170244301212 ebay item number

By the way this 2.8F #2955857 which is listed with a Planar is very very dodgy and doubtful as the serial number for the Planar lens predates Fs and has coating loss. Otherwise it is the latest 295 with Planar I ever saw.
Dennis

Yes Dennis i saw that one too, if the serial is correct then the lens should be a Xenotar not Planar. Things like that mean that the relationship between the view and taking lenses is probably out of whack.
Possibly the lens was damaged by dropping and a 1960's planar substituted.
Also just back from holiday, shot 8 rolls through my T but have only processed a couple-put one or two in the gallery.

"Be there and be square"?! Not fair!!!

I bought Sean's Gowlandflex and it
just arrived. Is it not a TLR? Does
it not shoot rectangles? I think we
need a new subtitle for this group.

Sanders

Hi Sanders
I knew when I posted the paraphrase as a subheading that someone would have a rectangular TLR
The Gowland was something i was unaware of until Google helped me out of my state of ignorance.
Now I realise what that thing under Seans arm is in his Avatar!!
So as the kind of editor of the heading what would people like to see as a header?
I'm all for democracy..
Mark

Ah heck -- other than a Gowlandflex or a Koni-Omegaflex (which really isn't a TLR anyway), or maybe a couple of other rarities like a Tessina or one model of Agfa, all TLRs are square format. So "be there and be square" fits 99% of all TLRs out there. Keep it.

a square is the most efficient use of a circle... until they come up with round paper. Anyway I got post #180... which is generally considered half a circle.
Dennis

Dennis, what about an oval?

Or am I being elliptic?

Actually I think we are all elliptic when it comes to lenses but as long as they put paper in square cornered boxes and as long as we try to fit as much image on strips of film as we can I think ovals and rounds are out of it. Since a fixed rectangle wastes some of the image, you would have to say, I think that a square is less wasteful, especially if you don't mind soft corners. But then that is elliptic.

Nick, what about 16-exposure Rolleiflexes?
What about Rolleiflexes with Rolleikins?
(There are TLRs that expose 6x9 negatives
but they are scarcer than hens' teeth.)

I find the Gowlandflex fascinating. How about considering "be square" to be metaphorical? Is there a holographic TLR that creates a cubic exposure?

I shot twelve negatives last night
with the Gowlandflex. Lesson No. 1:
Its "parallax correction" with a moving
viewfinder mask is strictly aspirational. :-(

Lesson No. 2: I've shot many thousands
of sheets of 4x5 and 5x7 TXP with my view
camera, and many thousands more rolls of
Tri-X through my Rolleiflexes, and it was a
hoot to enjoy the dynamic shooting style
of the Rolleiflex while shooting sheet film.

Sanders

Ok I have a question. I'm having a blast with my T it seems to be a great cam apart from its a little hard to focus in very dim light (which I like)
I looked at my T vs my brothers Automat X which has a even duller screen.
So I want to see how many have bought brighter screens are they worth it?
I have seen (and recommended to my bro) Rick Olesons screen as for $30 it would surely be superior to the Automat one:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-175.html
But my T is a fair bit brighter, seems to have a plastic with split prism, are the Maxwell/Beattie/Rollei bright screens a direct replacement? If so changing would take only 30 seconds. Or do they need re-focus?
Opinions are welcome..
Mark

Mark, you are in luck. The T's screen
can be replaced without any readjusting
of focus. It takes 30 seconds.

The original screen in the T is good but
a Maxwell screen is visibly brighter. I
gave my wife a 2.8E3, which had the same
screen as your T, and she immediately
asked for a Maxwell screen.

Maxwell and Beattie both make great
screens. If you can live without a
center spot focusing aid, get the
Maxwell screen -- it's the best. If
you really need the center spot aid,
then get the Beattie. Maxwell's
screen with the center spot is not
nearly as good as his plain screens
-- the screen goes dark at the edges.

I've used all three screens. I stick
with Maxwell's plain screens because
the center spot is a crutch that gets
in the way. But the Beattie screens
with the spot are very close in quality
to the plain Maxwells, if the spot is
important to you.

Sanders

Thanks Sanders, I'm erring toward the maxwell screen, but find it hard to find a dealer or supplier on this side of the pond.
I can't find his site with prices but have seen Harry Feenors and he seems to re-sell.
I'd go for a plain with grid as I don't need the centre spot and actually find it distracting. Rollei screens are easier to find and cheaper here, Beattie are the most expensive- I guess Maxwell are the best value/brightness.
thanks
mark

Mark I think you can find Maxwell if you google him and then have a conversation with him on email. The darkening is a problem when you view through the pop up magnifier then you can basically only see the center. It is best for the prism however and Bill Maxwell told me that before getting it. If by chance you have a budget concern, he offered to sell me a "second" for quite a lot less. Sometimes the grids get a smear or something minor. Least that is what he said, I didn't go that route. A maxwell is definitely an improvement over the older screens.
Dennis

Well I looked into a Maxwell 'Hi-lux' sounds like a truck! and they retail at $170 which is about £90 UKP
Rollei have 2 screens listed a Robert White that interest me one bright screen for TLR and 6008 for £58 and a HD super bright for £125.
Choices.
but thanks to all who responded to my questions.
mark

Mark, you can ring Bill at 404.244.0095.
Be warned, Bill's powers of conversation
are legendary, and well-earned.

Cheers will do, after I get back from holiday (I know another one) all play and no work

Actually Rollei lists 5 screens in their FX handbook. The regular one, which is close to Maxwell in brightness, the ultra bright, the Plain, and an actual ground glass which they say is for precise focusing. and the other I can't remember. But in any case they won't work with your T as Rollei has changed the system and size for the screen a bit.
Dennis
Send Bill Maxwell your phone number on email and he will call you and have one of his long informative conversations (that are very enjoyable) on his dime.

I'll be interested in hearing how you like the Maxwell. I put one of Rick Oleson's in my 2.8E and it's a nice improvement.

Sanders -- I think I stand by my statement. Non-square Rolleis are just not statistically significant when considering the entire TLR universe.

Hello. I just joined the group. I love my TLRs! They are the easiest to compose with of any camera, IMO. I have a Mamiya C33 and a Rolleiwide. TLRs are definitely a camera I use to shoot a healthy variety of subjects...more varied than 35, for sure, which I mostly just use for handheld candid stuff. They are very convenient and versatile cameras...well, the Mamiyas with interchangeable lenses, at least. The interchangeable lenses and enormous versatility of the Mamiyas comes at the price of bulk and weight, but I still think they are some of the best cameras I have ever used. Rolleis are great because they are so compact and well built. The Rolleiwide was recently found in a thrift shop for $750. It is in near-mint condition. I am having a hard time bringing myself to sell it. I may keep it in the end, as little as I can afford it. The Mamiya I got for $400 in excellent condition with two lenses, caps, hood, prism, and handle-model paramender....another reason I absolutely adore the Mamiyas so much. The only camera that is perhaps more bang for your buck on the used market is a Sinar F or Mamiya RB.

I am glad you are considering holding on to the Rollei wide at least for awhile. I stopped at the next several garage sales I ran across after you found that camera but I had no luck.
I don't personally have interest in the Mamiya TLRs as I would rather switch over to my Pentax 67 with rectangular image if I need to change lenses but I did watch a Paul Strand documentary a short while ago with him going round his back garden with a Mamiya tlr on a tripod. it looked pretty good on him.
Dennis

Hello 2F welcome to the group, very lucky find on the wide Rollei, i'd love to see some images in the gallery- or any TLR images from any members.
I'm getting re acquainted with TLR photography and I'm enjoying every moment.
Mark

So I did it, I got a Rolleiflex, in addition to my Autocord. It's a 3.5E with a Schneider Xenotar lens. I had it overhauled, including a Maxwell screen. I only just ran one roll of Tri-X through it, but it's been a pleasure to use. Slightly different ergonomics from the Autocord, esp. the focusing system, but a little easier to focus due to a faster viewing lens. I never imagined I would succumb to the temptation, but I am so glad I did.

I moved from 135 film to 120 by getting a Rollei Xenotar f/3.5 6 years ago and I really enjoyed with both 120 film and Rollei. Recently I got a Mamiya c330. I like it as well. I favorise Mamiya TLR with interchangeable lenses for certain situations...