bob_cook

William - I think that is the opinion of most of us. The meters were selenium cell (I think), sensitive to light and just old by this time. My 2.8F model I was made in 1960, for example. It is perfectly fine for black and white negative film, which is how I use the camera. Finding one that is accurate is the exception rather than the rule. But, I don't think a metered E2 is going to be any different. I always carry a hand held meter in the case with the Rollei, but don't always use it.

I have the 2.8F with a functioning meter that is as accurate as my other reflective meters. But, I think mine is an exception. As to the attraction of the camera - it is compact, works without batteries, very durable and has a great lens.

Bruce, after years of using a P67 and P67II I offer this advice to dampen the shutter vibration. Steve can also comment on this. With long lenses, you will get better results if you don't use a cable release. Instead, lock up the mirror and put you hands on the camera as if hand-holding. Use moderate downward pressure on the body, and release the shutter with your right index finger. This technique was recommended on this forum years ago by a member and it has served me well for a long time. Of course, a stable tripod and beefy head is still recommended. But simply locking up the mirror and using a cable release is not the best technique with this camera, as it is with many others. I have lots of very sharp transparencies using the 200mm lens and this technique.

Although I have several "modern" meters, I still use a Weston Master V that was given to me as a high school graduation gift in 1965. I just had it repaired and calibrated at Hollywood Light Metrics about two years after I dropped it. In the incident mode, with the incident cone adapter, it reads the same as my Sekonic 408. I keep it with my 60's vintage Rollei 2.8F in a Pelican case with filters, etc.

"...great German glass." Ah, a little Euro-glass fixation popping up here. Leo, side by side, I don't believe anyone can pick out a transparency shot through Zeiss, Pentax, Leica, Fuji, Mamiya, or others. I've either owned, or now own examples of all of them, and have looked at thousands of transparencies. The 50mm for my Mamiya 6 is a great lens, as are the lenses on the Fuji GS and GSW 690 rangefinders. Are they better than the lenses on the H'blad that I regularly use? Maybe so, but it is so hard to tell as to be inconsequential, IMHO.

"The only thing is the pictures tend to come out darker because it's a darker lens of course."

 

What do you mean? Because it's an f4.0 instead of f2.8? Never have had that experience. Do you mean "darker" in the viewfinder, or the actual photograph? Just curious.

I use a Contax T3 or a Nikon 35Ti. Both provide outstanding results that compare favorably to any SLR optics. Just did two weeks in Alaska with the Contax.

Another issue to consider is that some cameras will accept a 645 mask, but don't actually give 15 or 16 exposures per 120 roll as you get in a dedicated 645 system.

Sounds like the other guy couldn't do it either; he just didn't have the courtesy to tell you so.

Maybe you are simply "over-polarizing" the scenes. You can alter the effects of a polarizer by how much you rotate the filter. I've used a polarizer with a Mamiya 7, but not the one sold specifically for it. I mark the polarizer where it sits at 12 o'clock on the lens, remove it, hold it to my eye and rotate to the effect I want, and then put it back on the lens and make the exposure. I use the same technique on my Xpan with great success.

With a hand-held light meter. Good discipline for learning. I'd look for a 501CM. You can add a finder with a meter incorporated if you want.

Interesting that the meter on my 2.8F, version I from about 1960 matches exactly to my Weston Master V from 1965. I recently had the Weston rebuilt by Hollywood Light Metric, so I know it is accurate. I do think that mine is the exception.

I don't know the law, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night (ha ha).

There certainly may be some issue of intellectual property here. The performance of the play may be covered by some IP statute or law. If so, then your photo of the presentation, which could only speak to staging and costumes, might be covered. Did the program or a sign of some kind expressly forbid use of cameras?

I've owned and used both extensively for landscape, and preferred the Pentax for all the reasons stated above. You absolutely will not see any difference in lens performance (actually, the P67 lenses are as good as any you can find, save the Mamiya 6 rangefinder). There are a couple of quirks in the system (film loading and shutter vibration) but both can be easily managed.

Had an opportunity to go to the Tucson area for two days of shooting in the

desert. Not leaving from my home in Michigan (I've been in Florida for the

winter), I had only two cameras to choose from. Nikon D200 with the usual

complement of lenses, or my Rollei 2.8F with yellow, red and polarizing filters.

Went back to basics - took the Rollei, filters and only Ilford FP2 black and

white film plus a tripod. Had a great time; unemcumbered with "stuff," I got

into the shooting very easily. Sent the film off to A&I yesterday. I'd suggest

you all try it sometime, but I know on this forum I'd be "preaching to the choir."

My experience with my Xpan II is that the meter works reasonably well except in very low light conditions. Not particularly accurate in those situations.The fact that it reads through the lens does help when using polarizing filters. At least you get a starting point and then can adjust based on your own experience, or to use as a comparison to a hand held meter, which is my technique.

Ian - I have both an F6 and F100, and I think the finder is at the least the same, and probably better than the F100. The camera is really nice to use - great size, excellent controls. Maybe a few too many features for me, but you can set it up to do what you want. I use it with an SB23, SB28 and SB800 with excellent results with all flashes.

A couple of other thoughts: my personal favorite lenses are the 45, 90, 135 and 200. You can manage the shutter-induced vibration in another way. With the camera on a tripod, don't use a cable release. Instead, grip the camera as if hand holding, putting firm downward pressure on the camera, and then release the shutter with your index finger. This has worked for many of us who shoot the camera. One other thing that takes some getting used to is loading the film. It is not a "quick and easy" process, mostly because it is always difficult to seat the new roll on the spindle. So, don't plan on instant changes during a shoot when the light is changing fast! You'll love the results from this great system; outstanding lens quality that compares favorable with any other system.

It's not necessarily accurate to assume that the camera is overexposing if the only reference is a straight scan from the negative. Virtually every scan needs adjustment, based on the software of the scanner and the other components. Contrast is one dimension that always has to be adjusted from a scan. If you want to know if your camera is overexposing or incorrectly exposing in any way, you should shoot transparency films and make a comparison.

A&I Photolabs in Los Angeles

MicroTek 120 TF works really well for us. Has a dedicated holder for Xpan.

Gary is right. It was a specific model that had the gold emblem. I've owned this camera twice; it is great. 50mm lens is really outstanding, as are the other two.

Why not get it from Robert White? Too expensive?

Chris - on the GW690 Series cameras you get 8 shots per 120 roll and 16 shots per 220 roll.

Idiosyncrasies include the somewhat clumbsy long exposure method that you need to use. If the shutter speed is longer than one second, and the camera is set to "B" the only way to close the shutter is to either change the shutter speed off of "B" or to advance the film. Many of us use a hat over the end of the lens when the exposure is over, then advance the film to close the shutter before the next shot.

Your camera has a 90 mm lens on 6X9, which is somewhat wide, but will still suffer the reduced depth of filed common to all medium format cameras. Hyperfocal distance focusing will work OK, but you won't get "front of the lens to infinity" in focus because the lens just isn't wide enough on that format.

A counter reading of 390 means that the shutter has been tripped 3900 times. Divide that by 8 to get the number of rolls exposed. Fuji used to recommend an overhaul at 5000 exposures. But, I'm not sure it is really necessary. I've owned two of them over the years and never sent them for the overhaul. But, it is a leaf-shutter lens and they are prone to needing service from time to time.

It is a great camera - fantastic optics. Enjoy it.

Mike - I think all of the previous answers have merit. Furthermore, it depends on what the"standards" are. If you mean properly exposed and framed, I quite often get 12 for 12. That said I just as frequently get 12 out of 12 that aren't worth keeping because of the subject matter, lighting, or some detail that I overlooked in the view finder. For the past 12 years or so I've been going to the Smokey Mountains every Spring for a 2 week shoot. Expose anywhere from 25 - 35 rolls of 120 and 35mm combined. When you take out the bracketed shots, mistakes, etc. I feel good if I end up with 3 or 4 shots that I'm willing to print and hang on my wall.