Alright, I am planning to hop in the darkroom around the end of the month so we'll see around then. I suppose anyone reading will have to take my word for it since it wouldn't be obvious in the scan of a print either.
I don't think so - classic Zeiss designs do have quite strong optical signatures - i.e. very high contrast transfer response at low frequencies, which makes them seem quite visibly 'sharp' to the viewer at normal distances. I know what an 80mm Planar should deliver, and it should visibly outperform a much older Yashica triplet, especially at wider apertures.
If you are basing your assessment on an Epson flatbed scan, you are effectively assessing the scanner optics rather than the camera.
Maybe I had unrealistic expectations based on things I've read?
I suspect a problem with the camera or lens
I'm not convinced it's anything more than a non-high-end flatbed scanner making everything equally bad even at alarmingly low cyc/mm. It's something I see on a pretty routine basis.
If the focus screen installation in the SL66 is anything like a Hasselblad, I can see where errors could happen, but generally speaking all you'd see is misplaced focus (and as you know, you'd really see that with the sharpness of the 80 planar design). That being said, the focus rack design of the SL66 does make me wonder just how sturdy it really is with heavier lenses (given the known issues with Rolleiflex 2.8s) - the fact that Rollei jumped to regular helicoids with the SLX only a few years after the SL66 was launched also raises a few questions in my mind.
How about looking with a loupe. You know, analog.
How about looking with a loupe. You know, analog.
I'm not convinced it's anything more than a non-high-end flatbed scanner making everything equally bad even at alarmingly low cyc/mm. It's something I see on a pretty routine basis.
If the focus screen installation in the SL66 is anything like a Hasselblad, I can see where errors could happen, but generally speaking all you'd see is misplaced focus (and as you know, you'd really see that with the sharpness of the 80 planar design). That being said, the focus rack design of the SL66 does make me wonder just how sturdy it really is with heavier lenses (given the known issues with Rolleiflex 2.8s) - the fact that Rollei jumped to regular helicoids with the SLX only a few years after the SL66 was launched also raises a few questions in my mind.
From Barry Thornton's examples, and the SL66's reputation I don't think your expectations were unrealistic at all. I suspect a problem with the camera or lens.
I so far I have just reviewed the negatives on a light table with my 5x loupe
I would reiterate my comments as for the scanner, and my scepticism towards Pieter's comments above - some loupes are dramatically better than others - and many are good for checking focus etc, but many aren't great for comparative sharpness analysis overall.
...................... That being said, the focus rack design of the SL66 does make me wonder just how sturdy it really is with heavier lenses (given the known issues with Rolleiflex 2.8s) - the fact that Rollei jumped to regular helicoids with the SLX only a few years after the SL66 was launched also raises a few questions in my mind.
Although the tilt is often called lens tilt, it is actually a rear tilt in view camera terminology. The advantage is that the lenses don't need wider coverage than normal, whereas a front ("lens") tilt does. Look at any basic guide to view camera movements. I find the SL66 tilt quite useful for landscape (near-far composition) and thinking of trying it for portraiture soon.
From the looks of things, the focus screen seems to sit on 4 screws (pretty much like Hasselblad did) - which will define the accuracy of focus - and which are adjustable. If the camera was dismantled enough to require the outer shell being taken off, there is a risk that those screws had not been replaced to the right height. Alternatively, someone changed the focusing screen and decided to fully tighten the screws for whatever reason. There are videos going into detail on this that are readily available.
I decided to return the camera so my SL66E journey ends here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?