Which TLR?

[Helge]

You keep referring to your Rolleicord, but what model are you describing? It makes a difference. The Vb, for example, has the best original screen as one will get in a Rolleicord. Earlier versions, like a Rolleicord III, may be just as good but dimmer.

In my mind, screen brightness is a bit of a red herring. Lens type and intended photographic image intent is much more important. Condition is paramount, though, and, no matter what is chosen, a good servicing or overhaul is probably warranted before serious use due to the age of any TLR.

If the camera appears to be working well there is absolutely no need to service.
CLAs even from reputable repair shops are not totally risk free.
And the problems from the service might not be evident or develop before after several months or even years.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I’ll protest to that.
Fresnel screens collimate the light to some degree. Exactly what you are trying not to do with a focus screen.

The extreme of that is a “brilliant finder” which offers zero ability to focus.

If you don’t plan on using a center spot with split prism or micro prisms for fine focus all the time, then you absolutely want a traditional ground glass screen.

Sure the screen is darker. But it’s also sharper/higher contrast.

Acute Matte screens like Minolta patented seems to have hit a good compromise, but it’s still not as good as a good ground glass for focus precision.

Also replacing a screen is not completely unproblematic, especially if done by a disinterested seller trying to raise the price, or a bumbling amateur.

You are conflating several solutions here. A fresnel, laid on top of a ground glass, improves visibility but makes it harder to focus. A ‘brilliant finder’ is useless. A lot of cheap replacement screens are not much better.

But as you say, an Acute Matte screen is a different beast. So are Maxwell screens. So are the OEM screens fitted in the Rolleicord Vb. All of these offer much-brighter screens that snap easily into focus. And all are miles ahead of the original ground glass in earlier Rolleis.

In addition, the mirror that bounces light from the viewing lens up to the viewfinder can cloud and desilver over time. So, if buying an earlier camera, a replacement mirror may also be in order. As you correctly note, these replacements affect focus and should be undertaken by a qualified technician.

Center spot focus aids should be avoided. They are the source of a lot of misfocused photographs. But that’s a different discussion.

 

[Cholentpot]

You keep referring to your Rolleicord, but what model are you describing? It makes a difference. The Vb, for example, has the best original screen as one will get in a Rolleicord. Earlier versions, like a Rolleicord III, may be just as good but dimmer.

In my mind, screen brightness is a bit of a red herring. Lens type and intended photographic image intent is much more important. Condition is paramount, though, and, no matter what is chosen, a good servicing or overhaul is probably warranted before serious use due to the age of any TLR.

I have what I think is a III. Screen could use a cleaning I'm sure.

 

[Duceman]

You need a camera that works. You need a modern view screen. Assuming the lens is properly collimated, it will not matter to your photographs.

With respect to Autocords (I own several), their view screens are just fine. They may need a good cleaning, but one does not necessarly need to get a new view screen with an Autocord.

 

[Helge]

You are conflating several solutions here. A fresnel, laid on top of a ground glass, improves visibility but makes it harder to focus. A ‘brilliant finder’ is useless. A lot of cheap replacement screens are not much better.

But as you say, an Acute Matte screen is a different beast. So are Maxwell screens. So are the OEM screens fitted in the Rolleicord Vb. All of these offer much-brighter screens that snap easily into focus. And all are miles ahead of the original ground glass in earlier Rolleis.

In addition, the mirror that bounces light from the viewing lens up to the viewfinder can cloud and desilver over time. So, if buying an earlier camera, a replacement mirror may also be in order. As you correctly note, these replacements affect focus and should be undertaken by a qualified technician.

Center spot focus aids should be avoided. They are the source of a lot of misfocused photographs. But that’s a different discussion.

Brilliant finders are absolutely not useless. They can work very well in low light where a projection screen is simply too dim.
They can be made workable for focus with a matte spot or split prism spot.

Acute-Matte is “just” a better fresnel screen. Only the blank is very precisely shaped with laser.
It has many of the same problems as regular fresnel, but to a lesser extent.

I’m not saying they are terrible. Otherwise they wouldn’t be popular. They are just not quite as high contrast as a good ground glass screen.

It’s the old fight between collimated and diffused light from enlargers over again, only with the multiple variables of a micro fresnel lens brought in.

You are taking away from the spirit and unique qualities of the original camera, when you blindly and automatically change the screen.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

You are taking away from the spirit and unique qualities of the original camera, when you blindly and automatically change the screen.

This fetishizes the original. F&H used ground glass only because there was no better alternative. Once microprism screens became viabke, F&H upgraded the ground glass finders to microprism finders. Retrofitting microprism screens to old Rolleis simply gives them the same advantages that F&H chose to give the more modern models.

I use Maxwell screens. I have no problem focusing on them. I cannot focus on an old ground glass screen in the earlier cameras because I have poor eyesight. YMMV

 

[Helge]

This fetishizes the original. F&H used ground glass only because there was no better alternative. Once microprism screens became viabke, F&H upgraded the ground glass finders to microprism finders. Retrofitting microprism screens to old Rolleis simply gives them the same advantages that F&H chose to give the more modern models.

I use Maxwell screens. I have no problem focusing on them. I cannot focus on an old ground glass screen in the earlier cameras because I have poor eyesight. YMMV

It doesn’t fetishize anything. It merely respects (in the real and original sense of the word) the advantages and idiosyncrasies older technologies often has.

You can do it of course.
But seriously use the original screen for a good long while.
And try out, if possible, the modern screen on another TLR, before you even consider doing anything.
Sounds like you might be locked into selection bias, confirmation bias and “newer is better” bias and has gotten married to the idea.

It’s not as much of a no-brainer as you make it sound.
And of course, if you want a real clear view, there is always the sports finder.

 

[GregY]

This fetishizes the original. F&H used ground glass only because there was no better alternative. Once microprism screens became viabke, F&H upgraded the ground glass finders to microprism finders. Retrofitting microprism screens to old Rolleis simply gives them the same advantages that F&H chose to give the more modern models.

I use Maxwell screens. I have no problem focusing on them. I cannot focus on an old ground glass screen in the earlier cameras because I have poor eyesight. YMMV

Sanders, first of all i've long admired your work. I have good eyesight & couldn't focus a Rolleiflex indoors to save my life!.....& i've worked with LF cameras and old Dagors. The Maxwell screen in my Rolleiflex T changed my life..... it's one of my most used cameras.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

It doesn’t fetishize anything. It merely respects (in the real and original sense of the word) the advantages and idiosyncrasies older technologies often has.

You can do it of course.
But seriously use the original screen for a good long while.
And try out, if possible, the modern screen on another TLR, before you even consider doing anything.
Sounds like you might be locked into selection bias, confirmation bias and “newer is better” bias and has gotten married to the idea.

It’s not as much of a no-brainer as you make it sound.
And of course, if you want a real clear view, there is always the sports finder.

I will be the first to agree that I am the product of my biases. (As are we all.) But in this case, I don't think bias is the issue. Let me explain why.

A ground glass screen is reasonably bright enough in the center, with a lot of falloff to the edges. On a large format ground glass, one can use a focusing loupe to focus offcenter. But not on a Rolleiflex. I can't speak for you. Often, I lay focus near the perimeter, using a wide aperture, so getting focus right is critical for me. And it is a rookie mistake to use a center spot to focus in those conditions.

So I need to be able to see the viewfinder edges clearly to focus. The sports finder won't do it. I cannot see the edges clearly on a ground glass -- my eyes aren't that good. And I suspect most other users can't do it either. And I suspect that is why F&H stopped fitting ground glass viewfinders into their cameras in the Rolleiflex E-series and the Rolleicord Vs in the early 1960s, once a viable microprism screen became available.

I've shot Rolleiflexes for decades. The screens matter, *a lot.* I'm not a fan of the microprism screens that F&H installed at the factory -- I do find them harder to focus. Bill Maxwell's screens are brighter and they snap quickly and definitively into focus, no matter where the focal point is on the screen. Maxwell screens are pricy but they are far above the competition when it comes to ease of focus.

I don't think this is selection bias. I do concede that if I had better eyesight, maybe I would reach a different conclusion.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders, first of all i've long admired your work. I have good eyesight & couldn't focus a Rolleiflex indoors to save my life!.....& i've worked with LF cameras and old Dagors. The Maxwell screen in my Rolleiflex T changed my life..... it's one of my most used cameras.

You are kind -- thank you. Maxwell screens are the best.

 

[Hassasin]

Maxwell screens are the best.

I have Maxwell in Rolleiflex 3.5 F, then I have a ton of other MF cameras with other screens. When I went for Maxwell at Mr. Fleenor's shop I went for "the best" Now I can confidently say it is an excellent screen, but the best my rear. Several other screens, factory screens at that, are just as good brightness wise and focusing ability wise. There may be an academic difference in some testing, but that does not translate into better viewing/focusing, certainly not in a way "the best" would imply.

BTW, I had hard time changing original screen to Maxwell. It was one of those - should I stick with original or not - kind of things. I have that original screen stored somewhere, but putting it back in would require focus plane adjustment again. Maxwell works fine though, and at 100$ at the time it was not too hard to swallow.

But even with Hasselblad screens, Acute this, Acute D that etc, sometimes I load an older screen in and enjoy it more. In the end this whole screen quality thing is still subjective, not one size fits all for sure.

 

[Helge]

I will be the first to agree that I am the product of my biases. (As are we all.) But in this case, I don't think bias is the issue. Let me explain why.

A ground glass screen is reasonably bright enough in the center, with a lot of falloff to the edges. On a large format ground glass, one can use a focusing loupe to focus offcenter. But not on a Rolleiflex. I can't speak for you. Often, I lay focus near the perimeter, using a wide aperture, so getting focus right is critical for me. And it is a rookie mistake to use a center spot to focus in those conditions.

So I need to be able to see the viewfinder edges clearly to focus. The sports finder won't do it. I cannot see the edges clearly on a ground glass -- my eyes aren't that good. And I suspect most other users can't do it either. And I suspect that is why F&H stopped fitting ground glass viewfinders into their cameras in the Rolleiflex E-series and the Rolleicord Vs in the early 1960s, once a viable microprism screen became available.

I've shot Rolleiflexes for decades. The screens matter, *a lot.* I'm not a fan of the microprism screens that F&H installed at the factory -- I do find them harder to focus. Bill Maxwell's screens are brighter and they snap quickly and definitively into focus, no matter where the focal point is on the screen. Maxwell screens are pricy but they are far above the competition when it comes to ease of focus.

I don't think this is selection bias. I do concede that if I had better eyesight, maybe I would reach a different conclusion.

Ok, that is a valid point that is worth considering.
Personally I found I can quite easily “reach” the edges of the screen with the loupe by changing distance and position slightly.
Not being able to focus outside the center spot is something rangefinder users has had to contend with for a hundred years though.

In that vein, if you want to try the rangefinder the Rolleimeter is actually not as bad to use as its reputation. Of course parallax error is worse.

 

[Dan Daniel]

viable microprism screen

the microprism screens that F&H installed at the factory

I think that you mean 'Fresnel' screen, not microprism. Microprism is a focusing aid system. Rollieflexes had a split image center focusing aid, many Rolleicords had no central focusing aid on their Fresnel screens. Maybe Rolleiflex SLRs had microprism focusing aid but I've never seen on on an F&H screen in Fs and earlier.

I'll put this out here again- https://www.rangefinderforum.com/threads/rolleiflex-focus-screen-comparison-test.145501/

And say that in real life, the ability of a brain to adjust to a situation is wonderful. Sure, a Maxwell is brightest by a touch, but using any similar Fresnel screen will be quite possible in most settings. I shot a Rolleicord with a thoroughly tarnished mirror and ground glass screen for years and never thought that I was getting bad images because my screen wasn't bright enough.

Something tells me the OP's choice of a Rolleicord Vb or Minolta Autocord will have a screen which they will find quite usable.

Not being able to focus outside the center spot is something rangefinder users has had to contend with for a hundred years though.

The difference with a TLR compared to a rangefinder held at eye level is that it is much more likely to move your body, your torso, your arms, significant (for focusing) distances for final framing with a TLR held in two hands below your head than with a camera pressed to the front of your face. A simple rotation and slight tilt and framing is done with an eye level rangefinder while a TLR is floating a bit looser.

 

[Lee Rust]

So, I got my TLRs out to compare side by side... Autocord RG (no meter) and Rolleicord V... They are very similar, with shutter & aperture controls on opposite sides of the lens board, flip-up viewing hoods with magnifiers, f3.5/75mm lenses that fit "Bay 1" hoods, self-timer, V-X flash terminal, double-exposure lock, identical size and shape.

The Autocord RG has a lever and semicircular scale for focus at the bottom that is known to be delicate, but it works well if properly lubricated. The film and shutter are wound simultaneously with a folding crank lever on the right. The shutter and aperture setting are both displayed on the top of the viewing lens. Shutter release is a conventional forward-facing pushbutton at lower right with a concentric cable release. The film back hinges at the bottom, with the latch at the top. The fresnel viewing screen is very evenly illuminated, with a square framing guide around the edges and a fine-grain focus spot in the center.

Although most Rollei's focus on the left, the Rolleicord V is focused with a knob and scale on the right side. Film is wound by a knob at right rear and the shutter is wound by pressing the lever below the lens towards the right. That same lever releases the shutter when pressed to the left. Cable release is separate and on the left side, facing down. The film back hinges at the top with the latch on the bottom. Shutter speed and aperture displays are on opposite sides of the lenses. The plain ground-glass viewing screen is bright in the middle and relatively dim around the edges, with a center 'x' for framing and no other focusing aid.

I might give the advantage to the Autocord due to the brighter viewing screen, integrated film advance and shutter wind, plus better visibility of the aperture/shutter speed. On the other hand, I prefer the knob focus of the Rollei and the fact that it has fewer sharp edges on the bottom to poke my hand, plus the release lever seems to be in just the right place for me.

All things considered, they're both fine cameras.

 

[Rayt]

These are really old cameras and unless you buy one that had been recently CLA’d and in regular use you should factor in roughly $300 to $500 for a CLA so to me an early $300 Rolleicord may not be much of a budget option. I would and did happily spend that much to have a Rolleiwide brought to specs. I also appreciate Maxwell screens so that’s $300 or so now? If you bought a model without the user detachable focusing hood then buy a Mamiya RZ 67 screen and have the it cut and installed with the CLA. It’s as good as the Maxwell.