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’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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Maxwell screens are the best.
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.
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.viable microprism screen
the microprism screens that F&H installed at the factory
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.Not being able to focus outside the center spot is something rangefinder users has had to contend with for a hundred years though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?