An Automat has the sportsfinder, and they're a relative bargain.
Zeiss Super Ikonta III vs. Rollei 2.8D Preference Query
-
A
- Thread starter JWMster
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale BOOK SALE! Weston, Karsh, Kenna, Worth, Sexton
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Complete Mamiya RB67 Pro SD collections with camera bags
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
Want to Buy JOBO ATL 1500/1000 or JOBO CPP2
- Started by balazsfff
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Sold Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,311
- Format
- Medium Format
Well, that's true but the Vb has the brighter screen and is a bit lighter, maybe.
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
- Messages
- 797
- Format
- 35mm
In the 70s, I saved hard for a Mamiya TLR. Didn't take to it and only shot 4 rolls before selling it.
I recently got a Kodak Reflex II TLR. Only because I already had a Medalist II. Similar frame counting and 620 film. Maybe TLRs are easier when you're older?
From my experience with folders, TLR's and rangefinders:
1) if you print small you'll never find a difference between 4-5-6 elements lenses (read from perkeo with color-skopar, superikontas, isolettes or superisolettes, rolleys with tessars, xenotars planars etc); the difference is coming to surface if you go larger then 30x40cm and here I can see that my tessar-like folding camera's lenses are less sharp then my 6 elements xenotar or planar on my rolleys or the sekor 50mm on my mamiya super 23 or the 50mm on the mamiya 6.
2) if you look for something to shoot fast and easy folders are the last option: i use those for BW and usually with filters and shade. You can't close the camera with the shade or filter on; you can't bring your camera open for more than few minutes, nor around your neck (you'll loose your lens shade or your filter or brake the bellow). I love the TLR shooting ergonomy mostly for street and family pictures: nobody will notice you if you point your camera 90° right or left and if you stand not in front but 90° left or right from your subject, the same for kids; you can compose from ground level or above your head maintaining control over framing while shooting. Nothing of this can be done with a folding (unless you have the zeiss ikon 437/2 finder) or rangefinder camera. On my rolleys I have a center-split gg that with the included lens can allow very precise focussing.
3) for landscape I love the 6x9 format but folder's lenses usually are 105mm so I use always my mamiya super 23 with it's superb 50mm that on 6x9 is equal to 20mm on 35mm format, but it's heavy and bulky. Never thought to bring it around anywhere, only by car. it's a superb system, with backs gg and anything you'd need but even heavier then my toyo field 5x7.
4) in terms of quality your perkeo is similar or even better then superikontas that can be heavier or larger so if you'd upgrade think of a tlr or superior.
5) deciding what to buy should consider mainly two aspects: ergonomy and lens quality/angle of view. If you buy the best rolley available but find later that you need for your landscape some 50mm lens or you can't follow your subject because of ergonomy it could be wasted money, the same if you buy the mamiya 6 and find out that it's too heavy to carry around with 50, 75 and 150 lenses, or that you're always changing lenses instead of shooting.
1) if you print small you'll never find a difference between 4-5-6 elements lenses (read from perkeo with color-skopar, superikontas, isolettes or superisolettes, rolleys with tessars, xenotars planars etc); the difference is coming to surface if you go larger then 30x40cm and here I can see that my tessar-like folding camera's lenses are less sharp then my 6 elements xenotar or planar on my rolleys or the sekor 50mm on my mamiya super 23 or the 50mm on the mamiya 6.
2) if you look for something to shoot fast and easy folders are the last option: i use those for BW and usually with filters and shade. You can't close the camera with the shade or filter on; you can't bring your camera open for more than few minutes, nor around your neck (you'll loose your lens shade or your filter or brake the bellow). I love the TLR shooting ergonomy mostly for street and family pictures: nobody will notice you if you point your camera 90° right or left and if you stand not in front but 90° left or right from your subject, the same for kids; you can compose from ground level or above your head maintaining control over framing while shooting. Nothing of this can be done with a folding (unless you have the zeiss ikon 437/2 finder) or rangefinder camera. On my rolleys I have a center-split gg that with the included lens can allow very precise focussing.
3) for landscape I love the 6x9 format but folder's lenses usually are 105mm so I use always my mamiya super 23 with it's superb 50mm that on 6x9 is equal to 20mm on 35mm format, but it's heavy and bulky. Never thought to bring it around anywhere, only by car. it's a superb system, with backs gg and anything you'd need but even heavier then my toyo field 5x7.
4) in terms of quality your perkeo is similar or even better then superikontas that can be heavier or larger so if you'd upgrade think of a tlr or superior.
5) deciding what to buy should consider mainly two aspects: ergonomy and lens quality/angle of view. If you buy the best rolley available but find later that you need for your landscape some 50mm lens or you can't follow your subject because of ergonomy it could be wasted money, the same if you buy the mamiya 6 and find out that it's too heavy to carry around with 50, 75 and 150 lenses, or that you're always changing lenses instead of shooting.
Just what bunip said above - even those old Perkeo's are great. Sometimes ago I shared a few photographs my father-in-law took during the 50's with his Perkeo I (Vaskar 80mm lens) - a great tool in his hands.
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Thank you both. Tempted as I am, y'know the answer's to stick with what I've got, debug it to the max and get the good shots you know I should from it before succumbing to temptation.As a guy who shoots a Leica with the same 35mm lens 98% of the time (and still carries a 21mm and 90mm "just in case"), a one-lens camera really does cover much more than one thinks. There are a few times when low hanging branches really require a telephoto to help get out beyond the noise they otherwise make in screening a shot where you don't want that... but travel with a one-lens camera is a good thing. Maybe not this trip, but the next we'll be ready to have a look at something like a TLR or equivalent. Thanks for the input and encouragement. Love those old vintage shots by your father-in-law. Loved my father-in-law, too.... miss him.
I will add to this the only "upgrade" represented in a Zeiss Super Ikonta is the coupled rangefinder - a handy thing with "near" to intermediate range subjects.
Depending on how big you want to print I would be will to bet that your Leica will cover the majority of your photography.
I suspect that the quality of your prints will be very close between what you get from your Leica negatives and what you get from your Perkeo negatives. The larger negative SHOULD provide a better quality print but since you will use hyperfocus with the Perkeo most of the time I think it will cancel out the advantage you would expect from the larger negative. My faith in Leica may be misplaced but I don't think so.
If you really want to get all you can out of the larger negative than the Rollei is almost certainly your best bet. Better focusing ability and better view for composition. In fact, if you shoot with one lens most of the time leave the Leica at home and shoot a Rollei instead. Folders, if they have coupled rangefinders and are still solid, can also provide excellent image quality and print size, but they will probably cost almost as much as a good Rollei.
To be honest, I don't think you will even know that you have a negative that is worth printing really big until you are already back at home. And the chances are it will have been shot with the Leica. Obviously nothing at all wrong with that, but the entire reason to even carry the other camera is for the bigger negative, ie; the bigger print.
Just pack another Leica body for your telephoto. You will probably get more use out of it, it will also be a back up, and you won't be spending your vacation time worrying whether or not you should have used the medium format camera to take that last photo.
Just sayin...
I suspect that the quality of your prints will be very close between what you get from your Leica negatives and what you get from your Perkeo negatives. The larger negative SHOULD provide a better quality print but since you will use hyperfocus with the Perkeo most of the time I think it will cancel out the advantage you would expect from the larger negative. My faith in Leica may be misplaced but I don't think so.
If you really want to get all you can out of the larger negative than the Rollei is almost certainly your best bet. Better focusing ability and better view for composition. In fact, if you shoot with one lens most of the time leave the Leica at home and shoot a Rollei instead. Folders, if they have coupled rangefinders and are still solid, can also provide excellent image quality and print size, but they will probably cost almost as much as a good Rollei.
To be honest, I don't think you will even know that you have a negative that is worth printing really big until you are already back at home. And the chances are it will have been shot with the Leica. Obviously nothing at all wrong with that, but the entire reason to even carry the other camera is for the bigger negative, ie; the bigger print.
Just pack another Leica body for your telephoto. You will probably get more use out of it, it will also be a back up, and you won't be spending your vacation time worrying whether or not you should have used the medium format camera to take that last photo.
Just sayin...
That's a nice thread ! Hooray !!
It's not the camera but who's behind it ...
Umbrella, Anyone ? by macfred64, on Flickr
It's not the camera but who's behind it ...
Umbrella, Anyone ? by macfred64, on FlickrPioneer: Leica is great. I definitely like it. My current fascination with MF often leads me to miss my Leica's and so I'm now trying to split may attention more evenly. Thus I very much appreciate your suggestions, as that really has been my jump off point: Take two bodies: my M4-2 for B&W and the M6-TTL for color. But then since I'm thinking the M4-2 will see less use in travel, I thought perhaps a small MF might be even a nicer complement to the process, 'cause that MF negative... when it comes out right is just so sweet that even Leica's best can seem to come up a tad short. In truth, the content of the image can make up for whatever's lacking, but under otherwise under even conditions at 16 X 22 a MF image should beat a 35mm every time. But you're right, often the Leica's strengths lie in the facility of use... which tends to increase the propensity to produce better images, and a poor MF is still a poor image, and not necessarily "better" just because the negative is bigger. So you're right as rain. But shooting a medium - whether you're creating the best or not, every time is part of climbing the ladder towards better and better on a more consistent basis. ANd since my target is large prints, my smaller are mostly part of a process off proofs on the way to getting to the 16X 22 I like, or choosing between one image and another. What I like most about Leica is the ease of working with the camera and how working within its limitations forces you to just work the composition and the other basics. So by avoiding what you're not going to capture very well anyway, forces you play to the strengths in what the tools you have at hand allow you to do best. No great insight there.
FWIW, sometime back I decided that the whole inflated lens prices for a Leica Noctilux (or similar pricey thing) was really a detour into trying to push for resolution where the odds are long, rather than accepting that MF or using a tripod really should be the next move. And you can get a lot out of your MF $'s for the same that even a well used Noctilux seems to go for... and then with the latter you just get these big beautiful honking negatives that dwarf even the best 35mm. But I'm not going to argue with the point you're making otherwise about carrying too much gear and giving oneself too many "what ifs" to deal with. The best images often come for me because I got lucky with the weather or what happened while I was there, and often my first rush through the final images leads me to choose the wrong images... at least it did with digital. With film, I've shifted to a medium where the element of time and the distance between "the shot" and "the edit" is sufficient to sharpen the creative process, and there is a tradition to the process - like using a contact sheet - that isn't so computer-centric that I'm tempted to dive into the deep well on every image to an extent that I'm wasting time on what are going to be discards anyway. If I were a professional, I suppose I'd have learned long ago how to manage my time to avoid the traps... even as a "digital artist". My life went in a different direction. But back to film, there's a shot that even an amateur can occasionally produce a decent image every now and then. Anyway, I'm not traveling to France until early Fall, so there's plenty of time to figure this out, solve some other issues and so on. Thanks very much for your thoughts. As always.... they all help, sink in and somehow improve my understanding... and eventually the output? Hope so.
macfred: What a delightful image toasting your relatives in the rain, and yes, by that I mean that though they don't have champagne glasses, they seem as happy as if the rain were really rice at a wedding. Many thanks for sharing that! And yes, I've read more about the Zeiss Super Ikonta Novars and Tessars... and I'm going to sit on the wallet and shoot the Perkeo II. Thanks!
FWIW, sometime back I decided that the whole inflated lens prices for a Leica Noctilux (or similar pricey thing) was really a detour into trying to push for resolution where the odds are long, rather than accepting that MF or using a tripod really should be the next move. And you can get a lot out of your MF $'s for the same that even a well used Noctilux seems to go for... and then with the latter you just get these big beautiful honking negatives that dwarf even the best 35mm. But I'm not going to argue with the point you're making otherwise about carrying too much gear and giving oneself too many "what ifs" to deal with. The best images often come for me because I got lucky with the weather or what happened while I was there, and often my first rush through the final images leads me to choose the wrong images... at least it did with digital. With film, I've shifted to a medium where the element of time and the distance between "the shot" and "the edit" is sufficient to sharpen the creative process, and there is a tradition to the process - like using a contact sheet - that isn't so computer-centric that I'm tempted to dive into the deep well on every image to an extent that I'm wasting time on what are going to be discards anyway. If I were a professional, I suppose I'd have learned long ago how to manage my time to avoid the traps... even as a "digital artist". My life went in a different direction. But back to film, there's a shot that even an amateur can occasionally produce a decent image every now and then. Anyway, I'm not traveling to France until early Fall, so there's plenty of time to figure this out, solve some other issues and so on. Thanks very much for your thoughts. As always.... they all help, sink in and somehow improve my understanding... and eventually the output? Hope so.
macfred: What a delightful image toasting your relatives in the rain, and yes, by that I mean that though they don't have champagne glasses, they seem as happy as if the rain were really rice at a wedding. Many thanks for sharing that! And yes, I've read more about the Zeiss Super Ikonta Novars and Tessars... and I'm going to sit on the wallet and shoot the Perkeo II. Thanks!
The difference in quality - particularly tonality - between a good negative fron a Leica and a good negative from a Rollei is striking. The larger negative will always have that advantage.
As for the Noctilux, it is a special purpose lens for taking pictures of black cats in coalmines, at night. Leitz themselves said that if you want "sharp", stick with the Summicron.
As for the Noctilux, it is a special purpose lens for taking pictures of black cats in coalmines, at night. Leitz themselves said that if you want "sharp", stick with the Summicron.
EvH: Since I shoot Zeiss ZM, I don't generally really pay a lot of attention to what Leica has to say, so that's very good to know and have that correction. Thanks! As to MF vs. 35mm, it starts with pure physics but agree MF seems to have that intangible "image quality" / "tonality" thing, too. Thanks!
Yes, the difference between 35 and mf is very apparent, the difference between mf and say 4x5 less so, likely because few enlarge 4x5 to the same extent as 35 (8x to 10x or more).
A small print from 35, say 5x7.5" still has good tonality, and they can be real gems with the right subject matter and mounting. Something that occured to me from using lf up to 8x10 is what a good job 35 can do with that tiny negative!
As for Leitz, that info re. the Noctilux comes from the 80s, when Leica had yet to become the fanboi afflicted boutique product of today. My favorite Leitz 50 is the Summitar, I've used every 50 save the Noctilux, and my 1946 Summitar is the prettiest rendering lens of them all, to my eye at least. Cheap too, and a perfect fit on my Canon IIb.
Last edited:
Based on my experience:
For prints up to 8 x 10 I saw absolutely no difference between a Super Ikonta 532/16 with the coated f/2.8 Tessar, and a Rollei 2.8F with a Planar. However, the Planar captured seemingly limitless detail - truly stellar performance. The more you enlarge, the more image you see, being limited only by the film itself.
The reason to favour the Zeiss over the Rollei is for the ease of travel. The Super Ikonta is big and heavy by folder standards, but very portable compared to a Rollei. The Zeiss could be easily slipped into the front pocket of my carry-on luggage, ready for spur-of-the-moment shooting while I travelled. The Rollei is portable, but can't simply be slipped into a pocket.
On the other hand, shooting with the Rollei is actually faster and easier -- the Rollei has a nice big finder image, is quickly opened and made ready, and is much nicer to focus than using the little focus wheel on the front of the Zeiss.
I think it's worth shooting medium format instead of only 35mm in your Leica. Regardless of the results, 35mm is only so large. Especially when using a hybrid workflow, the tonality, detail and smoothness of medium format is a real bonus.
So my final recommendation -- go for the Rollei.
For prints up to 8 x 10 I saw absolutely no difference between a Super Ikonta 532/16 with the coated f/2.8 Tessar, and a Rollei 2.8F with a Planar. However, the Planar captured seemingly limitless detail - truly stellar performance. The more you enlarge, the more image you see, being limited only by the film itself.
The reason to favour the Zeiss over the Rollei is for the ease of travel. The Super Ikonta is big and heavy by folder standards, but very portable compared to a Rollei. The Zeiss could be easily slipped into the front pocket of my carry-on luggage, ready for spur-of-the-moment shooting while I travelled. The Rollei is portable, but can't simply be slipped into a pocket.
On the other hand, shooting with the Rollei is actually faster and easier -- the Rollei has a nice big finder image, is quickly opened and made ready, and is much nicer to focus than using the little focus wheel on the front of the Zeiss.
I think it's worth shooting medium format instead of only 35mm in your Leica. Regardless of the results, 35mm is only so large. Especially when using a hybrid workflow, the tonality, detail and smoothness of medium format is a real bonus.
So my final recommendation -- go for the Rollei.
Thanks for the continued discussion and sharing your experiences. All of this is 100% helpful. Especially want to respond that yes, I love my Rollei 6008, and if a TLR is anywhere close to delivering as sharp, that'd be amazing and the ability to simply swing it up and shoot, a "nice to have" ...maybe even essential. One day...
FWIW, I've been adding some background by watching David Hobby (Strobist blog) and his Lynda.com stuff on "The Traveling Photographer". While he's shooting digital, there's still much to learn, and he's got a lot of good pointers - even those of us who've returned from digital to film. Without a personal sherpa, the objective of traveling light is an absolute. Done the opposite and carried too much, and ultimately found it ridiculous as not only did I not use 90% of the stuff, it was just way too heavy. For now, the Perkeo / Ikonta seems the best option... even if I give up something in sharpness, I'll make up a bit with a Mefoto Air monopod or tripod. Maybe the NEXT trip we'll figure on a Rollei 2.8D Xenotar somehow. For now, I'm gonna try to button these things down and practice with some local travel - "as if" it were the France and really get used to the gear jog and learning what I need to know about where i'm headed. David Hobby's other point? Knowledge about the sites you visit and focus on times of day (the light) will top the list on what makes a picture rather than the gear you bring. "Bingo!"
FWIW, I've been adding some background by watching David Hobby (Strobist blog) and his Lynda.com stuff on "The Traveling Photographer". While he's shooting digital, there's still much to learn, and he's got a lot of good pointers - even those of us who've returned from digital to film. Without a personal sherpa, the objective of traveling light is an absolute. Done the opposite and carried too much, and ultimately found it ridiculous as not only did I not use 90% of the stuff, it was just way too heavy. For now, the Perkeo / Ikonta seems the best option... even if I give up something in sharpness, I'll make up a bit with a Mefoto Air monopod or tripod. Maybe the NEXT trip we'll figure on a Rollei 2.8D Xenotar somehow. For now, I'm gonna try to button these things down and practice with some local travel - "as if" it were the France and really get used to the gear jog and learning what I need to know about where i'm headed. David Hobby's other point? Knowledge about the sites you visit and focus on times of day (the light) will top the list on what makes a picture rather than the gear you bring. "Bingo!"
I don't remember whom I am quoting, but "Your sharpest lens is a tripod". A good lenshood is worthwhile, too - two simple things that make a really big difference.
My standard tripod up to & including 4x5 is the Marchioni Tiltall, about 5lbs. But when I want light, I use a very old QuikSet which weighs less than 2lbs and is great for a Rollei.
It makes a visible difference even at higher shutter speeds.
Let me add that in the last few days there was a Zeiss Ikonta Super Ikonta III that came on the market and I snagged it for $150. While it has a Novar rather than Tessar lens and isn't a Rollei 2.8D Xenotar, at this price it seemed a very worthwhile move. Certo6's notes on the same model indicated his experience had been the Tessars in good shape were much better than the Novars, but that the Novars were more commonly in good shape. Wink wink.
In any case this new Zeiss seems to be in wonderful shooting shape so far. And especially, in terms for handling it just seems really nice, This camera in fact seems a real step up from my copy of a Voigtlander Perkeo 2 (CLA's by Certo6) and how it fits in with my skill set. Note the qualification because others may find my issues aren't theirs One of the things I still struggle with using the Perkeo is the film advance which seems to have teamed up with the location of the shutter release to have my fingers stumbling over the two and locking myself out of a shot via the multiple exposure protection feature (which I don't need btw) and resulting in a burned empty frame. On the Zeiss, this seems better integrated and located so that either its not quite engineered in the same way, or my fingers just haven't tripped over this (yet). So I'm finding the Zeiss somewhat better with my general ergonomics. The film counter on my Perkeo was a matter of guess work, and some like this 'cause they can make of it what they want. Me? I have yet to reliably find the first frame rightly, and so this matter of guesswork means things don't work out just like I'd like. Not a big deal, but a deal all the same. By contrast, the Zeiss Super Ikonta III ("ZSI-3") winds forward from the load point to the first frame which is engineered to crank according to its own Teutonic principles. "Free choice? What is this and why?" Yeah... not me and not here. Size is roughly the same, ZSI-3 is slightly larger and heavier, but not noticeably unless you have very sensitive hands. The camera trigger seems less of a dimple and more of a decisively working button that rides down nicely and to which it's easy to attach a cable release. As to opening the camera, the Perkeo initially after Certo6's CLA popped out, but now on roll 6 is less decisive and waits for an assist. Not a problem, I just reach down and give it a nudge. The ZSI-3 really pops out. Again, Teutonic "snap to" lets you know it's really ready to do something. The ZSI-3 has a knob on top for helping to keep track of your film speed so long as you don't shoot film faster than 200 ISO, and nice as this intention is, it's a bit out of date and less helpful with modern B&W and even Portra 400, too. Film in the Perkeo and in the Zeiss load pretty straightforwardly, but diametrically opposed directions. Film in the Zeiss runs from left to right while the opposite on the Perkeo. On the whole, the advance on the Zeiss is a lot more to my liking, and I like the way the back opens and closes with a sense of security that's consistent with Zeiss very solid feel. This is a very nice camera. The Perkeo is fine, but this is clearly a step up in my view. Can it make better pictures? I'm not done with roll 1 yet, so that remains to be seen.
What I can say is that the experience is sufficiently improved that the likelihood of my sticking it out is MUCH higher.
Okay, now to write something of my current "mild" frustrations and disappointments. You guys never have these things, but I've had a number of failures lately. More frustratingly, I haven't been able to trace the exact cause. First I thought it was the fabled XTOL failure because negatives were developing seemingly too dark. This seems to be more of a factor the deeper into the roll the negative come off the developing reel. Next step is to try mixing up some entirely new chemistry here today and see what happens. Maybe it's an XTOL failure due to problematic initial mixing, due to replenishment, or due to storage - maybe even all of the above. Never happened before, but I've only run with XTOL as my one-and-only for the last 30 rolls or so. Can't tell as there obviously too many variables at the moment. But the other possibility is that all my exposure meter batteries suddenly died? Dunno. Could be an anti-skip conspiracy of some sort.... an usual sort of rushin' hacking. So every battery is getting replaced and recharged. Maybe I've been behind the curve? Don't think so, but worth eliminating another set of variables. At this point, somewhere something's gotta start working again or I'm going to be VERY frustrated. I'm guessing this is just another reminder of there's more to re-learn about dumping digital and going back to film than we often remember.
In any case this new Zeiss seems to be in wonderful shooting shape so far. And especially, in terms for handling it just seems really nice, This camera in fact seems a real step up from my copy of a Voigtlander Perkeo 2 (CLA's by Certo6) and how it fits in with my skill set. Note the qualification because others may find my issues aren't theirs One of the things I still struggle with using the Perkeo is the film advance which seems to have teamed up with the location of the shutter release to have my fingers stumbling over the two and locking myself out of a shot via the multiple exposure protection feature (which I don't need btw) and resulting in a burned empty frame. On the Zeiss, this seems better integrated and located so that either its not quite engineered in the same way, or my fingers just haven't tripped over this (yet). So I'm finding the Zeiss somewhat better with my general ergonomics. The film counter on my Perkeo was a matter of guess work, and some like this 'cause they can make of it what they want. Me? I have yet to reliably find the first frame rightly, and so this matter of guesswork means things don't work out just like I'd like. Not a big deal, but a deal all the same. By contrast, the Zeiss Super Ikonta III ("ZSI-3") winds forward from the load point to the first frame which is engineered to crank according to its own Teutonic principles. "Free choice? What is this and why?" Yeah... not me and not here. Size is roughly the same, ZSI-3 is slightly larger and heavier, but not noticeably unless you have very sensitive hands. The camera trigger seems less of a dimple and more of a decisively working button that rides down nicely and to which it's easy to attach a cable release. As to opening the camera, the Perkeo initially after Certo6's CLA popped out, but now on roll 6 is less decisive and waits for an assist. Not a problem, I just reach down and give it a nudge. The ZSI-3 really pops out. Again, Teutonic "snap to" lets you know it's really ready to do something. The ZSI-3 has a knob on top for helping to keep track of your film speed so long as you don't shoot film faster than 200 ISO, and nice as this intention is, it's a bit out of date and less helpful with modern B&W and even Portra 400, too. Film in the Perkeo and in the Zeiss load pretty straightforwardly, but diametrically opposed directions. Film in the Zeiss runs from left to right while the opposite on the Perkeo. On the whole, the advance on the Zeiss is a lot more to my liking, and I like the way the back opens and closes with a sense of security that's consistent with Zeiss very solid feel. This is a very nice camera. The Perkeo is fine, but this is clearly a step up in my view. Can it make better pictures? I'm not done with roll 1 yet, so that remains to be seen.
What I can say is that the experience is sufficiently improved that the likelihood of my sticking it out is MUCH higher.
Okay, now to write something of my current "mild" frustrations and disappointments. You guys never have these things, but I've had a number of failures lately. More frustratingly, I haven't been able to trace the exact cause. First I thought it was the fabled XTOL failure because negatives were developing seemingly too dark. This seems to be more of a factor the deeper into the roll the negative come off the developing reel. Next step is to try mixing up some entirely new chemistry here today and see what happens. Maybe it's an XTOL failure due to problematic initial mixing, due to replenishment, or due to storage - maybe even all of the above. Never happened before, but I've only run with XTOL as my one-and-only for the last 30 rolls or so. Can't tell as there obviously too many variables at the moment. But the other possibility is that all my exposure meter batteries suddenly died? Dunno. Could be an anti-skip conspiracy of some sort.... an usual sort of rushin' hacking. So every battery is getting replaced and recharged. Maybe I've been behind the curve? Don't think so, but worth eliminating another set of variables. At this point, somewhere something's gotta start working again or I'm going to be VERY frustrated. I'm guessing this is just another reminder of there's more to re-learn about dumping digital and going back to film than we often remember.
I am not certain but from what you just wrote it would seem that you are reusing your XTOL.
I don't have any experience with XTOL but trying using it one shot only for a couple of rolls.
Either that or pick up some Rodinal or HC110 and use one of them as a "one-shot and discard" developer instead. See if this clears up your trouble.
I don't have any experience with XTOL but trying using it one shot only for a couple of rolls.
Either that or pick up some Rodinal or HC110 and use one of them as a "one-shot and discard" developer instead. See if this clears up your trouble.
Pioneer: Yes, I've BEEN using XTOL. Like it with Delta films. But whoa... if this is XTOL failure, it doesn't play very nicely. And yes, I'm going to slip back to a one-shot until I get this thing figured. Thanks!
MattKing
Moderator
Are the negatives too dark, or are they too thin (leading to dark prints)? If the negatives are too dark, it means they are over-developed, not under-developed, and it certainly isn't a problem with X-Tol failure.
The reference to uneven development makes me think you are encountering a problem with either volume of developer or agitation. Are you processing in a JOBO using rotary agitation? If so, and the negatives that are near the centre of the reel are less developed than the ones at the edge, I would bet that you aren't using the right amount of developer. Too little developer can result in parts of the film spending too much time in contact with the air. Too much developer can impede agitation.
Are you using rechargeable batteries in an exposure meter? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Was this problem encountered with replenished developer, or re-used developer? If replenished, increase your replenishment rate somewhat - particularly if you are using minimal quantities of developer. With JOBO agitation and minimal quantities of developer, you are accentuating the affects of developer oxidation.
With replenishment, there is no reason to minimize developer volume.
Matt: THanks for ALL your comments. I've been using 600ML for 2 120 rolls, so the likelihood is it is too much.and not enough sloshing. Yes as well to replenishment in XTOL. Generally had just replenished about 1/2 as I went from 2 liters to 4 liters in container size for the replenisher mix. Used a Delta-1 Datatainer and maybe that is air permeable? Looking for glass version might be a better idea. But might be the mix itself was the next thought.
I like the suggestion that over-fill could possibly be the issue. The Jobo container size that works for me in the 1500 series is the 1510+1530 combo, and 2 films. Wish I could get 2 films per roll, but so far that hasn't been something I've managed to do in the dark... so this is it. My notes show minimum Jobo chems of 470 and 560 depending on the number, and 600 was just "easier" but clearly too much if the centrifugal function is what you suggest. I'd sure appreciate further insight here if you have any. Thanks!
No, I don't use rechargeable batteries for exposure meters, but YES to a Rollei 6008 for the film motor, meter, etc. Ditto for a Leica M6 TTL..
I like the suggestion that over-fill could possibly be the issue. The Jobo container size that works for me in the 1500 series is the 1510+1530 combo, and 2 films. Wish I could get 2 films per roll, but so far that hasn't been something I've managed to do in the dark... so this is it. My notes show minimum Jobo chems of 470 and 560 depending on the number, and 600 was just "easier" but clearly too much if the centrifugal function is what you suggest. I'd sure appreciate further insight here if you have any. Thanks!
No, I don't use rechargeable batteries for exposure meters, but YES to a Rollei 6008 for the film motor, meter, etc. Ditto for a Leica M6 TTL..
MattKing
Moderator
So many things to say
For JOBO tanks and rotary agitation, JOBO recommends 570 ml as a minimum for a 1510 + 2 x 1530 in order to ensure that the films are sufficiently covered with solution. So 600 ml is close to the minimum and will only be enough if your tank is completely level. You could easily add more without creating a problem - what is the capacity of that tank combination if you fill it to near over-flowing? I would suggest that at a minimum you should use 2/3 of that near over-flowing amount - that will leave lots of room for slosh.
600 ml of developer should have enough chemical developing capacity to develop two 120 rolls - to be on the safe side I recommend a minimum of 200 ml per roll to deal with that factor.
Also check that the tanks and reels are properly assembled. The reels should rotate with the tank when the tank rotates.
When you make reference to "replenisher mix" are you actually referring to the working solution mix? The replenisher is the stuff you add 70ml (or so) at a time. The working solution is the stuff that you actually develop the film in.
Do I assume correctly that you have the working solution in a 128 oz/1 US gallon (not 4 litre) Datatainer bottle? If so, it probably is okay with respect to permeability, although something that is both clear and has a recycling code of "1" (Polyethylene terephthalate - PET) would be better - clear because it allows you to observe the build up of any sediment, and PET because of its relatively high rating for gas impermeability.
For JOBO tanks and rotary agitation, JOBO recommends 570 ml as a minimum for a 1510 + 2 x 1530 in order to ensure that the films are sufficiently covered with solution. So 600 ml is close to the minimum and will only be enough if your tank is completely level. You could easily add more without creating a problem - what is the capacity of that tank combination if you fill it to near over-flowing? I would suggest that at a minimum you should use 2/3 of that near over-flowing amount - that will leave lots of room for slosh.
600 ml of developer should have enough chemical developing capacity to develop two 120 rolls - to be on the safe side I recommend a minimum of 200 ml per roll to deal with that factor.
Also check that the tanks and reels are properly assembled. The reels should rotate with the tank when the tank rotates.
When you make reference to "replenisher mix" are you actually referring to the working solution mix? The replenisher is the stuff you add 70ml (or so) at a time. The working solution is the stuff that you actually develop the film in.
Do I assume correctly that you have the working solution in a 128 oz/1 US gallon (not 4 litre) Datatainer bottle? If so, it probably is okay with respect to permeability, although something that is both clear and has a recycling code of "1" (Polyethylene terephthalate - PET) would be better - clear because it allows you to observe the build up of any sediment, and PET because of its relatively high rating for gas impermeability.
Very happy to report that having replaced exposure meter batteries AND the developer, we're back in business again. What a relief!
First roll of negatives out of the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III from a Sunday walk earlier this evening ... and the results are gorgeous! Look quite sharp! Helps that I took my monopod with me.. And this time I used the s1520 tank alone with one reel of 120. Shot 3 rolls just to burn some film to debug the bad stuff, and it's very sweet to have things work again. I'll have to gear up a bit to get my XTOL-R tank going again, but in the meantime, I'm using Ilford's ID-11 which is fine. Yellow solution when it's mixed instead of clear, so it's a change, and maybe not what I want to run, but I have 3 boxes on hand and it's a good thing to simply use this up.
Other observations? While I like to let my negs dry overnight, I do see the spacing issue some Zeiss Super Ikonta shooters mention, but I'm not sure whether that was me not cranking it fully yet, or the camera. We'll find out in another roll, but it's good to feel like we're not shooting blanks again. Thank you all for your help - that means you Matt, but of course anyone else who read this and thought, "Gee, I hate it when that happens... 'cause I'm sure I'm not alone, here. Maybe it only happens to folks once, but it still stings.
First roll of negatives out of the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta III from a Sunday walk earlier this evening ... and the results are gorgeous! Look quite sharp! Helps that I took my monopod with me.. And this time I used the s1520 tank alone with one reel of 120. Shot 3 rolls just to burn some film to debug the bad stuff, and it's very sweet to have things work again. I'll have to gear up a bit to get my XTOL-R tank going again, but in the meantime, I'm using Ilford's ID-11 which is fine. Yellow solution when it's mixed instead of clear, so it's a change, and maybe not what I want to run, but I have 3 boxes on hand and it's a good thing to simply use this up.
Other observations? While I like to let my negs dry overnight, I do see the spacing issue some Zeiss Super Ikonta shooters mention, but I'm not sure whether that was me not cranking it fully yet, or the camera. We'll find out in another roll, but it's good to feel like we're not shooting blanks again. Thank you all for your help - that means you Matt, but of course anyone else who read this and thought, "Gee, I hate it when that happens... 'cause I'm sure I'm not alone, here. Maybe it only happens to folks once, but it still stings.
Have put one STICKY on the inside of a new roll of TMAX to see whether it will widen the frame spacing. I had some overlap in the middle, but suspect that might be me and not the camera. I do like the way this thing handles. Yes, you have some set up time to get the thing out, and so I get that. But the filters are supposed to be able to stay on the camera even when closed - if they're Zeiss. Found some on ebay in India...so we'll see. Also getting a Zeiss lens hood. We'll print a few and see how they look after I get back from New Orleans. Rollei TLR 2.8 Xenotar is not a 2018 item. Just saying. But I do like having a MF 6X6 that fits easily into a coat pocket. Picked up a Sekonic 308X meter and love the size of it! Just right for this sort of photography. Smaller and a little more up-to-date than my old Gossen... and vastly smaller than the spot meters lying around the house. And it does 1/3 and 1/2 stops. Nice!
I don't understand the problem with opening up a folding camera.
If you are taking a Rollei out of a bag, you must flip up the focusing hood and probably flip up the magnifier as well. Sounds even to me.
If you are taking a Rollei out of a bag, you must flip up the focusing hood and probably flip up the magnifier as well. Sounds even to me.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |