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

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have been using those since the 1980s. View attachment 253996

Your camera bag must be quite large.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Interesting. I had a problem with one of the film inserts being too tight and shrining the motor so after a few frames it would not advance a full frame at a time, resulting in overlapping frames. Sometimes it wouldn't even wind to the end of the film, resulting in my having to spoil the end of the roll by opening the back and winding the film up by hand. I also noticed that one of the geared sides would only turn in one direction. That insert was returned to the factory and came back seemingly OK. Here are photos of the now repaired insert, and there is a metal washer on one geared side, but not on the other. The other insert I have is in the camera with film. I will check that one when I take it out.

On the one that came back from the factory, does the side without the washer rotate relatively easily in both directions? I didn't notice any difference in function between the two gears when I first got the insert. So, it apparently became hard to turn on the non-washer side after I shot a few rolls through it.

 

[Pieter12]

First, both inserts went back to the factory, along with the back because there was a light leak that needed to be dealt with. I don't remember if there were washers as you point out on either one. One of the inserts that came back from the factory had the issue not advancing and shrining the motor. That one was exchanged for another by Eric. That is the one that I know has the washer on one side. The side with the washer moves more freely than the one without. Also, all the inserts that have come from the factory, with the exception of the original two, have paint missing around the screws near the base leading me to think some sort of adjustment was made.

 

[Dave Krueger]

First, both inserts went back to the factory, along with the back because there was a light leak that needed to be dealt with. I don't remember if there were washers as you point out on either one. One of the inserts that came back from the factory had the issue not advancing and shrining the motor. That one was exchanged for another by Eric. That is the one that I know has the washer on one side. The side with the washer moves more freely than the one without. Also, all the inserts that have come from the factory, with the exception of the original two, have paint missing around the screws near the base leading me to think some sort of adjustment was made.]

Pieter, thanks for those details and for the great pictures. The washerless gear on mine turns freely in the same direction as the arrow in your picture. I am baffled as to why they would put a washer on one gear and not the other when the insert is supposed to be symmetrical. In any case, I am no longer treating the insert as symmetrical (see labels in picture), but I do wonder if the washerless gear will eventually start to bind in both directions.

As for the pressure plate adjustment screws, maybe they just perform the same test/adjustment procedures on inserts sent back for repair as they do for production. That was a fairly common practice in manufacturing environments where I've worked.

 

[Eric Hiss]

On the film inserts - I just had a look at my own 6060 insert which has worked flawlessly since when the 6060 film backs first came out. It has only one washer, just like what others have shown. I would not jump to assume that having only one is a flaw, or to a conclusion that the film inserts need to be loaded only one way. I've shot hundreds of rolls, never thought about orientation or anything. I have asked the factory to provide me an explanation about how they set the film insert platten spacing, and if it would differ for each individual film back, or even if it matters - because the platten is spring loaded after all, but until now I've not gotten any real useful or technical explanation. I'm not certain what Geoff got from them is really accurate either. For reference only - My insert measures .45mm from edge to platten. My main film stocks are t-max 400, portra 400, 800, delta 3200, ilford 100, Ektar occasionally. But I've shot may different films - I don't know what to make of the talk about certain film stocks working better than others. I only know that after processing some like to curl and some dry flat. Honestly this whole time I have been assuming that the spring pushed the platten up until the rollers on the insert touched the rollers on the film back body - or more precisely the film was pinched between the sets of rollers. I can't imagine what else the spring under the platten would be there for except to accommodate differences in film substrate+paper thickness. It kind of looks like to me that the platten is adjusted simply to be even with the insert rollers, not for any kind of "infinity" adjustment. This is certainly the case in my own perfectly working insert. I put a straight edge across the platten and it touches the rollers with no gaps. That said, I've noted IC-racers success with that kind of adjustment. Without any word from the factory engineers I can't address more with certainty. I hope they are also looking at this thread.

The AF offsets can vary by as much as the total adjustment range in the camera. I used to keep a log to see if there might be a set range for each lens focal, but didn't get data to support that notion. Usually the AF offset is positive and +10 or +15 is quite common for 80mm AFD but not always. I can say that I've only seen a few lenses which were negative. I used to keep a little cheat sheet in my phone with a list of AF offsets, but honestly I don't use the AF or AF confirmation much (more now that I'm a bit older) but still not very often. Part of the reason I don't is I found that relying on the AF caused me to get shots where the subject was centered in the frame which isn't usually the most energetic composition. The manual focusing with focus screen and eye is a different circuit completely from the AF electronics,but be advised that if you change the film insert platten you can mess up the focus screen calibration. If you go from film to one of the Leaf or Sinar digital backs you may benefit from slight adjustments in AF offset and focus screen calibration for that particular body and back pairing. The last few sentences touch on something important - these cameras are a modular design - besides just changing lenses, you can change out viewfinders, focus screens, film backs, digital backs, etc. It's like a race car or bike - you'd set it up for your course and weather, but you'd still need to know your machine and in different configurations to get the most performance out of it. The lenses for this system are just phenomenal. There have been some great posts here sharing tips about decoupling AF and AE from the shutter and some other things - very useful.

 

[GG12]

Great post - thanks Eric!

 

[ic-racer]

Again, thank you Eric Hiss for contributing.
This diagram I made does not have anything to do with the pressure plate adjustment, but it does show how the film is pulled tight. It is my own drawing, so it may contain errors. I have not seen an official factory schematic of the mechanism.
In all my years of medium format photography, I think this 6060 magazine holds the film the flattest. I hope I'm not revealing a factory secret here.

Just to show that all the time there is always some load on the motor pulling the film through. And, similar to the Rolleiflex TLR Automat, there will always be a 'bump' when the tape comes through the rollers. This would all be normal.

 

[Dave Krueger]

On the film inserts - I just had a look at my own 6060 insert which has worked flawlessly since when the 6060 film backs first came out. It has only one washer, just like what others have shown. I would not jump to assume that having only one is a flaw, or to a conclusion that the film inserts need to be loaded only one way. I've shot hundreds of rolls, never thought about orientation or anything.

Eric, the fact that you have inserts that work flawlessly, is not an argument that others don't. Apparently, I am not the only one here who has had insert problems that cause film advance slippage or motor stress. The spool on the side with no washer turns very hard in one direction on my insert. My conclusion is that that may not be good for the motor. The insert is supposed to be symmetrical, but it is not. If that's "jumping to conclusions", so be it.

I have asked the factory to provide me an explanation about how they set the film insert platten spacing, and if it would differ for each individual film back, or even if it matters - because the platten is spring loaded after all, but until now I've not gotten any real useful or technical explanation. I'm not certain what Geoff got from them is really accurate either.

My confidence in what the factory says can't get any lower. They told me that it is "impossible" for the film back to cause the focus problems I was having and you're saying what Geoff published from the factory may be wrong. And now you're telling us that you're waiting for yet another explanation from the factory. The whole time you were arguing in this thread that we should let the factory adjust the pressure plate instead of doing it ourselves, my Hy6 was at the factory screaming that the pressure plate needed adjustment. When they sent the camera back claiming it had no problem, I adjusted the pressure plate and BINGO!, I finally had a working camera.

The AF offsets can vary by as much as the total adjustment range in the camera.

Specifically regarding film photography, I documented very clearly that the offset range (-33 to +33) was insufficient to allow my brand new Hy6 to auto focus on a target 12 feet away. Additionally, it would barely focus across the street when manually set to infinity. 2.5 hours after Fedex delivered my Hy6 to the factory, they sent me a statement claiming that my problem was simply that I set the focus area to SMALL instead of FULL (I have yet to find any info from Rolleiflex describing which focus area size to use). When I got the camera back I tested that claim and found that setting the focus area to FULL instead of SMALL usually had no effect, but when it did, it always exacerbated the focus accuracy problem on the tests I was conducting. After repeating my tests and confirming that the camera was behaving exactly as it did when I sent it to the factory, I followed the recommendations posted on this forum for adjusting the pressure plate. I then repeated the tests again. The offsets for my three lenses are now 0 to +12.

In conclusion, I will say that the Hy6 is a truly superb product, but the one I got had problems right out of the box. Hey, it happens. But, the factory that you speak so highly of, blamed a clearly established mechanical issue, specific to film, on an incorrect AF menu setting, potentially leaving me with a very expensive paper weight. I say, "potentially" because, thanks to the postings on this thread, I was able to rescue my Hy6 from that fate.

The fact that more of you have not had this problem is not proof that I didn't have it. As far as I'm concerned, the factory screwed this one up. Others are, of course, free to have a different view. I will make any test results as well as the problem statement I sent to the factory available to anyone who wants to see it.

I hope the problem (yes, problem) with the hard-to-turn gears in the insert is resolved and not just explained away as if having only one washer in a symmetrical design is part of the secret sauce that makes the Hy6 so wonderful.

My apologies for the long rant. I have a huge regard for everyone who has participated in this discussion and am happy for those who love their Hy6s and have nothing but good things to say about their experiences. As of right now, I am happy that my Hy6 works, but it's been an uphill battle.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Again, thank you Eric Hiss for contributing.
This diagram I made does not have anything to do with the pressure plate adjustment, but it does show how the film is pulled tight. It is my own drawing, so it may contain errors. I have not seen an official factory schematic of the mechanism.
In all my years of medium format photography, I think this 6060 magazine holds the film the flattest. I hope I'm not revealing a factory secret here.

Just to show that all the time there is always some load on the motor pulling the film through. And, similar to the Rolleiflex TLR Automat, there will always be a 'bump' when the tape comes through the rollers. This would all be normal.

Your picture shows the teflon tape spanning the entire width of the film. I'm confused about what your picture shows versus what I am seeing in my 6060 back.

 

[ic-racer]

In you picture I'm calling that roller the "Upper Magazine Roller" and there is a trough just above the roller so the film does not touch. If you look inside the clam-shell, there would be a raised area by the other roller that would be covered by a strip of teflon tape. Is that the case?

 

[Dave Krueger]

In you picture I'm calling that roller the "Upper Magazine Roller" and there is a trough just above the roller so the film does not touch. If you look inside the clam-shell, there would be a raised area by the other roller that would be covered by a strip of teflon tape. Is that the case?

Here is the other end of the clamshell. I don't see any teflon tape inside my film back aside from what I pictured in the post above.

 

[Eric Hiss]

Again, thank you Eric Hiss for contributing.
This diagram I made does not have anything to do with the pressure plate adjustment, but it does show how the film is pulled tight. It is my own drawing, so it may contain errors. I have not seen an official factory schematic of the mechanism.
In all my years of medium format photography, I think this 6060 magazine holds the film the flattest. I hope I'm not revealing a factory secret here.

Just to show that all the time there is always some load on the motor pulling the film through. And, similar to the Rolleiflex TLR Automat, there will always be a 'bump' when the tape comes through the rollers. This would all be normal.

Welcome of course and I just wish I had been provided more technical information from the factory about the 6060 film backs. Your drawing didn't load for me this morning so I could not see it unfortunately. You could be right about film flatness re 6060 and 6000/6008 series cameras also have a good reputation for film flatness. If anyone has seen any studies of MF cameras testing flatness I would be curious to see them.

Eric, the fact that you have inserts that work flawlessly, is not an argument that others don't. Apparently, I am not the only one here who has had insert problems that cause film advance slippage or motor stress. The spool on the side with no washer turns very hard in one direction on my insert. My conclusion is that that may not be good for the motor. The insert is supposed to be symmetrical, but it is not. If that's "jumping to conclusions", so be it.

When I pointed out that my own insert that has only one washer has worked flawlessly, I was mostly pointing out that likely isn't a cause of fault. I'm asking people to not conclude that an insert having only one washer must mean it's defective. I am making a note of your observation with asymmetry.

I adjusted the pressure plate and BINGO!, I finally had a working camera.

Well it's interesting to me to read this. What spacing did you adjust your insert to? Adjusting the insert spacing will for sure affect the focus screen calibration so you may want to check that.
I'm sorry that the factory was unable to turn up any of your issues after repeated tests. They even went to the trouble to ask an outside pro to test the camera with 3 lenses since they could get the problem themselves. Unfortunately after all said and done, they may have mutual feelings towards you. I feel caught in the middle and I don't want to take sides. I do want to learn all that I can about how the film back/insert on 6060 works, and am keeping an open mind on it.

RE Geoff's new document - I think the information he got was from management and not from engineering if you follow my drift. Nevertheless, that information didn't suggest that the infinity focus should be adjusted by the user changing the platten spacing.

I myself am a bit of a tinkerer and I fully expect people to mod their gear - from cameras to bikes and cars and computers so I have nothing against it. Actually I think it's pretty cool and a lot of Rollei users have done some pretty cool things with their cameras. Like the guy who made himself a digital TLR by adding a phase p45 back to his Rolleicord for example, or my own custom tilt shift 150mm lens for the Hy6. The factory has also worked with photographers to help them develop one-off or specialized cameras or accessories. That's how they got so many odd and unusual accessories with product runs of like 10 pieces for this system. The modular design of the system really enables a lot of possibilities.

I think of myself as first and foremost a user, but as a dealer I have to point out that user mods generally void warranties.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I also noticed there is a piece of black tape on each side of the lower clamshell, presumably to patch a light leak.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I'm sorry that the factory was unable to turn up any of your issues after repeated tests.

Yes, they promised to have the photographer email me. Never happened and I never got any test results. Not one. Unlike mine which were well documented and published for everyone to see.

I think of myself as first and foremost a user, but as a dealer I have to point out that user mods generally void warranties.

When the factory didn't fix the camera, fixing it myself was the only option left. Nevertheless, I am glad you made that explicitly clear.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Well it's interesting to me to read this. What spacing did you adjust your insert to? Adjusting the insert spacing will for sure affect the focus screen calibration so you may want to check that.

Sorry, I meant to answer this.

I set it to 0.30 mm. It was previously approaching 0.70 mm. Since the viewing screen was already out of position, it would have needed adjustment anyway.

In any case, leaving the camera largely unusable seems like a poor trade off to save having to readjust the viewing screen.

 

[ic-racer]

Very interesting the lack of the Teflon tape. Or maybe the presence of the tape on mine. Maybe others can chime in here. On mine there is a raised area with a hatched surface, covered with Teflon tape just beyond the roller.
Looks very purposely built this way. This is where the film gets squeezed by the big roller on the insert.

 

[Eric Hiss]

The production of the 6060 film backs is very slow and steady. All are hand assembled. Like the Hy6, subtle changes have occured during the production run. On the 6060's I have seen a number of changes from unit to unit. I am not surprised at all to see several different pictures here showing different treatments. I don't think it can be concluded one is better than the other, though they are different. For more than 60 years people have argued over which TLR is best, Schneider, Zeiss, White face, etc. 2.8F, 3.5F, some like the C for the aperture.

 

[Dave Krueger]

In you picture I'm calling that roller the "Upper Magazine Roller" and there is a trough just above the roller so the film does not touch. If you look inside the clam-shell, there would be a raised area by the other roller that would be covered by a strip of teflon tape. Is that the case?

So, what's the purpose of the Teflon covered thingy on the upper end of the magazine in my picture? It doesn't seem to engage with anything. Or am I just missing something?

 

[ic-racer]

Probably just a precaution. I believe that teflon is to eliminate the possibility of any scratches if the spooled film becomes loose. It might touch there. My magazine has the same.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Probably just a precaution. I believe that teflon is to eliminate the possibility of any scratches if the spooled film becomes loose. It might touch there. My magazine has the same.

I don't know very much about film flatness aside from what you've written about it. If it causes a non-uniform film plane, then I assume I would have seen some non-uniform focus on the infinity pictures I took with the lens wide open. If it's a problem mainly with 6000 series cameras, I've never had one of those (yet).

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I don't know very much about film flatness aside from what you've written about it. If it causes a non-uniform film plane, then I assume I would have seen some non-uniform focus on the infinity pictures I took with the lens wide open. If it's a problem mainly with 6000 series cameras, I've never had one of those (yet).

I have read the same complaints about film flatness pertaining to Hasselblad A12 backs and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, but am not sure if I have ever experienced it (or do not know what to look for). Possibly DoF normally masks minor film bowing. Also, I have never left film in a back for months; I normally use up a roll within a few days. But I can see that a Fuji 670/680/690 ("Texas Leica") would have less film flexing trouble because the film rides straight across the rails. I am impressed how you all have tried to troubleshoot these issues. I'm glad I use simple cameras.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Interesting. I had a problem with one of the film inserts being too tight and shrining the motor so after a few frames it would not advance a full frame at a time, resulting in overlapping frames. Sometimes it wouldn't even wind to the end of the film, resulting in my having to spoil the end of the roll by opening the back and winding the film up by hand. I also noticed that one of the geared sides would only turn in one direction. That insert was returned to the factory and came back seemingly OK. Here are photos of the now repaired insert, and there is a metal washer on one geared side, but not on the other. The other insert I have is in the camera with film. I will check that one when I take it out.

I have been making some measurements of the torque required to turn the spools on both the washered and unwashered side of my insert. On my insert, the unwashered side requires roughly a little more than four times as much torque to turn the empty spool as it does on the washered side. Then, as the take-up spool fills up with film, the film tension exerts greater torque on the take-up spool, further loading the motor. I don't know if that could lead to overlapping frames toward the end of the film or for the motor to be unable to completely pull all the film through. It's probably just my OCD kicking in, but it seems like a small thing to always move the take-up spool to the washered side of the insert. It also seems reasonable to occasionally check the unwashered spool to make sure it isn't becoming stiffer.

I do wonder what makes the unwashered spool turn more easily in one direction than the other.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I have read the same complaints about film flatness pertaining to Hasselblad A12 backs and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, but am not sure if I have ever experienced it (or do not know what to look for). Possibly DoF normally masks minor film bowing. Also, I have never left film in a back for months; I normally use up a roll within a few days. But I can see that a Fuji 670/680/690 ("Texas Leica") would have less film flexing trouble because the film rides straight across the rails. I am impressed how you all have tried to troubleshoot these issues. I'm glad I use simple cameras.

Yeah, especially when it comes to medium format, I always finish a roll of film within a day of loading it. I tend not to shoot wide open very often, but that was mostly because I wasn't overly impressed with the wide-open performance of the lenses I was using. This is the first time I've ever had fast Schneider lenses to play with, so I would not want film flatness to be an issue.

With regard to the troubleshooting, I think some people just can't help wanting to find out why machines behave the way they do (especially if they think it should be behaving differently). It doesn't matter if it's a camera, a lawn mower, or a garage door opener.

 

[ic-racer]

Classic film bulge on my old SLX presented itself as a landscape scene where the edges of the frame near the horizon were very sharp, but the center of the scene is out of focus at the horizon. All the areas from the horizon to the nearest point are progressively worse. The film bulge pushes the focus out beyond infinity, so nothing is in focus (except the edges where the film gate is keeping the film flat. )

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Classic film bulge on my old SLX presented itself as a landscape scene where the edges of the frame near the horizon were very sharp, but the center of the scene is out of focus at the horizon. All the areas from the horizon to the nearest point are progressively worse. The film bulge pushes the focus out beyond infinity, so nothing is in focus (except the edges where the film gate is keeping the film flat. )

I think my 1949-vintage Leica IIIC may experience this bulge. Recall that the IIIC loads from the bottom, and I do not know if it has a pressure plate as do more recent 35mm cameras with a back that swings open. My Summitar may also have significant field curvature (which can be useful if you want the grass at your feet or the shops lining an alley to be in focus).