[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AW: [Rollei] 3.5E species follow-up
- Subject: Re: AW: [Rollei] 3.5E species follow-up
- From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 08:43:37 -0300 (ART)
I respect your experience about the flat glass, I
didn't use it, I only wrote on the test that I read.
However, if Rollei deleted this "improvement", they
had their reasons.
The French magazin added that the glass often required
cleaning,accumulated dirt, moisture and the light had
another crystal surface (with distortion risks) to
pierce before it impress the film.-
All the best
--- "keller.schaefer" <keller.schaefer
escribió: > I think it does make sense. I have the
> 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
> 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
> with or without the glass and BTW the glass was a
> 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
> > list might answer:
> > 1. Vincent mentions that the E3 has a
> > 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,
> > 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
> > 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
Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión
4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario: yahoo; contraseña: yahoo
Más ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar