[rollei_list] Re: Carl Zeiss Rolleiflex SL66 1:4/40 mm Distagon FLE HFT
- From: Raid <ramin@xxxxxxx>
- To: "rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:31:44 -0500
Hi Carlos,
My 2.8D worked flawlessly for about twenty years, and it could be that the
vibrations on the plane floor caused this to happen or the camera got somehow
bumped during the trip in Japan.
When focusing, images looked in focus when they were not.
I put this issue as a question here. Maybe I am not right.
Raid
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:14 PM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2012/9/30 Raid <ramin@xxxxxxx>:
>> I have several Rolleiflex cameras, but not the FW. My question is which
>> camera can be more trusted not to be off wrt focusing. I once had my 2.8D on
>> a trip with me (on the plane), and the mirror inside the camera moved
>> somehow, and my photos were unsharp. The FW may have a similar weakness,
>> when bumped. The SWC may have a more solid contruction wrt focus mechanism.
>> Am I right?
>
>
> Raid:
> Following your reasoning, I could say the Rollei 35 is
> the more reliable 35mm camera in the world because it does not have a
> focusing system, a reflex mirror could be loose or broken or a RF
> system out of alignment, however I don't think the Rollei 35 is the
> more reliable camera in the world for this reason, I like it as travel
> camera due to its size and compactness and the lens optical quality,
> considering it's a 35mm film camera, these features _ for my specific
> purpose _ deserve higher consideration than the lack of focusing
> system.; anyway the Rollei 35 is a camera for general photography, the
> SWC is a speciallized WA camera for WA photography, the lack of
> focusing system is more significant than for the Rollei 35, but if you
> think to use the camera to take photographs under circumstances that
> could cause a severe damage to a focusing system, it could be the
> right camera for you, but I find very rare this situation, the same
> way I could say that if a branch falls on your camera, it could cause
> more damage to a SWC with its protruding lens than to a TLR without
> it. I never had the problem with the mirror that you describe in your
> post after to use TLRs for 50 years, perhaps someone left a loose
> screw in your 2.8D.
>
> Carlos
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
