bcunha

OK, I've received it. It's in very good condition, mechanically. BUT, the lens has some fungi. It cannot be seen except by shining light directly at the lens. It looks like some tiny milky circular blobs (each of it cannot be larger than 0.5mm.) Otherwise it looks very clean, no dents, no chips. Probably it passed unnoticed by the seller -- it would for me too, if I wasn't looking specifically for it. I hope it is the kind of fungus that only requires a CLA. I'll do it in the near future. Screen looks very dim! I've heard that this is costumary so I didn't worry. I've taken the hood off (four screws, quite delicate, but feasible) and cleaned the viewfinder. There was a spider web inside! Maybe I'll have a Maxwell screen installed when I get some extra money.</p>

<p>Mechanically it is in pristine condition. Everything looks and sound smooth. Not bad for a 50 year old camera! I've taken some test photos with t-max, so I could develop at home. I found the lens to be quite soft at f/3.5. It gets better at about f/8. For those interested, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/650874">here</a> is an assessment of the quality of the lens at f/22 (hood on). I've cut the bottom half of it and scanned on a Minolta Scan Elite at 2820dpi, no filter applied, but merged the scans on photoshop. I'm sorry if it looks grainy, I guess I've overdevelopped it. Does it look sharp enough? I hope that the diffraction from the fungi is not hurting the lens too much. </p>

<p>Once again, thanks to all. I do hope someone else finds this thread useful.

I guess that all things considered both tessars and xenars should give similar results. As Greg says, condition is everything. And there is no point in blowing out my budget to buy a more expensive camera which will need a good cleansing to function properly. Roger, thank you very much for the tip, and you should probably ask that guy some commission money, because I just bought it! Yup, I'm the proud owner of a Rolleiflex MX (a.k.a. Automat 4)! I'll probably use the extra money to buy a lens cap and hood. Let's see how those contact prints show up... I can't hardly wait.

Thank you all for the feedback. Hope to be able to give something back to the forum soon (esp. some pics) :-)

<p>That fits with the previous information I had about it. My doubt is more of a technical one. In this <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0003e1">message</a> John Lehman posted an extensive sharpness test for the Rollei lenses. All the earlier 3.5 models performed at about the same, but only the Tessar that fitted the T had more than 40 lp/mm at the corners at all apertures. I know that it is only one assessment of the lens, and that could be due to a particularly clean camera, but makes me wary of buying the xenar.</p>

<p>Do you think that $250 for the MX model is a good price?</p>

<p>And then I heard the lure of the big negative/chrome...</p>

<p>BUT, there is a plethora of different systems to consider, but I

have more or less set my heart on a rolleiflex/cord. I'm trying very

hard to keep things below $250 and not sacrificing much optical

quality for that. </p>

<p>That pretty much keeps me in the 3.5 systems, which I have more or

less meticulously studied in the <a

href="http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/">foto.no</a> site. I understand

that I should strive for a tessar T (in the T models) as opposed to

the xenar that comes in older models. This comes from the low results

the (old) xenar has in a message <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=0003e1">John Lehman</a> posted a while ago. Theoretically I

should consider the better planars or xenotars, but I'm afraid this

is more than my budget can afford.</p>

<p>So I have this two basic questions:</p>

<ul>

<li>Should I consider a late Rolleicord instead? Late models should

have multicoated lenses which may be vastly superior to their

predecessors. I seem to be able to find some on ebay a little above

my maximum. If anybody would have some suggestion of an used camera

shop (I've tried adorama, KEH and Midwestphoto), I'd also be very

glad.</li>

<li>What's up with the MX model (fitted with a xenar)? They seem to

go pretty cheap on ebay, and that actually makes it quite tempting.

People have been trying to sell it in excellent working condition for

about $250. Should I bite the dust?</li>

</ul>

<p>As a friend of mine said, when we were assembling our first

computer (several years ago, and when computer stores charged an

absurd price): "people with money just go and grab a brand-name

computer, and everything works fine. Broke people as us are stuck

with the miriad of options for parts and the actual effort in

researching into things. Translating that into economics: rich people

are those for which time is more valuable than research!"</p>

<p>I am wholeheartedly thanking in advance everyone who answers

this.</p>