Rollei 3.5F bad buy?

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>I am new to TLR, and don't know "the hoopla" about getting a brighter screen. I got one for other reasons. Whether I am an old fart or not can be determined by my peers, I suppose - I did turn 40 recently. I could have happened while I wasn't looking.</p>

<p>FWIW, I had the camera cleaned about a year and a half before I had the new screen installed. This included the mirrors, lubrication, taking fungus off the lenses, and a re-timing - total overhaul.<br>

My technician at that time asked me about replacing the screen, because I said it was a bit dim, but I didn't want to make any major changes at that time because I thought the overhaul might have fixed a lot of my brightness problems. The cleaning did improve visibility, probably doubled it. I waited and tried to use the camera as-was, but I found myself not using it as often simply because it was hard for *me* to see through it well enough to make a good composition. Maybe this is the difference between coming to a TLR waist-level-finder when you've been used to a 35mm SLR eye-finder. One is spoiled, perhaps. </p>

<p>Eventually, I tried a Hasselblad at my school and really loved the brightness of the screen. I didn't love the weight of the Hassy and some other things about it, but I loved the screen. I could see really well and it helped me take better pictures. That is what made me want to change my screen - not any selling, or rumors or heresay, but actually trying a brighter screen and loving it. So, as stated by another poster, I honestly think it's an individual choice. You may want to do that or not - but I have not regretted it. I saved the old glass in case someone wants it someday. When I did change the screen, I think I again doubled the light in the viewfinder. </p>

[f_ph1]

<p>...What Kelly said.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Jennifer and I seem to be coming to the same conclusions from two different approaches. In my case, I've been using a Nikon F3 for 27 years, often with just a plain groundglass grid screen (E). Lately, I've come to realize upon looking at my scans that I just can't focus as well as I could in the past anymore. There was a time when I could focus a 50mm f/1.2 lens on that screen. But those days aren't now. I've had to change to a screen with the split focus aid in the center, and I sold the 50 1.2.</p>

<p>I've also switched to rangefinder 35mm cameras, which help significantly with focusing.</p>

<p>So, my impetus to get a TLR is to get a larger focusing area, and get the nifty magnifier. I remember the difficulty with focusing and composing on the Ikoflex. There's no reason in this day and age to handicap yourself. If the original screen works well for you, and you are young with excellent vision, then great! In my case, I need all the help I can get. If I don't get along with the camera, it won't be because of some mechanical or optical defect on the part of the camera.</p>

<p> As others have pointed out, I'm sure somebody will want a newly overhauled by Harry Fleenor, Maxwell screen installed 3.5 F if it doesn't suit me.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Adding a screen is good for many folks; so is adding power steering to one's 1965 Mustang you drive once a month and once a year to a car show.</p>

<p>To say one cannot shoot with a TLR without a new bright screen is basically a giant lie;</p>

<p>it comes across like somebody saying if</p>

<p>is impossible to drive a car without power steering;</p>

<p>or is impossible to use a camera with film;</p>

<p>or it is impossibe to not use autofocus</p>

<p>or is is impossible to get on the internet with dialup or dsl.</p>

<p> Or one has to use brand new enlarging lenses</p>

<p>I know bright screens are hawked here like there is a kickback; what bugs me is when folks say they are so required; when most all TLR stuff has already been shot with simple screens. Maybe there is a good kickback; I actually like to use a plane ground glass for many subjects sometimes.</p>

<p>Actually it is really quite sad; more like the dumbing down of the craft. Several generations of TLR shooters had no bright screens; but shot sports too; what the camera was first marketed for.</p>

<p>Thus in sad way; the TLR has become a collectors item; and many are messed up with poor repairs; ie mixed taking and viewing lenses; or screens not set correctly; thus static objects cannot be focused on correctly.</p>

<p>The whole "preaching bright screens are required" to me is a weird thing; my grade school library was full of magazines like this Popular Photography July 1939 Advert. The TLR was the most common high end camera for folks to shoot sports with; when one looked at Pop Photo contests; ie like a Canon EOS of its era.</p>

<p>Thus in another 50 to 70 years; some folks will find a Canon EOS;and all will think one has to use a tripod; and they could not be used for sports!</p>

<p>Some folks never really like TLR's either; thus buying one and placing a new screen seems odd too. A new screen cost more than many of the TLR's I have owned too.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-517.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-516.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Cool to see those old advertisements - thanks for posting them! I recognize my camera there. </p>

<p>I don't think anyone here has said you "have to" install the brighter screen. I don't think you have to have power steering in your car, but it sure is easier on your shoulders. Having driven a Mustang w/out it, I'll take modern convenience, thank you. To each their own. I would never tell someone they had to have the brighter screen, but I would say I like it. I felt rather guilty modifying the original, but it was so much easier to use afterwards, especially in bright sunlight. </p>

<p>I wonder if so many people advocate a screen change because of the way they came into using the TLR. I came from using a Nikon F100 35mm film camera. Maybe, as you say, it's the difference in using a waist view-finder. </p>

[dave_zoll]

<p>Here is a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/d8x2hu">Rollei Price Guide </a>that may help too.<br>

A cheap way to see if a TLR is for you - is to pick up a clean Yashica TLR that has low miles. Sharp enough and cheap enough to test out.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>I would definitely NOT recommend trying a lesser tlr, such as a Yashica, in order to determine if the Rollei is for you.<br>

The feel of handling a Rollei, even a Rolleicord, is far and above that one encounters when using most other tlrs, such as Mamiyas, Yashicas, and Seagulls.<br>

Also, the lenses are far superior than any of these (with the possible exception of the Autocord, but this is only from what I've read, the rest is from what I have experienced.)<br>

This is to say that, the fluidity with which the camera handles, coupled with the startling clarity of the lenses, might make the reversed image issue a non-issue.<br>

I settled for a Mamiya C330, knowing I really wanted a Rolleiflex, having owned a couple of Automats in the past. Despite raving reviews of the C330 and its 80mm lens,<br>

I found using it compared with the Rollei to be sort of like comparing a Pinto to a BMW. And comparing the lenses is simply no contest. If you have little or no skill as a photographer, however, forget everything I've said and get a Seagull, which will likely be cheaper than a Yashica.</p><div></div>

[dlw]

<p>I have a Maxwell screen on my 2.8C. I replaced the stock screen long before I had ever heard of P-net so marketing pressure was nonexistant. I quite like it as it is brighter than the stock screen was, though not dramaticly so. It does nonetheless make it easier to see through, and isn't that a good thing? I didn't really need the new screen but if it makes using the camera more enjoyable, wheres the problem? I also have an RB-67 which has the stock screen and it works just fine and I don't believe I'm going to replace it, but if I found it even a little bit difficult to see through, I would in a heartbeat. The point is, if its not easy to use, we won't be as inclined to use them and Rolleiflex's are great cameras. I do think the pistol grip is a PITA to use though. Rather unweldy. BTW, I used to have a 66 Mustang. It didn't have power steering either, but it didn't need it. Neither does my Porsche 911. I don't miss it there either.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>My humble advice is to have a good think about it and where you want to go with your photography. It is easy to be seduced by the shear mechanical and cosmetic beauty of it (and its fine lens) and not consider how you want to photograph. There are essentially three or four choices - a TLR, an SLR, an RF or an RF with folding bellows. The first and last are generally (there are exceptions) older cameras, with their particular needs and limitations. I have not had use for an SLR in MF (I did use a 35mm version) so I gravitated towards a 6x6 MF rangefinder (Mamiya 6 with its lenses) as it better suited my photographic approach (It suits me to visualize the final picture in my head and through a clear VF, rather than on a groundglass). At one point I purchased a Minolta Autocord for a project that required multiple exposure on film. It did that well, but afterwards started to collect dust. I may use it again, but the Mamiya 6 RF is my usual companion (my mint second body and the excellent normal lens set me back a fair amount, $1200, but it was well worth it for me).</p>

<p>What I am saying is that the most important decision you will have to make is not whether a focus screen upgrade is necessary, but whether this type of camera, however excellent a performer, will complement your style, approach and needs. </p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Well, I'm surprised that this simple post has gone so far.</p>

<p>My view is that if I'm going to get one of these to try, I may as well make it as pleasant as I can. If I love it, great. If I don't, then hopefully someone will like the camera enough to buy it from me.</p>

<p>I do have several Zeiss Super Ikontas (6x6 and 6x9), so I am familiar with the RF style of medium format photography. Their Tessar lenses are fine, though perhaps not as good wide open as this Planar (I will have to see). The bodies are certainly very compact to carry. My only problem with these is that I've been waiting over 3 years for Henry Scherer to service them. I'm now #10 on his list. I'd love to use them to the full extent one of these days. They have sticky shutters, so everything has to be shot at 1/250 or 1/500. I still have lots and lots of 120 film from a bulk purchase waiting around for a camera. Ironically, I threw away all the 220 film as I thought I'd never need them!</p>

<p>Back in 2006, I was offered by my local camera shop a complete Mamiya 7 outfit with body and 3 lenses (wide, normal, and tele, can't remember the exact focal lengths) with a metal briefcase style case to go with it. They were asking $1500 for the entire lot, which was virtually brand new. At that time, the owner of the store was convinced that digital was the future, and all film cameras should be sold off before they become completely worthless. I didn't know anything about the Mamiya 7, so I gave it a pass. Do I regret it? YES!</p>

<p>At the same time, the store owner also offered me a nice Leica CL with 40 and 90mm lenses, case, and a 50th Anniversary of Leica book that came with it. Asking price was $500 for the entire package, which looked immaculate. Yes, I passed on that too - REGRET REGRET REGRET.</p>

<p>Finally, he offered me a brand new in an unopened box Nikon S3 2000 with 50mm lens for a price which I thought was high at the time ($1500), but later I learned was rather low as an asking price. In those days, I really didn't think anything about 35mm rangefinders, so again I gave it a pass.</p>

<p>Well, this one I'm going to give it a try!</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I was where you are a couple of years ago. I had always dreamed of owning a Rolleiflex and after thirty plus years of photography I finally made the plunge with a 2.8D. Ended up buying a Maxwell screen, and ended up sending it to Harry Fleenor for an overhaul, and ended up waiting months to acquire a Nikon Coolscan 9000. And after all this time, I found I that I love the image quality of the camera, but I really don't like the shooting style. Not a fan of looking down at the top of the camera and not so comfortable with the image being reversed. So the camera spends too much of it's time sitting on a shelf in my closet.</p>

<p>But, and this is a big BUT, what buying the camera did for me was to get me back into working with Black and White in a serious way. I've had an old Leica for years, and picked up an even older Leica iiif, and have been shooting the shutters off both for the past six months. The Coolscan 9000 is by far the best 35mm B&W scanner I have ever used (and I have used many). It's like finally having a diffusion enlarger after years of using a condenser one. The results are beautiful. No other Nikon Coolscan can do B&W like the 9000.</p>

<p>And I do occasionally take the Rolleiflex out for a shoot. And it did help me to realize the type of shooting I really like to do. So it wasn't a bad investment after all.</p>

<p>Just my 2¢.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[michael_p2]

<p>I went through this decision process about six months ago - looking at lots of Rolleiflex 3.5 E and F's. I ended up paying $700 for a 3.5F 'user' that was not in the best cosmetic condition but which had been given an overhaul by its owner - a former Rollei-trained camera store technician. It's the best purchasing decision I've made in a decade - I love the Rolleiflex and my shooting style has changed enormously. I love the way the Rolleiflex makes me think about composition more, and slows down the process of taking a picture. I love the images the Planar lens produces - especially wide open. I was never really interested in TLRs until a year ago - now I'm a convert.</p>

[nglester]

Is it easy to change to the Mamiya RB67 screen by myself on a 2,8E1?

My view finder is fixed by 4 screws and I really don't want to open it up and can't put it back in like an idiot ...