Rolleicord IV vs Yashica Mat 124G

[Vaughn]

Just processed some FP4 in Rodinal 1:100.

When I reach for a TLR, one of the things that will make me bypass the 2.8F is the bulk and weight of that camera compared to the Rolleicord. Especially since I have a prism and the pistol grip on the 2.8F.

BTW: the pistol grip fits on the Rolleicord IV, however, because of the angle of the grip, one needs to hold it in the RIGHT hand. This makes focusing and winding the Rolleicord difficult because both knobs are also on the RIGHT.

Interesting -- with the Vb's, the focusing is on the left like the Flex.

I bought a used 2.8F with a prism -- but because of the weight, I traded that back for the original hood. I learned photography with an older 3.5 and I just like the waist level hood better.

I got curious, so I just got out my scale -- the Rollicord Vb is 2 pounds, the 2.8F is 2 lb 13 ounces -- with my old, non-working, Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS right in between at 2lb 6 oz. The bigger glass on the 2.8F certainly changes the camera's center of gravity towards the front!

Actually used the 2.8F today -- it is my "snapshot" camera when I take my three boys somewhere when I don't want to haul the 8x10 around. Normally I use color negative in it, but today I used some Czech-made 100 ASA (Arista.EDU) since I got some for our students and I figured I should do a test or two with it.

Glad the fungus is not interfering with the images! If you ever send in the camera to be CLA, I wonder if the lens can be cleaned up also.

Vaughn

[seawolf66]

Vaughn: Lens can be cleaned, how well will be determinded by the amout of fungus: I just cleaned a Large format lens that had fungus and haze now its nice:[ ic-racer ++ Have that rollie CLA'd as soon as possible:

[ic-racer]

Glad the fungus is not interfering with the images! If you ever send in the camera to be CLA, I wonder if the lens can be cleaned up also.

Vaughn

I got the thing cleaned up pretty well. I actually purchased the Rollei TLR and Syncro Compur manuals back in the 80s, and they cover the Rolleicord. (now these are available as an on-line PDF I see http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/repairmanuals.html). The fungus on the front lens group is actually on the surfaces between the elements. I don't have a spanner small enough to dissasemble the front lens group. My experience is that the fungus eats into the coating. I will probably just leave it for now. It really is not that bad, in fact, to a lay-person (my wife) the lens looked 'fine.'

My algorithm would be:
Most practical : Leave it as it is
Less practical: buy a 'jammed' camera on e-pay and swap out the lens elements
Least practical: sent the lens elements off to be polished and re-coated.

BTW: the film from yesterday was dry and I got to examine it with the 8x loupe and the f16 quality is excellent. When 'wide open' I am used to the Planars being still quite sharp in the center, with a loss of contrast. This Xenar, though, did not seem that sharp in the center when 'wide open' but I only had one of 12 to check. More tests needed.

[ic-racer]

Vaughn: Lens can be cleaned, how well will be determinded by the amout of fungus: I just cleaned a Large format lens that had fungus and haze now its nice:[ ic-racer ++ Have that rollie CLA'd as soon as possible:

Now you have me encouraged to get that front lens group apart. Hmmm:rolleyes: ...weighing the cost of a little spanner from SK Grimes with the cost of a 'jammed' camera with good lens on e-bay .

[ic-racer]

Now you have me encouraged to get that front lens group apart. Hmmm:rolleyes: ...weighing the cost of a little spanner from SK Grimes with the cost of a 'jammed' camera with good lens on e-bay .

My initial photographs to test this camera were all in low contrast settings. I took some higher contrast photographs (i.e. sunlight scenes with shadow detail) and was not impressed with the results.

Basically the lens flare makes it so the negatives behave as if they are underexposed, no matter how much exposure you give the negative. That is, even with more exposure you get more density in the shadows, but there is still no SEPARATION of the shadow values (like an underexposed negative).

So the flare turns a scene with a LONG tonal scale in to one with a SHORT scale. One might think this would help the negative when it comes to printing, but I say NO THANKS to this type of help. The flare is compressing the values in the shadows proportionally more than the rest of the scene. Again, making it always look like it is under exposed, even with plenty of exposure.

I had been reminded of another technique to remove the trim-ring on the lens group. I used my handy rubber "jar lid opener" and a piece of plastic tubing. The tubinig presses down on the rubber, right over the retainer ring (keeping the rubber from pressing and scratching the front element).

This technique worked and I was able to get the lens apart. It has been a long time since I used this technique, but I like it, and will use it as a first line technique because it really does not leave any marks on the ring.

Anyway, after disassembly of the front lens elemets, I was able to clean all the fungus off the lens. So it looks like I got to it BEFORE the fungus ate through the coating.

Now that the lenses are clear, I suspect the camera is now worth more than the price of a Rolleiflex lenshood , so I went shopping for a hood and found an EX++ Bayonet I rollei lenshood at photorama for $25USD. So now I am anxious to try it out again.