Zeiss Super Ikonta III vs. Rollei 2.8D Preference Query

With the Zeiss Super Ikonta III on a monopod, photos seem very sharp. Have to admit that I am very surprised how much I like the portability of this camera. Yes, it's a bit finicky with the set up for a shot, but I've been running rolls through it trying to learn, and it's becoming more natural and the shots are beginning to meet some level of expectations. Today I'm gonna give a roll of color a try... since that what we'd do on vacation, and if it just totally fails, then we might have to think this through a tad more. I will try to post some output e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y to my Flckr page.... which is less active than it should be and almost as way behind as my developing was (but I'm now caught up on that)..

BTW, nice to get back to dependable development. My fault, not XTOL-R's, but clearly when you go through what it would REALLY take to accomplish this reliably in the info and hints close reading will give you here, the sort of gear isn't on hand in my case and I'm not ready to go back there and struggle with it right now.

For now, ID-11 is getting it done. XTOL gets it done. XTOL-R could get it done, but with a bit more care than I'm sure I'm up for at the moment, and just turning out shots the way I shot them is enough of a thrill after a couple of disappointing rolls that I'm in no hurry to change. FWIW, I am enjoying NOT filtering my developer before measuring, replenishing and storing it. I admire those who are getting it done. Not doing this does shorten the process a tiny bit, and every bit helps.

What I am beginning to suspect is that working in a bathroom with a good sink is far from the sweet arrangement that really lets you do things right. If I had the space for the really nice set-up, I suspect I could really do this without a lot of fuss, but my road his is different, and there are reasons I'm not ready to go there. For now, ID-11 1:1 seems like it is providing negatives that are pretty sweet. Printing? Later.

But to one and all, thank you many times over.

Ah... my good fortune in the Zeiss Super Ikonta III is still with me. I love the size. I've been shooting it a lot and it is a great "have it with you camera" I can take into the office and slip into a brief case even. But MacFred is right that it's not the sharpest thing on the block. THree element lenses just have their limitations. Adding two sheets of post-its to the front or back of the film leaders solves the frame spacing problem, but it doesn't upgrade the lens. So I am going to give a Rollei 3.5E (Type 2) Xenotar a try and see how that works. Liked the Bay II availability of filters, hoods, etc where the Zeiss stuff is just scarce as hen's teeth. And the Zeiss did get me over the 2.8 hang-up. I didn't want a meter, so this was the E model to go for. We'll see how it works. So that's where things stand. Grass don't grow on a busy street!

FYI, the Ikonta III was available with a 75mm f3.5 tessar.
The Ikonta iv only had the tessar as far as I know.

However, they still use front cell focusing. This is where the front half of the lens moves and the rear stays put. This can cause less that optional performance at close ranges.

STILL... they are nice cameras and what I have in the bag next to my feet. BTW, love your website "From Darkness into Light" and the Fall foliage shots. Even if they're from 2015... so what? Great color!

The Rolleiflex 3.5E2 Xenotar is a n excellent camera & lens, I have one in mint condition and have shot quite a few exhibition images with it. I now use it less often than my late 1951 Automat (K4A) MX model with an Opton Tessar purely because of its condition, the 3.5E2 is worth 10x what I paid for the Automat which also gives me excellent results.

Your comment about 3 cell lenses, it's worth remembering the Super Ikonta III's cell focussing will mean it's not as sharp as a regular Tessar, I use a Yashicamat 124 when in Turkey and Greece with the YAshinn lens which is also a Tessar, not quite a sharp as my Opton Tessar wide open.

The downside to the Ikonta and similar folding cameras is the wind mechanism and the need to use the red window, I found it near impossible to use my pre WWII Super Ikonta with Ilford films, plus my Novar lens is too foggy and horrifically low contrast. The huge advantage of the Rolleiflex cameras is the ability to focus accurately and they are fun to use

Ian

Ian Grant said:

The downside to the Ikonta and similar folding cameras is the wind mechanism and the need to use the red window ...

Click to expand...

With the Super Ikonta III the film is 'autoframed' - no red window needed.

macfred said:

With the Super Ikonta III the film is 'autoframed' - no red window needed.

Click to expand...

Thanks, it needs to be

Ian

macfred: Yep. Between the Perkeo II and the Super Ikonta III, the latter is a VERY-easy-to-use shooter. Like it a lot. WInds from Frame to Frame are simple.

The super Ikonta III is not the best 6x6 folding camera. But it sure is fun!

JWMster said:

BTW, love your website "From Darkness into Light" and the Fall foliage shots. Even if they're from 2015... so what? Great color!

Click to expand...

Yeah... Haven't updated in a little while. But thanks!

I suspect the Fuji (recent) folder is "the best" folder. But for that kind of money... the options are wide open. And about those websites, Flckr pages, etc.... there's only so much time. For me, there's one export for printing (I'm a hybrid) and one for web. I'd rather do the first and not the last, but then my kids like to see, too.

I've noticed an advantage to using a tlr that wasn't there when I was younger.

I now need reading glasses for the small lettering on most old cameras but I have trouble using a rangefinder or focusing an slr while wearing them. The pop up magnifier with the tlr works better when I'm wearing my reading specs than without them.

"So I am going to give a Rollei 3.5E (Type 2) Xenotar a try and see how that works"
Why don't you try a six elements xenotar? You'll find it on the latest Rolleis, not the 3,5E. They'r better then the 5 element's you can have with a 3,5E (if you are looking for the sharpest thing)

bunip: Yes, I didn't grab a Rolleiflex 3.5F with the maxed out serial number for a 6-element. Didn't know about the 5th vs. 6th element kerfluffle at the time. The 3.5E Type 2 Xenotar is what I snagged, and I'm EXTREMELY happy with the output of test shots I've scanned. Will post a picture this evening or tomorrow morning when I'm home to do so, but FWIW, the camera apparently had a shin dig with Harry Fleenor in Oceanside Camera at some point given the sticker on the inside. I'll be sending it out for a CLA anyway given that it's probably been a good long time since. Harry's backlog is 4 months now, so I asked about his one-time sidekick Karl Ehlers and Harry gave me his contact information, we've made contact, and the lead time is much shorter. So that works. Will add a Maxwell screen. Have added the Rolleinars (I and II) and some filters. Thinking about the Rolleipol... but that's as far as I've gone. Mostly use a yellow filter for B&W.

Enjoy your 3.5E2, the resulting images won't care they weren't made with a 6 element lens Any differences would be very marginal anyway and hey the 4 element Tessar/Xenar lens on Rolleiflex cameras are excellent as well. I love using my TLRs but I can feel the difference in build quality when using my Rolleiflexes compared to my Yashicamat 124, they are also slightly better at wider apertures

Ian

Ian: Thanks much! I'm not missing the 6-element. Mentally... yes, I'll admit I'm a sucker to "you gotta have X! X will make all the difference..." but truth is that visually, I'm just almost stunned I'm so surprised how good this thing is. Really surprised me how amazingly sharp the shots have been coming out. Knocking my socks off sufficiently that I'm lining up one of those Rolleisoft things to take it down a notch for portraits. But yes, I resisted this camera as a non-cyclops weirdo, and now of course like all my "nevers" I've ever uttered, I love it.... almost to the extent that I'm willing to say that this is my favorite way to shoot. No, it doesn't do everything, but that's what other cameras are there for. But what it does, it does extremely well. Folks have always talked up Leica, and Leica truly is a good film camera. I like mine. And I've always heard Rollei as well. But between the two, the Rollei hype seems more on the "wow" mark. Yes, I know this treads on some toes, but Leica is great to shoot and I've got some great shots with it, but the Rollei adds MF to capture that extra bit more where 35mm reaches its limits. Both have their limits, too. Not saying they don't.

But the amazing thing is that all the shots I"ve done have been hand held and often at very slow shutter speeds, and STILL they're sharp. Something about the design! 'Cause it ain't me, baby.

Oh... and a surprisingly key upgrade I'm finding is almost randomly... a new Sekonic 308. After my death-by-XTOL event, I went back and changed and tightened up a lot of things: New batteries everywhere, new Chem containers (got rid of the accordion bottles), switched developers (started using ID-11 after talking with Omer at Catlabs), and I even replaced my Gossen Luna meter with this Sekonic 308. I can't explain how something this simple has kicked things forward, but wow. Yep. Maybe the old Gossen has gone to seed? Dunno. I'd had my Pentax Spotmeter checked last year, but that didn't quite get it done either. But this has really changed things to my eyes. Made me even want to retire the old Pentax Spot for the Sekonic 758 I'd tossed on the shelf as "too big" (which it ain't by the way). And yes, I'm shooting more and more in gold and blue hours, too. So it's a whole combo. Lot's of little things, and they all of a sudden seem to be working together better. Wish I could claim credit, but I'm not.

I'm not able to scan well as I have a 15 y old scanner so usually do not scan negatives, but recently read about digital reproduction with a setup similar to slide duplicating and so this week went through this first attempt and duplicated all my recent negatives with my D600 and 70-180 Micro Nikkor. I was really surprised at how much detail you can get out of those film. Really no difference between Mamiya 6 and Rolleyflex compared side by side. Last week had a short holiday around italy with my family and went down to the south by eastern coast and back again to the north by the western coast (2500 Km in 5 days by car). Brought the rolley xenotar, the mamiya 6, E6 and C41 film and the D600. Used only the mamiya but at the end I realized that shooting with the rolley is all another pleasure; looking at my recent work there is something different with the rolley: i think it's about that with the rolley the taking height is usually lower than with the mamiya so in my family pictures this comes out as a more appealing perspective

JWMster said:

But the amazing thing is that all the shots I"ve done have been hand held and often at very slow shutter speeds, and STILL they're sharp. Something about the design! 'Cause it ain't me, baby.

Click to expand...

i use my TLRs alongside my LF equipment most of the time and very rarely on a tripod, they are easier to use hand held at slower shutter speeds than an SLR - 35mm or 120. It's down to their shape which makes hand holding easy and also the leaf shutter.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

i use my TLRs alongside my LF equipment most of the time and very rarely on a tripod, they are easier to use hand held at slower shutter speeds than an SLR - 35mm or 120. It's down to their shape which makes hand holding easy and also the leaf shutter.

Ian

Click to expand...

As much as I like my folders, my Rollei F is much easier to hold steady. Have owned Rollei tripod quick release for 50 years and almost never used. My Super Ikonta B is easy to manage but find Fuji 645 awkward to use and my Fuji GF 670 seems not quite balanced although I appreciate its ability to fold compactly, sophisticated viewfinder and 67 negative.