f16sunshine
Moderator
I just ordered a RZ screen to install in my old Yashicamat. $45 including Post from ebay for a New A3 212-421 screen.
Since I sold my Rollei T the Lumuxar in the Yashica has taken the place of Tessar in my line up along side the Xenotar in the 2.8D.
The Yashica screens are actually quite bright but not very fine.
I'll post a tute on the instal if it goes well
^^ @ Axiom
The GG is very fine grained and focus is lovely accurate but, the screen becomes quite dark going away from the center.
I would agree that to some extent the GG is still the most accurate view especially for Portraits where you would wish to get critical focus on the eyes.
In lower light they lose their advantage quickly.
Since I sold my Rollei T the Lumuxar in the Yashica has taken the place of Tessar in my line up along side the Xenotar in the 2.8D.
The Yashica screens are actually quite bright but not very fine.
I'll post a tute on the instal if it goes well
^^ @ Axiom
The GG is very fine grained and focus is lovely accurate but, the screen becomes quite dark going away from the center.
I would agree that to some extent the GG is still the most accurate view especially for Portraits where you would wish to get critical focus on the eyes.
In lower light they lose their advantage quickly.
Highway 61
Revisited
Caution : there is a Mamiya RB/RZ screen designed for macrophoto which has a microprisms center disk and is very bright. This screen has microlenses in it, like the Beattie screens (don't know about the Maxwells). The composing image is very bright, but focusing is almost impossible, because everything always seems to be in focus (well known problem with all those acute-matte screens designed like the screens for AF cameras).
The best Mamiya screen is the regular "A" type. The brightness is on par with Rick Oleson's screens and the original Rollei screens fitted on the 3.5F and 2.8F cameras, but the Fresnel is more refined, hence a more even illumination all across the frame.
-------
-
Absolutely !
...as light transmission goes up focusing accuracy goes down.
Then you need to piddle around with the 90º or 45º split rangefinders which are a pain to use ... and will throw off your composition.
btw early bright screens were just regular screens dipped in Paraffin wax.
Any LF fotografer similarly knows that for critical focusing you need to remove the fresnel screen that you might use for composing your shot.
In the 80's Minolta screens for Habla came out which we bought for the studio - cost about 2000DM... we must have had too much money.
But then when the acute matte came along I replaced the new bodies with regular old screens and old square 2.5x loups WLFs.
Best screen in any camera was Pentax 67.
You could shoot 80 - 120 rolls a day under super bright Miami conditions during 60 day productions ... never any eye fatigue... second best 35mm prism/screen was in Leica SL2mot and Nikon F4... Canon could never come close, in fact the 1.0/50L could not be reliably focused on the Canon 1 (35mm film camera )... it was Af from then on.
Having lost my close range eyesight I now rely on Leica M because LCD's just don't cut it yet for the under 50mm (35 and under) focal length range - Ms are the only camera I can shoot with and without reading glasses. I miss shooting my Rolleis though ... they are collecting dust.
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
Sharing my experience with my 2.8B, it came with a screen swapped from 2.8E. All my rolls shot at f/8 or larger shows missed focus. Then I installed Rick Oleson's screen and it showed the infinity is not reached. So having a split prism helps in this case.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Sharing my experience with my 2.8B, it came with a screen swapped from 2.8E. All my rolls shot at f/8 or larger shows missed focus. Then I installed Rick Oleson's screen and it showed the infinity is not reached. So having a split prism helps in this case.
The old Rolleis came with ground screens of real glass, quite a bit thicker than the later plastic models - I believe plastic was installed as from the 2.8E (the D I had in my hands had still glass)
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
I think that is the case. My 2.8B came originally with glass screen, then my friend swapped it with a plastic screen from his 2.8E. The difference in thickness may affect this. Although, I put Rick's screen on my Rolleicord III which had a glass screen and it performs admirably with no adjustment. So if this B came with the same glass thickness as the Cord III (am I right to assume that they are?) there should be no need for adjustment when I installed Rick's screen. But I had to. So I'm thinking the viewing lens needs adjustment.
This friend of mine then put a Maxwell screen on his 2.8E, and guess what, his E also missed the focus. I think it was the Hi Lux from Dan's compilation above. This screen is amazing in terms of brightness and snap, tho I read above that as light transmission goes up focusing accuracy goes down, I will have to wait for the test roll from the 2.8E to confirm this. The experience of focusing itself, with Maxwell screen has been very pleasant. Maybe his E also needs to have its lenses adjusted.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I have no experience with a 2.8B, but I know that many types of Rolleiflex have a different frame for the ground screen than a Rolleicord; it could make the difference in correct focussing.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have Maxwell screens in my 2.8 D and the Tele Rollei, plus Canon F1n, while I have some $30 ebay bought screen for the Automat. All screens seem to help me in better focusing than with the original screens. The Maxwell 35mm screens are the original screens that Maxwell treated with some stuff to make it better.
summar
Well-known
I have an Oleson screen (grid + split image) on my Rolleiflex K4/50 which I really like, as bright as a Yashicamat screen. Rick gave me some advice on using the split image rangefinder. He said that after a long while he discovered the split image was easiest to see if you have the screen some distance from your eyes -- like at waist level -- instead of bringing it up close.
charjohncarter
Mentor
I'll try that thanks for contributing. I actually do the exact opposite.
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
I remember Rick told me that too, but if you go that route, you have to fold the magnifier to compose. At least that has been my experience.
RedLion
Come to the Faire
I have a maxwell screen (plain matte with grid) in my Tele, but kept the original screen for my 2.8F because it has a large microprism (no split, just this huge microprism) in the middle which is fairly rare and I love it!
bence8810
Well-known
I remember Rick told me that too, but if you go that route, you have to fold the magnifier to compose. At least that has been my experience.
I've played with this too a while back and I noticed that normally I wanted to have the camera higher up for taking a photo than at waist level. The method works really well but I usually find by raising the camera up again for composing, I have already moved the camera back or front missing critical focus.
Still, the Oleson screen is a great value, I prefer using it for the fact it gives corner to corner clarity.
ZivcoPhoto
Well-known
I have never had an issue with critical focus using either my E3 or Rollei T with the original screens they came with from the factory. It is the screen in my 500 C/M that I had to replace as that was near impossible to focus. Too often I read threads where someone has just got his first Rollei and he is sending it in for CLA and having a new screen installed before even trying the factory screen.
Evanjoe610
Established
Skip Rick Olsen's cheaper screen.
If any of you folks remember the late Jim Lakey of BrightScreen, he completed a replacement focusing plain screen for the Mamiya RB67. It has a center Spot magnifier that Rick will cut down to your camera's screen size and he will have the ability to etch any one of his custom grid line pattern for you in this screen.
AND Yes, this BrightScreen replacement comes very close to the Maxwell screen. I have four Maxwell screens which is very bright and is the King of the screens.
I brought Jim Lakey's widow and Rick together to offer this customized screen for sale. I am not involved in any financial way or receive any incentives in any way. Rick has this as a higher end screen for the removable screen Rolleiflex. He CAN and WILL cut it down to fit the non-removable screen from the older Rolleiflex. The Rolleiflex SL66 screen is similar in size. I am currently testing the treated screen for my SL66 ans 2.8F and will report back to the FB forum.
Not sure why I was unable to upload more one file. So I will upload what I can.
If any of you folks remember the late Jim Lakey of BrightScreen, he completed a replacement focusing plain screen for the Mamiya RB67. It has a center Spot magnifier that Rick will cut down to your camera's screen size and he will have the ability to etch any one of his custom grid line pattern for you in this screen.
AND Yes, this BrightScreen replacement comes very close to the Maxwell screen. I have four Maxwell screens which is very bright and is the King of the screens.
I brought Jim Lakey's widow and Rick together to offer this customized screen for sale. I am not involved in any financial way or receive any incentives in any way. Rick has this as a higher end screen for the removable screen Rolleiflex. He CAN and WILL cut it down to fit the non-removable screen from the older Rolleiflex. The Rolleiflex SL66 screen is similar in size. I am currently testing the treated screen for my SL66 ans 2.8F and will report back to the FB forum.
Not sure why I was unable to upload more one file. So I will upload what I can.
Attachments
Last edited:
Evanjoe610
Established
Here is the remainder of the file:
SEE CHART AS JPEG.
Focusing Screen Test for Rolleiflex TLR
Rating it from a Scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as Brightest, 4 as Moderately Bright, 3 as Average, 2 as OEM, 1 as Dim.
A. The test would not be consider a true scientific test, but one of an end-user viewing the Available View as projected with the waist level finder open MINUS the critical focusing diopter.
B. The test was perform on a tabletop with Infinity set focusing out to my backyard in 10AM Daylight SUNNY Condition.
C. Brightest based on a One-To-One viewing through the WLF. Results were as expected as the original OEM screen was replace accordingly.
D. The same test applied ay nighttime, but focusing at my TV & Stairway with available night lighting coming from a picture window. This test was a harder on the focusing screen, as I wanted to simulate Available lighting for night shooting for either a Wedding shot or a night scenic shot. Tripod is necessary for the night scenic shoot, but for a Wedding, you have to use whatever light you have available. Some Wedding photographers use a Video overhead lighting setup with their lighting staff…
E. Contrast was base upon the ability for the focusing screen to SNAP into focus at the desire end destination.
F. The best for all around application was the MAXWELL Hi Lux Plain Screen. Followed by a Close Second was the BrightScreen with the Large Spot Magnifier. That spot magnifier really helped with the light gathering at nighttime.
Snap-to-Contrast:
• The Maxwell does a gradually Out-of-Focus into a Steady Focus. The BrightScreen takes a complete different approach. I found it to differ than all of the screens used in the test. In the Out-Of-Range Focusing, it display the Out of Focus object reference as a Pixelated object until it is fully in true focus.
• Overall the Maxwell is the KING and does deliver what it claims to do. Where it really shine, was in the available lighting test.
• The Rolleiflex Hi-D Screen was promise to be a Fantastic screen. However, the BrightScreen was far superior to it overall. The Rolleiflex Hi-D Screen was better than the other screens, but not by much.
• As you approach the closer range of focus, it disappears and is a soft in Focus until you arrive at the final point of focus. Then the image is overall in Focus. First time using and seeing this type of focusing. I would have to test it further on other cameras when the chance arises after they are all CLA.
Any questions or to test further under a different setoff criteria, please advise accordingly.
SEE CHART AS JPEG.
Focusing Screen Test for Rolleiflex TLR
Rating it from a Scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as Brightest, 4 as Moderately Bright, 3 as Average, 2 as OEM, 1 as Dim.
A. The test would not be consider a true scientific test, but one of an end-user viewing the Available View as projected with the waist level finder open MINUS the critical focusing diopter.
B. The test was perform on a tabletop with Infinity set focusing out to my backyard in 10AM Daylight SUNNY Condition.
C. Brightest based on a One-To-One viewing through the WLF. Results were as expected as the original OEM screen was replace accordingly.
D. The same test applied ay nighttime, but focusing at my TV & Stairway with available night lighting coming from a picture window. This test was a harder on the focusing screen, as I wanted to simulate Available lighting for night shooting for either a Wedding shot or a night scenic shot. Tripod is necessary for the night scenic shoot, but for a Wedding, you have to use whatever light you have available. Some Wedding photographers use a Video overhead lighting setup with their lighting staff…
E. Contrast was base upon the ability for the focusing screen to SNAP into focus at the desire end destination.
F. The best for all around application was the MAXWELL Hi Lux Plain Screen. Followed by a Close Second was the BrightScreen with the Large Spot Magnifier. That spot magnifier really helped with the light gathering at nighttime.
Snap-to-Contrast:
• The Maxwell does a gradually Out-of-Focus into a Steady Focus. The BrightScreen takes a complete different approach. I found it to differ than all of the screens used in the test. In the Out-Of-Range Focusing, it display the Out of Focus object reference as a Pixelated object until it is fully in true focus.
• Overall the Maxwell is the KING and does deliver what it claims to do. Where it really shine, was in the available lighting test.
• The Rolleiflex Hi-D Screen was promise to be a Fantastic screen. However, the BrightScreen was far superior to it overall. The Rolleiflex Hi-D Screen was better than the other screens, but not by much.
• As you approach the closer range of focus, it disappears and is a soft in Focus until you arrive at the final point of focus. Then the image is overall in Focus. First time using and seeing this type of focusing. I would have to test it further on other cameras when the chance arises after they are all CLA.
Any questions or to test further under a different setoff criteria, please advise accordingly.
Attachments
pschauss
Well-known
I have found this to be true as well (Rolleiflex Automat K4B), but I the Oleson split image is basically useless in anything less than bright sunlight. My Automat has the small magnifier which is difficult to line up with the split image circle.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
This might al be true but as a lot of us know and experience: the brighter the screen, the harder it is to focus. Therefore I really prefer the original later Rolleiscreens, since they seem to combine the best of both worlds: quite bright (not the brightest) and snap very well into focus!
aizan
Mentor
why do some people say that maxwell screens are easier to focus than original screens, and other people say that original screens are easier to focus than maxwell screens?
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
If that is the case, ultimately you have to experience yourself - as is the case with a lot of things said here on the net......