[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex MX (Xenar)
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:35:57 -0500
Jan
Thanks for the numbers!
A couple of quick points.
The Weston II meter can be overhauled by George
Milton at Quality Light-Metric in Hollywood, USA,
as they used to say on Tom and Jerry Cartoons.
The viewfinder lens is probably filthy and could
work well with a good cleaning as Richard Knoppow suggested.
I do NOT want to get Richard stirred up again
over mirror coatings. However, your camera came
with a silver coating without an overcoat on the
viewing mirror. Now, the life of a silver
coating on an astronomical telescope (open to the
air) is between two and ten years, depending on
the weather and pollution conditions. Your
mirror is tightly enclosed but, still, it has
been in place for almost six decades. I would
not be surprised were you to find that the
coatings are entirely gone from the mirror -- the
glass alone WILL produce an image, but a very
pale image. If such is the case, you have two
options: you can resilver this yourself, and
stay authentic, or you can have it aluminized and
overcoated by a firm specializing in such
work: pick up a copy of SKY & TELESCOPE to
locate such houses. If you remove the mirror and
send it to one of them, the coast is relatively low.
This is a neat camera, and it has a fine and proper lens.
Marc
At 09:28 AM 3/5/2010, you wrote:
>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
>
>- 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
>
>
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
---
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: