HUS兄，我也进了一 台CORD II，4型的，还没用它拍过片呢。---最近进的机器太多。。。。滥了。。汗。。。

谢谢爱兄支持！

bluejeans兄，这些资料很珍贵啊! 非常感谢提供！！

bluejeans兄好片子。俺也得朋友送了一批过期公元相纸，正准备上马。呵呵。

bluejeans兄谦虚了，希望能和您一起共建CORD家园。

呵呵。。JJ兄说的是。我对比了一下，早期的禄莱双反抗逆光性能还不如80年代出产的日本头。

中了各位的毒，有点想淘台rolleicord用了。刚刚去看了，成色好的似乎不便宜啊

王兄介绍下用哪一代比较好？ 你应该把玩过很多不同的cord机器了吧，呵呵。

[neozhou 编辑于 2009-10-27 22:19]

引用:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原文由 hust313 发表
引用:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原文由 hust313 发表
rolleicode Ⅱ，古老的机器，很烂的技术
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

构图不错！红光的特效是怎么做的？呵呵！

红窗漏光这么厉害，用来 ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

以在下的经验:可能就是因为红窗漏光所至.对于彩色胶卷,红窗只能是过片时打开看数字,过完应该立即关闭.另外在比较阴暗处过片,尽量避免在阳光强烈的地方.

现在想想也有可能是红窗未关,这是 一张黑白的,迎光面照的,图不好见谅啊.

[hust313 编辑于 2009-10-27 11:30]

以在下的经验:可能就是因为红窗漏光所至.对于彩色胶卷,红窗只能是过片时打开看数字,过完应该立即关闭.另外在比较阴暗处过片,尽量避免在阳光强烈的地方.

引用:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原文由 hust313 发表
rolleicode Ⅱ，古老的机器，很烂的技术
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

构图不错！红光的特效是怎么做的？呵呵！

红窗漏光这么厉害，用来拍片可能不太适合了。

不是故意制作的特效，似乎是冲洗相片时没有弄好，只有几张照片上有这种情况。
应该也不是漏光所致吧。相机太老，镜头没有镀膜，眩光很厉害。家里面还有几
张黑白的，有空发上来请大家帮忙看看。

红窗漏光这么厉害，用来拍片可能不太适合了。

构图不错！红光的特效是怎么做的？呵呵！

rolleicode Ⅱ，古老的机器，很烂的技术

兄台最近是否很少玩百佳了？ 很久没见你的百佳片子了

好怗，支持！

从当年的测试来看，Rolleicord的Xenar镜头和Rolleiflex 2.8的成像很接近，而Rolleiflex 3.5的镜头成像质量要高出一个档次。而且Xenar镜头有一个很大的优点似乎比Rolleiflex 2.8还要好一些，就是镜头边缘的品质和中心的很接近，这一点很重要，甚至比中心全是Excellent而边缘仅仅是Good要好。

Photo Buying Guide, 1968
2 Different Rolleis, 2 Different Lenses

80mm f/2.8 Planar

f/2.8 (center sharpness) Acceptable (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/8 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Excellent
f/16 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Excellent
f/22 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Very Good

75mm f/3.5 Planar

f/3.5 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/4 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/8 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Very Good
f/16 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Very Good
f/22 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good

Modern Photography
Modern Tests
Rolleicord Vb Can Doff Its New Hood

75mm f/3.5 Xenar

f/3.5 (center sharpness) Good (edge fall-off) Some
f/4 (center sharpness) Good (edge fall-off) Some
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Good (edge fall-off) Little
f/8 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge fall-off) Little
f/11 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge fall-off) Slight
f/16 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge fall-off) Slight
f/22 (center sharpness) Good (edge fall-off) Slight

Photo Buying Guide, 1968, p. 56
(Rolleicord Vb Test)

75mm f/3.5 Xenar

f/3.5 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/4 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/8 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Very Good
f/16 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Very Good
f/22 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Very Good

Modern Photography, October 1963, pg. 103
Modern Tests
4 Different Rolleis, 4 Different Lenses

80mm f/2.8 Xenotar

f/2.8 (center sharpness) Acceptable (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/4 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/8 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/16 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Very Good
f/22 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Very Good

80mm f/2.8 Planar

f/2.8 (center sharpness) Acceptable (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/4 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/8 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) V.Good-Excellent
f/16 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) V.Good-Excellent
f/22 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Very Good

75mm f/3.5 Xenotar

f/3.5 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/4 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/8 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/16 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/22 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good

75mm f/3.5 Planar

f/3.5 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/4 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/8 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Very Good
f/16 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Very Good
f/22 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good

Modern Photography, October 1963, pg. 103-122
Modern Tests
Mutar Means More Lenses for Rollei

Carl Zeiss Rollei-Mutar 0.7X with 75mm f/3.5 Planar

f/3.5 (center sharpness) Acceptable (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/4 (center sharpness) Acceptable (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/8 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/16 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Very Good
f/22 (center sharpness) Good (edge sharpness) Very Good

Carl Zeiss Rollei-Mutar 1.5X with 75mm f/3.5 Planar

f/3.5 (center sharpness) Acceptable (edge sharpness) Acceptable
f/4 (center sharpness) Acceptable (edge sharpness) Good
f/5.6 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/8 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/11 (center sharpness) Excellent (edge sharpness) Good
f/16 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good
f/22 (center sharpness) Very Good (edge sharpness) Good

网上看到有关介绍 rolleiflex 镜组的文章, 转贴一下

Modern Photography, May 1952, pg. 57-98
The New Rollei
How Good is the New $385 Model 2.8C Which Incorporates Suggestions Made by Photographers?...By Arthur Kramer

"The New Lens"

"The camera's most important feature is its new 80mm, air-spaced five-element f/2.8 Schneider Xenotar lens. The f/2.8 lens on a previous model was a four-element objective which often gave trouble when used wide open. The makers of the Rolleiflex claim this trouble has been eliminated in the Xenotar lens. Optical and practical tests (which we will get to later) indicated that this was true - at least on the cameras tested."

"The Lens - How Good?"

"Finally we get to the most important of all the improvements - the lens. This is not the first f/2.8 lens ever put on a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 Rollei. Many photographers who have used or tested the previous f/2.8 model, which this new camera supersedes, felt that the definition was not up to their acceptable standards. Wide aperture lenses which must cover comparatively large film areas are often notoriously poor in edge definition at full aperture. Practically all Automatic Rolleiflexes have up to this time been supplied with four element Tessar or Xenar f/3.5 or Tessar f/2.8 lenses. The new Xenotar is a five-element lens of the air-spaced type. It was not until the advent of modern optical coatings that the full advantage of such a design could be exploited."

"Bench Testing"

"The camera was taken to a well-equipped optical laboratory and placed on an optical bench. The lens appeared to be free of astigmatism. It showed no shift of focus when stopped down. There seemed to be the faintest trace of flare at f/2.8 but this disappeared when the diaphragm was stopped down to about f/3, a definite improvement in this respect to what we had previously seen in other lenses of similar focal length and aperture." "The definition at the edges was far above that of the old four-element f/2.8. This individual Xenotar lens looked excellent in bench tests, but that did not guarantee excellent pictures. Only extensive tests on actual film could tell about that."

"Practical Testing"

" The camera was also checked for lens, film, and ground glass alignment. Then it was ready for the film tests. An f/3.5 Rollei of known image quality was used as a control unit The first test was made on a cross-lit brick wall A series of shots was taken at various distances and apertures with both cameras. Negatives were carefully enlarged to about 30x30 inches and examined over the entire field. Results showed that the Xenotar f/2.8 lens wide open was equal in most respects to the f/3.5 lens wide open. It did not noticeably lose definition when stopped down to f/22. A second Xenotar tested actually had better definition at f/2.8 than the older type lens had at f/3.5! The tests were repeated on various objects and at varied distances with the same result. The next test was of a more practical nature. Portraits of actor Jack Palance (!) were shot at full aperture with the camera at its closest distance, about three and one half feet (page 59). The inset on the enlargement shows the entire negative area. The 11x14 glossy prints were quite sharp, and had excellent image quality. Twenty rolls or film were used on a variety of subjects. Results were consistently good."

(Imagine using a portrait of Jack Palance to test lens definition!)

Modern Photography, May 1956, pg. 50-132
Are the new Rolleis Really Better?
(3.5G [E] and 75mm f/3.5 Xenotar)

"Five or four element lens?"

"Now lets take a look at that five element f/3.5 lens. It's no secret that there was a cry from professional photographers for a Rolleiflex with an f/2.8 lens and that these camera enthusiasts only got what they wanted when a five element optical system was developed." "With a maximum f/3.5 aperture in 75mm focal lengths, the story has been quite different. The four element Zeiss Tessar and Schneider Xenar 75mm f/3.5 lenses have long been standards of excellence for Rolleis and many other cameras. What more can the new Xenotar five element offer? For all but the most persnickety professional, a good Xenar or Tessar will do nicely. Testing the new Xenotar against a good example of a Schneider Xenar, the resulting picture definition with both lenses was almost identical. This is not to disparage the new Xenotar but rather point out that a good four element Xenar or Tessar can be a very good lens indeed. Perhaps the Xenotar proved a shade sharper in the corners at full aperture than the Xenar. However, in actual photographic practice we doubt that this difference would be perceptible. Xenar or Xenotar? They're both fine lenses."

Modern Photography, (1957), pg. 82-106
Great Cameras? Fact or Fiction
Rolleis have always had a great reputation. Do they still deserve it?

"Which Lens is Best? Four or Five Element, F/2.8 or F/3.5"

"A. 80mm f/2.8 Zeiss Planar is a five-element alternative to the Xenotar (below) on the Rolleiflex 2.8E. Although the line-up of optical elements is rather different from the Xenotar, performance is similar. It produces excellent definition to the corners of the negative, even at full aperture."

"B. 80mm f/2.8 Schneider Xenotar has five elements and can be had on the Rolleiflex 2.8E. In extensive tests with this lens Modern found it extremely sharp in overall definition. The five-element 80mm f/2.8 lenses are considerable improvements over the discontinued four-element 80mm f/2.8 Tessars once available on the Rolleiflex 2.8."

"C. 75mm f/3.5 Zeiss Planar is a five element alternative to the Xenotar on the Rolleiflex 3.5. It shows excellent definition even at full aperture."

"D. 75mm f/3.5 Schneider Xenotar with five elements has now completely replaced the four element Xenar on all Rolleiflexes. Differences in definition between the discontinued four-element Xenar and this five-element Xenotar at f/3.5 are almost impossible to see, even with great magnification of the negative corners. Definition, to say the least, is excellent in the 75mm f/3.5 Xenotar."

"E. 75mm and 60mm Schneider Xenar are available on the Rolleicord Va and Rolleiflex 4x4 respectively. The Xenar design is of a traditional four-element Tessar-type construction. Performance at such moderate aperture (f/3.5) and focal length (75mm) is excellent compared with that of the 75mm f/3.5 five-element Xenotars and Planars."

好贴！顶顶顶！
王顾兄和夏罗多吉兄还有墨兄的片片用光暗房都很不错，欣赏过多次了。
我也有一台Va，本来想建一个Rolleicord的family，但是水平有限，发的图不够好，一直没敢建。今天看到有这么多朋友上图，感觉找到家了，斗胆献丑跟一张。之后再多上图，多交流。
不好意思，存了10年的厦门相纸，先用完再说吧。

王兄:越后期的镀膜应该越好.不过好象都是单层镀膜哦,连贵价的2.8F都一样，所以看逆光性能都不如FX,GX的多层镀膜，所以玩老镜头还是要加个遮光罩好一些啊！

JJ兄，同感啊！

我认为XENAR是结构很经典成熟的镜头，应该不存在分前后期的成像效果有啥不同。---只是不知镀膜方面是否有异？

喜欢墨兄这张。

原来这样子滴。。。

谢谢啊！！

他不是mm，我经常在leica的帖子里看到他

呵呵。。。是的，我收了两三个成色都相当不错，真看不出是几十年的机器。

PS:兄台的名字像是MM哦。----莫非就是MM？哧哧。

MX,T都有xenar镜头的机型．相对VaVb而言，MX,T（T2,T3除外）生产的年代都较早些，因此VaVb增加了一些功能，至于镜头同属Xenar，后出产的是不是更好些，小弟没有比较过不便发表意见了．不过，当初rollei生产cord是为了低端市场，与MX等还是有用料和价格的区别的，但是到了VaVb时代，MX已经基本退出市场了．我喜欢用Vb是因为轻便，功能齐全而且小光圈表现不错，如果拍摄不需光圈很大的情形下是个很不错的选择,还有一点,相对于2.8,3.5rolleiflex,cord的修理保养费用还是比较便宜的．说得不对请指正，呵呵

[jj9641 编辑于 2009-10-23 09:05]

这篇文章很有用，学习了。

可德VB

可德VB

在这个英文网站可以找到好多折叠机的使用说明书，老外免费提供的。
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/

自然也包括了ROLLEICORD的资料，都来参考参考吧。