Maxwell Screens: anyone in the bay area?

msbarnes

msbarnes

Well-known
Local time
8:35 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
841
Anyone in the bay area, preferably Berkeley, have a Rollei fitted with a Maxwell screen?

I'm interested in getting my Rollei CLA'd and I'm contemplating whether or not I should get a screen too.

Many people would say yes, ofcourse, but I'd like to see one first-hand first, so that I can judge if it is worth the cost or not.
 
msbarnes said:
Anyone in the bay area, preferably Berkeley, have a Rollei fitted with a Maxwell screen?

I'm interested in getting my Rollei CLA'd and I'm contemplating whether or not I should get a screen too.

Many people would say yes, ofcourse, but I'd like to see one first-hand first, so that I can judge if it is worth the cost or not.
Click to expand...

I fitted all my Rolleiflexes with Maxwell screens. These screens transform the cameras, particularly the older ones. My last 'Flex is in the hands of the friend who bought it, in Tokyo now. (I live in Santa Clara.)

I had Bill Maxwell install his screens and do the CLA on my cameras. He did a great job, the cameras worked as if new and focused perfectly. Do it, you won't regret it.
 
I sent my Rolleiflex to Harry Fleenor earlier this year for a CLA and a Maxwell Screen. The difference is quite stunning.

I would compare it to Acute Matte screen on my Hasselblad.
 
Anyone regret installing a Maxwell screen? I seldem, if ever, hear anyone regretting this decision.

My concern is not so much the cost, but the contrast. I'm not so familiar with focusing screens and how they work but I hear that increased brightness oftentimes comes at the expense of contrast.

Any noticeable difference in contrast? Particularly a reduction.
 
There is no contest, these screens are simply a different thing. Mind you, there are several types, so investigate which one would work best for you. I dislike the split image type, and have had a plain screen installed for Tele Rolleiflex. A screen with grid works great for normal and wide version.
 
Bill Maxwell understands contrast very well. He told me once that he could make his screens even brighter but they would lose contrast. He thinks that he has hit a happy medium. In my experience, he has. I have used them on a Hasselblad and presently on my 4X5.
 
Actually, I'm not 100% sure it was the right thing for me. It definitely slows the camera down. The older ground glass screens [or the one I had in my 3.5E anyway] have more focus 'pop' and snap in and out of focus more obviously. So as long as the light was decent, I could focus more quickly with the original screen than the Maxwell. I also find myself needing to use the focus magnifier more with the Maxwell.

That said, the Maxwell is much brighter corner to corner, and composing is a pleasure. Also, in low light, it's possible to focus accurately with the Maxwell in a way that would be much more difficult with the standard screen.

So, it's ups and downs. Brighter, clearer, easier to focus in low light. But, slower to focus (for me anyway) in good light.
 
when i got my Hasselblad 500C CLA'd be a local ex-Hasselblad technician i also had a Maxwell grid + split screen installed. i had assumed that the screen that was already in the camera was the standard old screen as 500C screens are not readily interchangable, but after replacing the screen the technician said that he was pretty sure the screen had been an acute matte. whether it actually was or not, i've found the Maxwell screen to have made a WORLD of difference in terms of brightness. the grid is icing on the cake!


p.s. just in case you're wondering, that is the Maxwell screen in my avatar and the vignetting was added. :p
 
msbarnes said:
Anyone regret installing a Maxwell screen? I seldem, if ever, hear anyone regretting this decision.

My concern is not so much the cost, but the contrast. I'm not so familiar with focusing screens and how they work but I hear that increased brightness oftentimes comes at the expense of contrast.

Any noticeable difference in contrast? Particularly a reduction.
Click to expand...
Nothing to worry about there. Bill Maxwell designed these screens to improve Focusing contrast.
 
digitalintrigue said:
This video I took of my Maxwell in a 3.5F might help.

http://vimeo.com/46391099
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the video but it really needs to have a standard screen side by side with a Maxwell for purposes of comparison. My 3.5F, T and Rolleicord Vb all appear to be as bright as that one on a sunny day, and both my 2.8F and my Mamiya C33 are just a bit brighter than the others but the difference isn't really significant.

I haven't tried a Maxwell screen or the far cheaper alternative from Rick Oleson so I can't really comment, but I can't help wondering whether some people exagerate the benefits to justify their expenditure. After all, they are just simple fresnel lenses aren't they, or is there some magic technology involved which I don't know about?
 
mkvrnn said:
I haven't tried a Maxwell screen or the far cheaper alternative from Rick Oleson so I can't really comment, but I can't help wondering whether some people exagerate the benefits to justify their expenditure. After all, they are just simple fresnel lenses aren't they, or is there some magic technology involved which I don't know about?
Click to expand...

As with most things, what seems simple in concept can be executed in various ways. A Yashica Electro GSN and a Leica M3 are both coupled rangefinder cameras, yes?

With Maxwell, you are paying a premium price. The design and the machining of the molds are top-notch. Quality control is top-notch. It is simply one of the best screens available. As to whether that is worth the cost to you or anyone else is your call.

The Oleson screens are good. The fresnel grooving is wider. The 'ground glass' look is grainer. The light spread is not as even as on a Maxwell. The chance of their being small defects is more. I think Rick Oleson would agree with all of my comments here.

So it isn't magic at work. It is execution. Bill Maxwell is working a small market. He seems to be trying to deliver the best product that can be achieved. I don't know optics and imaging so I can't say if his screens match what, say, the Air Force or NASA would be able to do. Most manufactured items work along a 'diminishing return' curve. After a certain point, producing a slightly better product takes a significant increase in costs. Cameras, optics, automobiles, watches, clothes....

When I bought a Rolleiflex, it had a Maxwell screen installed. Without that, I doubt I would have spent the money to install one. Having used one, though, it's hard to see most other screens as anything more than temporary until I can afford a Maxwell.
 
Hi msbarnes,
Here's some more comments on Maxwell screens.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103620&page=2

As mentioned in there, the trade-off for me was the brightness in low light, versus the fact that things don't snap into focus as well, for my eyes, with the Maxwell. It felt like the finer grain of the original, or on something like a Hasselblad accute-matte, helped resolve when things were in or out of focus. Not a big deal, but still noticeable. I used the magnifier a lot less with the original.

I have a Maxwell for a 2.8E somewhere in storage. What model do you have? I'm in the east bay too.
 
One of the things about ground glass screens is that they are always a trade off of brightness v. focusing accuracy (the coarser the grind the more accurate, the finer the grind the brighter). A condenser lens can help, heavy glass or light plastic Fresnel, but still the laws of physics apply. At f/16 you are not going to notice the mis-focus, but at f/2.8 you likely will.

There are some tricks that can be used with bright screens. One of them is to bring the infocus image to match the grid lines, if both are sharp then you are pretty close (that is how you focus an aerial image on clear glass).
 
mkvrnn said:
Thanks for posting the video but it really needs to have a standard screen side by side with a Maxwell for purposes of comparison.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there was no standard screen with which to directly compare. The view by eye is dramatic; it's like a 3D effect. The vimeo link doesn't do it justice. After shooting extensively with a Contax 645 (with a much faster f/2 lens) the Maxwell is easily brighter than the Contax and very easy to focus, even though the Rollei viewing lens is a stop slower at f/2.8.
 
I got the Maxwell for my Rolleicord Vb and Tele Rolleiflex. It was an improvement over the original factory screens.

HOWEVER, for my 2.8F, I kept the original screen, because it has a wonderful full micro-prism circle (no split screen), and I find a large micro-prism to be much preferable to the split-screen with micro-prism circle. Sure, it's a tad darker than if I had put in a Maxwell, but the large micro-prism out-weighs it, IMO.

Joe
 
RedLion said:
HOWEVER, for my 2.8F, I kept the original screen, because it has a wonderful full micro-prism circle (no split screen), and I find a large micro-prism to be much preferable to the split-screen with micro-prism circle. Sure, it's a tad darker than if I had put in a Maxwell, but the large micro-prism out-weighs it, IMO.
Click to expand...
Same here. I have a 3.5 MX with a plain Maxwell screen with grid lines, a 3.5 MX-EVS with the original screen, and a 2.8F with the original screen. The original screen in the MX-EVS is so dark that it has to go. I'll have the same plain Maxwell screen installed when I have it CLA'ed. But the original screen in the 2.8F is close enough in brightness, and so easy to focus, that I see no need to replace it.

--Doug
 
re: Oleson screens. I replaced a Yashica-Mat 124G screen with an Oleson one. I love the split screen in the center for precise focusing, but indeed the image does not jump into focus like it does with the stock screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top