Bill Clark
Mentor
I once made a couple of reflector telescopes, Newtonian, and after grinding and finishing the lenses I had them, in a vacuum, coated on the front with aluminum. An outfit here in St. Paul did the coating.
As I understand, silver was used on some of these old cameras for the coating on the front. And silver, well it tarnishes over time!
Thanks for your answer.
As I understand, silver was used on some of these old cameras for the coating on the front. And silver, well it tarnishes over time!
Thanks for your answer.
aizan
Mentor
Just checking, but are these the only readily available focusing screens for the interchangeable hood models?
1) Maxwell
2) the new ones from Rick Oleson
3) the Chinese "Super bright split image" focusing screens on eBay (these are the Jinfinance screens, right?)
How's the new Oleson screen? Has anybody gotten the unbranded Chinese screen?
1) Maxwell
2) the new ones from Rick Oleson
3) the Chinese "Super bright split image" focusing screens on eBay (these are the Jinfinance screens, right?)
How's the new Oleson screen? Has anybody gotten the unbranded Chinese screen?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I would like to try a screen with good focusing snap on my 2.8D Rollei. I don't think I need a split image. What I'm getting so far is that the maxwell is not the best screen if you want to focus anywhere on the screen, rather than with the split image.
If brightness and focusing work against each other, I would rather go with optimal focusing. I'll use it mostly outdoors in good light. What is the best screen for focusing "snap" in good light? The original from Rollei? And where do you get it?
If brightness and focusing work against each other, I would rather go with optimal focusing. I'll use it mostly outdoors in good light. What is the best screen for focusing "snap" in good light? The original from Rollei? And where do you get it?
f16sunshine
Moderator
OK, here is a report after a few rolls with the "new" camera.
I have the Mamiya "A" now installed in my 2.8D.
Honestly I can say it's the best combination of brightness and fine focus capability so far.
I've used the Maxwell screens in the past and find the Mamiya is a touch less coarse and gets closer to a classic Ground glass in focus "pop" while being much brighter out to the corners.
When I had a mamiya screen in a camera in the past, it must have been an older one from the C-series TLR.
This "A" screen looks fantastic!
One drawback on installing it in the 2.8D or other fixed WLF models is one must forgo any factory framing lines.
I like 3rd segments if possible on my screens but with the Fixed hood models only the actual focus screen will fit in. (not sure how a rollei with removable WLF would work).
With the Mamiya screen, the glass cover has the lines on it and it may not be installed as it ruins lens culmination.... (you run out of adjustment).
If one tries to put the glass on the top side of the WLF frame, the WLF will not close properly.
The only option would be to scribe on the acrylic which I'm not daring to do at this point.
So a point is, Don't bother trying to find the Mamiya "checker" screen... the standard "A" or usually inexpensive "A3" will do.
I think I paid $40 for a new A3 screen a few years ago. It's been sitting in a bin until now.
Looking on ebay, there is a seller who has new A3 screens for $49 BIN.
I have the Mamiya "A" now installed in my 2.8D.
Honestly I can say it's the best combination of brightness and fine focus capability so far.
I've used the Maxwell screens in the past and find the Mamiya is a touch less coarse and gets closer to a classic Ground glass in focus "pop" while being much brighter out to the corners.
When I had a mamiya screen in a camera in the past, it must have been an older one from the C-series TLR.
This "A" screen looks fantastic!
One drawback on installing it in the 2.8D or other fixed WLF models is one must forgo any factory framing lines.
I like 3rd segments if possible on my screens but with the Fixed hood models only the actual focus screen will fit in. (not sure how a rollei with removable WLF would work).
With the Mamiya screen, the glass cover has the lines on it and it may not be installed as it ruins lens culmination.... (you run out of adjustment).
If one tries to put the glass on the top side of the WLF frame, the WLF will not close properly.
The only option would be to scribe on the acrylic which I'm not daring to do at this point.
So a point is, Don't bother trying to find the Mamiya "checker" screen... the standard "A" or usually inexpensive "A3" will do.
I think I paid $40 for a new A3 screen a few years ago. It's been sitting in a bin until now.
Looking on ebay, there is a seller who has new A3 screens for $49 BIN.
Range-rover
Mentor
I'm bringing back this thread, I just received a Mamiya RB67 screen #4 with a
Microprism spot, and after lining up the old Rolleiflex screen with it and marking
it with a pen I Dremeled the Mamiya screen to fit the 3.5F. All I have to say is
it's a great improvement at really bright. Now my 3.5F and my 2.8C are done
with new screens. Thanks Dan for the review of all the screens they were a big
help.
Microprism spot, and after lining up the old Rolleiflex screen with it and marking
it with a pen I Dremeled the Mamiya screen to fit the 3.5F. All I have to say is
it's a great improvement at really bright. Now my 3.5F and my 2.8C are done
with new screens. Thanks Dan for the review of all the screens they were a big
help.
Steve Ruddy
Established
I have the same screen in my 2.8E and I have the no.3 rangefinder spot in my T. So far I’m liking the rangefinder better. If I just want to look down and focus using the surface other than the center spots it seems like the rangefinder is a bit easier to focus. I think it should be the same so maybe it has something to do with the hood or diopter. I’m finding both very useable though. The original screens are only good enough for me outside in bright sun.
Range-rover
Mentor
Hi Steve, I think your right, the microprism which I got is good but finding a
split image rangefinder would be better. Here's another thing, since I got the 2.8C
I love the focusing in that better, why?. It has a built-in diopter correction, when you
lift the magnifier you could adjust the height of the lens separately to fit your eyesight,
it's really sharp, but my 3.5F's it only goes so high where I have to lift the eyepiece
further up for it to be clear. It is what it is I guess.
split image rangefinder would be better. Here's another thing, since I got the 2.8C
I love the focusing in that better, why?. It has a built-in diopter correction, when you
lift the magnifier you could adjust the height of the lens separately to fit your eyesight,
it's really sharp, but my 3.5F's it only goes so high where I have to lift the eyepiece
further up for it to be clear. It is what it is I guess.
Range-rover
Mentor
Well I found a mint in box Mamiya RZ67 #3 split image screen, out comes
the Dremel tool!
the Dremel tool!
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Have you used a Dremel for this? I find it can be pretty messy, including spitting hot semi-melted plastic all over the place.
By the way, the answer for Rolleis without movable magnifiers is to get diopter lenses. Contact Harry Fleenor to see if he has what you need. If it's a question of close focus. go to the drug store and play with reading glasses to see which number works best/
Range-rover
Mentor
Yes I have, my other screen I cut with the Dremel, and about the diopter for the F.
I wanted to use my eyeglasses when I focus my camera's like my 6002 and my
2.8C for some reason I can but the way the F is made it's blurry to me and I have
to lift the magnifier higher then it's clear, so I have a junker waist level finder with
the magnifier bent higher in which I could see clear.
I wanted to use my eyeglasses when I focus my camera's like my 6002 and my
2.8C for some reason I can but the way the F is made it's blurry to me and I have
to lift the magnifier higher then it's clear, so I have a junker waist level finder with
the magnifier bent higher in which I could see clear.
Steve Ruddy
Established
Do you use a diamond cutter? The only issue I have had is the plastic will form a ridge alone the cut edge. This can be cleanly snapped off when cool.
I was haveing problems with mine too. I had to pull my eye away from it. Then after getting a new prescription, which has better reading section I can see well in both my T and E Models. If you talk with Henry let us know which diopters he has.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
I've used three methods to cut screens-
1) Score and snap. If you are experienced in doing this with plastics, you'll know what to do. If not, best avoided. 220 sandpaper wet sanding cleans up the edges nicely.
2) Bandsaw with fine tooth blade. Again sand edges.
3) Laser cutter. Protect surfaces from smoke with app tape.
Range-rover
Mentor
I received the RZ67 split-image screen today, it is shaped different it's more
square and I was able to have the spit horizontal now which is good.
square and I was able to have the spit horizontal now which is good.
osullic
Newbie
I wonder if it's possible to have the original comparison image re-uploaded to this thread? I'd be curious to see it.
I bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F a few years ago and really do enjoy using it, but sometimes, indoors or in poor light, I wish the screen was a bit brighter. To be honest, I've no idea what screen I have - whether it's the original factory screen or if a previous owner upgraded it at some point. It would be interesting to see some side-by-side comparisons.
I bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F a few years ago and really do enjoy using it, but sometimes, indoors or in poor light, I wish the screen was a bit brighter. To be honest, I've no idea what screen I have - whether it's the original factory screen or if a previous owner upgraded it at some point. It would be interesting to see some side-by-side comparisons.
albireo
Established
Interesting thread thanks so much everyone for some great info.
I have a question about achieving optimal focus. Did those of you using replacement screens find they had to somehow 'shim' or adjust the position of the new screen to achieve critical focus on the film?
I would imagine that if the replacement screen is even a little thinner or thicker than whatever was already fitted in camera, then the focus lock I'll see won't be the focus lock the focal plane is seeing. Hope I'm making sense, regards
I have a question about achieving optimal focus. Did those of you using replacement screens find they had to somehow 'shim' or adjust the position of the new screen to achieve critical focus on the film?
I would imagine that if the replacement screen is even a little thinner or thicker than whatever was already fitted in camera, then the focus lock I'll see won't be the focus lock the focal plane is seeing. Hope I'm making sense, regards
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have Olesen in the Minolta, Mamiya A for the 2.8E, Maxwell screens in the wide and 2.8E3 and can confirm Maxwell is the best but it is expensive. For earlier Rollei’s including the E and earlier without the user removable focusing hood I recommend getting the Mamiya screen and let the camera tech install and calibrate at the same time as the CLA. You can get the A screen for $70 off eBay. The Olesen is bright but not as snappy focus wise.
This would certainly be a concern if the focusing surface of the screen were on top... but it isn't. Since the frosted surface is down, that surface is in register with the screen's support, and that should be correctly in register with the film plane. So, no shimming or adjustment is necessary.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
I'll disagree with Doug about it not being an issue- on some cameras.
On some cameras, like Rolleiflexes with removable screens, the focus surface of the screen is referenced to the surface where the screen sits. Thickness of the screen makes no difference, as Doug says.
On most TLRs, like non-removable screen Rolleis (Flexes and Cords), Minolta Autocords, YashicaMats, to name a few, the focus surface of the screen ad the index surface of the screen are not the same. So a difference in thickness will change focus.
There are two ways to deal with this. One is to find out the difference in thickness and then shim properly to correct for this. The second way is to install the screen and then adjust the viewing lens position to have its focus be in agreement with the taking lens.
Shims are easier but sloppier. Changing focus is cleaner but more difficult.
Although the numbers are small- .004-.008 inch or less- it's certainly best to adjust for this.
I'll dig around and see if I can find the original file of the comparison. I think Flickr ate it or something.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
OK, found a file. Not the original, first post. A later compliation-
astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
i had what i believe was a 'rolleiclear' screen in one of my 'cords for a while that had been cut and shimmed for my rolleicord V, and decided to switch to oleson microprism screen. the oleson has a lot less contrast, and the microprism is a much lower quality. i would put the old rollei screen back in but i already calibrated the focus so i'll finish up a couple rolls and decide what to do then. i do not find it to be so bright either, but it's certainly not dim. It is brighter and probably easier to use than early non-removeable screens from E and earlier.
compared to the maxwell screen there is no comparison, the hi lux maxwell screen without focusing aid is a joy to use. but the late model rollei screens with large center microprism screen are great too and i prefer them to the oleson. these are the screens that came with F models and some e2/e3 models i believe. i also find the rolleiclear screen a lot sharper, albeit a bit dimmer, but focusing is still actually easier and more accurate when you hit it. oleson is SOFT because it lacks resolution due to its coarse grain.
The microprism in the oleson has a significant amount of tolerance in focus because it is not very sharp, and therefore not good for critical focusing. perhaps had I gone with a split image this would have been solved. and it has poor off axis viewing. if you are not looking directly down at it from the perfect angle you lose focusing aid and just see the black microprism grain. this makes it difficult to use the entire microprism because if you are using it closer to the outer edges of the circle you are probably tilting you head a couple degree to focus on that part of the image if that makes any sense.
compared to the maxwell screen there is no comparison, the hi lux maxwell screen without focusing aid is a joy to use. but the late model rollei screens with large center microprism screen are great too and i prefer them to the oleson. these are the screens that came with F models and some e2/e3 models i believe. i also find the rolleiclear screen a lot sharper, albeit a bit dimmer, but focusing is still actually easier and more accurate when you hit it. oleson is SOFT because it lacks resolution due to its coarse grain.
The microprism in the oleson has a significant amount of tolerance in focus because it is not very sharp, and therefore not good for critical focusing. perhaps had I gone with a split image this would have been solved. and it has poor off axis viewing. if you are not looking directly down at it from the perfect angle you lose focusing aid and just see the black microprism grain. this makes it difficult to use the entire microprism because if you are using it closer to the outer edges of the circle you are probably tilting you head a couple degree to focus on that part of the image if that makes any sense.