[MF3D.FORUM:1023] Re: Rolleidoscopes and Tom Deering's Sputnik baffle.

[Paul Talbot <ptww@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Hemenway wrote:

> Also, is anyone using a Rolleidoscope?

Yes, happily, some folks are using them.  I hate to think
of all the ones that are sitting on collectors' shelves
instead of being used to make beautiful images.

> Are they generally better than
> the Sputnik...

Unquestionably.  The usual Sputnik quirks are noticably
absent in the Rolleidoscop.  It was designed and built
to keep light from reaching the film other than through
the lenses at the moment of exposure.  (Imagine that!)
It has very well flocked chambers behind the lenses so
it does not cause all kinds of weird reflections on the
film.  Despite having uncoated lenses, it is far more
tolerant of into-the-light shooting than is the Sputnik.
The lenses are likely to be in synchronized focus.  And
I believe the lenses are better (sharper over more of the
image area) than the Sputnik's.

As negatives, the shutter release piston usually needs
a CLA; there is no built-in flash contact; it's bulkier;
the tripod socket stud is a nuisance; f/stops are in
an unfamiliar sequence (e.g, f 9.5; f/12; f/18; f/25);
the film advance is set up for 5 pairs on 120 using the
6x9 set of numbers, and the advance pattern is not exactly
intuitive.  (6 pairs are possible, using a variety of
techniques.)

As nice extra bonuses, the shutter speeds go up to 1/300
and are continuously variable; it has a standard shutter
release button (left hand side) that doesn't get tangled
in your fingers when you cock the shutter; the cable
release socket is also in a normal, reasonably accessible
location; both "T" and "B" are supported, (not just "B");
and finally, it is just a mighty fine looking camera!
Be careful who you show one to--they may be stricken by
uncontrollable urges to fondle it eternally.  ;)

As good news/bad news: there is no self-timer.  Then again,
there is no *broken* (inoperable) self-timer.  ;)  The image
format is wider than the Sputnik's creating more mounting
flexibility--and more potential anguish about what to crop.
The wider format is why film advance is different, and
usually set for 5 pairs per roll instead of 6.

> I know that they cost a lot more... or are they really
> just antiques now?

Certainly much of the value is related to the relative
rareness of the Rolleidoscop.  Is it a 10x better camera?
Overall, yes.  Will it produce 10x better images?  Probably
not.  Will you enjoy it 10x as much?  Only you can say!

> BTW Kevin, Tom Deering has created a baffle to "cure the Sputnik
> camera's internal reflections".

Indeed he has, but it's not the most easily duplicated
baffle.  Utilizing contributions from several members
of this list, RMM has been developing paper templates
for easy-to-make baffles.  Although pictures are not
yet on-line, you can see the instructions for the
Sputnik fix up kit (do-it-yourself version) at:
http://www.rmm3d.com/shooting/fix_kit_instr.html

A more thorough discussion of the kit is in the archives
on Marco's site. http://www.pauck.de/marco

Paul Talbot