idea...) And of course, the whole thing has at least 5 spring-loaded
parts outside of the shutter itself too, and at least 2 of the springs
have slackened so that the exposure-prevention device fails to cock
sometimes. But the cable release socket is of the more common "standard"
kind.
Focusing is for real, there is a cam in the front below the lenses. Moves
in a roughly 80-degree arc. It is connected to a moving plate where the
lenses are attached, between the front bezel and the actual frame. This
is stuck, of course.
The finder (the usual kind of TLR folding chimney with a magnifier and a
sportfinder-mode) seems to be in a fairly good shape, and the
front-surface mirror reflects light still too. It's just very dusty, and
I don't know if it is in alignment. A real latch to keep the thing folded
down too.
And to top it off, the back cover latch is missing. The cover fits fairly
tight, however, and there is an "ever-ready" case for this. Oh, and
tripod mount is 3/8.
Overall, this thing feels like a solidly-built but not particularly
well-designed camera, and it has taken some abuse over the decades.
Does anyone have any experience on these, and if so, is this worth a
repair attempt? I'll keep it around anyway, it'll be a nice "toy camera"
for kids even in this condition, but I'd like to get photos out of it
too.
--
Mikko Nahkola [email protected]>
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Origins of Lubitel - was Re: Seagull
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001
[email protected] (Lassi) wrote:
> Er... Lubitel is Russian, made by LOMO in St. Petersburg, and based on
> an old VoigtlSnder design from 1930's. Probably the oldest camera design
> still in production ;-)
If anybody is interested I've put together a set of pages which try to
document just how the Lubitel connects to the Voigtlander Brilliant
cameras of the 1930s. It also covers the whole Lubitel range and a variety
of other cameras.
www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk
> Probably the oldest camera design still in production ;-)
Whilst its a great idea - as I've discovered there is precious little of
the original Voigtlander in the latest Lubitel. I'm also not sure if
Lubitels are actually still in production - or just old stock being sold
off in dribs and drabs?
:-)
Roland.
From: [email protected] (Markus Schmidt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Another old 6x6 TLR - Welta(?) 75mm/3.5
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001
Hi Mikko,
this is an East-German TLR Cam from the fifties from VEB Welta-Werke,
Freital (Saxonia). I have one with the small top front plate which
says Reflekta II. I got it on ebay for 85,- DEM including the original
leather case and original instructions in german from 1954 and
shipment in god working condition without scratches.
Mine has a different lens : ROW Pololyt 3,5/75 mm and a VEBUR shutter
with speeds from B, 1 sec. to 1/250 sec., working well with exception
of the slow speeds, which are too slow. Also on mine you can clos the
diafragm more than the indicated 16.
As you noticed, it is a rather simple TLR cam, but sturdy. I replaced
the mirror, as it was oxydated a bit and someone offered me a
replacement for 15 DEM, easy job to do.
On the rear film compartment door, there is on the right side
additionally a sliding mechanism which slides an interior lid over the
red glass window to prevent light entering the film compartment. This
was lacking in mine, but as I saw how it works in the instructions, I
built a simple one myself.
The reflecta was built in various series, but the one you described
seems to be exactly the same as mine.
Regards,
Markus
[email protected] (Mikko
Nahkola) wrote:
>Another old 6x6 TLR that is currently not quite functional ... does
>anyone know how old this might be, or anything? Would it be worth trying
>to repair? (these old family heirlooms are interesting anyway... and
>given that it takes 120 film, maybe "useful" too.)
>
>Anyone heard of a "Welta" camera? That's what it says on top of it, on
>the sportfinder blind. I haven't been able to find anything else that
>looks like a manufacturer name either. On the back, under the ruby
>window, there is a triangle with "1" inside, and "37/378/1001" under the
>triangle. There is also a DOF table. ("TiefenschSrfentafel f=75mm")
>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Planar lens design changes from 2.8E to 2.8F
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Yes, the front and rear lens cells are matched to each other at the factory.
If you replace only one of them you may end up with a perfect lens, or you
may end up with not a very good one, and the focal length may be changed
enough so you have to re-set focus.
I have replaced lens cells and elements with new ones, and in every case had
to reset the infinity focus after such a repair.
Bob
> From: "[email protected]" [email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Planar lens design changes from 2.8E to 2.8F
>
> you wrote:
>> Do you know if the front half of the lens is interchangeable with the back
>> half?
>> I think I have a "good front" from one camera, and a "good back" from
>> another.
>>
>> Can they be transplanted?
>
>
> I don't know exactly. What I heard, is that the front and back lens for
> repair came in pairs, selected by Zeiss to match together. So replacement
> could work or not. But maybe other list members know more about it.
>
> Dirk
>
From: [email protected] (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Taking pictures leonids meteor showers with Rollei TLR
Date: 16 Nov 2001
Thom [email protected]> wrote:
>I have a rollei TLR with which I would like to take pictures of the Leonid
>meteor showers. I apologize for the off-topic post but I would welcome any
>advice. I managed a decent picture of comet hyakutake in 1996 but it was
>sheer luck achieved through much bracketing.
There are a couple of web sites and books you might want to check out.
Robert Reeves URL:http://www.connecti.com/~rreeves/index.html> is the
author of "Wide-Field Astrophotography". He has information on meteor
photography on his page and the first chapter of his book is
downloadable as an Adobe Acrobat file. He has also published the
results of his film tests and the procedure he uses for testing on his
page.
The server hosting Robert's page seems to be down, but you can find
information about the book from the publisher, Willmann-Bell
URL:http://www.willbell.com/>, and the first chapter can be
downloaded from the book's page
URL:http://www.willbell.com/ccd/widefieldast.htm>. There's plenty of
information in this chapter to get you started this weekend.
Michael Covington URL:http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/> is the
author of "Astrophotography for the Amateur". The first chapter of
this book is also available for download. This book has long been the
introductory book for astrophotography, and the second edition came
out only a couple of years ago. He also has a lot of good information
on his web page.
You might also want to check out the USENET newsgroup
sci.astro.amateur.
>I would like to use c-41 film for the latitude.
I'd recommend Kodak Professional Ektachrome E200 (or Kodak Elite
Chrome 200). It has almost no reciprosity failure or color shift with
exposures of the length you're likely to use. It can also be pushed
once to 320 and twice to 640.
The problem with color print film is that you are at the mercy of the
lab to get the colors right.
--
Brian Reynolds
[email protected]
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Symmar 150/5,6
Eric Goldstein wrote:
>Here's some Rollei content... I believe that the Unofocal was the only
>non-Zeiss or Schneider optic to ever be offered on an F&H product... it was
>if I am not mistaken offered as a lens choice on early Heidoscops. Perhaps
>Todd, Marc, Jerry, et al can confirm...
I'm not certain Jerry would be into something as modern as the first camera
Franke & Heidecke manufactured {he grins!} but you are absolutely correct,
Eric. The original Heidoscop offered a choice of 4.5/5.5cm Tessars or
Steinheil Unofocals or "Heidoscop-Anastigmat" lenses from R=DCO; the viewing
lenses were, in order, a Steinheil f/3.3 lens or R=DCO f/3.2
Heidoscop-Sucher-Anastigmat lens, an f/3.2 lens from Steinheil, or, with
the R=DCO taking lenses, the f/3.2 R=DCO lens again. So, both Steinheil and
R=DCO provided taking lenses on this camera.
On the Prewar and early Postwar Rolleiflex and Rolleicord TLR's, Optische
Anstalt Saalfeld (OAS, a Zeiss subsidiary) provided the viewing lenses up
to the Automat, Type III, while Steinheil provided the same on the New
Standard, while both OAS and Steinheil provided the viewing lenses on the
Baby Black cameras. On the Postwar cameras after the Automat, Type III, I
believe all viewing lenses were made by the manufacturer of the taking
lens, with the sole exception of the 2.8A, whose viewing lens was provided
by OAS.
Marc
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Power of TLR Hood Magnifier
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
> Hi folks, I'm curious to know the actual power of the pop-up
> magnifier in the removable Rolleiflex TLR hood. Is there a simple,
> down and dirty way to visually determine 'about' mag numbers?
> Thanks! Rich Lahrson Berkeley, California [email protected]
Rich. you can easily determine the focal length of the main magnifier
by flipping it down again when in the "sports" position with the front
square aperture open. Then try to form the image of a distant light
source : from where the image of the light source is formed sharp you
easily find the focal length as the distance between the image and the
single element lens. Really no problem here.
Now there is a conventional "commercial" relationship between the
magnifying power of loupes and the focal length ; it is simply :
(mag_power) = 1/(4*f)
f = 1/(4*mag_power)
where f is the focal length in metres ; however this is valid for
stand-alone loupes with "4X", "8X" etc engraved. So a "10X" loupe has
a focal length equal to 2.5cm, about one inch, making the
correspondence even simpler in inches : (10X -> f=1"), (5X -> f=2"),
etc..
I am not sure however that R-TLR magnifying loupes obey this rule : I
mean, when Prochnow mentions 2.5X (so it should be f=10cm ~ 4") for
the main loupe and 4x for the additional eye-level magnifier (should
be f=6.25cm, about 2"-1/2). From memory the main loupe is located much
closer to the ground glass than the supposed focal length 10cm. Very
probably this allows to cast the ground glass image not to infinity
but to a closer distance so that more people have a chance to see it
sharp (if you are short-sighted like me).
and (ahem....) I have compiled those magnifications there with other
main R-TLR features here:
http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/text_pages/rolleiflex_compare.htm
--
Emmanuel BIGLER [email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
From: Siu Fai [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] entries for the FAQ
To: [email protected]
> So far I only had very few web pointers to
> pre-WWII "historical" rollei cameras.
Emmanuel,
I have made an small update on this on my homepage:
http://www.siufai.dds.nl/page58.htm
Right now I'm only missing the "New Standard".
Here are some two other pointers (by Alastair Firkin):
Original:
http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~dmakos/square/museum/original/index.html
Sport Baby:
http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~dmakos/square/museum/baby/babysports.html
Siu Fai
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
Laurence Cuffe wrote:
>Date sent: Tue, 21 Aug 2001
>From: Dale Dickerson [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
>To: [email protected]
>
>The T was called after the designer Theodore xxxxxx
>who was subsequently fired for this presumption.
>
I wrote this some years back and have not updated it per Prochnow -- but
the basics should be accurate:
ROLLEIFLEX T
The Rollei T was developed by a young engineer named Theodore Uhl in 1958:
it was intended as a model intermediate between the Rolleicord and the
Rolleiflex; it used a four-element Carl Zeiss Tessar lens and incorporated
Uhl's contribution to the Rolleicord Va, the use of PTFE plastic internal
parts. Like the Rolleicord, it also used a lever to set apertures and
speeds in lieu of the 'Flexes wheels. When Franke & Heidecke management
discovered other young engineers had named this camera "the Theodore
camera", or "T" for short, they were not amused: Uhl shortly thereafter
was discharged, though the T designation remained, ostensibly for "Tessar".
The basic T did not come with a lightmeter, though the camera was fitted
to take the T lightmeter as used on the 2.8 and 3.5 E and F 'Flexes, and
many of them have been so equipped. The camera was equipped with the
removable hood similar to that on the 2.8 E (2). Originally, the camera
was made in grey only; from January, 1960, through the rest of the
production run, either grey or black finish were available. A Rolleikin
35mm kit was made available after s/n= 2,151,000.
TYPE 1: s/n 2,100,000 to 2,199,999, 12th August 1958 to 1966.
Synchro-Compur shutter with MXV (M=3Dflashbulb, X=3Delectronic, V=3Dself-timer).
Black plastic arms for aperture and speed. Most are grey. 99,000.
TYPE 2, version 1: s/n 2,220,000 to 2,228,999, 11th November 1966 to July
1968. Synchro-Compur X shutter with X synch only. Metal arms for
aperture and speed. Most are black. 9,000 (?).
TYPE 2, version 2: s/n 2242,000 to 2249999 and 2310000 to 2314999, late
1968 - 1970. Same features as type 2 save for addition of 220 film
counter. Most are black. 13,000 (?).
TYPE 3: s/n 2315000 to 2319999 (?), September 1971 to 1975, and one final
batch from 2320000 to 2320300 produced 1 to 12 May 1976. Same as type 3,
save for 'white face' (plain, non-removeable) lens panel. 300 produced
with Tessars for civilian sale, 2,500 with Tessar
and another 2,500 with Xenar for military use. About 2,000 of the Xenar
lensed models were released as surplus in 1987. Almost all, if not all,
are black.
total production: 126,300 or so. Most common is the grey TYPE 1; least
common is the Xenar TYPE 3.
Marc
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
Eric Goldstein wrote:
>This is great info. Let me ask about another Rollei Urban Myth... that
>somewhere in the T production run the Tessar was recalculated using higher
>index glasses which became more available and were more economical after the
>war...?
I understand that the Tessar used in all of the T's was recomputed from the
lens used in the last Tessar-equipped 'Flexes. That is, I believe there
were three families of 75mm Zeiss Tessar lenses:
3.5/7.5cm CZJ Tessar used in all cameras to the Automat, Type III
3.5/7.5cm or 75mm Zeiss-Opton and Carl Zeiss Tessar used in all of the
Rolleiflex TLR's from the Automat, Type III, through the 3.5B/MX (9/56)
3.5/75 Carl Zeiss Tessar used in the T's from 10/58 to 1976. (Cameras
meant for the Warsaw Pact had lenses engraved "OPTON Te")
But I can't lay my hands on a documentary source for this at the moment.
Marc
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Matthew Phillips [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
>This is great info. Let me ask about another Rollei Urban Myth... that
>somewhere in the T production run the Tessar was recalculated using higher
>index glasses which became more available and were more economical after the
>war...?
>
>
>Eric Goldstein
The Perleman Rollei Manual lists this change as the incorporation of a new
Lanthanum element.
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
Matthew Phillips wrote:
>Can someone verify this point?: my understanding is that NO Rolleiflex T
>was available with a 220 option, due to A) lack of internal space and B)
>the complexity of the frame counter which already switches from 12 - 16
>exposures.
Matthew
What I posted was from the early days of the Rollei List. Prochnow breaks
down the breed as follows:
PR 184 First Model, Grey Leather 10/58 to 6/61 56,000
(Serial number range: T2100000 to T2155999)
PR 184/1 Same as above but with "special equipment 24" 6/61 250
(Serial number range: T2156000 to T2156249)
PR 185 Second Model, Black 6/61 to 7/66 43,000
(Serial number range: T2157000 to T2199999)
PR185/1 Third Model, Black 7/66 to 8/76 28,000
(Serial number range: T2199000 to T2249999 and T2310000 to T2320449)
Prochnow makes no mention of 12/24 but I am a bit uncertain exactly what
that "special equipment 24" might be -- the entire German text runs:
Sonderausf=FChrung 12 oder 24 6x6 bzw. 24x36mm
and I am not certain of "bzw."
Prochnow makes no mention of the Xenar lens on the T but, then, he also
makes no mention of the CZJ Tessar T on the 2.8A.
Marc
[email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
From: Dale Dickerson [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
Eric,
Here is what Pearlman wrote:
"Shown first at the Photokina Exhibition in Cologne in October, 1958,
but only becoming generally available to the public later in the year...
It is fitted with a f/3.5 Carl Zeiss Tessar lens made from the new
Lanthanum glass, which gives even better resolution and colour
correction than previous Tessars." pages 388-389, Rollei Manuel 4th
edition, 1966 by Alec Pearlman
I hope this helps.
Dale
Eric Goldstein wrote:
>I asked:
>
>>>This is great info. Let me ask about another Rollei Urban Myth... that
>>>somewhere in the T production run the Tessar was recalculated using higher
>>>index glasses which became more available and were more economical after the
>>>war...?
>>>
>
>Matthew Phillips wrote:
>
>>The Perleman Rollei Manual lists this change as the incorporation of a new
>>Lanthanum element.
>>
>
>
>Matthew -
>
>Does this source indicate any dates? Are we talking about a recomputed
>Tessar from the get-go in 1958 as Marc's source indicates?
>
>
>Eric GOldstein
>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
you wrote:
>So this is good news, isn't it? It means that most Rolleiflex cameras
>can be used with 220 film. I've played with my MX this morning and you
>are perfectly right, the feeler mechanism is not reset by opening the
>back because there is still film between the rollers. It is only
>necessary to open the back slightly (1/2 inch is enough) to reset the
>counter. If you do that under your coat you probably don't even need a
>changing bag. The pressure plate should be set to 24x36 I suppose to
>make up for the missing backing paper.
>
>Another urban legend found to be true!
>
>Sven Keller
>
Leave the back plate in the 6x6 position. The reason for its sliding over
for 35mm film is to make room for a part of the Rolleikin which projects
downward. This is the little release lever for the film meter, if the back
plate is in its normal position there isn't any clearance for it.
The backplate should hold 220 film fine in its normal position.
BTW, folding an overcoat so that it can be used as a changing bag is an
old news photographer's and motion picture cameraman's trick. Its just
folded over the front with the bottom and top folded over. The sleeves are
used as arm-holes.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]
From: "jwjensen1" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001
Coincidentally, I just got my Rollei back from Harry Fleenor and one of the
things I had him do was to put in the 220 mod. The external aspect of the
mod is very neat. There is a little lever that looks like the already-there
lever used for the removal of the back. I played with the mod for a bit,
then I tried the empty spool and business card trick (as below). I found it
better to put in a full roll of film up above. I played with it and then
flipped the lever and the counter went back to zero the way it should. Then
I wound it for another 12 exposures. Everything worked.
So, what I did next was to remove the card, close the back and start over.
I opened the camera, put in the card and did the same thing, going to #12.
I then opened the back and closed it and, sure enough, it worked just like
the 220 mod. It reset to zero and I could wind again to 12.
The only thing wrong with the experiment is I found I had to do it with just
the single thickness of the card, not folded over. Try it. Just use a roll
of film (120 OK) and the business card. The amount the camera back had to
be opened was very slight. I could hear a click and then I closed the back.
I don't think it was opened more that an 1/8 inch (3 mm) or so. Mine is a
3.5 E1.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Urban Legends
> You can check this by fooling the camera that there is film in it. Take
> an empty spool and wrap a few turns of masking or Scotch tape at one end.
> Put this in the top with the tape under the metering wheel. Double over a
> busines card and put it between the feeler rollers at the bottom. Close the
> camera and crank. it will act as though there is film in it, the film
> counter counting, etc. At some point open the back a little and close it
> again. The counter re-sets on closing, not opening, so some experimentation
> must be done to see just how much to open it. Not much is needed. When
> closed again it will wind about one frame and start to count again. I
> suspect this works fine but you will loose one frame, perhaps two if you do
> it in the light. I just checked this with an MX so it should work on all
> rolleis.
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Re: So much for the "China" being sought after!
I had a Chinese TLR. A fair camera, but I don't see why anyone would pay the
kind of prices asked for them nowadays. eBay has lots of Ciroflexes for sale
for $15 to $30 price range. Built like the proverbial tank, very good Wollensak
lens ( at least as good as the Chinese lenses), and good-old American
reliability. In my opinion, a much better value than the Chinese TLR's.
"John Stewart see REAL email address in message." wrote:
> Funny how these auctions work. I was able to sell a VGA resolution digital
> camera for $76, but the nice "China" TLR with the top speed of 1/500 didn't
> hit $50. Happily, my reserve was higher and I secretly wanted a reason to
> keep it.
>
> I wonder what scared people off? BTW, the shots of it will be up for a
> short time at www.acpress.com/ebay/chinatlr.jpg if you want to see it. But
> it's no longer for sale.
>
> John
From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentacon Six === Yashica MAT 124G
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001
mayo [email protected]> wrote:
> I decided to replace my Pentacon Six (standard set) with Yashica MAT 124G. I
> just want to have ligher and more compact 6x6 camera especially for mountain
> hiking.
Premise: I'll let my Exakta 66 count as a P6, here. The differences are
insignificant for the purpose of this discussion.
Now, to someone who's had both cameras but upgraded in the other
direction, this sounds like a rather odd suggestion, at first. On second
thought it, does make sense in your case but let me add a few ideas and
suggestions.
For mountain hiking, you'll certainly appreciate the lower weight of the
Mat. I've been very pleased with mine and was sorry to part with it when
I bought my first Kiev 60. I had to, because I was beginning to have
trouble focussing with the WLF. Old age hitting me at 45....
The finder of the Mat is a little darker than that of the P6 which
shouldn't be much of a problem if you're outside.
> Can you compare optical quality of Biometar 80mm f/2.8 to Yashinon??
Both lenses are subject to substantial variations. I've had a total of 3
Mat's and one of them was really excellent, definitely better than my
current Biometar. The other two weren't quite as good as the Biometar,
but not by much.
Be aware though, that you're giving up all options to work with lenses
of another focal length. The various tele and wide-angle attachments are
totally unuseable. Their optical quality is rotten and, worse, this
can't be compensated by stopping down because, due to their principle,
this leads to immediate vignetting. That goes for 3rd party lenses as
much as for the original Yashica versions. Don't waste your money
repeating other peoples' experience.
So, if there is a chance that you might want to use other lenses for
other things and you can afford to keep the P6 besides the Mat, I'd
suggest you do so.
> Is my decision reasonable??
If mountain hiking is all you want to do, then yes, I think it is.
Cheers,
Ralf
P.S.: Where on the net are your pictures from these trips? :)
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de
picture galleries - classic and mechanical cameras
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
From: John Lehman [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Verlauf
To: [email protected]
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]>
> Anyone have a suggestion on where I can buy (or how
> I can create) a verlauf filter in Bay3?
Two approaches:
(1) use a bay-3 to 52mm stepup ring and get a Hoya or
other version (disadvantage -- the line is in the
middle only)
(2) use a 3" (75mm) gel filter holder which will clamp
on to the lenshood (both B&H and Calumet sell them).
Put 1/2 of a 3" filter in a cardboard holder stiff
enough to keep its place vertically in the holder, and
voila! This was my project for last evening, so we
must have been reading similar stuff (in my case a
textbook on Field Photography)
=====
John Lehman
College, Alaska USA
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Demonstrations
you wrote:
Snipping...
>BTW, greetings all. I just joined the list after becoming the owner of a
>very nice Rolleicord IV.
>
>Rad
>
The Rolleicord IV is probably the ultimate simple but complete camera. It
has partly automatic threading (no red window), an excellent lens, is light
weight and easy to handle. My first "real" camera was a 'cord IV, bought
new just when they were discontinued. My previous camera was a Ciroflex in
questionable condition. No comparison whatsoever. My original 'cord was
stolen many years ago but I bought a replacement a few years ago when I
ended a lapse from photography.
One thing about Rollei cameras, while the cord was a cheaper model the
difference is in the complexity of the mechanism, not in the quality of
manufacture or design.
About the only real improvement that can be made to the 'cord is to use
either a drop in Rolleigrid or a replacment screen. The f/3.2 lens gives a
somewhat dim image, though I used to do a lot of available light work with
my original one.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]
From: Martin Jangowski [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Beautiful coated Tessar shots
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002
Roland [email protected]> wrote:
> I just got some slide roll films back that I shot with a Super Ikonta Mk IV
> with the coated Tessar lens and the results are wonderful. I don't rate the
> Tessar at apertures wider than f11 so I keep to f11 or f16 mostly or don't
> shoot at all. I could do some scans and post them to a binaries newsgroup if
> anybody is interested. I have only a cheap flatbed film scanner so I doubt
> the scans would do them justice. There is so much detail on the film in any
> case that if I could capture it all the jpeg might end up a few megabytes if
> I did.
> I have seen a few articles knocking these old lenses and extolling the
> virtue of modern lenses. I would throw down the challenge that hand-held
> shots at f16 made with these Tessars and good derivatives (such as the
> Color-Skopar) would be the equal to any modern lens at that same aperture.
> Maybe it would even beat some, as I feel modern lenses with their
> capabilities for wider apertures might be "detuned" away from the infinity
> focussing f16 landscape work that I mostly do, to enable them to perform
> better at these wider apertures.
I tried a few Rolleiflex TLR lenses by shooting my bookshelf from about
4m distance (about 1:50 on the negative) with the lens wide open and
2 stops closed. One of them was a Rolleiflex Automat, built 1950 with
a 3.5/75 Carl Zeiss Tessar. As a modern competitor, I used a Mamiya 6
with the 3.5/75 lens, a lens of known and very high performance. I
used a sturdy tripod, a mirror to adjust the camera position and the
selftimer to get reasonably shakefree shots.
The shots showed that my Schneider Xenotar 2.8/80 in the Rolleiflex F
is nearly indistinguishable from the Mamiya lens. Both lenses showed
a very high overall quality and got only marginally better (especially
in the edges) when stopped down.
The three Tessar/Xenar lenses I had (the one from the Automat, a
Zeiss Tessar from a Rolleiflex T and a Xenar from a Rolleicord Vb)
were very good in the middle part, even wide open. The edges were
noticeably worse. Stopped down 2 stops, they all improved very much,
the Tessar from the Automat being the best of the bunch!
Yes, you still can see a difference between a Tessar at f5.6-8 and
a modern lens, but it is really small. Someone who is used to the
quality of modern 35mm consumer zooms usually has the mouth wide
open when looking at pictures from the "outdated equipment" ;-)
Martin (a big fan of Tessar type lenses...)
From: "skgrimes" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Simple Rolleicord Question
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:13:53 GMT
S.K. GRIMES -- MACHINE WORK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS
http://www.skgrimes.com/span/index.htm
"quartet" [email protected]> wrote...
> I'm real new to medium format. My Rolleicord Vb just arrived in the
> mail yesterday. The manual I downloaded off the web, when describing
> how to load film, says in one place to run the paper leader under the
> roller and in another place, it says to run the leader over the
> roller. Can anyone tell me the proper way to do it? Thanks so much.
>
> Matt
The proper way to load a "cord" is to put the film in the lower chamber and
run it over the rollers on either end of the focal plane and then onto the
take-up spool. Advance the film with the back still open until the arrow on
the film lines up with the little red dots near the bottom of the focal
plane. Then you can close the back and advance the film until it reaches the
first frame, when it will stop automatically.
With a Rolleiflex you insert the film between two rollers near the bottom
spool holder and just close the back and wind the film. The rollers "sense"
the start of the film and start the counter automatically. Perhaps the
manual you downloaded contains instructions for both types of cameras which
could lead to confusion.
Good Luck and enjoy your new toy.
[email protected]
From: "Jim Read" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Wow, TLRs are small...
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001
Hmmm, Flexaret's are even smaller, lighter, have better film chambers and
body locking than Rollei's, don't wobble on tripods, have the superb Belar
four element lens, the easy to sevice Prontor shutters and can be bought on
eBay for a song.
So there !!
Jim Read
ps OR mek yer oan;
http://www.btinternet.com/~jrbham/6X6/
"Matthew Powell" [email protected]> wrote
> I didn't realize how small TLRs were until I stopped at Arlington Camera
> today... I envisioned the Rolleiflexes being about twice as big as they are.
>
> Their prices seemed reasonable, too. I didn't get many details, but $450 for
> a Rolleiflex w/ 2.8 Planar.
From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 23 Dec 2001
Subject: Re: Help with Rolleicord Vb
>Hi, I just got a Rolleicord Vb in the mail the other day and would
>like some advice on the best way to determine the shape it is in. I'm
>pretty new to photography in general, so I don't know everything to
>look for. Anyway, as far as I can tell the shutter speeds are
>operating fine, the folks where I bought said the shutter was in good
>working order, etc. I suppose my main concern is the lens. I just
>got back my first few rolls of film, developed and printed by a top
>firm in DC, and the clarity is a lot less than I expected. Comparing
>the prints to my 35mm, the amount of detail picked up is depressingly
>low. The problem is that my overall photographic skills are not so
>advanced, so I'm having trouble judging. Also, taking the camera out
>this weekend was my first experience with a handheld light meter
>rather than a built in center-weighted meter. I'm rather disappointed
>with the results of my prints and don't know quite how to judge
>whether it is the camera or me. I have another week to ship the thing
>back to the store where it came from. Any thoughts would be
>appreciated. The last thing I want to do is give up my new camera,
>but if it's the camera and not me, I'd like to know. Thanks.
>
Rollei TLR's have a weak spot. It is in the front panel. With extensive wear
that panel can loosen up and rock top to bottom. If that happens the taking and
shooting lenses no linger align and maximum sharpness is no longer possible. If
that happens the front end must be rebuilt by a competant mechanic who knows
Rolleis. Do this. Grip the front panel with one finger at the top and another
at the bottom. Now see if there is any rocking play when you try to move the
top and bottom back and forth. t should be tight. If there is any motion
possible, then the camera has had too much wear (or abuse) and the front end
must be rebuilt. That could be your problem.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: "Jim Read" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Paramender - Make your own
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
See;
http://www.btinternet.com/~jrbham/paramender/index.html
Regards
Jim Read
From: [email protected] (Larry Raisch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Super Ricohflex question
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002
Literally over a million of these and similar models were produced
during the 1950's. At one time, every other camera sold in Japan was a
Ricohflex! My personal feeling is that in mint shape the price should
be no more than $35. I own over 100 different Ricohs including 25-30
of the various TLR's so I speak from experience!
[email protected] (Tim) wrote:
>When I was a kid, my Mom had a Super Ricohflex camera. I am not sure
>where it went, but I have always wanted one. I took my first photos
>with that camera.
>
>Recently, while helping a friend clean out an old house, we came upon
>a Super Ricohflex camera in good condition AND it has what I think is
>the 35mm adapter with it.
>
>He is going to sell it to me, but all the items in the house belong to
>his family, so I have to pay a fair price. The problem is, neither he
>nor I have any idea of what a fair price would be.
>
>The camera is intact with the leather case in dry but good condition.
>The lenses look good, the shutter speeds sound good. Seems to be in
>good shape.
>
>My questions are:
>
>How rare is this camera?
>AND
>What is the range of a fair price for this camera?
>
>Thanks
>Tim