Would you help me to find a Rolleiflex?

[wuyeah]

Hello guys,

 

I am looking for a Rolleiflex TLR. This one might be one & only TLR that i am

going to have. There are so many models that confused me a lot, so I would like

you guys to give me a direction so I could find certain models you guys r

talking about to do some farther study.

 

What I know for sure that I'll go after f2.8 model, Zeiss prob. Personally I

perferr cameras that are not battery dependent. I usually see pure machanical

cameras as work of art. So pretty much NO for current Rolleiflex models.

 

Cameras that I highly love are Nikon F3, Leica M6 classic, Hasselblad 503CW.

Perhaps knowing what I like you guys will know how to help with the right

direction.

 

Thanks.

[oskar_ojala]

E and F-series 'flexes are the best with 2.8 optics. Will cost much more than a humbler 3.5 model, but if you get a good one I still think its a good deal. I use a 3.5 and I'm happy with it.

[h._p.]

When I got a Rolleiflex again (I used them years ago for press photography) I went for the E2. My reasons? Doesn't have the meter, which I never entirely trusted, does take the pentaprism and is more common than the E3 or meterless F models, hence much cheaper. You seem to like cameras with built in meters, so perhaps a 2.8F might be more to your taste.<div></div>

[michael_pye]

Could I ask what the appeal of a Rolleiflex are?

[mike_earussi1]

I like the shutter release on the F more than the E and don't like the EVS on the E so would recommend the F. Also I find the meter works fine for color neg. film since neg. is more forgiving of less than perfect exposure. Of course, F's do cost more. But if money is no object get an F.

[kens]

"I usually see pure machanical cameras as work of art. So pretty much NO for current

Rolleiflex models".

 

The GX (and I assume the FX) use the battery for metering only - like your Leica M6. Remove

the battery and you still have a functioning camera, just no meter.

 

The Rollei SLRs (6000 series) are completely battery dependent - no battery = no camera. But

the TLRs still work without battery.

[kens]

Here's a link to a somewhat simple review of the GX (and FX) compared to the F. It might help

you make a decision...

 

http://www.photographical.net/rolleiflex_gx.html

[oskar_ojala]

<i>Could I ask what the appeal of a Rolleiflex are?</i>

 

<p>Excellent ergonomics and optics, these are machines designed for taking pictures, nothing else.

[bob_cook]

I have the 2.8F with a functioning meter that is as accurate as my other reflective meters. But, I think mine is an exception. As to the attraction of the camera - it is compact, works without batteries, very durable and has a great lens.

[wuyeah]

Hello Bob, are you saying it is hard to find a 2.8F with accurate meter attach so if meter is a

concern E2 is my best bet?

[bob_cook]

William - I think that is the opinion of most of us. The meters were selenium cell (I think), sensitive to light and just old by this time. My 2.8F model I was made in 1960, for example. It is perfectly fine for black and white negative film, which is how I use the camera. Finding one that is accurate is the exception rather than the rule. But, I don't think a metered E2 is going to be any different. I always carry a hand held meter in the case with the Rollei, but don't always use it.

[etienne_w]

Why not a GX ?<p>

it can be found used for around 1000-1200 euros in fully functional "user" condition (not "collector condition", but that's not what you want anyway). Optically, the GX is identical to an "Planar F" but with better multicoating. And it features a very accurate, modern meter.<br>

You might read about a supposed "drop in manufacturing quality" compared to an F, but I don't agree. It's a great camera. Have fun ! <p>

Etienne