Rolleiflex TLR questions

[Uhner]

A few months ago I bought a Rolleiflex TLR and I have two rather trifling questions regarding this camera.

I have unsuccessfully tried to identify the model of the camera because I can’t find any serial number on the body. One possibility that might explain this is that my example is made up from parts from different models. My guess however, based on the features and details of the camera, is that it is a 2.8 E2 or E3. It has a removable focusing hood, a Gossen selenium light meter and a 2.8 Zeiss Planar taking lens with serial number 34967xx in a Synchro-Compur shutter. It lacks several details of the F models. I wonder if anyone recognise the model of this particular camera?

My next question concerns another small, but rather odd problem. On a few of the several hundred exposures that I have made with the camera so far there is a three millimetre high, perfectly vertical and uniform part of added density on the base of the negatives. I might add that there is no apparent fogging outside the exposed part of the film. What is going on here?

 

[tony lockerbie]

Hi, I don't have a list of Zeiss serial numbers to date your camera but there will be a number on the top just behind the name plate as you look down from above. If I had this number I can give you the exact model and date it was made. Also this serial number will be prefixed by the model no. anyway, such as 2.8f ..... or 2.8e..... etc. The lightmeters were available as an option on all these cameras and could also be retro fitted by the factory.
The fogging may be caused by one of the shutter blades "hanging" a little, ie, not closing as quickly as the others. I had a similar problem with a Voigtlander Bessa and it took ages to work it out because, like yours, it was very intermittent.
A shutter CLA would cure that problem for you. How are the slow speeds?
This is where any problem usually surfaces first.
Hope this helps, Tony

 

[Uhner]

Thanks Tony. Apparently its time for a CLA…

I have a Rolleiflex Automat that has the serial number where you indicate – but on my 2.8 there is nothing but smooth, black metal to be seen.

 

[dpurdy]

On my old 2.8E2 which I wish I hadn't sold the serial number is actually below the taking lens, and it clearly states E2 235something. There is no way you would miss that so I think you must have as you say a camera with a new faceplate or something. If you have managed to make several hundred exposures and the lenses agree and you get sharp images then I guess I wouldn't worry about that too much. I can't quite imagine your verticle mark. Is it in the image area, Is it always with the same batch of the same film? I don't see how a shutter hanging up would cause a verticle mark.

the body of an E2 or 3 was made to be able to use the optical glass back. If your camera has a chrome pin about in the middle on the right side of the film gate as you are looking in the camera with the camera back open then the body is from E2 or E3 or the earlier Fs.

 

[Nick Merritt]

The added density on certain negatives that you mention is odd -- and it would not be caused by the shutter, since this is a leaf shutter and not a focal plane shutter as with the Bessa. Yes, I would recommend that it's due for maintenance, and maybe the repairer can tell you just what model your camera might be. But your theory that it has been assembled from more than one, Frankenstein's monster style, might be right.

 

[luvcameras]

Here is my Rolleiflex TLR Price and Info Guide

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm

Body Serial #'s are usually on the front, top edge of the Waist Level Finder or under the taking lens.

If your camera's serial is below taking lens, its an E2.

Dan

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Here are two charts of Rolleiflex serial numbers for identifying and dating your camera:

http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm

http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm

Another site with useful identifying information:

http://johnsrolleionlypage.homestead.com/Rolleiflex35Collection.html
http://johnsrolleionlypage.homestead.com/Rollei28Collection.html

If the camera has a removable hood but no coupled exposure meter, then it's an E2 or E3. If it has a removable hood and a coupled meter, then it's probably an F.

Regarding the strip of added density: Does it run across the bottom of the frame, across the bottom of the image? As in this image?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If so, then it is flare that occurs in images where you have a strong light source in the frame. (In the linked photo, it is the back wall, which has a ton of light bouncing off of it.) What is happening is that light escapes across the bottom of the film gate and reflects off the chrome roller below it, and is bounced onto the bottom of the next frame of film. So it never happens to the first frame on the roll, but can appear as a sliver of exposed area above the last frame of the roll.

There's no good fix for this. I have lessened it by placing a sliver of gaffers tape on the bottom film gate, immediately in front of the roller, in an effort to block the light from hitting the roller. But you have to be careful not to put in too much or you risk scratching the film.

This is a subject that has roiled the Rollei Users Group over on Yahoo -- a couple of people take it personally over there if you suggest that any aspect of the Rolleiflex might be less than perfect. All the same it is a great group of photographers, and you should join if you are shooting a Rolleiflex: Dead Link Removed

Sanders McNew

 

[Uhner]

Many thank for all your answers.

Sanders: you are spot on. The added density ‘runs across the bottom of the frame, across the bottom of the image.’ I checked my negatives and the added density only seems to appear on frames following after an exposure of a strongly backlit scene.

I might add that photographing a backlit scene does not equate that the following frame will have the strip of added density. I recently travelled in Transylvania, which apparently is the land of backlit scenes, and on 15 exposed rolls of film from that trip I have only found three negatives with added density.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Uhner, you are right -- it does not happen in every frame. It is most likely to happen when the light source is unimpeded at the top of the frame, so, if the backlight is in the center or bottom of the frame, it will not likely bleed into the next frame. Film spacing can save you occasionally. If you shoot a lot of backlit subjects, you should try my fix of laying a thin strip or two of black tape on the bottom of the film gate, and see if that helps. Sanders

 

[dpurdy]

Ah the Rollei roller reflection. Personally I don't think it is a matter of light quality as much a light quantity. I believe the light is always there but usually not enough to cause the density. I personally don't think the light has to be flare light. I know for instance that the Planar and the Xenotar flare differently yet when you do a side by side film test (which I have done) the roller reflection mark is identical from both. For me fortunately the spacing on my film usually puts the mark just outside the image.

The FX with the black rollers does not have this problem.

I think it should be looked at like messy black edges and polaroid paper, just part of the art.
Dennis

 

[dpurdy]

I would have described that mark as a horizontal mark as it runs across the bottom of pictures.

Also it is interesting to note that it never happens in Argentina.
Dennis

 

[Rolleiflexible]

:-D

NEVER in Argentina!

Also, re your comment on Planar v. Xenotar: The
example I posted is from my Tele Rolleiflex, which
has a 135mm f/4 Sonnar. It is not lens flare, you
are right. "Flare" is maybe the wrong word. "Light
bleed" across the film gate is probably a better way
to describe it.

Sanders

 

[dpurdy]

I think you should start saving your nickles for a brand new tele. Imagine the freedom of close focus and black rollers.
Dennis

 

[k_jupiter]

I think you should start saving your nickles for a brand new tele. Imagine the freedom of close focus and black rollers.
Dennis

1.) It never happens in my Mamiya.
2.) We should start saving nickels for a trip to Argentina, the land of no roller reflection problems. Great food, beautiful women, and a llama on every corner.

tim in san jose

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I think you should start saving your nickles for a brand new tele. Imagine the freedom of close focus and black rollers.

Black rollers, yes. But close focus is not a strength of the
new Tele Rolleiflex. Here's why:

The new Tele has a minimum focusing distance of about 1.5m,
a meter shorter than the old Tele. (Both have 135mm lenses,
so the focusing distances are equivalent.) That sounds great,
doesn't it? Except at five feet, you are shooting waist-up
portraits. This one, for example, is from 4-5 feet away, a
touch closer than the minimum focusing distance on the new
Tele:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

What if you want to come in closer?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The simple answer is, you cannot make these
closer portraits with the new Tele. The old Tele
takes standard Bay 3 attachments, so you can
mount all types of Rolleinar close-up attachments
to come in tight. But the new Tele uses its own
(Bay 4?) mount size, and I have read that F+H
has no plans to make Rolleinars in the new mount
size.

So, no, I'll keep my old Tele Rolleiflexes for now.

Sanders

 

[dlridings]

Regarding the strip of added density: Does it run across the bottom of the frame, across the bottom of the image? As in this image?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If so, then it is flare that occurs in images where you have a strong light source in the frame.

snip ...

This is a subject that has roiled the Rollei Users Group over on Yahoo -- a couple of people take it personally over there if you suggest that any aspect of the Rolleiflex might be less than perfect.
Sanders McNew

Hi Sanders,

You handled that very nicely

I'm over here at APUG now. This is just a back-handed hello to all.

Daniel

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Daniel! We keep running into each other
all over the place! When are you moving
to New York? We need you here. (Or,
at least, I do.)

Sanders

 

[dlridings]

Also it is interesting to note that it never happens in Argentina.
Dennis

That is most certainly because the angle of light in the southern hemisphere hits the other end of the frame, missing the chrome rollers

I have this problem too. There's not much you can do about it.

It affects the _next_ shot, not the one you actually take with the less than optimal light source in the frame.

So you can always waste the next frame and then you won't have to be bothered with it.

WRONG: it appears at the bottom, so it is actually the top of the frame, so it damages the previous frame.

If you know you're going to run into the problem, waste a frame, then take a shot.

Daniel

 

[dpurdy]

Or you can get a prism and always hold your camera upside down since the top roller doesn't seem to have this problem.. which explains why it doesn't happen in Argentina which is upside down on the bottom of the earth.

disappointing news about the new telerollei. I thought it focused much closer than that.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Sanders.... I copped the same marks on my tele Rollei.... never knew what it was, now I do. My Rollei..... less than perfect, I'm shattered!
Tony

 

[SoulSurround]

But the new Tele uses its own
(Bay 4?) mount size, and I have read that F+H has no plans to make Rolleinars in the new mount size.

Where did you read that Sanders ;-)... I heard the same thing - that Franke & Heidecke don't have plans to produce any Rolleinars -from the German rollei-repair-man Dieter Paepke. And it's indeed Bay IV (see attachment).

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I think you should start saving your nickles for a brand new tele. Imagine the freedom of close focus and black rollers.
Dennis

Dennis, I am wondering whether one can buy replacement
black rollers from F+H and install them in the Tele? Anybody
onlist ever try to buy parts from them?

Sanders

 

[dpurdy]

I recently tried to contact them for a +1 diopter for my prism and was unable to get anyone to respond at Rollei USA. I emailed Harry Fleenor about it and he sent along a couple of email addresses direct from whom I got no resonse either. However I did just get a call from Martin who used to run Marflex and he had gotten a forwarded email from me and had the diopter to sell. He said he is selling parts.

I also was trying to find a way to get a replacement leather for the side of my FX which got damaged (nothing major) and again My Fleenor contacted me to say he could get the leather from his source and F&H.

I tried unsuccessfully a couple of years ago to contact Rollei USA through their published contact address as well.

I guess the lesson to be learned there is to talk to Harry.

The roller in the FX is 67 or 68 mm long and seems independent. The bottom one is set in a bracket that is held in place as a unit with at least one screw in the middle. I can't look at the roller in my F right now as it is loaded with 220 color.
Dennis

 

[dpurdy]

I meant Mr Fleenor not My Fleenor... though looking at the placement on the key board I would have to say it is obviously a subconscious wish to own my own Rollei repairman.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

If in the future you need Rolleiflex leathers,
check out http://cameraleather.com/ -- they
stock pieces cut to fit Rolleiflexes, and their
leathers are near-identical to the original.

Sanders