[rollei_list] Re: rollei_list Digest V4 #239
- From: Jan Decher <Jan.Decher@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 09:07:43 -0400
Carlos et al.
Wonder how well the Magics perform with chromes under regular
daylight conditions. Does it tend to overexpose for neg film or
sightly underexpose like most professional SLRs nowadays? Of course,
a test series can clarify that....
Can the selenium metering be restored if you have a bad one (by the
meter guy, George Milton, for example)
Jan
On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:02 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleimagic
I sold my Rolleimagic I in mint condition (several photographs
about it are visible in one of my blogs)to buy a Rolleimagic II, I
lost the auction and then I bought the Rolleicord IV. Despite the
front cell focusing, the Xenar in that 'Magic 1 was a terrific
lens, very sharp, I couldn't tell the diffeence regarding the Xenar
in the 'cord IV (and that is a sharp lens really).
My Magic worked very fine and the lightmeter was very exact, but I
wished more control on the DOF sometimes and then the 'Magic II,
however I still regret my decision about to sell the camera.
Rolleimagic I and II are the only normal focal length Rolleis TLR
with a four elements viewing lens, they are Xenar lenses, it was
cheaper to use identical lenses as taking and viewing lenses than
to develop a new three elements Heidosmat with front element focusing.
For the Rollei TLR cameras purists, the Rolleimagic is not a true
Rollei TLR and they are right from certain points of view, but it's
an excellent camera for its purpose and took several mechanical
parts from the Rolleiflex T; Claus Prochnow was one of the
Rolleimagic I and II main designer; he says in the Report II
Rolleimagics are "eccentric, extravagant" (ausgefallenen)Rolleis.
Carlos
Other related posts:
- » [rollei_list] Re: rollei_list Digest V4 #239
