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

[Dave Krueger]

I am going to ask the factory to publish their recommended AF offset calibration routine. Hopefully they will have time.

Good. Seems like something that might be useful to add to the user manual. If it's in there, I didn't see it. If not for Geoff's primer, I would not have had a clue how to do it.

 

[Eric Hiss]

Focus spot is one of the things I don't have a lot of literature from the factory on so my knowledge is really only first hand. If you have the AF High D or 10772 High D screen in your Hy6 camera, it will have some brackets scribed near the center. If your subject and only your subject fits in the brackets then full is going to work fine for you. If you have like in my above example eyes and glass frame both inside the bracketed area then perhaps the small setting could be better. I think the majority of the Hy6 shooters never mess with the focus spot size.

 

[Eric Hiss]

Geoff's primer is useful for sure which is why I still have it on my website, however it's well out of date.

 

[ic-racer]

Here is another question that might be addressed in an updated "primer." What is the deviation for the "Focus Bracket" mode? If one could correlate that to the focus offset, one might easily set the focus offset with a single 5 frame "Focus Bracket" and then examine the negatives looking for the frame that is in focus. If you knew how the "Focus Bracket" worked, you could figure out where to set the focus offset.

 

[Pieter12]

Here is another question that might be addressed in an updated "primer." What is the deviation for the "Focus Bracket" mode? If one could correlate that to the focus offset, one might easily set the focus offset with a single 5 frame "Focus Bracket" and then examine the negatives looking for the frame that is in focus. If you knew how the "Focus Bracket" worked, you could figure out where to set the focus offset.

That would be great to know. Also, I just noticed there is an apostrophe (') next to the frame number on the film back. I looked in the manual, but find no mention of what that indicates--although it is present in some of the images. I don't recall seeing it before.

 

[GG12]

Earlier in this thread there was discussion about the setup of the film plate. Here is some correspondence on this from Hans Hartje of DH. He agreed this could be shared.

Thanks Eric and others for thoughts on the primer. Happy to update it, if folks want to make suggestions for what should be in it or corrected.

 

[ic-racer]

Please note that film (including the paper) has a certain thickness and has to be moved in a channel between 0.3mm and 0.7 mm

This matches my observations exactly. Irrespective of how my insert came to have a channel of 0.3mm, that measurement works well with my camera and Hp5 film. Produces an infinity focus at the hyperfocal for f2.8 and my focus offset is around -10.

 

[ic-racer]

Seeing as the film insert is not "user adjustable," my 'helpful suggestion' on the topic at hand would be for some mechanism that a USA-based service facility might be able to check and adjust user's film magazine inserts for somewhat less than $300 euros. Seeing as the film insert is a fragile mechanism that could easily be knocked out of specs during film loading, transport or frequent use.


So, a hypothetical situation might play out like this:

Right after opening the Hy6 kit, our dog got hold of the film insert without my knowing.
When I tested my camera for focus, all negatives had focal point in front of the subject.
I measured the 4 posts of the insert and found 0.533, 0.635, 0.700 and 0.610
Suspecting maladjustment, I delivered the item to my local independent repair facility where the problem was promptly diagnosed based on my description and out of focus photographs.
The film insert was re-set to factory specs for a nominal fee and now the camera is fine.
I checked the pressure plate and all 4 posts measure 0.3mm.

 

[Dave Krueger]

This is an excellent confirmation of what ic-racer has been meticulously detailing.

If the film slot is adjusted over a range of 0.4 mm to facilitate smooth film transport instead of being adjusted to a fixed position relative to the film back mounting surface, then changing film backs could affect focus. That seems to suggest different offsets could be required for different film backs. Does that mean that each lens needs to have a different offset depending on which film back is in use?

 

[Dave Krueger]

The variability in the film position would also result in variability in where the camera focuses when the lens is manually set to infinity. If the gap is increased, the infinity focus point would move closer to the camera.

Furthermore, if that 0.4mm range of movement moves the film plane beyond the range of the offset adjustment, accurate autofocus focus may not be possible at any offset value.

 

[GG12]

Might the issue of offsets be getting too much attention? More important than offsets are the basic alignments, such as focus screen to film plane; even more important (and more fundamental) is basic focusing, such as being able to reach infinity. Offsets are a final tweak. Many cameras don’t have this feature but I hope we don’t overdue our affection for it.

 

[ic-racer]

Summary. Erik and DW Photo are recommending only the AF Offset be adjusted by the user:

Lens Infinity Stop: Adjustable; set at factory to hyperfocal distance for widest aperture
Focus Screen Offset: Adjustable; set at factory
Pressure Plate Location: Adjustable; set at factory
AF Offset and AF Area: User Adjustable

 

[ic-racer]

Some news today: I was able to locate a 6008AF body thanks to a fellow film user.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Might the issue of offsets be getting too much attention? More important than offsets are the basic alignments, such as focus screen to film plane; even more important (and more fundamental) is basic focusing, such as being able to reach infinity. Offsets are a final tweak. Many cameras don’t have this feature but I hope we don’t overdue our affection for it.

I think the offset adjustment feature is an excellent feature for fine tuning the auto focus, especially when it comes to accommodating third party digital backs. I don't think it was ever meant to compensate for more course adjustments like moving the pressure plate back to reduce stress to the motor.

It might just be my OCD kicking in, but I think focusing at infinity is important, not just for taking pictures of the stars, but for having the option to crop pictures and enlarge them without having distant objects that used to be "acceptably out of focus" suddenly become glaringly out of focus. And, I don't think it makes sense to have to modify all your lenses to reach infinity focus.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Summary. Erik and DW Photo are recommending only the AF Offset be adjusted by the user:

Lens Infinity Stop: Adjustable; set at factory to hyperfocal distance for widest aperture
Focus Screen Offset: Adjustable; set at factory
Pressure Plate Location: Adjustable; set at factory
AF Offset and AF Area: User Adjustable

Given a choice between Plan A or Plan B, I prefer whichever one that solves the problem.

 

[ic-racer]

Prints from 50mm and 80mm lenses f2.8 at the infinity stop. Hyperfocal point depends on viewing distance. These 8x8" prints, at a about 1-2 foot viewing distance are sharp.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Prints from 50mm and 80mm lenses f2.8 at the infinity stop. Hyperfocal point depends on viewing distance. These 8x8" prints, at a about 1-2 foot viewing distance are sharp.

View attachment 258382
View attachment 258383

Thanks for posting those. They look good. Certainly well within the realm of usability.

If the price of better focus is staying away from films at the upper end of the range of film/paper/tap thickness, it would be useful to know which films are the best and which are the worst. I could live with Kodak and/or Ilford. With Efke gone, I'd like to be able to use Rollei IR, but Ilford SFX would do. It wouldn't take long to come up with a list.

Have you noticed any frame spacing issues on film that you've shot since narrowing the film gap?

 

[ic-racer]

Setting infinity is different for each lens style and each camera style. Even the Rollei SL 50mm/1.8 and 50mm/1.4 lenses set the infinity stop different. Last month I had just re-set the infinity stop on my 2.8F to a slightly closer distance to match the Hy6, which is very easy. The Horseman medium format cameras, are also easy to adjust, by moving the infinity stops on the focus track. I already had those focusing slightly in front of infinity due to the 6x9 film backs not usually holding the film perfectly flat (slight forward bulge).
I looked back through my disassembly pictures and I don't have any that show the helicoid mechanism for these 6000 style lenses. Probably would not post them anyway due to DW Photo and Eric recommending against users altering this.

I'm curious to see how the 6008AF autofocus works, since it uses the same film magazines as my 6008i.

The Hy6 6060 motor drives the film through smoothly with no audible stress, except for the tape coming through at the beginning. Frame spacing is great. The frame numbers fall slightly different from the 6008i, so I can easily tell which camera is exposing the film.

The reason I had posted about the care needed in handling the inserts is my tests with 0.4 and 0,3 are distinguishable with a loupe. At 0.4, the focal point is not quite at the hyperfocal distance for an 8x8" print. More like a 2x2" print.
So, if the insert gets knocked out whack even 0.1mm that can show under critical examination.

 

[GG12]

Interesting findings. Are the two (.3 and .4) both shot wide open? It would seem then for max accuracy, you also “tune” to a particular film thickness? How easily does some of this specificity go away with a bit more aperture?
FYI- this is much less an issue with digital, I guess because the sensor plane is always in the same spot and is very flat.

 

[ic-racer]

Interesting findings. Are the two (.3 and .4) both shot wide open? It would seem then for max accuracy, you also “tune” to a particular film thickness? How easily does some of this specificity go away with a bit more aperture?
FYI- this is much less an issue with digital, I guess because the sensor plane is always in the same spot and is very flat.

I progressively advanced the pressure plate from 0.6 to 0.3 in 0.1mm increments, testing infinity along the way. I wanted to go closer than 0.3mm, because it was not quite at infinity yet, but read the posts about the lens set at hyperfocal distance. I went back to re-evaluate my 0.3 negatives (posted above) and, it does appear about 45 meters* to be the focal point. So I stopped testing at 0.3mm.

*Rollei DOF tables for 80mm Planar on 6x6 format show hyperfocal distance at f2.8 from 55 to 40 meters depending on etc., etc, etc. the usual things on which hyperfocal distance is dependent.
On-line Hyperfocal Calculator shows 48 meters with CoC 0.045mm.

Paper+HP5+Tape = 0.4mm. But the tests showed focus at the hyperfocal distance for f5.6 (25meters), not f2.8!
Having mentioned that, the negatives at f11 are razor-sharp at infinity even when the pressure plate was at 0.4mm. So, if one has a film binding issue at 0.3, setting to 0.4 might be a reasonable compromise.
HP5 + Paper = 0.27mm so it should theoretically pass through a 0.3mm channel OK.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Paper+HP5+Tape = 0.4mm. But the tests showed focus at the hyperfocal distance for f5.6 (25meters), not f2.8!
Having mentioned that, the negatives at f11 are razor-sharp at infinity even when the pressure plate was at 0.4mm. So, if one has a film binding issue at 0.3, setting to 0.4 might be a reasonable compromise.
HP5 + Paper = 0.27mm so it should theoretically pass through a 0.3mm channel OK.

Ah-ha! That's a good point. The tape doesn't figure into the frames running together since the tape has already gone through.

I purged some expired film from the fridge yesterday, but just went back and pulled the 120 rolls out of the garbage in case I need them for experimentation purposes.

I've also been thinking of how I might suspend my laser alignment tool. That's the perfect way to check to see if the plate is perpendicular to the lens axis. I have to remember to do before and after measurements.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Just for the hell of it, when I was doing those test shots with the Hy6, I also did one with my Rolleiflex 3.5E with the lens wide open. The lens on the TLR is a 75mm f3.5 Planar, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, but it looks like it focused pretty accurately at 12 feet which is pretty good for a 64 year old camera. The film was Delta 3200 (expired in 2013) at EI 800 and developed in 7 year old HC-110. Its usefulness for tests like this is limited, to say the least.

[edit] I also just noticed I scanned that negative at 3200 dpi while the others were all 2400 dpi. I'm actually kind of impressed with this cheap Epson V600 scanner. Since I normally scan darkroom prints for pictures I post on the web, I never really had much use for the negative scanner function.

 

[GG12]

I progressively advanced the pressure plate from 0.6 to 0.3 in 0.1mm increments, testing infinity along the way. I wanted to go closer than 0.3mm, because it was not quite at infinity yet, but read the posts about the lens set at hyperfocal distance. I went back to re-evaluate my 0.3 negatives (posted above) and, it does appear about 45 meters* to be the focal point. So I stopped testing at 0.3mm.

*Rollei DOF tables for 80mm Planar on 6x6 format show hyperfocal distance at f2.8 from 55 to 40 meters depending on etc., etc, etc. the usual things on which hyperfocal distance is dependent.
On-line Hyperfocal Calculator shows 48 meters with CoC 0.045mm.

Paper+HP5+Tape = 0.4mm. But the tests showed focus at the hyperfocal distance for f5.6 (25meters), not f2.8!
Having mentioned that, the negatives at f11 are razor-sharp at infinity even when the pressure plate was at 0.4mm. So, if one has a film binding issue at 0.3, setting to 0.4 might be a reasonable compromise.
HP5 + Paper = 0.27mm so it should theoretically pass through a 0.3mm channel OK.

When you say hyperfocal 45-55meters, do you mean that at that distance, then infinity is in focus too?

 

[ic-racer]

When you say hyperfocal 45-55meters, do you mean that at that distance, then infinity is in focus too?

By definition, that 45-55 meters the distance that is in focus as determined by high magnification of my negatives and where the focus ring would be set. Again, by definition, when the print is held at a pre-deterimed viewing distance, YES, infinity will appear to be in focus, as well as subjects as close as 25 meters.
There is no ISO standard for hyperfocal distance, it is all viewer dependent.

Usually the marks on the lens by the manufacturer are for snapshot size prints.

 

[Pieter12]

The frame numbers fall slightly different from the 6008i,

The travel direction of the film in the Hy6 is opposite the 6008. Makes it easy to distinguish which camera was used.