geoffrey goldberg

Not to jump in from left field, but recently picked up a Technikardan 23S. While there are many out there who may not care for it, with a digital back on it - its a heck of a lot of fun. Massive flexibility, small size, analog movements. Wonderful. 

<p>I bought a new 6003 SRC 1000 back c. 1992, and have reviewed the literature from then (but not the owners manual, which can't find). The method is this:<br>

- set the ISO on the camera body, as the back didn't have an ISO knob<br>

- if you use a 6008 back on the camera, set the ISO on the camera, and the ISO on the back should be at 100. <br>

The 6008 SRC 1000 operates differently: <br>

- you set the film speed on the back, and<br>

- on the camera you set the exposure compensation knob at 0, unless you have a specific correction. <br>

The literature shows the SCA 356 module, but nowhere are there any settings on it. It says that TTL metering adjusts the flash as needed. So…. if there is a knob on the SCA, try ISO 100 first…. but also try adjusting to match the film speed for a test set of shots. <br>

Hope this helps. </p>

<p>You have gotten many good ideas, and I hesitate to throw another hat in the ring… but there are several different things to know about MF: <br>

first, there are systems cameras. These will do amazing things, almost anything you want, except they are not fast, and they are not light. Most are SLRs of some kind, but with the WLF they can be somewhat reasonable in size. There are a few boat anchors among these as well. The best (IMHO) is the Hassy V, which I owned and never really bonded with, but still like a lot and yearn for sometimes. The ergonomics on it aren't ideal for street shooting, but its a great camera. There are others, but watch the weight add up. <br>

then there are MF cameras that are more like enlarged 35mm cameras, but work to 120 film. The Mamiya 6 and 7, Bessa, Plaubel, Pentax 6x7, and a few others are in this camp. They are very good camera, most are rangefinders, and in the case of the Mamiya, the lenses are lovely and fine. I really like RF for 35mm work, but somehow for the more contemplative MF work, not so much. Each their own. <br>

The TLRs are pretty much unique to MF work. The issue of parallax is not important, they don't focus super close without attachments (not a big deal), but they are lovely in the hand. The ergonomics on the Rollei, for example, are worked out over 50 years, and very clever. I find them very good for hand-held work, and they are a fine travel camera. They are quiet, the viewing on the GG is what makes them special as well - as you think about the composition of the picture in a way that is different than other cameras. I wouldn't start with anything else, but there are many different voices out there who come from different places on this. But the TLR has the right combination of lightness, ergonomics, contemplative shooting, and street fast that is just special. <br>

One other thing - on lenses. There was a test years ago of a Mamiya 6 or 7 lens, a Hassy V (Zeiss) and a 1950s Rollei TLR. While the Mamiya was the best, the Hassy very good, the big surprise was the quality of the TLR - it held up just fine in today's world. Of course condition is important on these. <br>

Some folks like the Yashica 'cause of the changing lenses, but the weight is significantly more (although its cheaper), and that takes away from the portability. <br>

Hope this helps - <br>

Geoff</p>

 

<p>There are a great deal of options with Rollei gear and closeup - there is the 90 Macro (one of the sharpest lenses in the industry), the 150 on bellows (a wonderful lens, one of my favorites), in fact any lens will go on the bellows. Eric Hiss (Rolleiflex USA) has a number of bellows for sale, and they are cheap. Also, there are reverse-mountings for lenses for extreme closeup - and there is a Rollei booklet which I believe Eric has for free download on macro possibilities. One of the peculiar things is why Rollei went so far into this, but mores the pleasure. </p>

<p>For your situation, the first thing is that you overshot with the 34mm tube. I have all three - 9, 17 and 34, and have only used the 9mm for most closeup work (although I don't do this much). But the 17 is that much closer and the 9+17… you get the drift. At one point, made a chart, and for the 80mm:<br>

<br>

9mm = 18"-3'<br />17mm = 12"-18"<br />26mm (9+17) = 8"-12"<br />34mm = 6"-8"</p>

<p>So you have two options: either get the right tube length (try and trade the 34 for a 9+17?), or get the bellows, and have many more options (although only for in the studio). <br>

Hope this helps. <br>

</p>

<p>No reason not to get just PQ lenses (or PQS). They are a delight and you will get many years of pleasure from them. Prefer the Schneiders, although some of the Zeiss are special in their own way. </p>

<p>Change the battery cells. You'll be amazed at the difference. </p>

<p>send back to DHW. Not pricey, fast, and they do know what they are doing. </p>

<p>Yes they work fine.</p>

<p>FWIW, its pretty cool to have all this information in one place easily found. Thanks to Eric for doing this, something that many other larger and more established dealers (of other camera systems) don't both to do.<br>

Brian - work with Eric, he'll help you as best he can. Its a great system with amazing lenses. </p>

<p>good tip. Will do. </p>

<p>Here's another way to access it: <br>

<a href="http://www.gigi-photos.com/blog/2013/4/hy6-writeup">Hy6 writeup</a></p>

<p>Here's a summary on the Hy6:<br>

http://www.gigi-photos.com/hy6.pdf</p>

<p>So the OP was about the difference between the F and the GX TLR cameras, and is now told they are both obsolete? <br>

Seems a tad opinionated.... they are not state-of-the-art, surely, but they still do their intended job well and function adequately. I'm wondering about the term "obsolete" - is a camera that is out of date no longer valid for use? That's a pretty harsh criteria and would place many photographic endeavors into this less-than-beloved category. If a TTL using roll film is obsolete, then what does that say about large format view cameras, polaroids, alternative printing processes, and any user of film, etc? <br>

A process may not be the easiest, most current, or even the most practical, but I'd submit if it does its intended purpose, then it should be considered valid technique. The OP wasn't looking for a comparison to the newest, rather just a comparison of two admittedly old school cameras. </p>

<p>Carlos -</p>

<p>Good questions, but at a certain point, there are diminishing returns on the inquiry. Both are good - they are a bit different. I had a GX and used if happily for several years, but using less film, chose to sell it and kept my dad's D, which he got new in the 1950s. I really like the D shutter - very sweet, and didn't care for the notchiness of the GX shutter, which made slower than 1/30 handheld not viable, altho the built in meter was convenient. A new screen in the D made it more usable.<br>

That said - I have several keeper shots from the GX that are still favored. If I were to get another, the FW is appealing.<br>

With any of these, the quality of these lenses is remarkable. A well scanned 6x6 neg can make a lovely 40" sq print as good as anything out there. Each version has its own strength, but all are good. <br>

Geoff</p>

 

<p>Make sure to check out the shutter release on the FW - for a while the GX was stiff, making handheld shots at 1/30 a bit tough, unlike the older Rollei shutters which were like butter. They may have changed this for the FW - as I think there were three different shutters used in the GX. </p>

<p>Its a great idea, and one of interest, but probably not feasible. The mech'l focus control over the lenses is probably not precise enough for the digital back, assuming the later lenses are. <br>

If the imagination runs free, then consider the electronics of the back placed above the sensor (why not?) so that the overall rear projection is much less (say 3/4"?) and the whole thing becomes much more usable. There are great advantages in being able to see the composition and then shoot, assuming the focus through the taking lens and the sensor are in the same exact plane, not so easy to achieve. </p>

<p>In general, the Schneiders are more contemporary designs - they were formulated later, and are more compact designs. Two friends have both of many different sizes, and both prefer the Schneiders. It is worth noting that the distortion (and yes, there is a wee bit in both if you are an architectural shooter) is easier to correct in the Schneider as simple barrel distortion, where the Zeiss are known for their "mustache shaped" distortion curve. <br>

The Zeiss have a lovely look and are fine lenses. They are similar to the Hassy lenses, and many people have used them for years with great fondness. That said, the Schneider package group of Rollei lenses is recognized as being a highpoint (and probably the last of its kind) in lens design for medium format cameras. They were developed in packages - early on (c. 1990) Rollei had them competing with Zeiss, and the models curiously overlapped - like the 40, 50, 60, and 150. Then came a group of newer ones, a wonderful group of lenses, such as the 90 macro, the 180 2.8 Tele Xenar and the 300, amazingly sharp: I have a shot of logs in a river at about 100' with the 300 and spider webs are sharp at 100% viewing. FWIW, I've compared the 90 macro to a newer Rodenstock 90 HRW (a very good current digital camera lens) and the Schneider (15 years old) is just a wee bit crisper. These lenses basically give nothing up to any other lenses, save maybe the Leica S. One other thing - the 1.4 Tele-extender works really well with the 80, 150, 180 and 300 - you can't really tell when it is being used, its that good. I shoot a lot with the 80 and the 1.4, a simple 110. <br>

In the wides - the 60 Curtagon is my go-to lens for travel, and has served me well for many years. The 50 Schneider AF is fun and fast, but too heavy, the 60 just lovely. The 40 is also fine, if you want that width.<br>

The 50 Zeisses (?) are nice lenses too but priced lower. I don't have experience with the FLE, but if memory serves correctly, its better close up than the other Zeiss, but still not better than the Schneiders. I'd avoid the Rolleigons and the EL lenses. One other thing: the most important aspects of these lenses are condition and the shutter. If they have been badly stored or not well taken care of, they may have to go get their leaf shutter addressed. Its not horrible to do, but something to think about. Take your time, buy quality, from someone reputable, and test the lens before paying. Good luck!</p>

<p>On the wide angle lenses - there are three sizes - the 40, 50 and 60. In the 50, there are several different versions, I think the Zeiss has been around the longest and may be the least expensive. In general, the Schneiders are a bit stronger, and I consider their 60 Curtagon one of my most favorite lenses ever. Their 40 is also very good, but maybe wider than you need. <br>

On mirror slap - one of the joys of the Rollei system is the ability to mirror lock up and shoot with the leaf shutter. Without that, its hard to get under 1/50 handheld, maybe even faster. But with that MLU life is a lot easier.<br>

Consider using a monopod - you can get another stop easily, maybe more. </p>

 

<p>The PQ lenses starting coming into production around 1990. I'd recommend them for the 6008. If you happen to come across a non-PQ at an incredible deal, perhaps consider it but over time, you will want only PQ lenses. The other great thing about PQ is that they are fully compatible with Hy6, so if you move into that arena, you can take them with you. Focus confirmation on the Hy6 allows easy and confident use of these manual lenses. My stable started back 20 years ago (PQ only) and is still relevant and of very high quality. The PQ lenses have a very long life ahead of them. </p>

<p>You might check a couple of the other forums (medium format) on GetDPI and LL about this. There has been a lot written on the subject, with people who love MFD being able to tell the difference, and those who love DSLR saying the differences are minimal. <br>

I've shot with film, 35 mm, 6x6 and 4x5 and have since moved onto MFD. There was an old saying about film that above 10x enlargements, something broke down about the quality of the transitions - and that film qualities were then lessened. THis isn't to spark a huge debate about film vs. digital, rather to say that film qualities depend on the size of the enlargement. For me, 35 mm abouve 8x10 prints just didn't cut it - and thus the move to 6x6. THere is no doubt that the qualities of the "off" parts of film, be it OOF, bokeh, highlights, etc. are quite pleasing in a way that is harder for digital to master. <br>

However, the quality now available in MFD is pretty exceptional - and so it would be a hard argument to say that these aren't good. The DSLR folks will holler and shout about pop and 3D, but lets just say that once you've climbed the mountain, its hard to go back. </p>

<p>I have owned the 6003 SRC. I Haven't used the 6003 in some time, so these are recollections, although I shot with it for some 10 + years before....I don't think the 6003 SRC is louder. The thin grey backed model is better for its lightness. Take it without the handle and WLF, and its pretty slim. Vibration is about the same on all - I think there may be a wee bit more dampening in the later 6008, but for a real game changer, you have to go to the Hy6, which really has significantly more dampening - about 1 stop more handheld ability.<br>

Film flatness - in theory, the 6008 should be better, as the film backs have an additional edge control on the film. That said, I never noticed any problem whatsoever with the 6003 SRC, and would have little concern on this point. Finally, with regard to a lens - Rolleigons are not retitled Xenotars - rather a slightly lesser in-house brand. I have never shot with them. Check this:<br>

<a href="http://www.rolleiflexpages.com/">Pascal's Rolleiflex Pages</a><br>

There may be a wee bit of an electrical connection modification needed for the PQS lens on the 6003. If I recall, there may have been some small capacitor issue that needed to be disconnected - a minor item, easily done. But I'm not sure about that at all.</p>

<p>too big to upload. </p>

<p>There is a very complete Rollei macro booklet, outlining all the options and lenses in rather remarkable detail. Send me an address and I'll email it to you. </p>

 

<p>never seen a repair manual - there is Prochnow's books, which probably are as close as you can get Or send it to Marflex or Onick for repair. They do well with these. </p>

<p>All good pointers. One thing to keep in mind is that there is roughly a 2 (or more) multiplier for a good shape 2.8 or 3.5 D or E (and more for an F) between a really good one and a seemingly OK user that probably needs service and alignment. So part of the issue is to figure which one of these you have, not just by model but by condition. A very clean unserviced, but operating nicely TLR can be worth a lot more than one which is just OK. </p>