grep_mat

Antonio, yes, they make a very nice metal cap for the end of the metal hood. It just slips on and off like butter (no clips), yet it is very secure. They are very fast and convenient compared to the plastic clip-on caps. Personally, I used a rubber hood on my 35/2.8, and sometimes on my 50, but more normally I used a metal one on my 50/1.4 and all the time on anything longer. They add some bulk, but not much weight. In general, lens hoods are less effective on wide angles anyway, but having an optimal hood starts to become important at 50mm and above. I miss my manual focus Contax/Zeiss gear!

Mr. Atkins, the statements I made were certainly true and were important and pertinent to the conversation, even if I did not feel the need to mention specific frequencies. I'm sure you could have added to the thread without first dismissing my own contribution as "not true."

Hello. A Rolleifix is the best solution by far. They are simple, robust, and do the job very well. You won't be taking much risk in purchasing a used one. I, too, used my Rolleflex's without one for years, until I finally bought one. Afterward, I couldn't believe how I had done without it and regretted not getting one much earlier. I have it permanently mounted on an Arca plate, since I already had an A-S ballhead. I found it in good condition with its box for $35, retail. They are not "collectable" and can be found with relative ease. About the only thing you might watch out for is if there is significant wear on the little points that fix the front of the camera. They are copper (I think) to reduce the chance of scratches, and they can wear down with very heavy use (the store had another one with this problem), though it probably won't affect functionality unless extremely severe. The potential for scratches is the one complaint I hear about them, but I haven't had this problem at all and am not worried about it. Just get one.

Your mirror is a "first surface" mirror. That is, the reflective coating is on top, not underneath glass like your bathroom mirror. Therefore, it is much more delicate. The usual sort of attempts to clean it will result in bad and permanent scratches. Is it so bad that you must clean it? If so, you can attempt to clean it, as long as you know what you are doing (but don't take my word for it!). Probably the best sources of information for this sort of job are from amature astronomers. They clean similar mirrors without damage when necessary. You can blow away some dust with a gentle and dry air source. Not a powerful one, and please be careful about compressed freon, as it may contain liquids or chill the surface. You must use a source that is designed for this sort of work. Your breath contains too much water and organic junk, by the way. You might also try an extremely gentle and soft brush. Astronomers will often use very, very pure alcohol and q-tips, but it's one q-tip per gentle wipe as you rotate it, not repeated wipes! That's to prevent dirt from being rubbed back onto the surface. There are also some special materials that are used. Search google for telescope mirror cleaning. But, the bottom line is, do you really have to clean it? Some dust is annoying, but permanent scratches are worse.

Hello,

 

I also have a GX, though with the newer-style strap lugs. I have not tried it, but I do not believe it is practical to modify an older hard leather case to fit it. Besides, the problem with the hard leather cases with these cameras is that they are a royal pain. I also have an old Automat X with its original leather case. One only has 12 shots with either of these cameras, and woe unto you if you need to change a roll in the field with your camera in a hard case. I say skip the hard case and get a suitably small camera bag. I use a Lowepro "Nova 1" case for it, which is a very good match to the camera. The camera fits in one (adjustable) compartment, and a dozen or two rolls of film, or a few less and a meter or a point-and-shoot, fits in the smaller remaining space. There's a zippered area in the front for filters and such. I almost bought the smaller Nova 0, as it's an almost perfect fit for the camera body only, but I'm glad I got the next larger size. They are also very well padded and have a very comfortable strap. I highly recommend these cases. P.S., there is a world of difference between a GX and a T - don't believe everything you read. As you now know, or will soon find out, the GX is a spectacular camera! I hope you enjoy it.

The simple answer is that "200+ feet" is not infinity. Not even close. Focus on the horizon for this test.

 

By the way, I once ruined a couple of rolls of film at an air show when I mistakenly trusted that the runway (more than 200 feet away, I assure you) was at "infinity" instead of actually focusing my 200mm lens. Never again.

This is an interesting question. I am not aware of medium format lenses of that sort. But lenses that are telephotos generally have very small levels of vignetting. If your sensor form factor will fit in a 35mm frame, then you can find f/2 lenses in the 180-200 range, at least. One of the best is the Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 200mm f/2 (it might be a 180, I can't remember that). It's as close to a perfect lens as you will find. If you visit the Zeiss web page, you can find specifications including MTF, distortion and light fall-off curves. Nikon and Canon probably have versions, too.

Hello,

 

I have a GX, which I love. Modern coatings, one of the best lenses ever made, a superb semi-spot meter, quiet and quaint operation. And the photos!!!

 

I also have the Heliopan Bay 3 hood. Yes, it folds, and it's very compact. I recall it cost less than $40. It works fine and is an acceptable substitute for the Rollei hood. It also has threads on the inside, and so it might be possible to use threaded filters with it, but I haven't tried this and do not know what the diameter of these threads are. The Rollei hood may be more elegant and slightly more effective and guess what - it's not really overpriced compared to Hasselblad accessories, at least.

 

One thing about the Rolleiflex is that it is amazingly free of flare. It has only 5 elements and has one of the best coatings available. I've rarely noticed any difference between using a hood and not, so I don't think it's very necessary.

 

As an alternative to the Rollei/Heliopan hood, you can consider using a Bay-III to threaded conversion ring. With this, you can use any 49 or 52mm filters and rubber or metal hoods, etc. See the other very recent posting on this.

 

The plastic cap that comes with the GX works well enough, but the bayonet tabs are thin and become worn fairly quickly. A replacement is available but it is truly rapaciously priced at $40. You can certainly bite the bullet and pay for one. I have never seen an aftermarket bay-III cap and do not believe one has ever been available. Original metal lens caps are hard to find and very expensive.

 

I want to mention one other accessory that you would definitely want if you intend to ever use a tripod: A "Rolleifix." This is Rollei's quick-release mount for the later model 'flexes, including the GX. The use of most standard Q.R. plates are dangerous to the health of your GX. A used Rolleifix in operable condition is not too hard to find and shouldn't cost more than $30-40. Mount it on some other standard plate or threaded triopd and you are fine.

 

Let's face it - the Rolleiflex cannot be considered a "system" camera. There are almost no new accessories and the old accessories are not easy or cheap to come by. You either like the Zen of the Rolleiflex and use it without toting around much more than a rubber hood and a filter or two, or you get some other camera. With mine, I have a Rolleifix, the Heliopan hood, 10+ rolls of film in a compact padded case, and I'm happy.

 

Cheers!

The central split-image prism rangefinder will not be significantly brighter on any so-called bright-screen. "Bright screens" are based on Fresnel lenses. These focus the light, projecting it roughly towards where your eye is expected to be. Ground glass lenses scatter the light, hence can appear darker, especially at the corners. The different grades of Fresnel lenses are either (a) hype or (b) more finely cut, or molded or pressed, in the case of plastic ones. More finely cut lenses mainly provide easier focusing. The central prism range-finder, however, is unrelated to the Fresnel lens system. They are liable to go dark at times when viewed indoors or in overcast conditions, or even in bright light, when using a slower lens. You may not have the "High-D" screen (can't help you - mine are TLR's), but do not expect one to have a non-darkening split-image prism.

Hello. I'm curious about your experience with the bright screen. I have a GX with a Fresnel (aka "bright") screen and an Automat with its original ground glass. Looking at a scene through both is a real lesson - the Fresnel screen makes it impossible to definitively focus, save with the split-prism focus aid, but is much easier when framing your shot. The fine ground glass on the Automat reveals definitive focus, but the corners are dark. Personally, I never focus without using the magnifiers - on either camera. The Fresnel screen is no brighter (subjectively) in the center, only in the corners. While you cannot perform a side-by-side comparison, I'm just wondering what your experience is. By the way, I'm prejudiced against "upgrading" classic Rollies, but life is meant to be lived, so have fun. -G.M.

I have not noticed this problem on either my GX or my Automat. However, I state this only from examining proof sheets. I could imagine that printing to 15x15, as you are, might be different. Good luck. -G.M.

Checking the lens for fungus, etc., is a must. The shutter may be a bit slow at the longest speeds (don't worry about it too much, you will be slower when you are 50 too), but is likely to be fine at 1/4 second and faster. I do NOT recommend a "bright screen." The old fine ground glass screens are dimmer in the corners but as good in the center, and they are much easier to focus. Just get used to focusing with the magnifier - it's a must for precise focus. If you just have to get a "bright screen" then in my opinion you must get it with a center split-prism focus aid, as the Fresnel lenses used in these screens make fine focus vastly more difficult. But please don't: preserve your camera in original condition! I also recommend a Rolleifix if you want to use a tripod, and they can be fairly cheap (make sure the round base under your camera has a groove around it's perimeter that will accept a Rollefix). I most often do not use a lens hood on my two Rolleiflexes, as I haven't found it to be necessary under most conditions, but Heliopan makes a fairly good yet cheap one for it, which I have and use at times. For color film, I use Fuji Reala - wonderful in medium format! But please do lean towards B/W: I use Tri-X in my older Rollei - you might as well use a traditional B/W film with your traditional camera, and your shots will have that classic look. Really, about any light meter will do, so keep it simple. My older Rollei has an exposure guide on the back - meters were rare luxuries then! Xenotar is absolutely as good as planar. No, TLR's are not made for tight portraits, but are wonderful for loose portraits, couples, "artistic" photos, scenics, etc. TLR's are very easy to use, and people will come up to you with smiles on their faces to ask about your cool, classic camera. Have fun with it!

In my humble opinion, and as one who owns a GX and a Rolleiflex Automat, the only differences that you will find between any of the recent GX(etc.) variants will be purely cosmetic. I also do not believe that you will find significant or predictable variation in quality or durability. Buy the one that looks nicest to you and fits your budget. On the "insanity" of a GX. Yes, it is a bit insane to buy a new/retro, virtually all metal, virtually all mechanical camera with a legendary name, a legendary shape, and legendary optics. One which always makes people, even non-photographers, smile. One which, by the way, takes stunning pictures. One which will likely last you for the rest of your life. Yes, it's insane!

Victor, you are quite right: the Automat indeed has parallax correction. Despite the recent debate, I think we can all agree that the Rolleiflex Automat is a fine instrument. I personally love both my Automat and my GX, but I wouldn't give up the former for anything.

I have a Rolleiflex MX with f/3.5 Tessar and the original screen. I also have a "new" GX with its brighter Fresnel screen. If I were you, I would learn to live with (and love) the original screen. Fresnel screens are not much brighter in the center, if at all, and really only help most in the corners. Furthermore, Fresnel screens are more coarse than your finely ground matte screen and are much more difficult to reach precise focus with. My GX comes with a microprism/split-image rangefinder. I only focus it with the rangefinder, since I find it too difficult to reach critical focus with it any other way. If you must replace your screen, do get one with a split-image center spot. It's not a "user servicable" swap, but from what I can see it's not too difficult, as it appears the finder can be removed with 4 screws. But the trick to using your MX with its original screen is to always focus with the magnifier then compose without it. Also, I recommend maintaining these cameras in their original, charming, condition. Really, these cameras were excellent and easy to use in their day, still are, and modifying them with "modern" screens will just devalue their worth to future generations and are a compromise at best anyway.

I own an Automat X. I also own a "modern" Rolleiflex GX.

 

A Rolleiflex will indeed make an excellent learning tool,

and a very useful one, too, for as long as you use it!

 

My Automat has a standard ground glass screen that has black lines in a 5x5 grid pattern. In my opinion, a ground glass is much better for focusing than a "bright" aka Fresnel screen, unless the Fresnel screen has a focus aid such as a split prism rangefinder. Fresnel screens are "brighter" (but really only at the corners) than a ground glass, but they provide less detail. As a previous poster said, a "bright" screen will have very faint concentric rings about the center. The trick to using a ground glass screen is to always use the magnifier for focusing, then backing off and using the whole screen for composition. A Fresnel screen makes composition easier, but sharp focus (lacking a rangefinder, which the GX has) is much harder.

 

The Automat X has all the features you could ask for in a wholly manual, fixed-lens, mechanical camera. Its Tessar is a true legend: a famously sharp and contrasty lens! But, for best results, stop down to f/5.6 or so.

 

Please check that your taking lens is free from fungus, dust and scratches. These are now pretty old cameras and you never know how they have been treated. Look at it with a bright light. Set the shutter to 1 second and repeatedly look at it all the way through from the front and back. It won't be perfect, but hopefully it will be very good. Check that the shutter speeds work well, particularly the slow speeds. Check the focusing lens and mirror too, but this is of course much less critical. Oh, and does it come with its expensive metal lens cap?

 

The Automat does not have parallax correction (which my MX has), but that is a bit of a frill. No light meter, of course. Otherwise, it has everything you can ask. It even automatically senses the start of the film (hence "Automat"), which my GX does not do!

 

I'm concerned that the camera store claims it "overhauled" it. Work on these cameras require skilled and knowledgeable technicians. Or perhaps they only cleaned it a bit. But of course they may be very competent.

 

The price seems a little high for "very average" condition, but the prices on these have been rising, so maybe it's o.k. If the condition is cosmetically average but optically and mechanically excellent, I'd say go for it.

 

-"grepmat"

Hello Steven,

 

Your Rollei has an excellent lens! Shoot stopped down just a

little for best performance.

 

On the screen issue: You should understand that Frenel lenses

will NOT help you focus! They will only make the frame brighter

and easier to see from corner to corner. Compared to your

ground glass screen, a Frenel lens will make it HARDER to

do precise focus, not easier! I know since I have an old

Rolleiflex MX (very similar to yours) and a new GX with

frenel lens. The GX has a split prism focusing aid, which

is all I use for focusing on it, since the frenel lens is

much worse than the simple finely gound glass on the MX.

In fact, the Frenel mostly brightens the corners (very well)

but doesn't even add much brightness in the center, according

to my side-by-side comparisons.

 

What will help a lot for focusing on your Rollei is the

magnifier. Use it every time for stationary subjects, then

use the (admitedly dimmer) frame for composition.

I say leave well enough alone and get used to your ground

glass and focus with your magnifier. It was good enough for

generations and it's still good enough! Your camera will

also stay more original, which is best for these classic

cameras.

 

Enjoy it!

 

grepmat

Darn. Sorry about the lack of formatting. It looked correct in the preview page.

 

-GM.

I love my GX.

 

I have a 3.5 Automat X and a GX, as well as some Zeiss/Contax 35mm gear.

The Automat has been in my family for 40 years or more and still works

perfectly. I expect my GX to last that long as well. No normal-perspective

camera, in 6x6, including Hassy, yeilds results as nice as from a GX,

in my humble opinion.

 

First, let me dispell a few myths:

 

A new GX has what no F has - a new, pristine lens with the best contemporary coatings available.

 

A GX is NOT "plasticky" at all! To the contrary, it's almost entirely made of metal. New Hassies have much more plastic than new GX's.

 

A GX is not a "collectors item" (well, at least if it isn't some gold-plated, ostrich-skinned version), it's a real Rolleiflex that is meant to be used!

 

On the fabled post of GX flaws(?) or pros/cons:

 

The GX has full and half stop clicks. -***TRUE.

 

The GX requires a battery. - ***FALSE; only the meter does.

 

The GX has minimal internal baffling in the lens chamber. - ***No more, no less than my Automat.

 

The GX's film knobs will not lock in the "out" posistion. - ***A deal-breaker for sure!

 

The GX's back will not remove-easily. - ***True, but who uses a Rolleikin these days?

 

The GX does not have the mirror or lens in the waistlevel finder - ***True, but I've never used it on my Automat. It's not a big deal. It still has a "sports finder", by the way.

 

The GX has a different neck strap system - ***So?

 

The GX has numbers and letters that are painted on rather than etched - ***Only partly true, and I've never seen any wear on any lettering.

 

The GX does not have a flash sych cord lock. - ***I don't use flash, but the GX has VASTLY better flash abilities (off the film flash control) than any other TLR.

 

The GX's meter is centre wieghted-a wide spot meter. - ***the GX meter hardly a "center-weighted" meter, it's a smallish spot, just about the right size, and it is the BEST!!!

 

The GX requires that filters be applied to the viewfinder bayonet to determine the compensation factor for the meter if the filter factor is not known. - ***True, but this is only an issue with polarizers. People who use TLR's tend to be purists. They can handle a few issues like this.

 

The GX has only X synch. *** won't comment on this since I use natural light only.

 

The GX does not feel like an F. Although a very high precision camera,

it does not have the same silky smoothness overall that characterises

the F and previous Rolleiflexes. *** Total B.S.! The GX is every bit as "silky smooth" as any Rollei.

 

A few additional comments comparing the GX to my Automat, etc:

 

The GX has a modern bright screen with a micro-prism/split-image prism. I always use the split-image prism for best focusing, and the bright screen provides excellent framing. The Automat's fine ground glass (ruled) is easier to focus than the frenel portions (as opposed to the prism aids) of the GX screen, but only in bright light and while using the magnifier.

 

The GX is much heavier and feels more sturdy than the Automat.

 

The Seiko shutter is faster but louder than the Automats Synchro Compur.

 

The GX, wide open, is great, and at f/5.6 or 8 is heaven! Load a GX with Velvia or Reala, or even Tri-X, and prepare to be blown away!

 

Finally, the Rollei is a classic's classic. Using it is like caressing a beautiful woman - the lenses are even shaped like a womans body. What could be better?

 

-Grepmat

Joseph and Mark,

 

The issue you are discussing is called "vignetting." It is caused by shadows from layers that are above the light-sensitive region reducing the amount of light that reaches it. In most cameras, it would be most pronounced in the corners of the sensor array. But, in fact, CMOS sensors are MUCH more prone to this effect than CCD sensors, since CMOS sensors usually include one or more metal layers above the sensitive region that cast shadows, while most CCD's use relatively transparent polysilicon. Early CMOS imager designers did not consider this effect at all, but it is now relatively well known and it can be fairly easily designed out of the system simply by considering where shadows will fall in the system. I can eventually offer a reference if you like. The "bucket" analogy for CCDs, by the way, refers to primarily electronic phenomena rather than physical characteristics and is not itself a factor in the vignetting issue.

 

IMHO, if CMOS eventually succeeds over CCD's in the high-end, it will probably be due to economics, integration and flexibility rather than fundamentally superior quality.

Gene,

 

The story goes that the revival GX's had been made with new-old-stock Compurs (size-0), as no new ones have been made in decades. When they ran out of those, they switched to N.O.S. Seikos. The story goes on to say that those are also perilously low in stock, to the point that the potential lack of shutters will eventually doom the TLR's if nothing else does, as the cost of retooling to make new ones cannot be justified by the trickle of buyers for the classy old beauties. While still officially "in production," they are currently only made in spurious batches of 20 to 50 at a time, according to a fellow at Rollei that I spoke with.

Dave and Gene, thank you for your replies and information.

Hello Dave,

 

It's a Seiko shutter on a late model Rolleiflex GX twin lens reflex.

 

Thanks.

Hello,

 

In "new" gear, is it common and acceptable

for a leaf shutter to have a leaf with a

small crease and bend in one of the leaves?

The crease is near the tip of the leaf and

the bend is toward the outside. The bend is

shallow but obvious - maybe 10 degrees.

The shutter appears to function fine.

 

Thank you.