classcamera

<p>Hm... I have a spare knob but it only works some of the time. They are really quite finicky, as to the counter running, and actually releasing the film transport. My though is that for all the extra hassle what you get is a fine medium format camera made into a clunky 35mm camera with only one lens. Save your money!</p>

<p>What you have is a Rolleiflex Automat I type II, with a Rolleicord hood and x synch added. This is most likely a prewar camera, as both lenses appear to uncoated. It my in fact be a war time camera, but only disassembly will tell, as the wartime products suffered from inferior fit and finish. </p>

<p>Hello Vergas,<br>

You are missing a part. It goes under the knob and engages the little pin that is sticking up from the focus shaft housing. The parts allows the knob to turn more than one full revolution, to allow for near focus. Without this part it will do exactly as you are experiencing. I probably have one, but I can't say for sure...</p>

<p>I have a new email address it can be found on my website, ZeissIkonRolleiRepair, with the usual dot com.<br>

I am still out here, try my best to make sure peopel can use their old cameras.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Hey Great to here that you like the Novar lenses.  As a repair person, I regularly test Novar lenses to 125 line pairs per millimeter at f:5.6, below this they look pretty aweful.  When I use these lenes they all look great in prints up to 11x14, and I have not one complaint.  However, when I go to sell them, they just sit on the auction site, or the local shops shelf.  Please post some images, and lets end the misconceptions.<br>

Mark</p>

I will be happy to take the Lieca IIIG off your hands. Let me know what you want for it.

 

Mark

Hello,

 

I hate to say it-- you are in way over your head. you will need to recollimate the lenses when you finish this job and it is really not at all easy on this style of camera, with the four focusing helix's. I do work on this line of camera form time to time, but, really there is not any repair on a Rolleiflex Standard that can be done at home by an amateur. Oh not wanting to bang my drum here, but you are looking at around 150-200 dollars to have this camera completely CLA'd, that includes shutter, transport, focus and mirror replacement.

 

Mark

I know what the problem with the camera is...I love to gloat! The person that worked on it, failed to get the diaphragm lever from the shutter to in gage the linkage in the front cover. This is an absolute amateur mistake. I like to take and put the front cover on, and then adjust the diaphragm settings while looking into the film chamber and watching it both stop down, and open up. Then I set the shutter at B, and 500 to see that it is all connected up correctly. Then and only then do I put the screw back in. It is a simple fix, but really you should have gotten your money back, just so they know.

 

Have you considered shooting with an Ikoflex instead of a Rolleicord...Every bit as good, much less money, and a nice Fresnel screen to boot.

Hello,

 

The T, and B, settings in this camera are controlled by two little arms that must move freely. You can fix this yourself, if you have some small screw drivers, and good dextarity. Just take the lens out, remvoe the two screws that hold the front cover in place, remove the speed cam, then the shutter cover, noting where the four screws were located as they are all different. Now you will have no problem putting some oil on the screw that holds the T, and B, arms in place and they should work fine from this point onward.

 

Or you could just pay the 30-45 dollars for a good CLA.

 

It is all up to you.

 

Mark

Here is what I like, so far, at least. I assume you are able to use a flash? Try shooting Tri-X 400, with the flash set at maximum (rated at say 100 at f:8), then give it a good pull in the PMK, I would start with 12 minutes and go down accordingly. This should even out the highlights and shadows pretty well. Some flash drop off will still be experienced, but that is to be expected. If you are really feeling adventurous, try reducing the highlights with a good super-proportional reducer, and then using an intensifier on the shadows...I have never done this, but it is worth a try.

 

There are some pictures in my portfolio, that are form a "Rock" music show, in a club that the standard exposure for 1600 speed film was 2 seconds at f:4! for those pictures I made the mistake of setting my flash at maximum and pushing the film to 18 minutes (N+0 is 14 min) in PMK, so the highlights are pretty well blocked and the flash drop is pretty bad. The scans were by a friend of mine that took the liberty of upping the contrast; he just could not tell how much contrast the negatives had, by looking at the completely clear shadow areas, and the completely black highlights! Go figure. Also, for those shots the flash guide numbers were 1/400 at f:8 and I shot them at 1/125 at f:8, which should have had a pull, process instead of the push, so you live and you learn. I just could not get by how little light there was, so I chickened out and pushed the film.

I like both my Goldi Cameras. I have the 4x3 and the 4x6.5; the 4x6.4 does suffer from a flaw though, the lens does not cover the format below f:8 and to get pictures without any drop at the corners, you have to stop it to 16. The 4x3 though is very good. I also shoot my foth derby in the 4x3 format, and I like it just a bit less than the Goldi, just a bit too much busy work. Thanks for posting the pictures, and keep spreading the word of color with uncoated optics.

Were these with the 4x3 Goldi or the 4x6.5 Goldi. I have both, and the 4x6.5 camera does not cover the full format below f:8. Check my Portfolio for my Goldi picts. I love the 127 camera and it is very nice to see someone else using them. Keep it up, maybe we will get some color film some day.

Boy do ever agree about the three element lenses. Novar Anastigmats at f8 and above are an awesome lens as are the Triotar. I say we just keep letting the Planar/Xenotar, Tessar/Xenar, people pay those prices and shoot the "Cheap" stuff. Oh, just a note...Tessars are of a design called a Cook Triplet type. The term Triplet refers to the number of groups not elements. Also the number of elements has nothing to do with the sharpness of a lens design, there are tack sharp lenses with only two elements. This is especially true in symmetrical lens designs.

Here is what I have for the pre-war Contax line of lenses:

 

28mm f:8 Tessar;

35mm f:4.5 Orthometar;

35mm f:2.8 Biogon (that is good and fast, even by todays standards).

40mm f:2 Biotar;

42.5mm f:2 Biotar (I will happily trade my Corvette for one of these).

The last two of these lenses were really normal for the format, but as the 50 had become something of a standard, most people still considered them wide.

 

In the Post War era, there are several changes to the line-up:

21mm f:4 Biogon;

25mm f:4 Topogon;

35mm f:3.5 Planar(I have only seen one of these on ebay in 10 years!)

35mm f:2.8 Biometar;

35mm f:2.8 Biogon;

 

For Leica the lenses the wides in a SM lens is 21mm with the honors going to the Super Angulon, and in M mount the widest is the 15mm hologon.

 

Several things to consider with the wide lenses for range finder cameras, and SLRs. The Range finder lenses may drop off a bit at the corners (bad with wide open much better stopped down), but they do not distort like the Retro focus designs. What I mean buy that is, that the SLR wides will tend to bend the vertical lines at the edges in kind of a spherical way. This is not present in the range finder lenses as seen above with the Nikor. And with the 12mm and 15mm recently made by Cosina, they actually cover the format well, unlike the funky Fish-eye lenses for the SLR. Also, keep in mind that 21mm may not seem that wide form an angular perspective, however in terms of depth of focus, the lens seems very short (especially for a time when press photos are routinely shot with a 127mm on a Speed Graphic. To get the same angle on a 4x5 you would need an 85mm lens, and at its smallest aperture, it still has perhaps depth of field from 6 feet to infinity.

 

In closing, the reason that wide angle lenses were uncommon in the 1950's is purely economic, in many cases the extra lens would double the cost of the camera kit! Zeiss claimed that in the entire time they made the Contax camera, that they never made money on the cameras, and just broke even on the entire line with the lens sales.

Like Henry Ford said: "I would give the car away, if I could be the exclusive maker of spare parts."

What I like about both of these cameras is that they are completely intended to be cheep cameras, but still they have very nice fit and finish. Just like the Box Tengors, and Eho Box cameras, they are two element fix focus lenses with three f:stops, but have steel bodies covered with real leather, and nice chrome accents, and trim; all that in a box camera! Those wild and wacky Germans just didn't know when or where to draw the line.

I know where one is sitting and it is strictly a collectable. The manual is a real joke, goes on for about 4000 words and talks in circles. Kind of cute old collectable though.

Mike,

 

In your example of cranking the focus a quarter turn, you once again show a complete lack of understanding of depth of field. If the lens was of a short enough length, and stopped down enough, it would make no difference. I have shot a 21 Biogon on my contax, and set the lens infinity mark to f16(easily 1/3 turn) and shot every picture on a roll without touching the focus--Guess What? Every one was in perfect focus. The depth of field on that lens for f:16 (from memory) is 2.4' to infinity, why waste time "carefully focusing" any wide lens? Set it and forget it. Now if you are shooing a long lens and are going to shoot wide open (why you would want to, I can't figure out), you will have to focus carefully, and if the lens is not coordinating with the range finder then you will need to correct for it, or have out of focus pictures. My experience with Russian lenses is that the hyperfocal distances are typically right on, even when the range finder cam is off. At any rate, either can be adjusted by a qualified technician. I would say though (as a qualified technician) save your money and use the hyperfocal numbers.

 

Before we continue this thread, I have to ask. Do you own any range finder cameras and if so, what are they? Your perspective is sort of like a SLR user.

MD Said: "You guys have a serious misunderstanding: depth of field doesn't exist--it's a working theory of how uncritical you are in your viewing at small print sizes."

 

Depth of field is a real true concept in all lenses with fixed or adjustable aperture (not to be confused with depth of focus at the film plane). There have been many posts on this subject, however I prefer to refer to Arthur Cox in his text Photographic Optics, a Focal Manual of Photo-technique, he goes into great length to define this concept with mathematics, however I prefer to think of it in terms of the photographs I take. I do mostly architectural, landscape, or cityscapes, all of which have some foreground, mid-picture, and infinity(far distance), points of interest. I do not focus on a single object and then let the auto exposure (if I owned such a thing) determine the depth of field; I use the hyper focal numbers on the lens, focus knob, or form a table printed on the back of my gray card (yes one gray card for each lens focal length I use with my 4x5). This approach gives me complete control of the image, I know what will be in focus before I start, and when I print a nice 11x14, those things I chose to be in focus are. I developed this technique while shooting my Rolleiflex. With no depth of field previewer, I was forced to take a look at the knob, and what I discovered was a real shocker...In most shots I was focusing to the subject with complete exclusion of all other aspects of the photograph! Read that as BORING PHOTOGRAPHS! So I began using the Hyper focal numbers on my cameras focus knob and only composing on the ground glass--Ta Da! Great Photographs were now made. Please try to think (before you post) "why did those guys and gals, call themselves the f:64 club."

 

Mark

Cut down your own. It is very easy, and will allow you to use any film you like. Best of all with the Baby Rollei, all you have to do is make sure the film is long enough to take all twelve, as the counter is stared with a film sensor. So, there is never a indexing issue with the numbers on the backing.

 

How do you like that finder I sold you?

The lenses that I think are real sleapers in Leica thread mount are: Canon Seranar. The 35mm f:4.5 is very good, as are the 100, and 135. If you can find one the 85 f:2 it is almost as good as the Zeiss Sonnar they coppied.

The way I look at it is:

 

1) You can still get Model T parts. So if you have the money and are looking for film, someone will make it.

 

2) Vinyl records, and tube Hi-Fi gear still exist, because they produce better sound quality than digital music. As with film the quality cannot be matched by digital. So those in the know will continue to gravitate to film, for the increase in quality it brings.

 

3) A growing number of young people are rebelling against the rampant consumerism of the computer age. Along with this is a growing DIY, grow it yourself, make it yourself, and get the best made so it will last attitude. In cameras that is, and will always be film cameras. Plastic digital cameras are simply inferior to all metal classic film cameras.

 

So call me a Luddite but, vinyl record, tube amps, and film cameras rule!

Mark

I have a nice Dopple Plasmat, that I have been using as a 6.5" on my 4x5, it gives very nice sharp images, with reduced flair (I shoot it at night), and has excellent coverage on 4x5. I have yet to try it on the converted to the 10.625 length, however, I am sure it will be softer, but with more contrast. One interesting thing about these lenses, they are actually three lenses in one, not two. Using the Front group is focal length A, using the rear is focal length B, and the two together is focal length C. Also, the Dr. Rudolph, patent is one of the most successful of all lens designs, as this is the basis for the Planar!

Hello,

 

Yes, the Ciro-Flex is a real sleeper of of a camera. I have gone through many and slod them to happy students. If you are set on getting one though, try to find the later models, as most (not all) will have the Rapax shutter. The Velloastigmat, is the same lens put on Ansco Automatic Reflex' and is a very good performer. What it lacks in sharpness, they made up for in coverage, and so at 85mm it takes the hot spot form the center, so the edges are nice and sharp. Also, as a three element Cook Triplet, it gives very good contrast as shown in the pictures. Not bad for a 30 dollar camera. Also, these cameras are pretty simple and can be worked on for around 50 dollars.

The latest frontier of classic photography is--Ta! Da! The old plastic cameras, from the 1950's. I have gotten Rolleiflex like results form my Argolfex, and for a fraction of the price. I get more and more inquiries to do lower valued cameras, like the Argoflex, and the Ricohflex line. I have even done some work on old box Brownies, and the like. Imagine what would happen if the digital revolution imploded--we would be the hippest guys around! Have fun with these old cameras, and keep showing us the pictures.

Wow, that lens sure makes wonderful images, or is that all the photographer? My expierence is that Novar Anastigmat lenses are all excellent. In most cases they are as good as a Tessar above f:5.6, but not as good at 5.6 and below. That Said, the camera is definately made for the female market, just like the Baby Rollei cameras, and the Funky colored Ricoh Auto-44's. However, that does not mean that they will be cheap or crummy cameras, just that they lack the black and chrome, of the Macho models. Oh, on the post war Zeiss producst, the best, cost the most: Contax, Contarex, Super Ikonta, Ikonta, Ikoflex, Folding Contessa, and Folding Contina, these cameras are most reliable, and give the best results. I would avoid the consumer lines, like the Contaflex, Symbolica...