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

AW: [Rollei] 3.5E species follow-up

I think it does make sense. I have the flat glass fitted in a Tele
Rolleiflex and have put some 20 or 30 rolls of film through it, over the
years. I have had a couple of film flatness issues on other Rolleiflexes
(without the flat glass) and I obviously never had one on the Tele.
I agree that in an ideal situation there probably is no visible difference
(especially with a 75/80 mm focal length) but even films that have been
sitting in the camera for a while will be FLAT behind a flat glass, which
they will be not behind air...

I also agree that dirt could accumulate between glass and film - it did not
happen to me though.

As for dust, the glass is an improvement, isn't it? With the same amount of
dust particles in the camera I would rather have them on the glass than
directly on the film.


- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-rollei  us
[mailto:owner-rollei  Im Auftrag von Carlos Manuel
Gesendet: Samstag, 24. Mai 2003 23:47
An: rollei  us
Betreff: Re: [Rollei] 3.5E species follow-up

The flat glass plate option doesn't make sense. I have
read two years ago in the web a test made to this
glass with a Tele Rollei at early 60's  (I don't
remember the URL, but it was posted into a mailing
group  from a French magazin). The opinion was that
there wasn't differences between the photographs taken
with or without the glass and BTW the glass was a new
surface on the film directly exposed to dirt,
scratchs, etcetera,etcetera.

- --- SandersM   escribió: > Thanks to all who
answered my question about the
> differences between a 3.5E2
> and 3.5E3.   Vincent Gookin's post, in particular,
> made several points that
> raised additional questions for me, that I hope the
> list might answer:
> 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?
> Thanks in advance for your answers and patience.
> Sanders McNew

- ------------
Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión
4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario: yahoo; contraseña: yahoo
Más ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar