Rolleiflex 2.8F: what am I looking at?

Dan Daniel

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,884
Location
upstate New York
Format
Medium Format
Nah, no reason to avoid it unless the protrusion bothers you.

Be aware that there are three positions for the pressure plate. One for 35mm, one for 6x6 (roll film graphic), and one for 6x6 plus glass plate (roll film graphic plus extra line for the glass plate). The 6x6 position is in the center, not at the end as is typical for two-position plates.
 
OP
OP

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
1,169
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF

Subsequent searches suggest that a lot of users with this modification find the glass plate leads to more scratches and debris in the camera.
 

Dan Daniel

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,884
Location
upstate New York
Format
Medium Format
Magicflex in Germany has the glass plates, I am not certain if NOS or new manufacturing. If you want to give it a try. And I've seen a few cases for cameras with this back that actually have a 'hidden' pocket for the plate, with the plate still inside. I have one found this way in what appears to be original wrapping, maybe never opened. A condition I see no need to change
 

dpurdy

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
2,673
Location
Portland OR
Format
8x10 Format
In the past at least, the hump back was more valuable than the straight back. You could sell it and buy a straight back replacement. Only the Rolleis that have a little pin inside can use the hump back. I did a tremendous amount of testing to prove that the plate glass gave sharper images but finally concluded it isn't worth the trouble and probably only helps a bit at wide apertures. Hard to keep that glass clean.
 

Nitroplait

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
808
Location
Europe (EU)
Format
Multi Format
retina_restoration said:
Subsequent searches suggest that a lot of users with this modification find the glass plate leads to more scratches and debris in the camera.
Click to expand...

Roll film is not great at maintaining perfect flatness. Medium format in particular suffers.

Glass improves critical sharpness through flatness, with dust, scratches and static discharge being the associated compromises.

No glass will give you less flatness aka sharpness.

You make the choice that suits you better.

If you spot your own prints and feel comfortable with the process - then glass may well make good sense.

I personally wouldn’t bother with medium format TLRs and rangefinders, but the vacuum from a large SLR mirror lifting quickly, can cause very visible problems with film flatness.

Hasselblad users will likely reject above claim, but NASA always used glass on their HB bodies on critical missions as far as I know. Make you own conclusion
 
Last edited:

lecarp

Subscriber
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
326
Format
8x10 Format
These are predominately seen on the type 1 and 2 tele-Rollieflex.
 

beemermark

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
869
Format
4x5 Format
The reason Rollei dropped it at some point.
 

Kodachromeguy

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,054
Location
Olympia, Washington
Format
Multi Format
Nitroplait said:
Hasselblad users will likely reject above claim, but NASA always used glass on their HB bodies on critical missions as far as I know. Make you own conclusion
Click to expand...
NASA equipped some or all of their cameras with a Reseau Plate with cross marks at precise locations across the frame. The cross marks would appear on each frame of the film. I do not know if film flatness was another reason for the plate. Those cameras used 70mm stock, so it would have been bare film without paper backing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…