Re: [Leica] Rollei TLRs vs Leica Ms

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Just a passing thought, though. I told Harry Fleenor to repair the Rollei
MX-EVS that I sent him, even though he said that I would never get my money
out of it, and for this reason alone- Where else could you find a rugged MF
camera, with that quality of lens, and that reliability, for less than the
$500 it takes to re-new the Rollei, with the Maxwell screen?
Anything with comparable optics would cost four or five times that- so when
I got one with really nice glass, and in really good shape, I decided to
'shoot the pickle', and keep it!
Not a bad price for a good MF camera that should last me the rest of my
life!
Dan ( Can you say... "Rolleikin!?) Post

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Cooper" <douglas@dysmedia.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Rollei TLRs vs Leica Ms


> On 3/25/01 3:01 AM, Leica Users digest expressed the following:
>
> >
> >> In my experience, the 645's show only a marginal increase in
> >> quality for a lot more trouble in carrying and using compared to
> >> the 35.
> >
> > What 645 were you using?  It must have been a real dog if your results
are
> > as you say.
>
> I'd have to agree here.  A good 645 -- my old Fuji GA645Wi, for
instance --
> is comparable to a 6x6, not a 35mm.
>
> >
> >> Best results will be had with the camera on a tripod,
> >
> > What's this obsession with tripods?  You complain about the trouble
carrying
> > a MF camera around, but you'd LUG a useless tripod around?  Tripods are
for
> > studios and "camera guys" ;-)
> >
>
> While tripod-worship around here is getting silly, I do think that it is
> appropriate, sometimes, with a Rollei (whereas it's almost never
appropriate
> with an M, unless you've mounted a 135mm lens).  The Rollei lends itself
to
> more measured compositions:  portraits, landscapes, interiors.  Here it's
> nice to have the luxury of placing the thing on a tripod, and examining
the
> image carefully.  (Also useful to insure precise focus, which is a
slightly
> more complicated matter with the Rollei than with a rangefinder.)  And
> because of the smaller maximum aperture, if you're shooting in low light
> you'll pretty much require a tripod.  That said, the TLR also works
> beautifully in Leica mode, ie. handheld.  If you *do* use a tripod, you
> really should buy a Rolleifix quick release -- attaching the tripod
directly
> to the mount on the camera is less rigid, and can in fact damage the
camera
> (by twisting the back and thus putting the film plane out of alignment).
>
>
> >> loading is slower,
> >
> > Not much if you're good at it.  It certainly depends on the camera.  For
the
> > Rollei, I agree though...
>
> It's marginally slower than with a Leica quick load  (although much less
> likely to result in loading errors); about as fast as with an M3, and much
> faster than with an LTM.
>
> They really are comparable cameras in many respects, despite their
radically
> different design.  Every Leica maven owes it to him/herself to at least
> experiment with a Rollei TLR.  The models to look at are the 3.5E and
3.5F,
> as well as the earlier MX-EVS Type 2 (*not* the Type 1, which has a silly
> method of linking the aperture and shutter speed).  This earlier model has
a
> Zeiss Tessar or a Schneider Xenar; the later ones a Planar or Xenotar.
For
> bokeh, the Tessar formulas are nicer; for sharpness at maximum aperture,
> there are few lenses that can touch the Planar/Xenotar.  (Some have
reported
> higher resolution with these last lenses than with *any other lens made*,
> with the possible exception of the Mamiya 7 line.)
>
> I have it from Bill Maxwell (whose Hi-Lux focusing screen you really
should
> install in your TLR!), that the order of lens quality is in fact precisely
> the opposite of what collectors value (and hence can save you money).
From
> best to worst (not that the worst is anything short of superb):
>
> 3.5 Xenotar
> 3.5 Planar
> 2.8 Xenotar
> 2.8 Planar
> 3.5 Xenar
> 3.5 Tessar
>
> (The other lenses are probably not worth fooling around with.)  Anyway,
this
> ranking is highly controversial, and is likely to ignite a Holy War --
which
> would be much more appropriate to the Rollei Users Group...
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Douglas Cooper
> http://www.dysmedia.com
>
> NO ARCHIVE
>
>