Rolleiflex TLR plate back observations

[d_purdy]

I just got a plate back for my rollei TLR and since there are lots of Rollei users

in here I thought I would post my observations for anyone who might be

interested, as I was personally intrigued for years about the back before I

actually put the money up and got one.

 

I expected it might be quite a pain in the butt to use the holders because of the

difficulty of cutting film and loading. I also was a bit leary that using the back

on my very nice condition camera might cause some sort of internal rub wear.

 

In the first place putting the back on the camera is very easy once I found that

you have to take out the ground glass holder first. It is quite a struggle with

the ground glass till in place.

 

I was surprised to find that even without Rolleinars the actual image projected

on the back is significantly different that the one in the viewing screen...the

image on the back is what the film will see. You get more all round on your

film than you see in the finder, and there are definite parallax differences.

 

I was also surprised to find that cutting film and loading it into holders is very

easy. I used 4x5 film. I first cut the long side so the film was 3.5 X 5, then I cut

that in half to give me two 3.5 X 2.5 peices of film. they fit in the holder

perfectly and loading the film is very easy to do. The only thing is you have to

remember in the dark which side has the emultion. The unforseen advantage

to using 4X5 film is that it is much thicker and lays very flat. With the system of

the holders to push the film up to the film track in the camera it will give you

very flat film.. every bit as flat as using an optical glass back on the camera.

You can also cut down 120 film to size and save a little money but there is the

convenience of the 4x5 film lying flat vs the 120 film curling into tubes to

consider.

 

I was also surprised when comparing the image in the viewer vs on the

ground glass back to find that the depth of field looks quite different even with

the taking lens wide open. the out of focus stuff seems more out of focus with

the taking lens than from the viewing lens. (Xenotar 2.8) Especially while I

still had my Maxwell bright screen in. I had to stop the Xenotar down to about

5.6 and a half to get the image to look the same depth of field as the 2.8

viewing lens. I put my original Rollei screen in and it was better though still

quite different than the Xenotar.

 

I used the back yesterday and even printed from the negs. It works very well.

I was surpised to find the 6x6 image on one end of the cut film rather than in

the middle. it gives you about an inch of film on one side to handle without

touching the image. Also once I figured out all the correct procedures the

system worked very well and easily. the holders slide in and out easily and

there was no fogging or scratching.

 

I paid 49 dollars for the complete set on ebay and no one bid against me. For

that amount of money it might be worth it just to be able to check the image on

the back from the taking lens. I am very happy with the purchase and I think I

will keep my eye open for spare film holders.

 

I hope someone finds this info useful.

[sergio_ortega7]

Dennis,

 

Interesting observations and experiences. Good point on the inherent stiffness and flatness of cut-down sheet film vs. 120...have you noticed any significant improvement in sharpness at wide apertures?

[d_purdy]

when I had a 2.8 E2 Xenotar with an optical back and optical glass I did notice

an improvement in sharpness up to f5.6. I have'nt had time to do a bunch of

tests with the cut film back but I did notice that the image is very sllightly

smaller with the cut film back vs normal. I am not sure what to make of that or

how it is even possible unless the 120 film is sitting up a bit from the film track

with the normal back whilst the sheet film is right down on it with the cut film

back. I have been of the opinion that my Xenotar's sharpest fstop was f 16.

Perhaps I will find that isn't the case with the cut film back . In any case with or

without the cut film back I have found this xenotar very sharp.

[d_purdy]

In case anyone ever pulls this out of the archives, now that I have used the

plate back several times I think it is a very well designed and functional tool.

However the idea of cutting film down from 120 or 220 rolls is very nearly

impossible due to the curl of the film. it is just too hard to handle in the dark

and get the film cut and loaded in the holders. Cutting down 4x5s is the way

to go.