What does "coupled meter" mean? Rolleiflex TLR

[SkipA]

My thoughts...
I have 3 Rollei TLRs, two are F models (both Planars, and both with meters) and a recently acquired 2.8D (Xenotar, no meter). I'm generally using my Sekonic meter anyway, so the lack of meter in the D is fine, and actually perhaps preferred now. As mentioned above, the rather exposed meter window is so often cracked and/or scratched badly in many examples. The meter windows on my two F models are currently perfect but I do fear for them at times.

During my most recent spate of ebay perusing, and researching lens versions, etc., I was left with the impression that more Xenotars have had issues with deteriorating coatings (at least with older examples such as those in the 2.8D, 2.8C and so on). Not sure if this is correct, who knows? In any case, I like the output of all my Rolleis (and my Xenotar has some noticeable "cleaning marks").

Lastly, I heartily recommend the book "The Classic Rollei - A Definitive Guide" by John Phillips. Published just last year, it is a great resource for any Rollei TLR fan. Every model, in the order of production, is discussed. And it provides excellent information about the various lens offerings, examples of test target shots for several different lenses, a listing of accessories, historical info, and more. Really good stuff. Good luck in your search!
-James

Thanks for the book recommendation, James. I'll look for that.

I think you are the first in this thread to mention the 2.8 cameras. Maybe you can answer this. It appears to me that most people prefer the 3.5 cameras over the 2.8, even though the f/2.8 lens is faster. Why is that? A faster lens is often a convenience. Do the f/2.8 lenses not perform as well as the f/3.5 lenses? That's the only reason I can think of why someone would prefer a slower lens.

 

[2F/2F]

Thanks for the book recommendation, James. I'll look for that.

I think you are the first in this thread to mention the 2.8 cameras. Maybe you can answer this. It appears to me that most people prefer the 3.5 cameras over the 2.8, even though the f/2.8 lens is faster. Why is that? A faster lens is often a convenience. Do the f/2.8 lenses not perform as well as the f/3.5 lenses? That's the only reason I can think of why someone would prefer a slower lens.

To me, the half-stop difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 matters in certain situations. But both f/2.8 and f/3.5 are slow in my book, regardless of whether the 2.8 is half a stop faster. With the things I will tend to shoot with that style of camera, I will likely not be hurt by the 1/2 stop less light gathering ability of the 3.5, so I might as well just go for the cheaper one. That's the way I look at it.

I'm not sure if the image quality of the 2.8's wide open matches the 3.5's. But I do know that my 3.5 is very usable wide open. It is more than sharp enough, though as usual, the corners lag behind a bit. They are a tad better at f/4, and the whole thing is insanely good by f/5.6. I cannot imagine that a 2.8 model could outdo it by much, if any.

 

[John Wiegerink]

To me, the half-stop difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 matters in certain situations. But both f/2.8 and f/3.5 are slow in my book, regardless of whether the 2.8 is half a stop faster. With the things I will tend to shoot with that style of camera, I will likely not be hurt by the 1/2 stop less light gathering ability of the 3.5, so I might as well just go for the cheaper one. That's the way I look at it.

I'm not sure if the image quality of the 2.8's wide open matches the 3.5's. But I do know that my 3.5 is very usable wide open. It is more than sharp enough, though as usual, the corners lag behind a bit. They are a tad better at f/4, and the whole thing is insanely good by f/5.6. I cannot imagine that a 2.8 model could outdo it by much, if any.

I think a 2.8 taking lens would be a slight advantage if you were shooting weddings with a Rollei like in the old days or wanting to control/have a shallow depth of field, but that's about it. I have a very nice/mint 3.5E Planar with meter and a non-metered, very used 2.8 E Xenotar and they are both usable wide-open, but at f5.6 you could toss a coin. The only thing I don't like about the Bay II and Bay III lenses is the cost of filters and hoods. I'm a big hood/shade person so for me one is a must. JohnW

 

[SkipA]

So what is the reason that more 3.5's are available on ebay than 2.8's? Were there simply more of the 3.5's manufactured and sold?

I had the impression that the 3.5's were considered to be more desirable than the 2.8's. I've read recommendations on other forums to go with the 3.5's because the glass is better than the 2.8's. Is that not true?

 

[John Wiegerink]

So what is the reason that more 3.5's are available on ebay than 2.8's? Were there simply more of the 3.5's manufactured and sold?

I had the impression that the 3.5's were considered to be more desirable than the 2.8's. I've read recommendations on other forums to go with the 3.5's because the glass is better than the 2.8's. Is that not true?

Could be true, but you couldn't prove it by me.

 

[dpurdy]

So what is the reason that more 3.5's are available on ebay than 2.8's? Were there simply more of the 3.5's manufactured and sold?

I had the impression that the 3.5's were considered to be more desirable than the 2.8's. I've read recommendations on other forums to go with the 3.5's because the glass is better than the 2.8's. Is that not true?

You will notice that Franke and heideck eventually went strictly with the 2.8 lens and it is all that is available in the later GX and FX models. I have owned and used both in Xenotar and Planar 3.5 and 2.8. The 3.5 has the advantage of slightly cheaper accessories on ebay.. as well as a slightly more dynamic view with 75mm instead of 80mm.
The coating on the older Planar is known to be softer as well as warmer in color so that if you shoot color you will get slightly warmer images than with the Xenotar. The front element of the Planar is a cemented element so it is possible for it to separate. The Xenotar front element is not cemented.
As others have said, the 6th element isn't really an optical improvement, it is supposedly a UV blocker for better color rendition with color film.
As to the home made dry plates, I would think it would be easier to use the sheet film/glass plate back vs the optical glass back.. The optical glass plate focuses on the back side so if you put the coated side towards the lens it would be slightly out of focus. Also I would think the sheet film back much easier to use for the plates.

 

[John Wiegerink]

You will notice that Franke and heideck eventually went strictly with the 2.8 lens and it is all that is available in the later GX and FX models. I have owned and used both in Xenotar and Planar 3.5 and 2.8. The 3.5 has the advantage of slightly cheaper accessories on ebay.. as well as a slightly more dynamic view with 75mm instead of 80mm.
The coating on the older Planar is known to be softer as well as warmer in color so that if you shoot color you will get slightly warmer images than with the Xenotar. The front element of the Planar is a cemented element so it is possible for it to separate. The Xenotar front element is not cemented.
As others have said, the 6th element isn't really an optical improvement, it is supposedly a UV blocker for better color rendition with color film.
As to the home made dry plates, I would think it would be easier to use the sheet film/glass plate back vs the optical glass back.. The optical glass plate focuses on the back side so if you put the coated side towards the lens it would be slightly out of focus. Also I would think the sheet film back much easier to use for the plates.

Well, that pretty much confirms what I was told years ago and thanks for the confirmation.

 

[SkipA]

You will notice that Franke and heideck eventually went strictly with the 2.8 lens and it is all that is available in the later GX and FX models. I have owned and used both in Xenotar and Planar 3.5 and 2.8. The 3.5 has the advantage of slightly cheaper accessories on ebay.. as well as a slightly more dynamic view with 75mm instead of 80mm.
The coating on the older Planar is known to be softer as well as warmer in color so that if you shoot color you will get slightly warmer images than with the Xenotar. The front element of the Planar is a cemented element so it is possible for it to separate. The Xenotar front element is not cemented.
As others have said, the 6th element isn't really an optical improvement, it is supposedly a UV blocker for better color rendition with color film.
As to the home made dry plates, I would think it would be easier to use the sheet film/glass plate back vs the optical glass back.. The optical glass plate focuses on the back side so if you put the coated side towards the lens it would be slightly out of focus. Also I would think the sheet film back much easier to use for the plates.

I bought the book "The Classic Rollei - A Definitive Guide" by John Phillips today on Amazon on the recommendation of jmartin earlier in this thread. I look forward to learning more about the history of the Rollei, and all the variations.

Thanks for the explanation about the lens differences. Based on that, I'll only consider the condition of the lens, not whether it is the Planar or the Xenotar, and whether or not it is the six-element version. That opens up the field of good choices quite a bit.

I'm not sure how the plate glass backs work. From what I understand right now, it is an entirely different back. You take off the back that has the film pressure plate on it and replace it, the entire back of the camera, with the glass plate holder back. It would surprise me if it hadn't been designed so that the emulsion is in the plane of focus when facing the lens. A home-coated dry plate on glass of the proper thickness should place the emulsion in the same position as a commercially produced dry emulsion glass plate.

I haven't heard of a sheet film back for these cameras. It doesn't seem like it would offer any advantage over roll film.

 

[dpurdy]

When the Rollei was first created the roll film had just been invented by Kodak and it wasn't very flat yet. A lot of photographers wanted to stick with the glass plates so Rollei created the plate back that can hold either a glass plate or if you put in a spacer it can hold thin sheet film. If you wanted to make your own glass plates you could put them in place just as the old glass plates were. With the plate/sheet film back you can load up film or plate holders and then put them in the back just like a large format camera. It is a simple matter to exchange the regular camera back with the sheet film back. You just have to buy the back off ebay and try to get one that has the ground glass insert so you can focus the back of the camera like a large format camera. The ground glass insert was considered an accessory as it isn't absolutely necessary. You can just focus the camera with the regular finder. But it is so convenient to have the ground glass insert that you should get it if you can.
I became "enthralled" with the sheet film back and got 4 sets so I could have a lot of film holders. I even found a way to install the sheet film back on the FX. However the old sheet film holders have old rotting velvet so they tend to leak light. You have to be careful. But they do have the advantage of holding the film absolutely flat. You either buy 2.5X3.5 sheets of film or cut 4x5 sheets down to size and sheet film is completely flat. Of course glass plates would be flat as well.
I had the same idea as you, to make hand coated glass plates for the backs, but I have too many projects.
Dennis

 

[SkipA]

Alas, I have too many projects too Dennis. And now, by golly, I have a growing interest in acquiring some of these film holders and a sheet film back once I get a camera that can support them. I have 4x5 and 8x10 cameras that are really better suited for exposing sheet film, but this would be another fun way to capture images, which makes it nearly irresistable to me.

 

[dpurdy]

I haven't watched them on ebay for quite awhile but when I was buying them the sets were one of those items that had wide ranging prices. There would be people putting them on for 300 dollars and others for 60 dollars and others for 99 cents with no reserve. That was about 4 years ago and there weren't a lot of bidders competing for them so I always waited for the low starting bid with no reserve. The set comes with the back and 3 holders. Some have the ground glass insert and some don't. It is useful to have the ground glass insert if just to check that your taking lens and viewing lens agree on focus. Or if you are going to do close ups with the Rolleinars it shows exactly what you are getting.
There is a really rare accessory that allows you to shoot a roll of film with the sheet film back in place. Instead of putting in a sheet film holder you put in a pressure plate.
Most of the sheet film holders you get will have the spacer in place that allows you to use sheet film instead of a glass plate. You merely slide it out of the bracket.
Dennis

 

[SkipA]

I've bought a Minolta Autocord and a Rolleiflex Automat Type 4. Neither one was in perfect cosmetic condition, but they look good. Both seem to be in excellent operational condition, with good glass. Both seem very well made. I've worked out the operation of them both, and I've got film loaded. I expect to shoot some film and process this weekend.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've bought a Minolta Autocord and a Rolleiflex Automat Type 4. Neither one was in perfect cosmetic condition, but they look good. Both seem to be in excellent operational condition, with good glass. Both seem very well made. I've worked out the operation of them both, and I've got film loaded. I expect to shoot some film and process this weekend.

I've owned a few Automats and three Autocords and if I had a choice between the two I'll take the Minolta Autocord hands down. Just make sure you don't strong arm the focus lever and you'll have an excellent picture taking machine. If I find another Autocord in good shape and at the right price I'll buy it. You got a couple of nice machines. JohnW

 

[jmartin]

Skip, glad to see you ordered the book. It should prove to be helpful, not least of which for making certain such things as accessory kits (like the Plate Adapters) are complete when you see them on ebay (or elsewhere).
Speaking of... there are a couple of pretty nice looking plate adapter kits on ebay right now. (Not sold by me, btw).
You've got some nice cameras there, enjoy!
- James

 

[SkipA]

John, the focus lever on my Minolta Autocord moves very smoothly. I know that the focus lever is a weak link on these cameras, but I won't have to strong arm this one; it glides like butter. The only problem I can see with this camera is that the ground glass or mirror has a fair amount of dust in it. It's bright, and easy to focus, but the dust is a little distracting. I hope I'll be able to clean it myself. I know the mirror is delicate.

James, I'm really enjoying that book. There is a wealth of information in it. The cameras that were photographed for it are all in pristine condition. Makes ones mouth water.

I do have my eye on the plate adapter kits.