[MF3D.FORUM:198] Re: Lottery thread on Pentax mailing list

["Eric Goldstein" <egoldstein@xxxxxxx>]

> Greg Erker wrote:
  
>>   For my Med Format camera I'd take
>> a mint condition Rolleidoscop and
>> get it tuned up and the lenses AR
>> coated (probably $4000 or so).

Paul Talbot responded:

> Greg, why did you specify "mint?"  Wouldn't you
> want the camera to shoot with, instead of just to
> look at?  ;-)  Even if you had the lottery money,
> it would be a shame to turn a minty Rolleidoscop
> into a workhorse!  I have no collector tendencies
> at all, but even if I won the lottery I'd tend to
> go with just a good condition Rolleidoscop.
>
> Someone offered Don Lopp $4,000 for his Rolleidoscop.
> Don turned him down.  The prospective buyer found
> one somewhere else for $4,300.  This was a shooter,
> not a collector, and neither camera was described
> as "minty."  Amazing what some folks will pay when
> they "have to have" something.

I think you guys need to do more hunting. You can get a good clean 'scop for
under $3k (I know someone who just picked one up for 2k) and the lens
coating is about $125/surface, and you really don't need to do every
surface...

> BTW, even though the Rolleidoscop lenses are not
> coated, an unmodified Rolleidoscop still performs
> fairly well--way better than a maximum souped up
> Sputnik--when shooting directly toward the sun.


Ummm, I'm not sure what "fairly well" means, but I do know that the
difference between old uncoated tessars versus old tessars which have been
coated (by John Van Stelton) is dramatic. I'm with Greg... Go for the
coating.


Eric G.