[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex T with Planar?
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:25:41 -0300
John:
The distance between the viewing lens and the taking lens
was modified for the first 3.5F from 42mm to 45mm due to the new
Compur 00 shutter size called "Differential" or "Planetary", it had
large gears surrounding the blades to allow f stops, shutter speeds
and lightmeter coupling. This shutter was so big that the size 0 for
the 2.8F had no room in the TLR body and it was the reason Rollei
couldn't manufacture the 2.8F up to 1960 ( the 3.5F was introduced in
December 1958), when Rollei engineers and technicians developed the
little bulb with gears called "Kegelrad differential" to couple the
lightmeter, it allowed to use the regular Compur shutter for the 2.8F
and it was also used for the 3.5F third version discarding the massive
Differential Compur shutter, however the 3.5F kept the distance
between lenses, 45mm, identical regarding the 2.8 models, since the
tooling to manufacture the 3.5F was already prepared for this
distance. I had a 3.5E or C some decades ago and I don't recall the
problems you mentioned, the controls worked fine.
Carlos
2013/7/11 John Wild <JWild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The Rolleiflex 3.5B had a Tessar and was Bay 1; The Rolleiflex 3.5C had a
> Planar and was Bay 2 but the outer Bayonets on this all but touched each
> other and the knurled wheels too, making changing EV difficult. After that
> F&H increased the lens spacing to compensate for the larger Bay 2 mounts.
> There are two Mutars for the 3.5 cameras for that reason. Off hand I cannot
> remember if it is about 1mm or 2mm difference.
>
> If the Planar has to be Bay 2, possibly because of front element diameter,
> then the whole front of the 'T' would have to be rebuilt around a 3.5 Bay 2
> front plate. What the lens spacing is on a 'T' I do not know; however, this
> camera has a 'T' front plate which looks unmodified.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On 11 Jul 2013, at 20:51, Sven Keller <keller.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The 3.5 Planars and the T both had size 00 shutters, so from that it would
>> work, regardless of the bayonet size.
>>
>> I still believe this is a later modification. When the T and the 3.5
>> Rolleiflexes went out of production (1976 according to Prochnow), things at
>> Rollei were still in good order, so Rollei would just not have done this, I
>> believe.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sven
>>
>
> ---
> 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:
