norman_trabulus1

At the lowest degree of compression, and ISO 50 or 100, magnification to 11 x 14 yields good results. At ISO 400 the quality is noticeably less good.

Well I bought one of these, with the heliar, and the attached yellow filter, for $20 US about six years ago, but the shutter fired at the same speed, I would guess 1/100, no matter what it was set at. Cost $100+ to have that fixed, the camera cleaned, a bent strut straightened and the focus trued, and what I now have is an idiosyncratic camera with a very sharp lens that gives a highly three-dimensional but low contrast effect (the low contrast to some extent masks the sharpness), and also two recurrent problems: film flatness, and a light leak that fogs the area immediately around the red (it is more orange) window on a given frame. The heliar does give a distinctive and appealing look; I would use the camera more if I could deal with the problems, primarily the light leak. Any suggestions?

 

About a year later I picked up another RF bessa for $65US with the 3.5 Skopar (a Tessar clone) that was in pristine condition (except the yellow filter was missing). However, the lens on this one is, upon gross observation, noticeably less sharp than the heliar, and the bokeh less good, though the contrast is higher. (It may be the camera needs adjusting, since tessar-type lenses are, from what I can tell, as sharp as heliars, and have good bokeh, though with a quite different "look").

The price of the Rolleiflex makes me think it is a pre-war one with an uncoated lens. I second those who say to buy it, but make sure to use a lens hood with it - always, not just when it is sunny, to eliminate or minimize extraneous sources of reflections that will cause flare and veiling haze. Assuming it has been cleaned, lubricated and adjusted, it will last you many years and give your great photographs.

I should add that I am left-eyed

I used an Alpa 7 with a Makro-Kilar lens as one of my two principal cameras for a while in the 60's, purely for amateur purposes. The lens had a pre-set rather than automatic diaphragm, and the mirror was semi-instant return (it would return only when I lifted my finger off the shutter release). I liked the camera and particularly the close-up capability, which was uncommon at the time. The camera's peculiarities took getting used to, but once I got used to them, I found it easy to use. My other camera was a Leica IIIF and I did not find the Alpa any harder to use.

 

Eventually the wind mechanism ceased to function properly and about that time I bought a far more modern Canon TL-QL with coupled meter and never had the Alpa fixed.

I have a late meterless model with the same fittings on the camera. I have taken small O-ring type keyrings, bought at a hardware store, and worked them through the fittings. It is easy to attach a strap to the O-rings, and the O-rings, maybe 1/2 in diameter, fit through the openings in the leather camera case.

 

I understand the original lugs are very hard to find.

Olden Camera is still in business, at the same location, with the same long narrow stairway to get to the store, and, I think, the original owner still alive and involved in the management. It is the last traditional camera store in what used to be the camera district (though B & H is not far away); the store has hardly changed since 1959, when my father bought me a leica IIIf black dial there with a summitar lens for $93. Olden then was teeming like B & H now is on sundays; today Olden is pretty empty but I think they do a mail order business. Still a good place to visit for the odd used item.

Mike Walden: I have the same model you have, with the 3.8 lens. Yours has been modified not just with a flash contact but a larger focusing knob. Before reselling it, put a roll through it, using a push-on lens hood if you can find one. (28mm approx diameter). The reason I don't use mine much has nothing to do with image quality, but the greater convenience of the later models. The 3.8 tessars have a distinct and very nice quality; your taking lens appears to be in good condition with a good natural oxidation that serves as a coating and reduces flare.

 

Mike Kovacs: I have several photos posted at the following site, some of which are taken with uncoated tessars, one with the 3.8, and I indicate that on those posts: http://isquare.homeunix.net/index.cgi The digitizing and conversion to relatively low resolution jpeg format limits their utility as a gauge of lens character, however.

I suspect the seller is cocking the shutter before moving the lever to set the shutter speed. If so, the shutter cannot be set to 1/500th without forcing and, possibly, damaging it. Like compurs of the era, Seikosha MX shutters, or at least some of them, can only be set to 1/500, or reset from 1/500, when not cocked.

 

As far as I know all Autocords have maximum shutter speeds (really, minimum) of 1/400 (Optiper) or 1/500 (Seikosha, some Optiper, Citizen)

This is not based on the inherent qualities of 35mm rangefinders vs. TLRs so much as on what your post says about you: Don't leave yourself without a fine 35mm rangefinder, since you like them and do well with them. Then budget yourself $100-175 to test the MF waters with a TLR such as a Minolta Autocord, or Rolleicord with Xenar, to see if you like the format and TLRs. Be patient with the TLR as it may take some time for it to become intuitive in your hands.

If the exposed frames were the last five taken, but the first five on the roll, the film was not winding until the last five frames were taken. Is it possible that the paper leader did not initially catch in the take-up spool, but caught after seven windings? In that event the frames that eventually were exposed would overlap, reflecting that, once the film started winding, the crank would turn the lesser amounts for frames 8-12, but there would be no film on the take up spool yet to increase its radius and, thus, increase the amount of film wound per turn. Check the red window to make sure the film is actually advancing at the first wind.

Patric, I have the early, two-window version, and have been lining up the "1" in the rear window, which I just learned from you is for 117 film. Frame spacing has been all right, though the frames have been a bit closer to each other than on other tlrs. Next time I will try the bottom window. Thanks

If the number "1" on the film backing paper is not in the 6 x 6 red window when the first exposure is made on a properly functioning old standard, the frames will either overlap, or the spacing between them will be too wide, depending on whether the film has been wound too far or not far enough before the first exposure. Also, make sure to reset the film counter to "1", by pushing the small metal button near it, before winding after the first exposure. With each wind, the winding mechanism turns less, to compensate for the added thickness of the film spool as successively more film is wound around it. If one doesn't start at "1" it will wind too little and overlapping will result.

 

It is hard to see how a problem with the winding mechanism could cause the first seven exposures to be blank, since the winding mechanism does not cock the shutter. Is it possible the shutter blades were not opening, but that with repeated cocking and firing, they unstuck after seven tries?

Using the waist-level finder you can hold the camera at right angles to the direction you are facing and most of your subjects will not realize they are being photographed. If you can deal with the left-to-right reversal of the finder, you can deal with the 90 degree rotation too.

exposures - 60% 35mm, 40% 6 x 6, except shoot more b & w, all 6 x 6.

Keepers - 80% 6 x 6, 20% 35mm.

Only certain rolleis made after a certain date are compatible with a rolleifix. I think the 2.8C is not one of them. Check before buying.

No bubble level. Max shutter speed 1/300. You guys must have the souped-up version.

Kelly, mine is 1932 version, in German. Typical film speed must have doubled between 1932 and 1936, since the exposures given on mine are double those on yours (e.g., "Strasse hell; Platze f/16 @ 1/25".) F3.8 Tessar is a fine lens, great color rendition for a lens made before color film existed.

I have no expertise on these things but think that there may be more to it than what Al said. I have an ancient Old Standard Rollei and two more modern Rolleis. The magnification of the Old Standard's magnifier is noticeably less than that on the newer ones, though the distance from the magnifying lens to the focusing screen is the same.

TLRs can be handheld at slower speeds because they have no mirror slap and, in the case of rolleiflexes, autocords and others, have a shutter button that can be depressed without causing vertical or horizontal movement. They are also good for candid photography because one can look into the viewer while facing at a 90-degree angle from where the camera is pointing - it is amazing how many subjects do not realize they are being photographed then. I have posted in my photo.net gallery a picture of a seller at a flea market who was candidly photographed this way, at f3.5 at 1/25th of a second - an example of the results of both the candid technique and handholding a TLR at a slow speed. The image also illustrates that uncoated lenses can give good results in color. Norman Trabulus

The earliest-dated question for which answers appear as listed on

this forum is "Photokina - Olydak for real?" with an August 9 date.

I know what Photokina is but was curious about Olydak - an obscure

1930's Leica accessory, or a to my ear a possibly Inuit contribution

to phototechnology? But when I clicked on the question I was advised

that either I was not logged in to Photo.Net (clearly inaccurate) or

was not authorized to access the General Expired Questions Forum,

which I had never heard of before and which suggests that expired

questions are actually archived but only accessible to some subset of

Photo.Net members. A search of Photo.Net for "Olydak" yielded no

results. What gives?

Following up on Patrick's comments about pre-war uncoated Tessars, I have posted in my single photo folder on my Photo.Net gallery (browseable by photographer's last name) two photographs I took with a rolleiflex old standard with f3.8 tessar. (My apologies - I have not yet learned how to insert a direct link into this post). The camera has a serial number of 286xxx, dating it to 1932-33, before color films were commercially available. These are Epson 2450 scans with some minimal attempts at correcting Provia 100F's color cast but no increase in saturation/contrast.

Early Ikonta A's and Super Ikonta A's came with 70mm F3.5 Tessars. These are 6 x 4.5 format, but for those who typically crop to a rectangular image from a 6 x 6, this should not matter.

There are no interlocks or ev system, but each dial has a separate lock on either side of the rim of the dial, which must be squeezed before the dial will rotate.

$490 sounds high for a Tessar model. That said, while Tessars are said not to be as sharp as Planars and Xenotars wide open, most of the softness seen wide or nearly wide open is due to limited depth of field, applicable to Planars and Xenotars as well. Variations from camera to camera, and from lens to lens, due to 40 or more years of use, are more significant than differences between lens types. Some people, myself included, prefer the look of the Tessar/Xenar images over Planar (I have both Tessar and Planar). Others say such "bokeh" differences are insignificant or silly. You are wise to shoot test rolls before buying, and make up your own mind.