Rolleiflex Hy6...One of the last medium format cameras in production

[Dave Krueger]

After reading 11!!! pages about this camera with apparently a lot of flaws & faults, I think it's time to buy a SL66SE

Haha! I think you'll probably find threads like this for every camera ever made.

I used to want an SL66 more than any other camera (back before I could afford it), but I would not get one now. The lenses are all going to be so old that, if they don't already have a bad case of fog, fungus, or separation, they soon will. Just my opinion, of course. I steer clear of buying old used stuff now. You know, to avoid having to send it in for repair as soon as I get it... (Did you pick up on my sarcasm?)

 

[Pieter12]

After reading 11!!! pages about this camera with apparently a lot of flaws & faults, I think it's time to buy a SL66SE

Most complex machines have problems that need to be ironed out. In the case of the Hy6, the production numbers have not been high enough for all the potential initial issues to appear. I also believe the Hy6 was designed primarily to accept a digital back and the film implementation may not have been given as much scrutiny as a result. The first iteration seems to have concentrated on 6x4.5 and the Mod2 has a different 6x6 film back, not requiring a separate adapter. Just my opinion, I have no access to the actual facts of the development and manufacture of this camera. But I do own one.

 

[ic-racer]

In terms of flash, the research I did led me to the Metz 54MZ-4 as the top of the line non-handle flash that works with the Rolleiflex TTL system. My second one just came in the mail today and it works fine. I wanted two, because the SL3003 and 6008i use the SCA 356 adapter and the Hy6 uses the SCA 3562 adapter. With two flashes, I don't have to keep changing the adapter bases.
From what I understand the 54MZ-3, 54MZ-4 and 54MZ-4i all function the same on a film camera.

 

[ic-racer]

Post #73 to review how it works. Reading both Hy6 and MZ54 manuals won't really tell one what to do. I figured this out by doing test exposures to see what happens when it fiddle with the wheels:

Ok, figured out how to dry-fire the Hy6. Just set the film back to "STOP" and shoot away.

This is what I came up with seems to be easier to manage:

Hy6 in any AUTO mode and Metz 54MZ in TTL mode, press the "lightning bolt" button brings up an EV scale to control the fill flash brightness only Plus or Minus. Press the "meter mode" button brings up a separate EV scale for overall exposure compensation.

 

[ic-racer]

This is the flash to get. There may be other SCA flash units that work with the Hy6 TTL functions, but I thought the MZ54 was easiest to find. Quite a few on ebay and a follower of this thread has one for sale too.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Just as an update, I finally figured out how to do scans of negatives and have made my test pictures available on line if anyone wants to see them. There is a document in the same directory that describes everything, but it doesn't show up for some reason, so I will cut and paste the text below.

Link to pictures: https://kruegerphoto.com/Pictures/Scans_of_Hy6_Test_Pix_for_Rollei/

Text Document:

INTRODUCTION

Two film based tests of the Rolleiflex Hy6 (S/N 596540096) are described below.

The first deals with the autofocus consistently focusing too close regardless of the offset and the
second test deals with the inability of the camera to mechanically (manually) focus at infinity.

If these problems are not in the camera body, they must be in the film back. It's unlikely that
three lenses could all have the same problem. All these symptoms can be explained by the film
plane being too far rearward.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTO FOCUS AND OFFSET TEST

Date of test: 10/18/20.
Film was Ultrafine Ext 100 shot at EI 100 and developed in HC110.
File numbers correspond to frame numbers for first 8 shots. The last two shots are on another roll.
The color picture (focus_test_setup.JPG) shows the test arrangement.
Camera was on a tripod.
Focus area was set to "small" for these pictures as Eric recommended on 10/17/20.
The grid target was centered on the split image in the view finder.
All pictures were exposed at 1/12 sec at f2.8.
I defocused slightly before each shot so the camera would have to focus every time.
Mirror was raised manually before each shot.
Camera was set to single focus and was done focusing before I removed my finger from the focus button.

img004.pg Offset = -30
img005.pg Offset = -20
img006.pg Offset = -10
img007.pg Offset = -0
img008.pg Offset = +10
img009.pg Offset = +20
img010.pg Offset = +30

Test results show that the camera focused too close in all cases with the worst cases being at the most
negaive offset. At no time was the target in good focus nor was did teh camera ever focus behind the target.
This shows conclusively that the film plane is too far rearward and that the offset is insufficient to
compensate for the error in film position.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANUAL INFNITY FOCUS TEST

Test date: 10/18/20 and 10/20/20
Film was Ultrafine Extreme 100 shot at EI 100 and developed in HC110.
Camera was set on tripod for all tests. Focus on each lens was adjusted to teh infinity stop.
Autofocus was never engaged.
All shots were taken with aperture at f2.8.

img011.pg Xenotar 80mm at f2.8 at 1/1000 sec (no filter)
img012.pg Schneider 50mm at f2.8 at 1/1000 sec (no filter)
img014.pg Schneider 40mm at 3.5 at 1/125 sec (red filter w/8X filter factor)

MUST ZOOM IN ON THE CENTER OF THE PICTURES. Test shows that none of the three images show good
focus in the distance but are actually focused much closer. Even with the much greater depth of field of the
wide angle lenses, this shows conclusively that the camera is incapable of infinity focus and instead focuses
too close. Again this suggests that the film plane is too far rearward and an offset adjustment would not
correct the issue because the lens cannot mechanically adjust the focus beyond its hard focus stop.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All scans were done on an Epson V600 at a resolution of 2400 dpi, 16 bit grayscale.

 

[mattvo]

I remember seeing the auction when Rollei closed. I wish I bought it all... So many prototypes of these cameras.

 

[GG12]

Is it possible that Dave's problem could all be related to bad film back mounting or alignment?

 

[ic-racer]

I need to use my camera through the holidays, so based on David's posts I determined how far my film plane was off and corrected it the best I can to make the camera useable, until I can get a replacement magazine.

I started by setting my pressure plate gap to 0.50mm which is a measurement I copied from the 6008i.

I exposed negatives with with an 80mm f2.8 lens focused so infinity on the focus screen was sharp. I made test exposure to see where the film plane focused under that condition. This processed negatives showed 30 meters (30,000mm) to be the focal point at the film plane.
That gave an error at the film plane of 0.2136mm (1/30,000 + 1/x = 1/80)
This meant I needed to move the pressure plate closer to the lens by 0.2136mm but that would close the gap to to 0.28mm. That film channel gap is too narrow and the film binds (film + paper + tape = 0.4mm)
I compromised and set the pressure plate gap to 0.30mm. The motor can still pull the tape through without issue.

Test with this setup showed a focal point now at 45 meters (45,000mm).

This was just about at the hyperfocal distance for f2.8.

Obviously the real solution is to move the film guides and pressure plate together and keep the same film channel distance, but this would involve re-milling the film guides.

I believe the milling of the magazines rear casting is off slightly, My film magazine is useable now but I'd prefer it to focus perfectly at infinity.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I believe the milling of the magazines rear casting is off slightly, My film magazine is useable now but I'd prefer it to focus perfectly at infinity.

Me too, Or even a little beyond infinity to accommodate the worst case offset. Anyway, this is actually the best news I've heard all day [edit] (not you having a problem, but you being able to do something about it).

This makes me wonder how may other Hy6 owners would discover focusing problems if they shot a roll or two with the lens wide open. I usually don't shoot wide open, but that's mostly because many of the lenses I use aren't that good at full aperture, The Schneider lenses should be an exception to that. The only reason I started shooting the Hy6 at f2.8 is to find the offset.

Now I want a 6045 back. I'm guessing it doesn't have this problem.

 

[ic-racer]

I don't have any way to scan a negative, but at my next printing session I can print the infinity shot that I determined focused about 45 meters with the 80mm lens at 2.8 (film channel gap 0.30mm). The true infinity elements (trees, houses, etc) are only slightly blurry with an 8X loupe (realize many people use a 4x loupe on medium format). Nearly acceptable.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I'm kind of OCD about focusing although it's usually at the darkroom printing stage. I like to get right up there. If you ever go look at photographs in an art museum and see a smudge on the glass, you'll know I was there because that's my nose print.

[edit] I wonder if getting the film that much closer in my camera will be enough (combined with the maximum offset) to make the autofocus work. That would be a major milestone as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ic-racer]

If one agrees with a statement earlier that the Hy6 lenses are collimated, not to infinity, but to hyperfocal distance for f2.8, then my camera is currently in spec, and your's should be able to be setup similar.

 

[Pieter12]

The images I posted in #178 were all shot wide open, at relatively close distance (6-8' I think). With the exception of the 40mm, all look pretty sharp to me.

 

[GG12]

Here is a pic of another film back insert. The sides are flush, except for the two raised end edges. These seem to be about .30mm raised, matching the finding above. Not absolutely sure, but was clearly more than .25mm.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I shoot wide open all the time with the 6060 back and get wonderfully sharp images.

 

[GG12]

Good to know. What’s your back plate height look like?

 

[Dave Krueger]

Here is a pic of another film back insert. The sides are flush, except for the two raised end edges. These seem to be about .30mm raised, matching the finding above. Not absolutely sure, but was clearly more than .25mm.

Geoff, thanks for that picture. I can tell just from looking at that, that the gap your insert is smaller than it is on mine.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I shoot wide open all the time with the 6060 back and get wonderfully sharp images.

Thanks! If you get a chance, I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of your insert like the one Geoff posted. The more data points the better and ic-racer's discovery that the pressure plate position could be at fault in some backs is very promising.

If only I had bought your equipment. My reason for buying new (at a considerable premium) was that it would be less risky. That turned out to be a faulty assumption in this case.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I don't have a micrometer, but the thickness of the combined film and paper from my last roll of 120 Delta 100 measures 0.23 mm using my caliper. The film was developed, so that might be slightly less than the camera actually sees with undeveloped film.

The thickness of the developed film by itself is 0.10 mm.

[edit] Oops. ic-racer already posted earlier that he measured 0.27mm.

 

[ic-racer]

The thing I had initially forgot is that the tape on HP5 is almost the entire width of the film, so the tape needs to squeeze in there also. I found with the film gap at 0.30mm, I hear a little strain as the tape goes through the film channel, but it does not seem to slow down the motor.

 

[ic-racer]

Not to derail the discussion of the film back, but I was experimenting with my mathematic calculated focus screen distance, and I tried various shims under the focus screen. What I found is the focus screen microprism seems insensitive to a change in 0.1mm.
What does that mean? Even though I'm 'old school' and think 'I can focus better than the AF' that can't be the case. The AF will always be better because it can detect a change that can't be detected with the microprism.

So, this answers the question I had when I looked into the AF offset. Theoretically any change in the AF offset needs a corresponding change to the focus screen distance. However, it appears the usual changes in AF offset one might need are so small they don't affect the focus screen.

 

[ic-racer]

Good news, the first NON TEST roll I shot this weekend, with the pressure plate set to 0.30mm looked fine. Probably no different than any other correctly focusing camera. Certainly better than the SLX, because one thing they really got right was the absence of any film bulge, even in cooler weather.

This is stark contrast to the rolls I have now processed, from the first weeks with the camera. In those, very shot is out of focus, with the focal point in front of the subject. The pressure plate gap was 0.6 to 0.7 at that time.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Thanks! If you get a chance, I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of your insert like the one Geoff posted. The more data points the better and ic-racer's discovery that the pressure plate position could be at fault in some backs is very promising.

If only I had bought your equipment. My reason for buying new (at a considerable premium) was that it would be less risky. That turned out to be a faulty assumption in this case.

I'm not sure what you've done so far but your equipment is under warranty. If you haven't already I would ask Eric to pull out a Hy6 kit and test it using his equipment then send that to you as an exchange.

Now regarding your question about my camera backs, I see this thread as one big invitation of FUD regarding the system. I don't want to participate in that to be honest. We all start measuring our pressure plates then before you know it everyone on the internet is demanding micrometer tests of pressure plates anytime someone decides to sell a Hy6. Eric is a great dealer and DW Photo is still around! If anyone has an issue with their camera, fix it! Don't tell the whole internet that there may be a vast production problem with these cameras, which I highly doubt is true.

Most of all, shoot more, test less.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I'm not sure what you've done so far but your equipment is under warranty. If you haven't already I would ask Eric to pull out a Hy6 kit and test it using his equipment then send that to you as an exchange.

Now regarding your question about my camera backs, I see this thread as one big invitation of FUD regarding the system.

With all due respect, I see this thread as a discussion about a $9000 camera that doesn't focus. Seems like a fairly legit topic for a forum. I am working with Eric and DW Photo and while it hasn't been promising so far, there is still a glimmer of hope. Since there is evidence that the focusing problem is the fault of the film back, asking about other people's film backs seems like a good way to determine how film backs that don't work differ from those that do, hence the request for pictures. If there are problems with the system, discussing them out in the open is certainly better for potential buyers than letting them find out after they own one.

That you don't have any issues is great, but it is very little consolation to those who do. I am sorry about my tone, but I'm burned out on this problem and I just want it to be over (hopefully by being fixed).