MPP Microflex (and Microcord)

<p>Having received a fairly good condition Microflex, I have two questions:</p>

<ol>

<li>I find that my model has a prontor shutter that goes up to 1/300th. But I read elsewhere (<a href="/medium-format-photography-forum/001g8y">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001g8y</a>) that it has a speed range of 1-1/500th. Were there different versions of the Microflex in its short life-span?</li>

<li>What is the exact thickness of the screen in the Microcord/Microflex? Both are 57x63mm, and the MPP user group states that MPP screens are 1.1-1.2mm thick, but does not say which screens (MPP primarily made large format cameras), nor is this thickness precise enough (<a href="http://www.mppusers.com/ground.htm">http://www.mppusers.com/ground.htm</a>)</li>

</ol>

<p>I want to see if Steve Hopf can make a replacement screen, so I need to know its exact thickness. If all else fails, I'll just have to send him my current screen but that is an expense I'd like to avoid (crossing the ocean between the UK and US). The screens are easy to remove, but very very dim. <br>

I also have a Microcord, but may let that go if I like the results of its sibling. </p>

<p>Harry, the screen thickness should be fairly irrelevant. The standard screen is a simple ground-glass I believe, and the only thing that's critical is that the ground surface sits the correct distance from the focusing lens. The amount of glass/plastic between the GG surface and the eyeball of the user doesn't matter a jot.</p>

<p>The brightest screens use a Fresnel condenser underneath the GG surface, but that would require a modification of the camera. I think the best you can do is to get a screen with a Fresnel above the GG, and as long as the retaining spring(s) can accommodate the extra thickness there should be no problem in directly replacing the original screen.</p>

<p>Quite honestly, given the fairly mediocre quality of MPP TLRs and their lenses, I'm not sure why you don't get something like a Yashicamat as a user camera and save yourself the bother and cost of replacing the screen. I could understand wanting to own and even use an MPP in original factory condition, but if you're going to modify it from its original and "collectible" specification........</p>

<p>You're right, I could have known that the ground part is in a fixed position, namely at the side facing the mirror, so any other screen should fit reasonably well. <br>

I understood, however, that the Microflex's Micronar, by Taylor and Hobson, is a very good lens (5 elements in 4 groups), and that it has its own character, as sharpness is not all. So I do not quite see why you are so dismissive of this camera model. Admittedly, I have not yet seen the results but handling was easy and pleasant. The film advance problem these models tend to have can be easily avoided and proved no issue so far. The 1/300 is a bit of a limitation.<br>

I do not collect, even though I have too many cameras, I want to use them and those I do not use end up being sold. Replacing a screen is no issue for me (and anyway, I keep the original) as long as it's not too expensive. I have a 2.8C, which does not have the best screen either, and I'm trying this Microflex as a second TLR. It's all from a user-perspective.<br>

BTW, the Microflex came with a Yashica-Mat, but the automatic film advance is not working correctly (film never stops, moves on to the end). I had hoped to sell the Mat but with this problem, I may try to repair it myself if possible.<br>

I prefer minimal grid lines or nothing on the surface at all in a screen, in other words a bright matte. Most of the Bay-screens are therefore not for me, and I don't want to invest in a Maxwell or Intenscreen. That's why I was wondering whether a Hopf screen could be the answer but I could not find MF user experiences online (I did for large format but I'm not sure that is comparable as no mirror interferes in the latter case).<br>

Just in passing, I did clean up the mirror, which was necessary, but I'm not sure how to establish to what extent it may have lost its reflective value.</p>

<p>Harry,</p>

<p>It's classic photo.net MF forum behaviour. Got a problem? We'll go to considerable trouble to explain to you how to fix it. We'll also try to convince you that you should be using a different model in the first place. We just can't help it :)</p>

<p>Hmm I replaced the screen of my Microcord with a fresnel screen from a broken Seagull TLR, which I had to trim to fit. The new screen was visibly thinner, and since the focussing surface is at the bottom of the screen, and the position of the screen is determined by it pressing against the frame at the top, I did feel it was necessary to shim it using thin strips of tape, so the focussing surface of the new screen was as near as possible to that of the old one. The focussing still seems to be correct after the modification, and the bright screen with a split image rangefinder gives the camera a much more modern and usable feel.<br>

I read somewhere that when loading film into a Microflex, you should advance it with the handle and never by turning the film spool, as this can damage the mechanism.</p>

<p>About loading film, it looks as if my memory failed me, it seems if you have closed the back you have to advance the film by the spool, not with the winding lever. Here's where I read it, on Barry Toogood's site (note he say it only goes up to 1/300):</p>

<p>http://www.tlr-cameras.com/British/index.html</p>

<p>This is what he says:</p>

<h4>MPP Microflex</h4>

<h5>The Microflex replaced the Microcord, designed as a Rolleiflex-based model with similar lever wind advance and cross-coupled aperture and speed settings with light values, as on the late Rollei Automats. It had an improved Micronar lens made by TTH, and better matching of the viewing and taking lenses. It was a sophisticated model whose sales penetration was let down by a dubious reliability record caused by lack of development in what was always a small manufacturer. Great unrealised potential.<br /> Taking lens is Micronar 77.5mm f3.5<br /> Shutter is Prontor SVS 1 - 1/300</h5>

<h5>A further note on the Microflex reliability issue, which centres on the winding mechanism - not infrequently broken by users. The following is from an email I received from Terry Hardy, one of the UK's most knowledgable TLR collectors:</h5>

<h5>I note that you comment on the MPP Micropress shutter/loading problems. Perhaps I should mention, in case you are not aware, that this camera has an inherent fault in its loading and winding mechanism. If the camera is unloaded and then immediately reloaded without closing the back, there should be no problem. If however, a film is loaded into an empty camera that has had its back closed, then the following procedure should be followed:<br /><br /> The film leader must be wound onto the take up spool without turning the cranked winding lever - i.e., it should be hand wound until the double arrow aligns with the red dots. Only then should the film be fed into the film chamber and the back closed.<br /><br /> This might save a few of these increasingly rare cameras from consignment to the "broken" shelf.</h5>

<p><br /> </p>

<center>

<table width="610">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="600.0">

<h5> </h5>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</center>

<p> </p>

<p>It is good advice and works well, at least for my copy. BTW this site refers to 1/300 as the fastest speed.<br>

Ray, you're right about good advice and convincing you of another solution! And it is fun too. I was curious, however, whether Joe's remarks about the average lens on the Microflex was first-hand experience or hearsay. As mine was based on hearsay ;) namely: <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98935">Twin Lens Shootout</a><br>

BTW, I found a fresnel for a Microcord which fits quite well and makes a modest improvement. But the Microflex comes with a rather coarse grid. Maybe I get used to it.</p>

<p>I found out two things: the Rolleiflex SL66 / SLX / 6000 and modern TLR screens easily fit the MPP TLRs (and the 2.8C and D), but I still need to find out whether they need to be shimmed. <br>

The increase in brightness hardly comes as a surprise as the MPP screens are among the darkest in town.<br>

What did surprise me is the following:<br>

a Provia 100F film showed many overlapping frames;<br>

a Velvia 100F, Fujis Pro 160 NS and Portra 400 did not have any overlapping frames.<br>

How to explain this? Did I make a mistake in the loading of the Provia (not really aware of that, as loading is critical with the Microflex so I am paying attention each time), or is there a difference in thickness? Any experiences or suggestions? It was the second film in the series of four. <br>

I do love the rendering of the Micronar. It is sharp but above all very pleasant. The Microflex is a real keeper.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I'm a new Italian member of this Forum so, first of all, I send my best greetings to everybody.<br>

Nearly 1 year ago, I've acquired an MPP Microflex from a friend of mine (by the way, I'm the user of another MPP camera, a Micro-Technical MkVII, since 1992).<br>

He formerly bought it on eBay as "nearly mint" but, once arrived in his hands, it had many issues in the film advance and the shutter, due to age and non-use, was stuck. Given to a good repairman from Milan, it returned in perfect shape and the film-advance problem, solved.<br>

Once tested the camera, it worked in the best way and I've been surprised by the fine quality of the lens, confirming what said by the previous owner of this TLR. The Micronar has its own character and I like it.<br>

Best wishes,<br>

Enzo</p>

Attention - Thread from the Dead

So I have been kindly referred to this thread by John Seaman, having detailed my dalliance with an MPP Microcord in another thread here: Rusty Roller etc.

I managed to process the film that had stuck to the roller inside, believed to date from some time around 1975 (Tri -X), and managed to get a fair scan out of one frame, as attached. I have a new film in it now, so we'll see what it can do. On the basis of this one ancient neg, shot under who knows what conditions (but I'd assume about 1/300 at f11 or 16 given film speed and bright sunlight), the lens seems better than Joe's assessment of mediocre to me, at least well stopped down.

I can see how the wind mechanism is fragile. It really wasn't very well thought out, but other than that it is a very well put together piece of equipment, and the case is a thing of beauty. The dim viewfinder is however, a deal breaker for me. Next to useless in anything other than full sunlight and hopeless indoors (caveat - mirror needs cleaning but I doubt that would make sufficient improvement).

More to follow when I process the scary 'Wide Open' shots.:eek:

That's a pretty sharp result, Stuart. Didn't you say it was a Microflex? The knob wind Microcord is a more reliable proposition than the lever wind Microflex (although still subject to all the maladies associated with ancient cameras).

The only way of brightening the view, having cleaned the mirror, would be to install a Fresnel screen, which I did in my Microcord:

Some More Shots with the Microcord

Note that the current thread was in the Medium Format forum, rather than the Classic Camera Forum.

That's a pretty sharp result, Stuart. Didn't you say it was a Microflex? The knob wind Microcord is a more reliable proposition than the lever wind Microflex (although still subject to all the maladies associated with ancient cameras).

 

The only way of brightening the view, having cleaned the mirror, would be to install a Fresnel screen, which I did in my Microcord:

 

Some More Shots with the Microcord

 

Note that the current thread was in the Medium Format forum, rather than the Classic Camera Forum.

Thanks, I’ll get the hang of posting in the right place eventually, must google definition of eventually!

Yes, it’s a Microflex. I have a Rollei Vb, and the comparison in viewfinders is marked, the Rollei being MUCH brighter, and it has a split image rangefinder, which the Microflex doesn’t and which makes focussing doubly hard. I think the owners intention is to sell it, and I have first refusal, but, whilst it is a nice bit of kit, the viewfinder makes it unattractive to me, as like you, I am a user, not collector. Good fun though and thanks for the other link.