[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex MX (Xenar)
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:59:04 -0300
Jan's MX can use a Rolleigrid, however the camera can't receive the
Rolleifix if it has the original back because it has the SN 1256064
and the Rolleifix groove was included from the SN 1268000, the baffles
also were manufactured from the same serial number after Rollei
started the 2.8C production. Anyway the camera back can be replaced to
use one with the Rolleifix groove.
This camera was made about the ending of 1952 or the beginning of 1953
considering the serial number, the Schneider lens age and the lack of
improvements that appeared with the 2.8 C from December 1952 to before
the middle of 1953.
The Rolleikin II back with the interchangeable 6x6cm and 24x36mm
pressure plate position appeared in 1950 for the 3.5X from the SN
1160000. The MX or 3.5A shares in part the serial numbers blocks with
the 2.8A, 2.8B and 2.8C
Carlos
2010/3/5 Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Decher" <Jan.Decher@xxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 6:28 AM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Rolleiflex MX (Xenar)
>
>
>> Bought a Rolleiflex MX No. 1256064 (3.5/75mm Xenar No. 3110891) with
>> instr. book, Rollei ER case and a dead Weston Master II locally
>> yesterday. My first more "vintage" Rolleiflex. What kind of strap is
>> needed for the older style attachment on the MX, if you don't use the
>> leather case?
>>
>> I was surprised to learn that I can't use my Rolleifix on it and that
>> you have to restrain you impulse to wind the film if you want to use 1/500
>> second! The WL finder is incredibly dim compared to my Maxwell-enhanced
>> 3.5E. Perhaps cleaning the screen might help somewhat at least around the
>> edges
>>
>> But this MX seems to functions extremely smoothly. The camera was
>> overhauled a few years ago. Moving parts seem to have less tolerances and
>> moving parts inclusding the shutter seem more "buttery" quiet than in my
>> 3.5E (I have had the same experience with older Leicas compared to my
>> IIIf).
>>
>> I am running a roll of FP4 through it today and will post results on
>> Flickr this weekend. Will also pick up a Bay I hood from my local camera
>> store.
>> Can I replace the screen in the MX myself?
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> P.S.: Any hopes for "reviving" the Weston Master II meter?
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>
> If the Weston is totally unresponsive its probably due to dirty contacts
> on the photocell. Very often this can be fixed by pushing down on the cell
> window and twisting back and forth a little. The main fault of selenium
> cells is that they become non-linear. This can be tested using a light
> source that will register on both high and low ranges. The reading should be
> exactly the same on both ranges. If the cell is gone it will read low by
> about a stop on the low range (i.e. the range where the meter reads
> up-scale). Bad cells can not be revived but must be replaced. I don't know
> for certain the mechanisim of the failure but selenium cells are sensitive
> to both heat and moisture.
> The strap for the MX is simply a leather strip with a hole in the ends.
> the strip fits under the loop and the hole hooks onto the spade-shaped hook.
> Older Compur shutters have an auxilliary booster spring for the highest
> speed. This spring is tensioned by the speed cam so when you set the shutter
> for 1/500th you will feel some resistance as you tension it. That is also
> why there is a long space between 1/250th and 1/500th. The spring is
> tensioned further when the shutter is cocked. If you try to move the speed
> adjustment to 1/500th when the shutter is cocked there is a chance the end
> of the spring will be forced under the speed cam jamming the mechanism. It
> also puts a lot of force on the edge of the cam. The speed can be released
> from 1/500th to a slower speed when the shutter is cocked although the also
> puts more force on the parts than is normal.
> The finder in the MX may seem dim after using something like a Maxwell
> screen but its worth cleaning the finder. This can be done by removing the
> four screws at the corners of the hood. The hood then lifts off so that the
> ground glass can be removed. With the ground glass out the mirror and rear
> of the finder lens is exposed. If the mirror is dirty clean it by using a
> Kimwipe or similar lintless tissue and pure (dry) isopropyl alcohol. Wet the
> tissue with the alcohol and lay it on the mirror, then drag it off the
> mirror. Then toss it and use a fresh tissue if the mirror still has some
> dirt on it. This should clean the mirror without leaving streaks. You can
> also try "streak free" window cleaner. This is made with butyl alcohol and
> is recommeded by Hewlett-Packard and others for cleaning scanner windows. I
> find it works well on lenses. Also clean the back of the finder lens. The
> ground glass is best cleaned in warm water with a little dishwashing
> detergent in it. It is surprizing how much a little accumulated grease on a
> ground glass dims it.
> The finder is re-assembled by putting the ground glass back on the support
> springs and replacing the hood.
> Note: The screws used on many cameras, including Rolleis, have narrower
> slots than standard screws. Invest in a cheap set of jewelers screw drivers
> and file down the tips so that they fit. That will avoid damaging the
> screws.
> Before investing in an expensive replacement screen check to see if the
> finder will accept a Rolleigrid. This is a simple Fresnel field lens that
> drops over the ground glass. I have them in my Rolleis and they brighten up
> the screen remarkably without interfering with focus.
> Some time around the mid-1950s Rollei made some changes in the MX. These
> included a grooved tripod mount designed to take the Rolleifix and panoramic
> adaptor. At the time Rollei offered new backs for existing cameras with the
> new bottom on them. At about the same time Rollei began to put internal
> baffles in the camera so if you have the earlier type of bottom you probably
> also do not have the baffles. AFAIK, the baffles can not be installed in
> cameras made without them. I think the sliding pressure plate to accomodate
> the Rolleikin also dates from this time, earlier cameras do not have it and
> require the entire back to be changed if a Rolleikin is to be used.
> I also have an MX with Xenar. Its a very good camera and the lens is quite
> sharp.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ---
> 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:
