d_purdy

<p>Budget is everything. I think you sound like you would love a Rolleiflex. It will give you better image quality than the 645 Mamiya and a Rolleiflex is a camera you fall absolutely in love with. If you have some money to spend get a nice 2.8 or 3.5F. If you don't have much money to spend get a 2.8 or 3.5 D or E. </p>

<p>On a Rollei the #1 will get you waist up for a small child. A #2 will get you head and shoulders.<br>

There will be some distortion from using close up lenses, as well as some parallax problems to consider. Especially with closest focus on the #2 or if you get a #3 for face shots. You can do very wonderful intimate feeling portraits being up close to your subject like that.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>Regarding the Korean made recessed "UV" filter, I got one.<br>

#1 it isn't a UV filter, it is just plain glass.<br>

<br />#2 it is recessed so to put it on and take it off you must use friction from your fingers on the glass. I used surgical gloves but it was almost impossibly difficult as the filter was such a tight fit. When it came to taking it off so I could put on a Rolleinar I got frustrated by the difficulty to the point that I nearly through the filter in the ocean.</p>

<p>#4 the filter is recessed enough to put on with another filter on the taking lens but it sticks up just enough to make it nearly impossible to put a lens shade on the taking lens.</p>

<p>All that was enough for me to decide to put the filter in a drawer and forget about it.</p>

<p>Dennis</p>

 

<p>I don't see why it would be hard to replace. I just looked at mine and it is a normal cable release with the thumb button. It is about 12 inches long and the normal size cable. The only thing you need special is to make sure the diameter of the thumb button or the finger flange part ( I don't know what it is called) is not wider than a little more than a quarter inch. I could take my Pistol grip cable release out and use it as a normal cable release.</p>

<p>Ian when I use the WLF on my Rollei I have to wear glasses to see the focusing screen clearly. When I pop up the stock magnifier I can focus with my glasses on. I find that I don't need to put my eye right on the magnifier to focus. In fact I don't even have to have my eye close to the magnifier to focus. I can only do this with the stock magnifier. If I put in the +1 diopter I can't focus with my glasses on at all from any distance.</p>

<p>The only way to know for sure in your case is to try it.</p>

<p>Dennis</p>

<p>You can get the hasselblad diopters from a hasselblad dealer. They are less than a hundred USD so however that translates to your money. I found them on the B&H photo site in New York. You could get them mail order. You can also find the chimney finder for hasselblad pretty cheaply used on ebay. They have a variable diopter eye piece. I am guessing Mamiya diopters are available new as well.</p>

<p>I have good distance vision but need reading glasses as well. I can focus without + diopters but it is a struggle and is easier if I wear my reading glasses. I got +1 diopters for my eye level prisms in the Rollei and the Pentax 67 and +1 diopters in my Rollei Waist level finder magnifier and now I can focus perfectly without putting my glasses on. However when I am using the Waist level finder and just looking at the focusing screen I have to put my eye glasses on anyway, so I put the non + diopter back in and now focus through it with my glasses. Taking glasses off and putting them back on sucks. That is part of the reason I keep my prism on the Rolleiflex. I look through the prism with the + diopter and never need to put glasses on.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>The fact that people still find it useful and still enjoy it make it still viable.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>It is not obsolete unless you are saying that all film cameras are obsolete. The Rolleiflex tlr is still in wide spread use. Maybe not in the professional numbers from the 50 and 60s but it is still viable and still made new and still bought new. By definition not obsolete. The specific design of a camera that views like an SLR and shoots like a range finder can't be beat for many people like myself who use them. The fact that it is not the number one camera chosen by photographers doesn't make it obsolete. It won't be obsolete until film stops being available and people stop using them.</p>

<p>

<p>can't figure out how to insert an image of my 2 siblings..</p>

<p>If the house was on fire and I could only grab 1 and they were the same distance from the door I would grab the FX because it is more valuable. Funny as it seems you wouldn't believe how much time I have wasted stressing over which I should sell. The FX is functionally flawless and my F has a bit too stiff focus but now a brand new transport from mr Fleenor. I make more focusing errors with the FX because the stock FX screen is very indistinct and I got a Maxwell to replace it like I have on my F but the Maxwell on the FX is for some reason not as good as the one on the F. It has a hard to see split image.. as well as very dim grid lines. Actually I can focus with the F off axis better with the old stock Rollei screen however I opt for the brightness of the Maxwell. </p>

<p>Bottom line I guess today I would keep the FX.</p>

<p>I am not sure how to read those charts and what is the dotted line vs the solid line.<br>

One difference is in the scale of the charts making it hard to visually compare.<br>

It looks to me like the F lens wide open has a higher rating at it's top on all three levels than the GX lens.<br>

The GX looks to have tested a little better at 5.6 on the lower level. <br>

I don't know who did these tests and charts or what procedure they used.<br>

Though on the scale of a chart you see large gaps and lines but at a user level in the lens I think these differences are probably microscopic.<br>

Dennis</p>

 

<p>I have run tests at all f stops. It is important to run f2.8 tests to determine if the lenses are aligned correctly. One focus that is supposed to be set is infinity. Having the lenses as close to the body as it is possible should be infinity focus. However when I first got my brand new FX I found that I had focus out just a bit to get infinity. I sent it right to a repairman and he agreed that the lenses were set to "focus through infinity" so he fixed it and now with the lenses all the way in, infinity is in focus. I only a week ago got back from Harry Fleenor my 2.8F from service and first thing I did was test f2.8. I shot at infinity and minimum focus and in between all at f2.8 and everything was perfect. That Xenotar is very sharp at 2.8 as is the Planar if you manage to get them perfectly focused. The problem is that the depth of field is so slight that it is easy to miss focus. <br>

Dennis</p>

<p>Carlos, I don't think you will ever get documents or unequivocal proof of this information. All you are going to get is anecdotal accounts. There is still a company making these most recent models and you could try to communicate with them: info@dhw-fototechnik.de</p>

<p>This is a response they gave to the question "is the S-Apogon the same as the Planar"</p>

<p><em>We are not allowed to use the name Planar. Therefore, we have changed the name in S-Apogon. The material and the resolution of the lenses is still the same. Best regards Reiner</em></p>

<p>even that is not an unequivocal statement. </p>

<p>When the FX first came out there was a lot of internet talk about how it seemed to be better wide open than before and that perhaps some design change had bee made. Personally I don't believe so. I think it was more that shooting wide open had become more popular and people were getting better at it and perhaps the very tight tensioner in the FX held the film a bit flatter.</p>

<p>I can give you lots of personal anecdotal experiences with the lenses because I have been personally testing the various Rolleis for many years. However anything I say will bring up someone else who's experience is different. As you have undoubtedly done lost of google research about the Rolleis and lenses you know there are endless discussions about Xenotar vs Planar vs Tessar vs Xenar and there are lots of people who absolutely favor one over the other. The thing I have found in my quest for the Holy Grail best of the best Rollei lens is that the performance difference and variance is so slight that the most amazing thing is just how consistent the lens quality is and how strict the quality control over the years has been.</p>

<p>These are my few conclusions after all my carefully controlled user tests.. which means on heavy tripods with all sorts of situations from newspaper taped to a wall to any number of real life situations. With and without optical flat glass backs and plate backs. All lens options from models T, 3.5F, 2.8E2, 2.8F, and 2.8FX.:</p>

<p>The single coated Planar and Xenotar have exact same sharpness.<br>

The single coated Planar has slightly more flare than the single coated Xenotar.<br>

The HFT coated Planar has slightly less flare than the single coated Xenotar.<br>

The 3.5 xenotar and Planar lenses seem to be slightly sharper at very distant infinity focus than the 2.8s.</p>

<p>All of my testings have been done in "side by side" comparison with more than one camera at a time. To this day I have a very late 2957xxx White Face 2.8F with the Xenotar and the 2.8FX with the HFT Planar and both in perfect condition. As I can't really justify owning both I have done stupidly obsessive side by side testing with these cameras trying to find which is better and after 5 years of it I still can't determine it absolutely. In real life user tests the greatest variance is the user myself. It is difficult with the focusing screens and magnifiers to absolutely focus on something and get it perfectly right every time.\</p>

<p>The truth to me is that it is all over thinking, over complicating, and over stressing the importance of the sharpness. The lenses are sharp. Maybe in some situations even too sharp. They give beautiful tonality and presence of image. And the cameras are fantastic to use if you like using a TLR. I always use mine with the 90 degree prism because it orients the image correctly and is easier to focus.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>Yes they share the same lens and coatings. That goes as well for the latest change in lens name to "S-Apogon". It is a great lens. The only difference between GX and FX is cosmetic, and the strap holder. There are some who say the shutter button is stiffer on the GX and that may be true. I have the FX and the shutter button is a little less smooth than the older F however it is not a problem for me and actually now my FX is 6 years old the shutter has gotten smoother.</p>

<p>Well I am a big Fleenor fan and have sent him at least 4 different Rolleiflexes for repair. However I have not bought his PDF probably because he didn't have it for sale when I was buying my cameras. I am pretty certain that the information you get from Harry will be very informative about tell tale condition issues. <br />That is what would make me want it. Regarding knowing which camera model offers which functions I would think that even just asking here in photo.net or looking in the photo.net archives you will get all the information you could even want. Clicking on the Rollei link above should get you to days worth of reading on various topics. The other thing you can do is go to the Rolleiclub site and look at their page of various models. As far as Harry Fleenor goes if I was you and was thinking of investing in a Rolleiflex, I would give him the 10 dollars. He is worth it.</p>

<p>The planar lens design has a tendency to flare to the degree that Rollei couldn't start using it until anti flare coatings started being used. I think that lens would have to be used very carefully if you want to avoid flare. <br>

If that camera is cheap enough there is a place where you can get the lens recoated. Not sure of the price but I think it might be around 400 USD.</p>

<p>Maybe tack a couple pages of news paper on the wall and do a flat copy. Parallel and perpendicular and see if the sharpness is the same all over.</p>

<p>I have been wondering if there is some sort of protective tape that could be put on the bottom of the front cover that would prevent scratching and would not damage the paint long term.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p><img src="https://dl.dropbox.com/u/108126859/IMG_8471.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Yes it works with the C. It is good in that it gives support to the bendable back. If you put your camera on a tripod connecting only to the socket on the bottom of the camera, there is a chance you could bend the bottom slightly if you aim the camera down at the ground and put pressure on it. Or if you put the tripod with camera attached over your shoulder and carry it like that. There is no danger of bending the back if you just use it as normal sitting up on the top of the tripod looking out. The extra support of the Rolleifix comes from the two nubs on the front of the Rolleifix sitting into the two sockets on the bottom of the front of the camera.</p>

<p>The problem with the Rolleifix is that you have to be very careful putting your camera on it. Those two nubs on the front of the Rolleifix will almost certainly scratch up the bottom of the face cover. It will eventually make very deep scars. The other problem with the Rolleifix is that it is very easy to get the camera only half seated in it and not realize it. Then one little bump to the camera and it falls to the ground. Mine fell into a sandy ocean beach.</p>

<p>This is a photo of a Rollei scarred by the Rolleiflx.</p>

<p>all in one printer scanners exist but I doubt they scan film. Maybe so but then I would doubt the quality. </p>

<p>Dan Daniel, l wonder if you could link a document about the soft Xenotar coating. I can't find anything. </p>

<p>Actually I heard it the other way, that the yellowish coating of the Planar is softer than the blueish coating of the Xenotar. <br>

I have owned several Rolleis in my quest for the best. In order of my owning them, a T with tessar, two 3.5Fs with xentoar, a 2.8 E2 with Xenotar, a 2.8F Planar, another 2.8F Planar, a 3.5F Planar, a 2.8F Xenotar and a 2.8FX HFT coated Planar. I still have the last two. The only coating problem I had was with the first 2.8F planar. It had a mark on the front element. I have cleaned the lenses on all these cameras the same, soft cloth, cleaning fluid, q tips. I didn't clean the coating off any of the lenses or even scratch them. So I am going to conclude that the soft coating of the Xenotar as you claim is false. And as I said, I first heard that said about the planar.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>Which 2.8 model? The Xenotar is a really great lens. No slouch, doesn't take a back seat to the Planar in performance at all. The best thing to do is go out and use your camera. Advice would be to get a lens shade and maybe a #2 Rolleinar.</p>

<p>Dennis</p>

<p>I would like to see your pics. I might find someone who knows. You can click on my user name for email. Dennis</p>