OT (Totally) Rolleiflex? Someone stop me doing this again!

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by terry_rory, Feb 6, 2005.

  1. I should be banned from buying photography books.

    I have just spent an hour or so looking through Lee Miller and Bill
    Brandt books and got the old TLR 'itch' again. I have done this 3
    times in the last 8 years (Two Rolleicord VB's and a Yashicamat 124G)

    Each time it was a real blast for a month or two and then I would
    find it a bit cumbersome or limiting (or expensive for good D&P etc)
    so I would end up selling the thing. For the same money (or more)
    than I spent on them which is a good point to TLR ownership.

    So this time I am thinking along the lines of a proper Rolleifex
    TLR in very good shape (2.8f Zeiss Planar) with Maxwell screen or
    similar.

    However, there is no point unless I can find an affordable and good
    way of scanning 6x6 (especially B&W) negs. I could have the scans
    done at the lab onto CD but would like the option to do my own.

    Just to get a bit on topic, I blame my new Bessa R3a/Summicron for
    my renewed interest in working manually again. (Nice contrast to
    using the D70) I blame Miller & Brandt for the TLR lust! They both
    did much of their best work with a Rolleiflex as did so many others.

    I am a fool and believe I should give myself just one more chance
    to try and do the same(!) whilst 120 can still be bought easily and
    processed for reasonable cost at a good local lab and while good
    Rolleiflex prices are quite low.

    Plus I am a sucker for good quality user 'retro' that can on
    occasion blast digital and 35mm into the ditch when done right.

    Moderator remove if I have gone too OT but I know there a few
    closet TLR users around here.
     
  2. Insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

    A TLR is a PATA unless you don`t want close up work or different lenses. Then you are talking Hassy. You can do anything you want with a Hassy if you have the money. And the back to carry it. These two don`t normally come are the same stage of life so you are still out of luck.

    Can I recommend Delta 100 or T max 100 in full strength D76 for 6.5 min. Delta agitation is 10 sec per min and t-max is 5 sec twice per min. Forty years of chasing the holy grain of film developer has come down to this. Save yourself a lot of work. The 2 1/4 fever will disappear for good.
     
  3. When I get an itch like this, I usually wait a couple of weeks or months, depending on what it is and how much it costs. After that time has elapsed, I take the idea up again. If I still think it is a good idea, I take to plunge, otherwise it is easy to pass. This way I seldom end up with stupid things I do not need, though it happens, and I still buy a lot of stuff...

    Try it, wait two months and see what you think then.
     
  4. Trevor, I do the same thing, also with Rolleis, Hassies & even Nikons -- and alweays sell them & come back to Leicas -- M's & Leicaflexes. I guess there are worse illnesses to have!
     
  5. Trevor, you are not alone! I have a fifty year old Rolleiflex TLR sitting on the shelf which I
    enjoy using several times a year. I even partially flip down the top viewfinder so that I can
    shoot in the pseudo-rangefinder style. It has a great lens. I grab a few rolls of Iford and
    have a good time. I may have some of my 6 by 6 negatives scanned by the lab. I don't
    have enough to justify a new scanner.
     
  6. Trevor,

    I'm a (not so closet) Rollei fan. I bought an old MX-EVS with Tessar 75 3.5 around 20 years ago for around $75. Had it CLA'ed several times but otherwise its served me well. I don't shoot a lot of colour film due to the cost, but I shoot lots of HP5+ and FP4 and develop it myself in either Sprint developer or HC-110. HC-110 lasts a long time and I use it as a one shot, so it ends up not costing me much. For a scanner I've been using a crappy Epson 3170 which I got dirt cheap. Its not the greatest for 35mm negs (although it seems to work okay for the web), but for 2 1/4, it is just fine, and I can certainly print nice 8 inch by 8 inch prints with a little bit of work. And there really isn't anything that looks as nice as one of those big negs shot through Zeiss glass (well, maybe Leica glass!!!!)

    Sounds like you've always been able to sell your Rolleis for the same or more as you bought them for (if I read correctly), so it sounds like a no brainer to me, as long as that is what you want to do. If you find it isn't really what you wanted, just sell it for the same or more (or you could sell it for less to me).

    I know you asked us to talk you out of it...so I apologize if I'm pushing you in the wrong direction, but then why would you post that question if you didn't really want us to tell you that its okay!

    Happy shooting with your Rollei...you know you want it!
     
  7. the flatbed Epson scanners will do an excellent job on 2 1/4
     
  8. <4020.net>
    With good quality flat-top scanners available cheaply now (eg Epson 4870), it's very easy to get into MF if you want to scan your own images.
    You'll have your work cut out for you though if you want to buy the Rolleiflex you say you do. Think $US 1400 plus $hundreds more for a proper CLA. Also, from personal experience I will never by a Rollei online/mail-order again. Got dudded twice, from supposedly reputable dealers too.
    So if you do go down the Rollei route, make sure you have a chance to personally inspect the camera. And bring your money with you... :?)
    In November of last year I instead bought a Hasselblad 501c/m from KEH. A bit on the expensive side, but I don't regret it. With a bit of modification I can use it for outdoor candid stills work and of course the 6x6 neg blows away anything I ever did with the Leicas.
    I now mainly use the Leicas for indoor work (or my commercial VR work). The outdoor stuff is now all Hasselblad and Kodak Portra 160VC. Lovin' every minute of it :?)
     
  9. The Rolleiflex is a different beast from the Rolleicord but getting a really nice 2.8F that works properly isn't very easy. I know, I have been trying to replace a 3.5F type 5 that I sold ten years ago, and have basically given up looking after three years of trying.

    I currently use an Automat type 4 in well used condition. I find it difficult to differentiate between images from this and the very nice 3.5F I used to own.

    Lee Miller and Bill Brandt used Automats. Why not go for one of these? The optics are great and it is much cheaper to get a nice one.
    A really nice 2.8F will still cost aprox ?600 in the UK and will need a service.

    I use a simple Epson flatbed for 6x6- easily good enough for the web. I do the prints optically and they surpass anything I can do on any 35mm gear- you can see this as soon as the image starts to develop on the paper- it is remarkable.

    Check out Robert Doisneau's work too (you probably have already)- he?s my favorite. He used a Rolleiflex Automat for most of his very famous images.
     
  10. Trevor,

    I bought a 3.5E3 (Xenotar) recently for B&W, using my M5 for colour.

    Based on my research, there is little point in getting a 2.8 - the 3.5 is said to be at least as good if not better. Don't get hung up on a Planar - the Xenotar is just as good and usually cheaper. A Maxwell would be nice - my TLR has the original screen and it is a bit dim but I can live with it. It is probably not worth getting a TLR with built-in meter since it is unlikely that it will be accurate after so many years. I'm thinking seriously of getting a true spot meter.

    Can't advise on scanning since I am a Luddite (why else would I buy a cumbersome Rolleiflex?).

    Have you read Barry Thornton's Edge of Darkness? A revelation. His developers are now sold by Peter Hogan in the UK(www.monochromephotography.com) who also sells his own, similar developers. Thornton also wrote a book (Elements of Transition) on optimising B&W development for digital printing (available from the same source).

    Good luck.
     
  11. Trevor,

    The Rolleiflex gestalt complements the Leica gestalt nicely, so I'd say go for it :).

    I've had several Rollei's for 7 or 8 years, and at least back then getting a clean 2.8F was no great challenge. It may be that the auction site has has changed that or that most of those that were gathering dust in closets have already found new homes. But I think if you look long enough you'll find a good one.

    FWIW, I'm using mine more now that it is fitted with one of the 45 degree eye level prisms adapted from the Kiev. I realize that strictly speaking this might be a violation of the Rollei gestalt, but what the heck. The Maxwell screen is also a worthwhile upgrade, IMHO.

    As others have commented, the new Epson flatbeds do a very reasonable job with medium format.
     
  12. You can get a very nice Rollei (mine is a 2.8F) for a LOT less than $1400!
     
  13. I say get a TLR. I think a 2.8F or similar camera would fit nicely in your bag with the bessa. As you already have experience with TLRs, you know the quietness will also let you shoot discreetly in the 'leica' style. Process the film in your bathroom, and when you get a pic you really like have it printed by a pro. I scan my 6X6 negs with an epson 3170 that I think was around $140. Not very high quality but I mainly just use the scanner rather than making contact sheetsfrom each roll. Or just for posting here. Since I never scan to print this works OK for me. I have a Hassy outfit already, but still would like a TLR for the smaller size, lighter weight and quietness. Here's an example of a pic I scanned recently with the 3170.
    00B3In-21752784.jpg
     
  14. Unless you are into Rolleis, you have no idea how many things can be wrong with them.

    Got a bug for big neg, go 4x5. Awsome compared to 35, but get good glass, not some junk from 1960 or older.
     
  15. Rolleflex Automat type 4 ('user' condition), Iford HP4, scanned on an Epson 3170 (c. 130 UKP from Amazon).<p>

    Any shortcomings of the image quality are probably down to my digital imaging processing techniques/screen calibration... The darkroom print is pin sharp.<p>

    <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3098083-lg.jpg">
     
  16. Trevor: It sounds like you need/want a Rollei in your life, even though you may use it only occasionally. You have your sights on nice one this time. If you get it, I think you should hang on to it this time. It's OK to have something you don't use all the time.
    00B3K6-21753284.jpg
     
  17. Trevor,<p>I went the MF route with a Zeiss Ikoflex TLR and a Zeiss Super Ikonta B with coated lens. I know you're not asking about these, but I found the TLR to be too delicate, and the left-right reversal was a bit much to get used to for fast shooting. I had both cameras CLA'd and made money on them when I sold them BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME BOSS! She got fed up with my "camera worshipping", so she decreed that all these MF things had to go.<p>Anyway, the one that I really, really do miss is the Zeiss Super Ikonta B. Darn, it was fast, it was a rangefinder, and it was really, really, really sharp! When folded, it fit very nicely into an overcoat pocket. Gosh, how I do miss that little beauty. Anyway, since you've demonstrated that TLRs and you don't always get along, why not consider a rangefinder MF camera such as the Zeiss SIB?
     
  18. " scan my 6X6 negs with an epson 3170 that I think was around $140. Not very high quality but "

    You know, I always thought my 3170 was just passable as a 35mm scanner until I started shooting Neopan 100 Acros.

    [​IMG]
    hexar af, neopan 100 Acros @ 200, diafine | www.1pt4.com

    Now I think it's pretty damn good. I'm kinda of curious how well it will do with 6x6. So get that TLR and a 3170 and do my research for me. Please? Don't make go find a bargain TLR of my own.
     
  19. Matt,
    If you like your 3170 for 35mm, you'll love it for 6x6. I've made a 12x12 enlargement from Epson 3170 scan from a 2.8C Xenotar Rolleiflex for friends (a hosipital room scene a few hours after the birth of their baby girl). The prints came out lovely, I wouldn't hesitate to use that scanner for a 12x12 enlargement. Don't know how much larger it would go, however.
     
  20. The Rolleiflex 2.8F is a superb instrument - I have one, with the Planar, virtually as new, and build-wise it is as close to a MF Leica as you'll get. I fitted a Beattie screen as it was reputedly more contrasty than the Maxwell - and it transformed it. I use an Epson flatbed with decent results. Download the Vuescan software, which is worth the money. Here's a little drooly picture of the Rollei...
    00B3Ls-21753684.jpg
     
  21. I scan 6x6 on a flatbed EVERYDAY. tape it dow, don't, whatever works.
     
  22. For amateurs who have some extra money to spend, purchasing cameras based on photographs/books by masters instead of their needs or photographic skills is a dangeous disease (not only "itch"). Having a camera that masters use doesn't mean you can be a master.
     
  23. Yes that all helped me to resist. Not!

    I will sleep on it.

    Thanks
     
  24. S.Lui. Thanks for the tip. I know the Rollei won't make me a master.

    My phrase "to try and do the same" meant "to try to achieve some of my best efforts" rather than actually BE like Bill Brandt just because I use the same camera.

    Oh, and I forgot another great photographer (and Rolleiflex user). Edward Chambre Hardman.
     
  25. Case study:
    If you can read Chinese, on this web site, this poor guy heard about the great Rolleiflex is great camera and bought eightRolleiflex at once , although he even didn't know what 120 film is.
    And he also has PENTAX67,PENTAX645,CONTAX645,HASSELBALD50OCM,501CM.ROLLEI6008,ROLLEIFLEX,BRONICA645,MAMIYA7 II,FUJI GW69,GA645,PENTACON 6,KEIV88,GRAPHIC45, LINHOF45,TOYO810.135 ...
    Have a nice dream ;-)
     
  26. BTW, at the end of his post, he decided that he had too many cameras and lenses, so from now on, he will focus on filters ;-)
     
  27. Because of the flexibility of Mamiya 7 II, he bought three bodies and three lenses at the same time ...
     
  28. To be honest, we all have the same disease.
    I had a Rolleiflex for almost a year and the reason that I didn't get one is the issues like camera condition and CLA. I almost bought a Yashica 124G but decided that I don't like the shooting style of a TLR. My medium format solution is a Holga for 6x6 and a Fuji GS645S, which I bought last year because of birthday impulse. I still regret it a lot and I don't like it at all. But I didn't sell it. I start to learn to use it and it turned out to have produced some of the best photographs I have ever made. I took some night photographs of the New York blizzard two weeks ago with Delta 3200 rated at 1600, and I made some very impressive 11x14 prints in wet darkroom last week. I am sure that I can make as good photographs (but different) with a Rolleiflex TLR, but not better.
    My lesson: if buying a camera is a mistake, selling it would be a bigger mistake.
     
  29. Sam,

    Instead of trying to talk Trevor out of buying a used Rollei, we should all get in touch with that guy in China, and get him to sell all that stuff to us...he obviously doesn't need it! Sounds like more than enough cameras for all of us!

    Anyway, I'm going to start hanging around over in the Classic Camera forum again...its safer on my wallet!
     
  30. If you have a good Rolleiflex, Planar or Xenotar, in good working order, don't, I repeat, DO
    NOT sell it or trade it. You WILL regret it sooner or later. I got a beautiful 2.8F for about
    $700 18 months ago. No CLA needed, smooth as butter (well, the crank could use a bit of
    lubrication now), impeccable glass, all speeds spot on, you name it, AND the meter works.
    I fitted it with a Maxwell screen and it's pure joy. I won't let it go for my life.
     
  31. Andy., Is that the Mathematical Bridge, Queens College, Cambridge?

    http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/Queens/Images/WinBridg.html
     
  32. I don't think you will buy new but just in case you do, I don't recommend it, at least don't buy 2.8GX (I regret my purchase).

    However, if you are confident that you can sell the thing for the same money (or more), I will advise you try it (old good rollex) again. I followed you works posted here for more than two months and feel that TLR is suitable for you taking into account you style. If I am wrong please forgive me. I feel that you like to take the time to compose and most of the works do not involve quick, close, candid street protrait. In that case TLR is excellent, and you always have your Bessa R3a when you need to be fast and invisible.
     
  33. Olivier, I envy you!
     
  34. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

  35. For those interested, this is the link to the company selling 45 degree prisms and adapters
    for the Rollei TLRs. I have the plain prism model (no meter) and it works great.

    http://www.baierfoto.de/tlrenglish.html
     
  36. Because you have already bought and sold TLR's maybe the time has come to try a folder. Isolettes and Zeiss Ikontas are readily available and will give you a chance to try a light weight, medium format camera with the eye level perspective you are used to as well as flat bed scanning without making a commitment to going back to the TLR's. Happy hunting.
     
  37. Trevor,

    THe Rollei is an excellent companion to an M (as you already know).

    You don't 'need' an F model unless you really want a Prism finder. I have a 2.8 Planar C
    with a Maxwell Screen. I scan on an Epson 4870 and usually print 6 or 9 inch squares on
    an Epson 2200. Looks great.

    Process your own B&W and order some Arista Pro 400 (generic HP5) from
    www.freestylephoto.biz for aout $1.80 per roll.

    jmp
     
  38. I have 2 Rolleis, both overhauled by Mr. Fleenor who is the DAG of Rolleis, and with bright screens in them. If I expected them to be the MF equivalent of a 35mm interchangable-lensed rangefinder system I would be disappointed. If I even expected them to be the equivalent of a MF interchangable-lensed SLR system, I would also be disappointed. Since my expectations are realistic, I am delighted to use them both when their strengths and limitations are in sync with my subject matter. Ironicly, I find the Rolleis better for me as candid street cameras than my Leicas. They are quieter than Leicas, and these days nobody expects their picture to be taken unless the camera is up to the photographers face, or in his outstretched arms looking at the digital screen. However, I wouldn't recommend someone to buy a Rollei if he'd already used them and sold them. I've enjoyed using mine from day one and will never sell them.
     
  39. Trevor,

    I have had Leicas and Rolleiflexes coexisting for me since 1947. No
    dichotomy has surfaced at any time.

    Jerry
     
  40. Trevor,
    I love my Rolleiflexes. They are wonderful cameras with very sharp lenses. I have just put up a clean one for sale on photo.net. It was CLA'd and is now very smooth.
     
  41. Trevor,
    Have you thought about the Mamiya C330S or F ?
    Interchangeable lenses, well built TLR, plentiful and well priced.
    It may not have the cache of the Rollieflex, but the C330 is a rockin' camera ...

    If you want to go MF seriously, the mamiya 7ii is my favorite MF camera. Small platform,
    exceptionally sharp glass, but the lenses are a little slow (f4.5 and the like).

    Equipment is such a funny issue ... I shot Leica M6 exclusively for a year ... then along
    came a used Nikon F5, along with a flash and bracket, I'm having a lot of fun doing
    protraits. Don't worry the Leica's time will come again, as long as the new Nikon D90/
    D200 doesn't get launched anytime soon ...

    Cheers !
     
  42. Here I have an E3 model; it will hold the prism too. Beware it is abit of a top heavy rig abit.
     
  43. Here I have a C3 TLR too; this is a darn HEAVY beast; more like a studio camera; compared to a Rolleiflex.
     
  44. < Someone stop me doing this again!>



    Trevor, old chap, sounds like you got it bad. Any 12-step programs in
    your area that don't meet near a camera shoppe?
     
  45. < Someone stop me doing this again!>



    Trevor, old chap, sounds like you got it bad. Any 12-step programmes in
    your area that don't meet near a camera shoppe?
     
  46. Trevor, a good Rolleiflex (E or F, with 2.8 lens) is an excellent all around shooter. You can even do moderately easy closeups with a Rolleinar attachment.

    Check this...

    [​IMG]
    HP5+ on Xtol 1:3. Rolleiflex E Xenotar 2.8 with Rolleinar 2.

    [​IMG]
    HP5+ on Xtol 1:3. Rolleiflex E Xenotar 2.8.
     
  47. "Vic . , feb 06, 2005; 08:15 p.m. Andy., Is that the Mathematical Bridge, Queens College, Cambridge?"
    Hi Vic, yes it is.
     
  48. "Oh, and I forgot another great photographer (and Rolleiflex user). Edward Chambre Hardman."
    Yes, a Rolleiflex Automat (at least in the photos of him that I saw in Liverpool).
    Cheers, A
     
  49. There is so much response here to this thread (on and offline) that I going to print it off to read I think. Thanks everyone. Has not helped me at all in quelling the urge. Even a very recent E++, boxed, Rolleiflex 2.8GX with leather case (here in UK) costs about the same as a good M6 TTL body. I am also researching the Rolleiflex T as there is an excellent++ one for 245 GBP with case ...
    00B3fU-21759684.jpg
     
  50. The T is a nice camera, but from some reports I believe the build quality may not be quite as good as the older Automats or the CDEF series. Optically though, you won't be disapointed and all Rolleis are well made cameras.
     
  51. Trevor,

    I have sent you an email advising on an apparently nice Rollei I have seen for sale on a UK dealer's website U.K. Worth considering, although you asked for dissuasion not persuasion!
     
  52. Trevor, buy it and keep it. I learned the hard way never to sell a Leica, and I think the same is true for a Rollei. You'll always find a use for it, and when you don't have one, you'll want one!

    My Fuji GX680 kit is gone and my Pentax 6x7 kit is for sale as we speak. I'm all digital for my professional work now, and haven't shot a roll of film for more than a year. But my Rolleicord Vb and Leica M3 stay, even if I do nothing but fondle them for the rest of my life.
     
  53. http://www.geocities.com/chendayuan2001/rollei1.html
    check here there is some accessory
    For Rolleiflex, Ithink the best still the Tessar type model, it have its own style and it is lighter cheaper comapre to other model.
     
  54. That's (I think) an MX-EVS Automat with a rolleimeter rangefinder attached.
     
  55. Woops, it clearly states that with the pic. sorry....
     
  56. I own one of the older Rolleiflexes.. a 1955 Rolleiflex 2.8D with the Schneider Xenotar f/2.8 lens. I purchased it a couple of years ago ($325 I think) after I had been drooling over TLRs for about a year. No built in meter but incident meters are more accurate anyway, right? ;) I have never had a single photo come out over or underexposed with my Polaris meter.
    <p>
    Focusing accuracy can be tough. Then again, mine is probably in dire need of focus calibration and has a 50 year old focusing screen and mirror that both need replacement. The 80mm focal length on 6x6cm is approximately equal to 50mm on 35mm film which means it is usable in nearly every situation if you're creative. Image quality is immense. The only hassle is the film itself. You need to find a reputable lab to process it and then have to worry about prints or scanning it in. I have a medium format scanner which removes part of that problem and I also process my own B&W film at home which means I only need to take it to a lab for color films... though loading 120 film on reels is enough to make you pull your hair out. I've considered selling it but don't think I could bring myself to really do that. It's a great piece of equipment.. a 50 year old camera that can output images to rival or beat ANY 35mm or digital camera (ok.. maybe not the Canon 1Ds MkII 16.7 megapixel body or medium format digital backs/bodies). You can see what I mean about focus accuracy in the cycle photo below (if pbase.com is working and displays a photo, that is).
    <p>
    <img src=http://www.pbase.com/chiapuke/image/35306921.jpg>
    <p>
    <img src=http://www.pbase.com/chiapuke/image/28784608.jpg>
     
  57. I loved my Rollei 2.8f and used it for the majority of my work for several years. I foolishly
    sold it when I had a fit of going "cold turkey" onto digital, and I soon regretted selling it.
    All the more so once I decided I was being foolish, and tried to replace my missing Rollei
    by purchasing two more. Neither was as good as my earlier one, and I sold those too.

    Now it's Leica or 4x5. Which is fine. With the square I was creating too many centered
    compositions by default, instead of investigating the possibilities. And also, the 2.8 lens is
    pretty borderline slow for a lot of difficult lighting that I encounter. I do miss the tactial
    quality of the Rollei, and the delightful bokeh, and I do get tempted to shoot square
    photos because they look cool - but I get better low light photos with the Leica, and better
    formal photos with the 4x5 - which means the Rollei was a compromise. A really nice
    compromise, but why compromise if you don't have to?
     
  58. How does the Yashica 124 compare with the Rollei in terms of photo quality, ruggedness, ease of use, and initial cost. I have generally heard good things about the yashica.
     
  59. The Rolleis are unsurpassed in terms of TLR build quality. I own a Minolta Autocord, but it is not as rugged as my Rollei. Not bad though.
     
  60. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Nathan, I've owned a few of those single stick fours. Nice to see, thanks!
     
  61. A late Yashica-Mat is probably a better choice than a funky Rolleicord for the same money.
    The build quality and smoothness of winding isn't as nice as a Rollei but there is nothing
    at all wrong with them and they have a nice feel.

    You pretty much get what you pay for. I think the best "bang for buck' is a 2.8 E2 or E3 -
    they are practically an F. Avoid the worthless meters and 120/220 capabilities to save even
    more money ($500-$600 for a clean one.) For $150-$200 or so, I'd stick with as nice a
    Rolleicord or YashicaMat as possible, as most Rolleiflex would have "issues" at that price.

    Rolleis need consistent cleaning and service, they do gum up. You probably need to
    budget a CLA into anyone you buy for serious work. Also, be sure to check focus wide
    open and close up - it is not uncommon to get back or front focusing over time.
     
  62. I have a 2.8E and its my baby. I couldn't imagine letting it go. Its quite a different tool than a 35mm rangefinder or SLR yet it handles as fast. You have one lens, but oh what a lens it is!

    I for one don't see the big deal about the 2.8F. The selenium meters (if working) are only marginally useful, and all the F model really adds is coupling to the meter. Any Planar or Xenotar model is going to kick ass if its in proper working order. The Tessars and Xenars are no slouches either, especially for scenic work when you can stop them down a bit. If I really had to have a meter in a Rollei TLR, I'd consider a GX or FX with a TTL meter.
     
  63. The best advice I got when I was considering a Rollei was to just buy the one in the best condition I could find and start shooting. The 2.8 lenses are reputed to be sharper in the corners and edges than the 3.5 lenses, but if you shoot stopped down to get more depth of field, you won't notice. You would stop down two more stops with a 75 or 80 mm lens than with the normal lens in a Leica. The Minolta Autocord stopped down to f8 will produce a negative which is indistinguishable from that produced by a Rollei at f8, in my experience, but the build quality is not as solid. The Yashica 124G is ok, not as solidly built as the Rollei, and seems to me to provide a somewhat softer image. In any event, the Yashinon lens is reputed to be better than the Yashicor lens. The amount of detail which you can print from the 6x6 cm negative is wonderful. Some Rollei models are heavier than others. Also, they come with at least three different types of bayonet mountings for lens caps, filters and such. The bayonet I peripherals are far cheaper and more readily available than are the bayonet II, and peripherals from Yashicamats can be used on Bayonet I mounts. As I recall, Bayonet III equipment is for the 2.8GX. I am oversimplifying, but Bayonet I tends to go with f3.5 taking lenses, and Bayonet II with 2.8f lenses. I was shocked to learn that Rollei TLR fans agree Rollei produced a BAD model which they would not let their friends buy. It may have been the model A, but my memory is vague on this point, so you'll need to check this out if you want to pursue these. I'm sure Jerry Lehrer remembers which model it was. He is quite knowledgeable about Rolleis. Ferdi Stutterheim maintains a list of recommended repair people for Rolleis; the list includes repair persons in Europe. Hope this helps.
    00B4Ss-21774984.jpg
     
  64. Is that from a Rolleiflex? My Holga did a better job than that ;-)
    00B4Y0-21775784.jpg
     
  65. Maybe the issue is with the scan, rather than the negative.
     
  66. I use and have used lots of cameras varying from Leica M to Contax G2 in 35mm. For MF I use a Rolleiflex and Rollei 6008i but the latter is heavy and better for studio than outdoors. Of all these, my favourite for considered shots is my Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar. It is light, easy to use (particularly with the Maxwell screen I installed and a prism finder, which I prefer to WLF) and, after an excellent CLA by Brian Mickelboro here in the UK, so smooth to operate. The photos I have taken are technically up with the best of all the cameras I have used - quite remarkable for a 40 year old camera. There are quite a few around on eBay and provided the seller is reliable and the lens is clean you should be fine, but do invest in a CLA costing around GBP 100. I mainly use Velvia and scan on an Epson 4870 and the results are stunning. If I had to own one camera only this would be the one.
     
  67. Just noticed one of the posts said the Rolleiflex metering is useless. I heartily disagree. With careful use of the exposure compensation dial I have had the best exposed shots of any camera I have used. However, these meters are selenium based and can wear out in time. Mine hasn't though.
     
  68. The meter on my old 3.5F was also quite good enough, used intelligently. I.e. I didn't include too much sky when metering etc. depending on the circumstances. In fact I was able to use slide film without too much trouble. However, the meter assembly is a little bulky on the side of the focus knob, but no big deal.
     
  69. I own a Rolliecord, a Mamiya C220, and a Fuji GA645. Personally I like the Mamiya the best, then the Fuji........for some reason the Rolliecord just don't feel right in my hands.........anyhow.......that's not the advice I wanted to give.

    Buy the medium format camera of your choice and at exactly the same time buy a medium format dedicated film scanner (ie not a flatbed). That's the ticket. Unfortunately, I have 3 MF cams that I rarely use because I can't stand the scans from a flatbed. Hopefully soon, the film scanner will be bought.
     
  70. Trevor,
    if you are in the market for a Rollei TLR then have a look at german eBay: You should be able to find a C or E 2.8 model starting from around EUR 350 from a reputable seller, 3.5 models may be even a bit cheaper. The F models are overpriced IMHO, and the T models are not on-par with other Rolleiflexes in terms of build quality (my own experience). But the older Automats are still great buys - for around EUR 150.
    As for scanners: I am quite happy with my old Epson 1260 for web use - for printing prefer lab work still - it is cheaper as well if you calculate in the cost for paper/printer/scanner.
    I sold the third of my Rolleiflexes just two weeks ago, and it was harder to part with it than with a Leica lens. I may sell another one, but one will stay with me for sure. If you happen to be in switzerland in the near future I can borrow you one, but do not expect that you will ever keep it :)
    00B5KO-21791284.JPG
     

Share This Page

1111