[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Rollei] 3.5E species follow-up



- --part1_d.1146348e.2c0117b6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 5/24/2003 12:30:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
SandersM   writes: 
> 1.  Vincent mentions that the E3 has a six-element Planar lens.  I'm 
> currently using an original 3.5E, with the five-element Planar.  I know this was a 
> subject of some recent discussion on this list, but is there any discernable 
> difference in image quality between the two lens designs?
> 
> 2.  Vincent and other respondents mention a flat glass plate option.  What 
> is it, and why would I want it?
> 
> 3.  I gather that the E2 is built on the E body, whilst the E3 is built on 
> the F body, and both have removeable focusing hoods.  If my goal is to have a 
> 3.5E TLR without the meter, is there any reason to prefer the one over the 
> other as a working camera?
> 
 

1.  The wizards at Rollei SURELY thought so.

2.  The optional back (with a rectangular "bump" in it) holds the film FLAT 
against the optional optical flat inserted between the film rollers by pressing 
the 1/2-moon shaped doodad below the lower roller.  At one point these were 
standard issue on the Wide and Tele TLRs.  Often vilified for electrostatically 
collecting dust on the glass and thereby souring the captured negative.  
Never experienced this myself.  Check with Todd about availability.

3.  I would expect that parts for the latter version (E3) would be more 
readily available not to mention that, with the passage of time, the upcoming crop 
of service people may have limited experience with earlier versions.

I neglected to mention in yesterday's rhapsody that the shutter release on 
the 3.5 is (in contrast to the larger 2.8) as smooth as glass and the shutter 
itself is QUIET (more so than the vaunted Leica, in my opinion).

Thanks for asking.

____Vincent L. Gookin____
"Saru mo ki kara ochiru."

- --part1_d.1146348e.2c0117b6_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><B><I>In a message dated 5/24/2003 12:30:27 PM Eastern=
 Daylight Time, SandersM   writes: </B></I><BR>
</FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3=
 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"arial" LANG=3D"0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE styl=
e=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PA=
DDING-LEFT: 5px">1.&nbsp; Vincent mentions that the E3 has a six-element Pla=
nar lens.&nbsp; I'm currently using an original 3.5E, with the five-element=20=
Planar.&nbsp; I know this was a subject of some recent discussion on this li=
st, but is there any discernable difference in image quality between the two=
 lens designs?<BR>
<BR>
2.&nbsp; Vincent and other respondents mention a flat glass plate option.&nb=
sp; What is it, and why would I want it?<BR>
<BR>
3.&nbsp; I gather that the E2 is built on the E body, whilst the E3 is built=
 on the F body, and both have removeable focusing hoods.&nbsp; If my goal is=
 to have a 3.5E TLR without the meter, is there any reason to prefer the one=
 over the other as a working camera?<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
 <BR>
<BR>
1.&nbsp; The wizards at Rollei SURELY thought so.<BR>
<BR>
2.&nbsp; The optional back (with a rectangular "bump" in it) holds the film=20=
FLAT against the optional optical flat inserted between the film rollers by=20=
pressing the 1/2-moon shaped doodad below the lower roller.&nbsp; At one poi=
nt these were standard issue on the Wide and Tele TLRs.&nbsp; Often vilified=
 for electrostatically collecting dust on the glass and thereby souring the=20=
captured negative.&nbsp; Never experienced this myself.&nbsp; Check with Tod=
d about availability.<BR>
<BR>
3.&nbsp; I would expect that parts for the latter version (E3) would be more=
 readily available not to mention that, with the passage of time, the upcomi=
ng crop of service people may have limited experience with earlier versions.=
<BR>
<BR>
I neglected to mention in yesterday's rhapsody that the shutter release on t=
he 3.5 is (in contrast to the larger 2.8) as smooth as glass and the shutter=
 itself is QUIET (more so than the vaunted Leica, in my opinion).<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for asking.<BR>
<BR>
____Vincent L. Gookin____<BR>
"Saru mo ki kara ochiru."<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_d.1146348e.2c0117b6_boundary--

------------------------------