d_purdy

<p>I think it must have to do with the type of film. As I said I think it is possible that the only film I have done it with is Fuji Acros, which has a pretty stable base and very thin tape like scotch tape.<br>

It is not difficult to do in my experience and scratching has never happened and I have never had this bulge that needs fixing or edge fogging because keeping it tight is not difficult.<br>

I started doing it actually because the tape on the Acros is so thin that my Rolleiflex auto feeler wasn't catching it and I was often winding rolls right through without stopping. But I have done it a few times on purpose when I want to run a film test from more than one camera and I don't need the whole roll for the test.<br>

Even $3.50 a roll is too much for me to just toss in the garbage. Now most all film costs around $5.00 a roll. Of course this is because I know I can rewind it easily. When I do rewind film I keep the take up spool edges right up against the other spool and hold it tight. Not difficult, just a bit tedious. </p>

<p>Rewinding a 120 roll is really not very difficult. It just takes a couple of minutes and you have to keep it tight when you do it. I think it is silly to throw away film. However the difference in opinion that others have might come down to whether you process your own film or do you pay a lab. I process my own film and the film I have rewound is black and white. It is possible that the only film I have rewound is 120 Fuji Acros as that has been my film of choice for several years. It is also possible that different films have different degrees of difficulty. I have never had a problem with a bulge where the tape is. That would be because the roll is not being wound tightly and the film has moved a little bit in relation to the backing paper. To me, processing my own film, throwing a roll of film away rather than rewinding it is just nonsensical. We are talking throwing away 5 bucks. <br>

But to each his own. And perhaps I am just better with my hands than others are.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>I have rewound a lot of rolls out of necessity when I kept forgetting to load my Rolleiflex correctly.<br>

It can be done, I can get the rolls tight. It is a bit of a pain. I do it on a table top in the dark with the receiving spool held up pretty tightly to the unwinding spool. Keeping them in line and keeping them tight and waiting for the end of the film to come so I can tuck it in and keep winding. Might be a learning curve for it but it is more tedious than difficult. I have done some side by side testing of different 120 cameras by re winding the film and switching camera in the middle of the roll. To me a roll of film is too expensive to throw away.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>The Rollei is maybe not so well suited to still life photography due to lack of close focus and interchangeable lens. It is well suited and has been used very successfully for about everything else. Irving Penn and David Bailey used it for fashion, Vivian Meyer used it for street photography. If you are happy with just the one lens it is great for travel and landscape photography. You can get a close up lens attachment called a Rolleinar that lets you shoot more close up details and get closer for portraits.<br>

The problem is with today's processing options. You will get much more of the optical quality if you can learn to process your own film and do a better job than the retail labs. The Rolleiflex has a very sharp lens, sometimes even too sharp, but in my opinion the tonal quality is the best part of the German lenses. That is what bad processing will screw up.</p>

<p>Kenneth, when an ad is covering some of the text, at least on my computer, you can just refresh the browser page and get a different ad that probably doesn't cover the text.</p>

<p>I have the later version of the 55 f4 and I just went and looked at an 11x14 print I have framed on the wall and clearly there is not the least fall off in any corner. If there is it is so microscopic that I can't see it. I never stop all the way down with any lens. <br>

Dennis</p>

<p>http://www.marilynbridges.com/pages/portfolio_contemporary/USANortheastPlayingBaseballAllensCreekNY.html</p>

<p>Hard to find better than Marylin Bridges aerial photography done mostly with a Pentax 67. </p>

<p>At least for me it is not just a matter of sharpness. It affects <em>how</em> I see. I have a much harder time considering aesthetics or compositions when looking through my non dominant right eye. It is interesting that with the eye I am very right brain but with my hands very left brain. I am fairly useless with my left hand... though sometimes it feels stronger.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>It is something I have always dealt with, being right handed and left eyed. I have always had to jam my nose into the back of a camera. It is also not just a problem with hand guns. It is actually worse with rifles. You naturally have your right finger on the trigger but trying to look with your left eye, when the gun kicks it kicks your hand into your nose. I have learned to shoot a rifle holding it left handed, which means supporting the barrel end with my right hand and having my left hand on the trigger. Once I got used to it, it is much better than doing it right handed.</p>

<p>Here is another weird thing being right handed and left eyed, I play darts. I throw with my right hand but I aim with my left eye. They don't line up. I have a tendency to throw to the right of where I am looking. However if I drink three pints of beer I don't care,<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>"<em>The obvious answer to the question of who buys <strong>new</strong> Rolleiflexes is "trendy people with large discretionary incomes</em>".</p>

<p>That might be true but as the only person so far in this thread that has bought one I can say that is definitely not me. I am well below the poverty line and have no health insurance but I found a way to finally get the FX. I have used Rolleis since the mid 1970s and have traded up many times, starting with a T and going through Es and 3,5Fs and a few 2,8Fs. I have been lucky to always sell for more than I paid.. that is the good thing about Rolleis. I paid 3000 for my new FX and I could get most of that back if I had to. <br>

Dennis</p>

<p>I bought a new FX a few years ago from B&H but you can buy them now from Rolleiflex.US for a little cheaper than you are saying I think:<br>

http://rolleiflex.us/collections/rollei-tlrs-and-accessories</p>

<p>I have both a very late 2.8F and the FX. From a user standpoint having owned and used my FX awhile I do much prefer it to the older F. It isn't the optical difference so much though the FX has less tendency to flare, it is more just handling it. Even though I have had a recent service from Fleenor on the F the FX film transport is much easier and the focus is much easier and I prefer not to use the auto feeler which was dumped for the FX. I like the feel of a new camera. It is a lot of money but not when you compare other new cameras of high quality with a lens. You get a very high quality lens with that Rollei price and you don't need a film back. It is in affect the very best range finder type camera with the range finder having a lens that is focusable and sees the exact same image as the taking lens. </p>

<p>The Mamiya is not well suited for still life due to it's rangefinder view and lack of close focus. It has the same problem with portraits, not close enough for head photos.<br>

The Pentax has especially pleasing lenses for portraits and the 135 macro works very well. Also for still life you can either get a waist level finder or just take the prism off and view directly on the viewing screen. You can use the camera on a tripod and lock up the mirror and get very high quality optical results. <br>

<br />I would definitely recommend the Pentax.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>Coated or uncoated shouldn't make that much of a difference. The Tessar and Xenar designs don't tend to flare much anyway. </p>

<p>The front cover is actually just a cover over the mechanism holding the lenses. I believe it is possible for it to be off a bit and the lenses still be straight. One of my Rolleis has the cover off by about a 32nd of an inch but it focuses perfectly. <br>

Dennis</p>

<p>It is true. The shutter release lock doesn't work with a cable release.</p>

<p>Regarding the leather and the covered hole, I have bought a couple of new Rollei leather pieces and you have to get the piece to match the model. They don't have punch out hole options like that. That is a home fix job.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>If by magnifier on a prism you mean a plus diopter, then I think if you need a plus diopter get it regardless of the screen type. <br>

I have the split image focus and micro prism collar on my roll film cameras. It would be great if it wasn't necessary but otherwise I waste a bunch of time rolling my focus back and forth to be sure it is where it needs to be. </p>

<p>Dennis</p>

<p>One other little consideration. If you think at some point you might want to get a prism then the F is the one to keep. I had Rolleis for several years but never used them much until I finally got a prism. That made all the difference to me and now it is my main roll film camera.</p>

<p>Wait till you decide to try large format. the freaking image is upside down!!!</p>

<p>I am comfortable with ebay. You just need to be careful reading descriptions and looking at photos and researching the seller with his previous sales and feed back. You also need to communicate with the seller to hopefully get some idea of what sort of person he is. Certain ways of describing things can be made to sound good without actually saying anything because they are vague or subjective. Also avoid sellers who don't know how to test a camera to see if it works.</p>

<p>If it really is just the coating that is damaged then you shouldn't really see any problem at all... because the coating is still 90% there, right? Or 80%, point is that before WW2 lenses weren't coated at all. But more likely you have very light scratches on the front element as well... that came with the abrasions that damaged the coating. Still it shouldn't really affect the sharpness as much as the scratches catching ambient light and causing flare. As you point out, that affect can be nearly completely eliminated by using a lens hood and avoiding flare prone situations.<br>

The Xenotar is no slouch. It is every bit the lens a Planar is. An advantage to the Xentoar is that the front element is not cemented as is the Planar. So to send it in and get it recoated is less problem than the planar which first has to have the cement taken out and the element separated.<br>

Generally the Xenotar has a durable coating, more durable than the soft zeiss coating on the planar. It took some abuse to damage your lens. Your lens might have some haze as well.. My 2.8E2 with xenotar was very sharp and had beautiful tonality, I never knew it had slight haze till I got ready to sell it and was cleaning and inspecting it. I had bought a newer 2.8F white face with planar and found even with the xenotar's haze it had less flare than the planar. I sold that and bought an even newer 2.8F with the Xenotar. Cristal clear. Best ever.</p>

<p>Nice work. Thanks for sharing. It is odd the depth of field difference between the two lenses. It is also odd the fall off on the edge of the Cord. Not sure I understand how the light is blocked from the edge to cause that darkness. It is what it is I guess.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>I don't understand. I just looked and there is a brass slotted screw in the middle of my FX focusing knob under the cover plate. So turning that forward or backward moves the lens forward or backward in relation to the film plane?<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>I have taken mine apart for cleaning. The slotted ring holding it in can be unscrewed with what Americans call a spanner wrench. If it is not real tight you might be able to unscrew it very carefully using just one side of the slots. I know inside you will find a lens that is oriented to cause the view to go off center for the parallax compensation. If you are careful and don't scratch the lenses you could take it apart and see if it is possible to put plain glass or uv filter in there.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>perhaps you could look into getting a diopter for whatever eye piece to match your vision. I had to do that for my Pentax 67 and Rolleiflex prism. My need was +1 and after installing them suddenly focusing was easy again.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>No way to use a Rolleinar as a regular protection filter because the Rolleinar is a lens and changes the focus. I suppose you could take the lens out of the larger piece, viewing part of the Rolleinar pair and put in a plain glass and then yes you could use a filter or lens shade with it on. But it would be far cheaper and better to get a UV filter and file the one edge down so another filter will fit on below it.</p>