Rolleicord V focusing screen

bernard_L said:

No need! I understood that you were p*ed off by the perceived situation, and did not, even remotely, take it personally. If only all exchanges on photrio were as civil.

And, you might actually be OK. Some tips:

• Checking that a picture taken at infinity is sharp is not a very good test because (a) infinity probably means daylight, and less-than-fully-open diaphragm --enhanced depth of field masks any possible mis-alignment; (b) how shap is sharp enough? meaning that you want the best co-alignment of film plane and focus screen plane
• Without wasting any film, just check that a distant (1/2 km, or 1/4 mile) pole is just unbroken in the focus prism when the focus knob reaches infinity. Of course, this assumes that the focus knob did not conspire with the focus screen to have the same error respective to the taing lens...
• About the slanted wall test rightly suggested by @Dan Daniel ... Should be done at max aperture (f/3.5?) I prefer a chicken-wire fence, shot at 45° (a gravel alley is also OK), and be sure to visually flag the spot where you focused. Choose a time of day when you can shoot at full aperture. Use a tripod. Better to use 100 ISO film. Then the fine structures should blur in a symmetrical way on either side. Better than scratching your head: "sure it looks sharp, but could it have been sharper?".
• I was myself quite happy when I bought a rolleicord Vb for a good price, because of the split prism in the focus screen. Once I started using it, I practiced focusing on the fine GG spot, and only after, checking the split prism. Bottom line: I actually do as well with the GG; the split prism felt safer but is not really better. Practice and gain confidence. Some aftermarket screens have microprisms: I cannot offer advice on these.
• Did you contact Rick Oleson? IMO he has good communication.
• You can use a 35mm SLR to check infinity, in succession, for the taking lens and the focusing lens. You will need a target in the film plane; I use a ground glass; lacking that you can use a piece cut from a CD jewel case with light scratches to materialize the film plane; not tracing paper as I've read sometimes.
  

  DIY: Calibrating/checking infinity focus

  I took the lens off an Argus C3 to grease the helicoid. The way the lens is removed makes it fairly easy to throw off focus. As such I did a focus check to verify it went back together correctly. This method works to check focus on pretty much any camera. The Argus just makes it really easy to...

  rangefinderforum.com
  You should also find a description of the method in Rick Oleson's Tech Notes at:
  

  Dropbox

  www.dropbox.com

Good luck

Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer !
- So, I shot all the tests at f/3.5 because it just happened to be a rainy day, mid to late afternoon, and I was shooting at 1/125th outdoors and 1/60 indoors.
- The house at the end of the street (maybe 300-400 meters away) is where I tested, and the slanted roof was not broken, neither were the walls, at infinity. The rest of the tests were done putting the camera at the MFD and taking a mini step back and forth until it looked in focus. I chose the "silvery" shower head and the Rolleicord letters in the mirror.
- It will definitely take me a lot of practice to focus and frame. The first two shots I took in the forest were so confusing... between the left-right inversion and the fact that any sideway movement of the camera tilts everything the wrong way, it was a real pain ^^. But they say it comes with practice... and it's only my 2nd time manipulating it, so...
- I have not contacted Rick Oleson. I will wait and see what the roll looks like. If it's fine, then good. If not, I'll check the letter of instructions first, and maybe contact him last if I can't fix it.

I am not an expert on focus testing. My guess is the best test would be to set up a tripod and focus on a wire mesh (like chicken wire suggested above) at close range (say 6 ft) at f3.5 (full aperture) in harsh light. Then raised the camera on the tripod the 3-4 inches (distance between the taking lens and focusing lens) and take an exposure. This will correct for the parallax error. Mark the focus knob with a grease pen, take more exposures, one at one side of the grease pen mark on the focus knob and one on the other side of the grease pen mark. Develop the film and see which exposures look the sharpest in the resulting prints or scans. My two cents.

Loren Sattler said:

I am not an expert on focus testing. My guess is the best test would be to set up a tripod and focus on a wire mesh (like chicken wire suggested above) at close range (say 6 ft) at f3.5 (full aperture) in harsh light. Then raised the camera on the tripod the 3-4 inches (distance between the taking lens and focusing lens) and take an exposure. This will correct for the parallax error. Mark the focus knob with a grease pen, take more exposures, one at one side of the grease pen mark on the focus knob and one on the other side of the grease pen mark. Develop the film and see which exposures look the sharpest in the resulting prints or scans. My two cents.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your comment !
I would have done something like that (or maybe with a ruler on a table for the close focusing test), except I don't have a tripod... So I had to do something else - and also, I was angry and had no patience for a very careful test, so...
Side note : I think the Rolleicord I have (model Va) has a parallax correction built in. I think so.

Hello everyone,
So, the scans are here, and the results are... not good. At least, to my eye. This is HP5 @800, developped by the lab in some Bellini product, then scanned by them on a Noritsu without adjustments. I only adjusted for the black and white points, no sharpening.
1) For the selfies, I focused on the Rolleicord letters, at minimum focus distance : they look... ok-ish, I guess, but definitely not tack sharp.
2) The 3 shots on the street were focused at infinity, on the roof of the most distant houses down the street : nothing appears in focus to me, neither near nor far. I think the closer one (with "automobile" written on it) was also at infinity, and it looks ok to me.
3) For the windshield, I focused on the 16, minimum focus distance. It doesn't look that sharp to me, but I'm not sure.

Anyway. Maybe it's the grain, maybe I moved when I clicked the shutter, maybe it's the scan, or maybe the screen really effed up the focus, I can't really tell... But I'm fearing it's the screen, because my older roll looked very sharp in comparison.

For comparison, here are 3 shots I took with the original Rollei ground glass. Shot on Rollei Retro 400, expired. They look a lot sharper to my eye.

Those photos look correctly focused to me. I think the softness originates from the wide-open aperture, which I suppose wasn't used on the Rollei 400 shots.

If you have calipers I would encourage you to precisely measure the thickness of the original glass screen to compare it with the replacement.

Doing film tests are useful but sometimes inconclusive. Camera shake or focusing errors can muddy the waters. Do you have a digital camera with a long-ish lens? If so you can make a collimator of sorts, which is very useful for calibrating a TLR.

OAPOli said:

Those photos look correctly focused to me. I think the softness originates from the wide-open aperture, which I suppose wasn't used on the Rollei 400 shots.

If you have calipers I would encourage you to precisely measure the thickness of the original glass screen to compare it with the replacement.

Doing film tests are useful but sometimes inconclusive. Camera shake or focusing errors can muddy the waters. Do you have a digital camera with a long-ish lens? If so you can make a collimator of sorts, which is very useful for calibrating a TLR.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback !!

I honestly can't remember how I shot on the Rollei 400 roll... I had it written down somewhere, but I can't find it. It might not have been wide open, but I'm not sure.
As for measuring the glass, that would mean reopening the Rollei : taking the hood off with the tiny screws, then the glass off with those weird springs, etc... I'd rather not get into that right now, I admit...
I should definitely do another test, with the camera put down somewhere (I don't have a tripod) and a ruler in front of it, or something.

OAPOli said:

Do you have a digital camera with a long-ish lens? If so you can make a collimator of sorts, which is very useful for calibrating a TLR.

Click to expand...

I looked online what that collimator test was, because I had no idea, and so I did it today, with my RF 85mm macro. The result is as I feared : the taking lens is calibrated properly at infinity, as you can see in that awful X on the tape that I shot, but when I look in the viewfinder, it's not sharp. And I think that what threw me off when I did the test roll is that dang split rangefinder in the middle. You can't see anything clearly in that thing (that's my bad for buying it). So I looked at the microprism instead, and it's very clear (no pun intended) : I have to roll the focusing knob back to achieve infinity in the VF, otherwise the image looks soft in the VF if I put the knob at infinity (I tried to take a picture, but I'm not sure you can really see what I mean). I have to set it somewhere between 60 feet and infinity on the scale.
So now, I'm just gonna have to sell the Rollei (too dark with the original screen), sell the Oleson screen, and get something else instead... I'm quite angry at Brightscreen for not mentioning anywhere on their website, in clear letters, that the products they manufacture are not matching the camera you order them for... Actually, it's worse than that, it's false advertisement : "We are equipped with an in-house CNC milling machine that allows us to machine a perfect replacement focusing screen for your camera".
Anyway, moving on. Thank you for that tip about the collimator, it was incredibly helpful !

@Yaeli laying scotch tape might not be very accurate. It's better to find a flat piece of glass or plastic. In addition, you can also look through the viewing lens with the collimator. You should see the magnified texture of the bottom of the screen, or the intersection of the split prism.

You also need to be dead sure that your collimator lens is at infinity. Not using the digital scale but by confirming the focus of a distant subject. Theses lenses will focus past infinity.

It's also a possibility that the viewing and taking lenses were out of phase since the beginning.

If you are going to swap the screens again, measure their thicknesses precisely.

OAPOli said:

@Yaeli laying scotch tape might not be very accurate. It's better to find a flat piece of glass or plastic. In addition, you can also look through the viewing lens with the collimator. You should see the magnified texture of the bottom of the screen, or the intersection of the split prism.

You also need to be dead sure that your collimator lens is at infinity. Not using the digital scale but by confirming the focus of a distant subject. Theses lenses will focus past infinity.

It's also a possibility that the viewing and taking lenses were out of phase since the beginning.

If you are going to swap the screens again, measure their thicknesses precisely.

Click to expand...

I didn't have any piece of glass or plastic to use instead, so I did the "next best thing" - I really tried to make it very, very flat and perfectly positioned between the inner rails.
I used the autofocus on the EOS R on the clouds, and made sure it was in focus and locked afterwards.
I really don't think the lenses were out of phase from the start : I bought it from a very reputable store, fully CLA'd, and the first roll was perfectly sharp.
I did not measure the exact thickness, I just put back the old screen and I'm gonna sell it as is.
I'm just tired, to be honest (warning : TMI) : I bought it in june 2024, stupidly thinking that the screen was going to be as clear as my friend's Hasseblad 501 CM that I had used before. Then I bought the Oleson screen, hoping it would make it perfect (but only installed it recently, for personal reasons). It didn't work, obviously. This year, I bought a Super Speed Graphic, only to realize it was lacking the Ektalite and therefore the focus could not be trusted, so I sent it back. I bought a tripod for it, that never arrived because the store forgot that it was out of stock and only notified me 2 weeks later, during which I couldn't try the camera. Refund. I bought another tripod, and it arrived with the 3 way head broken. Sent it back, refund. I wanted to sell my EOS R, sent it to a very reputable store that threw away the battery (pretending it didn't charge fully), which pissed me off so I asked for it back. I sold most of my 35mm analog gear, accepted the price because they had tested and found many flaws (inaccurate shutters, fungus in one lens, etc...), only to realize they were selling it the next day for 4 times what they bought it from me... I'm just tired. I'm sure my next buy (yes, because I still want a new camera) is gonna be a disaster too... Seems like the "universe" is telling me to quit analog completely, but I really don't want to. Anyway. Apologies for the rant...

It's unlikely that the focusing screen is faulty. I've used a couple of the OIeson screens with good results. Your test at post #79 seemed fine and it's possible you made a mistake with the collimator test.

But if you don't like the screen and/or camera that's totally fine. Move on; you'll find something else. But don't start a thread asking for a suggestion: you'll get the list of all the cameras that exist (PS. all of them are the best)

OAPOli said:

It's unlikely that the focusing screen is faulty. I've used a couple of the OIeson screens with good results. Your test at post #79 seemed fine and it's possible you made a mistake with the collimator test.

But if you don't like the screen and/or camera that's totally fine. Move on; you'll find something else. But don't start a thread asking for a suggestion: you'll get the list of all the cameras that exist (PS. all of them are the best)

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to sound rude, and I apologize if I did.
I don't think I made a mistake with the collimator test. I might have, but I can't see where. The house at the end of the street is 300 meters (985 feet) from where I was standing. It should definitely be sharp in the viewfinder with the knob set at infinity, and it isn't. I have to pull back on the knob about halfway between infinity and 60 feet. I don't think that's normal, but I might be wrong, since it's my first time with a TLR.
Don't worry, I won't ask which camera is best I know there are none, and it's even more true for 6X6 : either go for a 3000 dollar Hasselblad or Mamiya Six, or live with dim viewfinders, electronics that might collapse, keyhole rangefinders on folding cameras, etc... I have abandoned the idea of finding the "perfect one", just the least bad one for me.

@Yaeli A few things can go wrong in an improvised collimator. In your photo of the scotch tape, the top right appears quite blurry where it shouldn't. Finding infinity on clouds can trick the AF and it's hard to confirm on the photo; a higher contrast & detailed target like a distant building is better.

If you want to get to the bottom of this, measure the thickness of the screens. Halfway to 60 feet is approx. 50m/160ft or a 0.1mm extension from infinity. That can be adjusted.

Look, @Yaeli, sure seems that you are on a bad run with cameras and equipment. From the discussions, I have to say that you seem to be learning as you go. But you might not be able to correct this issue, given some equipment limits and some understanding about focus with TLR that you need to develop still.

I will make a suggestion: contact Alex Varas in Spain (search for him). Discuss what it take for him to set focus on both lenses. Also discuss if he would take the Brightscreen in on trade or such, and install a different screen (although I think the split is not the problem, nor the screen, it seems best to simply get a plain screen, or a microprism only screen, so that you can relax on that). I don't know what this might cost, but I bet that it will be less than trying to sell this one and try to find something else, as every used camera comes with risks and possibly problems.

Well, that's the smoothest and most likely cheapest way forward. Get it done right by someone who knows, and start to enjoy shooting, not chasing down issues that you are not set up to correct.

OAPOli said:

@Yaeli A few things can go wrong in an improvised collimator. In your photo of the scotch tape, the top right appears quite blurry where it shouldn't. Finding infinity on clouds can trick the AF and it's hard to confirm on the photo; a higher contrast & detailed target like a distant building is better.

If you want to get to the bottom of this, measure the thickness of the screens. Halfway to 60 feet is approx. 50m/160ft or a 0.1mm extension from infinity. That can be adjusted.

Click to expand...

I might have made mistakes indeed. Usually, the focus on the EOS R is spot on, but it's possible it shifted slightly. As for the part of the scotch tape that is blurry, I imagine it's because it was taken with an 85mm macro lens, very close up - so with razor thin depth of field. But I cannot swear that the scotch tape was 100% perfectly flat, of course. To my eyes, the texture of the tape is in focus, but I might be wrong on that too.
I sadly do not have the tools to precisely measure the glass, and I don't particularly want to reopen the hood again, as the screws are incredibly tiny and I fear damaging the screw heads if I do it again.
Again, I apologize for my tone and replies. I have just been "down" due to all that, and it has exasperated me very much, but that is not an excuse for the way I responded to you.

Dan Daniel said:

Look, @Yaeli, sure seems that you are on a bad run with cameras and equipment. From the discussions, I have to say that you seem to be learning as you go. But you might not be able to correct this issue, given some equipment limits and some understanding about focus with TLR that you need to develop still.

I will make a suggestion: contact Alex Varas in Spain (search for him). Discuss what it take for him to set focus on both lenses. Also discuss if he would take the Brightscreen in on trade or such, and install a different screen (although I think the split is not the problem, nor the screen, it seems best to simply get a plain screen, or a microprism only screen, so that you can relax on that). I don't know what this might cost, but I bet that it will be less than trying to sell this one and try to find something else, as every used camera comes with risks and possibly problems.

Well, that's the smoothest and most likely cheapest way forward. Get it done right by someone who knows, and start to enjoy shooting, not chasing down issues that you are not set up to correct.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestion, Dan ! I have contacted him, and I'll see what he has to say.
I must admit that I'm a little "torn" concerning this camera. It is incredibly nice, and the pictures I got from the first roll looked really nice, and I love the square format and this is one of the rare cameras I can afford in that format. The focusing and framing is very tricky because of the inversion and my old eyes, which has made me seriously question my choice, but I suppose it is also a matter of practice, and like I said, I cannot afford many cameras in that format (besides maybe a folding like a Mamiya Six). And I could probably get used to the Oleson screen if I just ignored the split screen and focused with the microprism instead. It is indeed very much brighter than the original one, that's for sure.
I won't go into all the boring details, but this exasperation I have is also linked to many bad choices I made recently regarding my cameras, and to the inability to really make a choice in terms of which way I want to go in photography from now on (digital, analog, formats, home developping and scanning, etc...) and which is most compatible with my personal issues. Anyway.
I really appreciate your advice and will let you know what he said.
P.S : Alex already answered : 100 euros for adjusting both lenses, not counting shipping (so around 130 total with insurance). I sent it to him. I figured it was probably wiser to add another 100 bucks to the total that I spent on this camera, instead of trying to sell it, probably lose quite a bit compared to what I paid, and not being sure I can end up with something better - or better for me... Anyway. I'll let you know when I get it back and put a roll through it.

Yaeli said:

P.S : Alex already answered : I sent it to him. I figured it was probably wiser to add another 100 bucks to the total that I spent on this camera, instead of trying to sell it, probably lose quite a bit compared to what I paid, and not being sure I can end up with something better - or better for me... Anyway. I'll let you know when I get it back and put a roll through it.

Click to expand...

There are times when the best thing is to simply take the financial hit and move forward. You'll get back a working camera, a focusing camera. Among lower cost medium format cameras, the Rolleicord is among the best. Secure, stable, excellent lens, well made, etc. Folders and such have a variety of risks and sometimes permanent flaws. Now you can use a working TLR and decide if it is a camera to keep. If it is the only medium format camera you have, you will be well served by it.

Good decision. Knowing when to turn troubles over to an expert is an important part of the hobby. And paying the price is a part of the hobby too. Dan is right, you’ll do a lot better now. The Rolleicord is a sweet camera to use and having the reassurance will make the experience all the better.

Dan Daniel said:

There are times when the best thing is to simply take the financial hit and move forward. You'll get back a working camera, a focusing camera. Among lower cost medium format cameras, the Rolleicord is among the best. Secure, stable, excellent lens, well made, etc. Folders and such have a variety of risks and sometimes permanent flaws. Now you can use a working TLR and decide if it is a camera to keep. If it is the only medium format camera you have, you will be well served by it.

Click to expand...

BrianShaw said:

Good decision. Knowing when to turn troubles over to an expert is an important part of the hobby. And paying the price is a part of the hobby too. Dan is right, you’ll do a lot better now. The Rolleicord is a sweet camera to use and having the reassurance will make the experience all the better.

Click to expand...

Thank you both for your answers !
Yes, I've been pretty happy with the Rolleicord when I shot those 2 rolls (except for the split screen, which I'll just have to avoid and use only the microprism) : it offers a different perspective, the loading is super easy, it has parallax correction, no red window to check the frame count, etc... The setting of aperture and speed is not super practical, and the shutter cocking takes a bit of getting used to, but it's really not that bad. And the lens performed very well indeed. I will need to practice a lot with framing and focusing, but I think it's really a matter of habit and experience. I can't expect to have mastered it after just 24 shots and 2 hours with the camera...
I am very thankful for the contact info, Dan. I would have been going down a new rabbit hole of camera hunting otherwise, and probably would have ended up dissatisfied in the end, so... thanks !

My favorite Rolleicord the V model. Regret very much selling mine.
The lens sharpens up very much at about F/8. I never shot mine at F/3.5.

Besk said:

My favorite Rolleicord the V model. Regret very much selling mine.
The lens sharpens up very much at about F/8. I never shot mine at F/3.5.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you're missing yours...
I need a lot more time and experimentation with it to really know what I like in terms of settings. I imagine it's a bit soft indeed at F/3.5. I'll be testing it when it comes back from the CLA