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

[Pieter12]

So, anyone know what this indicates?

 

[ic-racer]

Of course, the travel direction is different, should have seen that.

When that function is "on" the frame number is displayed in the camera viewfinder and the apostrophe is shown. When this function is "off" the apostrophe goes away.

 

[Pieter12]

Thanks. Navigating the Hy6 manual can be quite frustrating. Now I have another question: what is meant by Back Out/In? I assume it is not just for digital since the illustration shows a film back in use.

 

[GG12]

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.

We have slightly different understandings of hyperfocal - I thought that if you focused on a point (say 45m), the hyperlocal focusing numbers were the near and far distances in focus at a given aperture (say 25m to ∞). But its all good - as long as ∞ is covered. It is interesting to see the level of precision that is now being applied to this issue of film alignment and infinity focus. I don't recall such precise discussions before this.

 

[Dave Krueger]

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.

I understand why people would want to set the camera at the hyperfocal distance, I just don't think it's beneficial for people to be forced to do it. If I am taking a picture of Mount Uluru in Australia, I don't want the camera telling me that focusing my expensive, ultrasharp Schneider lens at 45 meters is good enough. In the Hy6, where the designers went to such pains to compensate for errors in third party sensor positions, it seems counter productive to limit the focus to hyperfocal distance. If the sensor is slightly too far rearward, the camera won't even be able to focus out to hyperfocal distance. In the case of a film back, if the film plane is too far rearward, as we believe might sometimes be the case, the camera will not be able to focus out to the hyperfocal distance. I came across an article about infinity focus where the main complaint was that camera makers were allowing cameras to focus past infinity for various reasons. I have yet to come across anything arguing for limiting distant focus to less than infinity.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Thanks. Navigating the Hy6 manual can be quite frustrating. Now I have another question: what is meant by Back Out/In? I assume it is not just for digital since the illustration shows a film back in use.
View attachment 258474

Good question. I noticed this, too. In fact, I asked Eric about it several days ago, but I then completely forgot about it.

 

[ic-racer]

We have slightly different understandings of hyperfocal - I thought that if you focused on a point (say 45m), the hyperlocal focusing numbers were the near and far distances in focus at a given aperture (say 25m to ∞). But its all good - as long as ∞ is covered. It is interesting to see the level of precision that is now being applied to this issue of film alignment and infinity focus. I don't recall such precise discussions before this.

Yes, that is true.

 

[ic-racer]

I understand why people would want to set the camera at the hyperfocal distance, I just don't think it's beneficial for people to be forced to do it. If I am taking a picture of Mount Uluru in Australia, I don't want the camera telling me that focusing my expensive, ultrasharp Schneider lens at 45 meters is good enough. In the Hy6, where the designers went to such pains to compensate for errors in third party sensor positions, it seems counter productive to limit the focus to hyperfocal distance. If the sensor is slightly too far rearward, the camera won't even be able to focus out to hyperfocal distance. In the case of a film back, if the film plane is too far rearward, as we believe might sometimes be the case, the camera will not be able to focus out to the hyperfocal distance. I came across an article about infinity focus where the main complaint was that camera makers were allowing cameras to focus past infinity for various reasons. I have yet to come across anything arguing for limiting distant focus to less than infinity.

I suspect the real answer lies in compatibility somehow with digital backs and rollfilm in the same camera.
A practical consideration is that 1) a previous camera (SLX) was notorious for film bulge, in that case when a lens is focused at infinity, NOTHING is in focus. 2) Unless there is mechanical damage, film can only move FORWARD in the film channel if it were not to be 100% flat. Again, with perfect infinity focus, the risk is portions of an image with no focal point (focus past infinity). Rollei at one time had a vacuum back for the 6000 series to help with film flatness.
3) I use B&W film but even when I sent my SLX to have the film gate checked in 1988, they tested the camera with color film, and said nothing was wrong with it. I'm not a wedding photographer, I don't use color film. Not then not now.
4) The behavior of B&W film is a film gate is unpredictable. There is no standardization if film base or thickness. Films can be rolled tight or loose and have various levels of memory. The paper is not standardized, or may not even be present (220).
5) I'm still looking for the article, but I believe it was in the 1990s in the Zeiss literature. They indicated that resolution of fast medium format lenses had already exceeded the camera's ability to hold 120 film flat. This was the generation of Zeiss lenses PRIOR to the current Schneider Hy6 lenses.

 

[GG12]

I suspect the real answer lies in compatibility somehow with digital backs and rollfilm in the same camera.
A practical consideration is that 1) a previous camera (SLX) was notorious for film bulge, in that case when a lens is focused at infinity, NOTHING is in focus. 2) Unless there is mechanical damage, film can only move FORWARD in the film channel if it were not to be 100% flat. Again, with perfect infinity focus, the risk is portions of an image with no focal point (focus past infinity). Rollei at one time had a vacuum back for the 6000 series to help with film flatness.
3) I use B&W film but even when I sent my SLX to have the film gate checked in 1988, they tested the camera with color film, and said nothing was wrong with it. I'm not a wedding photographer, I don't use color film. Not then not now.
4) The behavior of B&W film is a film gate is unpredictable. There is no standardization if film base or thickness. Films can be rolled tight or loose and have various levels of memory. The paper is not standardized, or may not even be present (220).
5) I'm still looking for the article, but I believe it was in the 1990s in the Zeiss literature. They indicated that resolution of fast medium format lenses had already exceeded the camera's ability to hold 120 film flat. This was the generation of Zeiss lenses PRIOR to the current Schneider Hy6 lenses.

Very interesting. Seem to recall with the 6008 backs that Rollei was extremely proud of the fact that the film was held flatter than the Hassy V backs (don't know if that was true, but it seemed possible). This might coincide with Hans' noting of an outside tester confirming that.
Anyone recall the Leica DMR? It (like the Hy6) featured a digital back that could "mount" to a R9, or one could use film. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but then was given up by Leica when everyone was pushing to more integrated digital back:camera setups, in order to guarantee the precision required. At this same time Hassy gave up the idea of open systems, and went to closed systems for their cameras. I mention this because as you noted, it is quite difficult to serve both film and digital backs well. It would seem one has to optimize for one over the other.
Might one then read Rollei's Hy6 use of hyperfocal for the film back plate distance as a way of dealing with different film thicknesses?

 

[Dave Krueger]

Didn't someone once market a glassless negative carrier for enlargers that had fingers that held down the negative while also stretching it across the opening? I think it was for sheet film, though. Maybe that's a myth. I can't find much about it.

[edit] Here it is: http://grahamp.dotinthelandscape.org/negaflat.html

Is this mostly a problem with detachable film backs? It seems like film backs stretch the film rearward across the pressure plate rather than forward across the guides on either side of the film gate. In the latter case, the paper thickness and slot width would be less of a factor. The latter case would include TLRs, 35mm cameras, and MFs like the Pentax 67 (I think).

 

[Pieter12]

Didn't someone once market a glassless negative carrier for enlargers that had fingers that held down the negative while also stretching it across the opening? I think it was for sheet film, though. Maybe that's a myth. I can't find much about it.

I think that was the Beseler Negaflat.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I think that was the Beseler Negaflat.

That's it! I think it would have to be outrageously expensive and very fragile ( I mean assuming the idea was adapted to holding MF film flat in cameras).

 

[Pieter12]

That's it! I think it would have to be outrageously expensive and very fragile ( I mean assuming the idea was adapted to holding MF film flat in cameras).

Maybe not . https://www.ebay.com/p/1203888434

 

[Pieter12]

There was the Contax 645 vacuum back: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Contax_645_AF

 

[ic-racer]

Going back to the apostrophe mentioned above in post #351. I think the apostrophe indicates that the camera is now showing the number of exposures on a single frame (multi-exposure mode) vs showing which frame is in the film stage.

 

[Dave Krueger]

There was the Contax 645 vacuum back: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Contax_645_AF

Holy crap. It actually creates a vacuum internally? I was picturing at vacuum hose attachment. That is really clever.

 

[Eric Hiss]

Apostrophe - wow there are so many little things I still don't know for sure but you can toggle the ' on or off by using the mode button until you see the 'on' on the left side and hitting the plus or minus button. Once off, the apostrophe will go away. My understanding is that tells the back to display the frame number on the back or not.
You can do some other things with the film backs that I never learned exactly like storing a film type supposedly by pressing the mode button twice.

While we are on the discussion of the film backs - good idea to change the 2 little batteries in there out every two years or so. They do last for a long time but...

 

[Eric Hiss]

I have a couple of the Bowens Negatrans film holders for 120 roll and 4x5 sheet - they are really handy for 'scanning' with DSLR or in my case 6008AF and CF 528 multi-shot digital back and Schneider Makro Symmar in Rollei M39/40 behind the lens adapter. The best part about the negatrans for 120 is the film advance. I'm not actually using them now since I bought a IQsmart3 but the 6008/multishot actually gave a slightly better result than the IQSmart3 but seemed more work.

 

[Eric Hiss]

Leica did not give up the DMR at all and never wanted to, but unfortunately Imacon who developed it for Leica and was building and calibrating the electronics was bought by Hasselblad. Hasselblad barred them from doing further work with Leica so Leica had to drop the DMR.

In general terms the talk about precision with respect to sensor placement making it difficult to fit digital backs onto various cameras was a lot of hot air. The real work has to do with making the camera communicate various settings like ISO and shutter speed to the digital component. The work done here with film position in the Hy6 already proves it can be done pretty easily since film is even harder to iteratively align than digital.

 

[Pieter12]

Going back to the apostrophe mentioned above in post #351. I think the apostrophe indicates that the camera is now showing the number of exposures on a single frame (multi-exposure mode) vs showing which frame is in the film stage.

You were correct the first time, it indicates the frame number is also displayed in the viewfinder.

I have a couple of the Bowens Negatrans film holders for 120 roll and 4x5 sheet - they are really handy for 'scanning' with DSLR or in my case 6008AF and CF 528 multi-shot digital back and Schneider Makro Symmar in Rollei M39/40 behind the lens adapter. The best part about the negatrans for 120 is the film advance. I'm not actually using them now since I bought a IQsmart3 but the 6008/multishot actually gave a slightly better result than the IQSmart3 but seemed more work.

Now that the subject of digital backs has come up, I wonder what the availability of backs is for the Hy6 and if backs for other cameras can be used with the appropriate adapter?

 

[Dave Krueger]

Leica did not give up the DMR at all and never wanted to, but unfortunately Imacon who developed it for Leica and was building and calibrating the electronics was bought by Hasselblad. Hasselblad barred them from doing further work with Leica so Leica had to drop the DMR.

In general terms the talk about precision with respect to sensor placement making it difficult to fit digital backs onto various cameras was a lot of hot air. The real work has to do with making the camera communicate various settings like ISO and shutter speed to the digital component. The work done here with film position in the Hy6 already proves it can be done pretty easily since film is even harder to iteratively align than digital.

Is that what post #353 is all about? BACK IN and BACK OUT signal levels (Hi vs Lo)?

 

[Eric Hiss]

Now that the subject of digital backs has come up, I wonder what the availability of backs is for the Hy6 and if backs for other cameras can be used with the appropriate adapter?

The only universal backs that can be fit to the Hy6/AFi bodies with adapter plates will be the Sinar emotion, evolution and 76, 86H backs. Sinar made both revolving and fixed adapters for fitting their backs to Hy6 and a number of other different camera systems. The other backs made for Hy6 mount were dedicated. Leaf did make a conversion kit for the AFi series backs in Hy6 Mount backs to also be fit to the Mamiya RZ backs but it requires unscrewing the 4 locking pins and some other changes that while 100% reversible takes enough time that you would not be going back and forth often.

 

[Pieter12]

I thought I should give the Hy6 manual another reading-through, and noticed this entry about manual flash sync. It seems it should be the other way around, that speeds faster than 1/250 could cause problems with studio flash. Or am I misreading this altogether?

 

[Eric Hiss]

Never seen an issue with studio strobes and strobe timing with the Hy6. I think you can disregard this note in the manual.

 

[ic-racer]

I think

I thought I should give the Hy6 manual another reading-through, and noticed this entry about manual flash sync. It seems it should be the other way around, that speeds faster than 1/250 could cause problems with studio flash. Or am I misreading this altogether?
View attachment 258582

I think this is a poor translation. The prior manual (6008AF) was correct. Of course, why am I reading the 6008AF manual? Guess what came in the mail today !!!