Is Rolleiflex suitable for landscape work?

[andrew_pogrebennyk]

Hi,

I am choosing an inexpensive camera to make the jump into MF. After rejecting

Mamiya TLR (and RZ67) for being too bulky i'm left with two choices: mamiya 645

pro tl and used rolleiflex (and I could put Bronica SQ-Ai onto the list as well,

but they are in somewhat short supply on eBay and adorama).

I like 6x6 and 6x7 formats much more that 645 format though. I do mostly

landscapes and street photo, less portraiture. I wonder if you use your

Rolleiflex for landscape work and how it feels compared to SLR. Is it suitable

for long exposure shots?

Thank you for your hints.

[andrew_pogrebennyk]

And yes, I have a Nikon F100 with fine lenses so I don't feel like I need a modern 645 format camera:) So would you recommend getting a Rolleiflex?

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

Rollei is a wonderful camera. Terrific glass, relatively light weight & size and quite

durable. Some accessories are offered as well.

 

The only area that could be a challenge is the fact that the Rollei doesn't offer

interchangeable lenses.

 

I've got a collection of Rolleicords and Rolleiflex cameras that I bought in 2002-04

because when I was young I couldn't afford a Rollei. I have a Rolleiflex Automat that was

practically brand new when I bought it and I exercise it every so often. Fun!

 

Hope this helps you.

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

Sorry I didn't answer your questions.

 

I used, back in the olden days, my Rollei cameras for all my work including landscape work.

Since the shutter is in the lens, there is no mirror slap and I found the camerea works very

well for long exposure shots. The Rollei has a different feel from an SLR. But it is lighter than

most SLR's especially the SLR's produced when metal was the primary component for the

manufacturer.

[doug grosjean]

To answer two questions at once, here's a stitched panoramic shot on a Rolleiflex with a Rolleipano head, shot on b/w 400-speed film pushed to around 1600 speed:

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4130332-md.jpg

 

It did alright. The big version of the pic has great detail. There are other Rolleiflex and Rolleicord V pics in my folder as well, if curious.

 

I like using a TLR, but some people don't. I'd suggest trying one out if possible, before purchasing.

 

I can't compare it to a MF SLR, as I haven't used one. But I prefer a TLR over a 35mm SLR for landscape. I like the groundglass viewing, and the way that in general the TLR slows you down a bit in your shooting, and the manual controls make you think a bit more before just hitting the button.

[d_purdy]

I would say that if you are a Rollei user and you like using it then it is appropriate to take it

out and do some landscape with it. I use Rollei TLRs and love the way they work and I do

go out and do some landscape. That said I don't believe a Rollei TLR is a very good

camera for landscape and I wouldn't recommend going that way if you want to focus on

landscape work and you don't have a lot of experience with using Rolleis. Rolleis are very

limited in that they have one vision and it is "normal". It is likely not going to be what you

need for landscape.

 

If I was going to get a cheap MF camera primarily for landscape I would think about

getting a Pentax 67. And a tripod. Cheap system very high quality. A lot of landscape

photographers use them and they have interchangeable lenses. An excellent wide angle

and an excellent telephoto.

 

I don't right off know of any really successful landscape photographers using Rollei TLRs.

Rollei SLRs yes but not TLRs. Ferdi will probably post an opinion on your thread and you

should look at his work. Some of the nicest Rollei TLR landscape I know of.

 

Dennis

[ronald_moravec1]

If you don`t feel limited by one lens, it is a great camera.

 

There are Mutars to adjust focal length up and down. I wanted to buy a package and never could get a set all at one time. Bay 2 Mutars for sale and all the camers need 3 or the reverse.

 

I have no idea where you live or if 120 film or processing is an issue. You can`t get it a drugstore anymore.

 

I bypassed med format and went to 4x5.

[matt_needham]

I enjoyed using my Rolleiflex for landscape work. I was able to pack everything I needed (except the tripod) into a very small camera bag, which is wonderful if you are hiking very far. I found my P67II and Hasselblad set-ups to be almost as heavy and bulky as my 4x5 field camera, so if I was willing to deal that kind of weight/bulk I'd usually just go with 4x5. The Rollei took up less space than my 35mm SLR rigs (mainly because there were no extra lenses I was tempted to carry).

 

No interchangeable lenses can be a pain and a blessing. There were times when I wished for something wider, but there was also a sense of freedom in working with what I had, and not worrying about extra gear. The only time it really gave me problems was when it was raining; WL finders and rain don't mix well for me.

[andrew_pogrebennyk]

Ronald, I live in Ukraine. Processing is not that big issue here...

Thanks to all for the valuable comments!

[andrew_pogrebennyk]

Doug, nice shot.

[brucecahn]

The older Rolleis should be excellent for landscapes. They have very good lenses that are not too contrasty, and get beautiful results in natural light. A 4x5 would be a lot better, though.

[Ed_Ingold]

A Rolleiflex would make an excellent landscape camera. The image quality is exceptional, especially with the Zeiss Planar or the Schneider equivalent, the Xenotar. I find I tend to use a "normal" focal length more than any other. That said, having an alternative is important - especially once you see the kind of results you get with a Rollei.

 

You could get an used Mamiya RB or RZ for not much more than an used Rollei, with a plethora of used lenses available. The 6x7cm format has about 50% more useable space than a 6x6 (6x4.5), which helps preserve the detail you need in landscapes. An RB/RZ is not heavy and not all that big if you keep the waist-level finder in lieu of a prism. Many people like the Pentax 6x7 (an SLR on steroids) or the Mamiya 7 rangefinder (very portable, extraordinary IQ).

 

Whatever you decide, plan on schlepping a sturdy tripod if you want the kind of sharpness a medium format camera can deliver.

[simus]

Andrew,

 

it depends on your photograph style. Anyway as for what I can say, I use Rollei instead of

the hasselblad when i do not to want to carry heavy things around and want to be fast.

rolleiflex is more immediate to use, has excellent lens, has some good filter, dark filters

doesn't affect the wiew because of the twin lens system, it is not complicate to use. it is

light, so the filters. As for long shot there is no problem. there is also a rolleiflex wide

version. Cons are the difficult to use square filter system and the fixed lens.

 

hope this helps,

 

Antonio

[richard_oleson]

The square format is great for landscapes. Obviously, with a square negative and only one lens, it won't be the right combination for EVERY landscape photo you might want to shoot.... but it will take some great ones.

[robert_marvin]

I'm basically a landscape photographer and I use my Rolleiflex for about 3/4ths of my work--I've been using the same 2.8E since I bought it used in 1962.

 

When I want other focal lengths I'll use a MF SLR, but I much prefer my Rollei.

[fwstutterheim]

<i>Ferdi will probably post an opinion on your thread and you should look at his work.

Some of the nicest Rollei TLR landscape I know of. </i><p>

Thanks Dennis. I used to take most of my landscape pictures with a Rolleiflex TLR. A few

years ago I switched to a Rolleiflex SLR. I wanted to use wider and longer lenses and

graduated neutral density filters. The TLR has fixed lenses and the separate viewing and

taking lenses make the ND Grads nearly impossible to use. The present images on my

web-site are made with the SLR not the TLR. My only TLR image on-line is this one: <p>

<a href="http://www.rolleiflexclub.nl/photopost/showphoto.php?

photo=346&cat=500&ppuser=8" target="_blank">Gouda, Holland</a><p>

I captured the "decisive moment". Look at the lady exercising a Medieval privilege.

That day I wanted to travel light and when photographing Dutch cities ND Grads are

difficult to use anyway because there always is a tree or a church tower protruding into the

sky. I did use a tripod and a polariser. <p>

 

Ferdi.<p>

<a href="http://www.rolleigraphy.org" target="_blank">www.rolleigraphy.org</a>

[laurent1]

If you want to have an exemple of the use of a mutar 0,7x, check my portfolio where there are two pictures taken from the same point of view with my rolleiflex 3.5f with and without the mutar.

The 0.7x mutar gives you a 52 mm lens. The only problem is the use of a pol filter, as you don't see the effect of rotating the filter. (in fact, you see a small part of it as the filter comes partly in the field of view of the viewing lens). There is a little vigneting with the mutar as you can see.

Mutars were made for the 3,5 planar lens but they can be adapted to the 2.8 lens with a special set of rings (bay III) and to the bay I also, but there is much more vigneting.

The mutar 0.7 is a very nice, interesting and worth the investment. The 1.5 is less interesting as it gives you a 110 mm lens which is not a great telephoto. It vignets also more that the 0.7.

Hope this help you choice.

From my opinion, a rolleiflex is an excellent choice when starting in MF : you have a complete MF camera for only 1.2 kg and it's very small and reliable.

Laurent

[mskovacs]

Step back and think about how you work with your Nikon F100. If the majority of your shots are taken in the 45-60mm focal length, then you won't be missing much.

 

<p>But if you do a lot of wide angle or telephoto work, a Rolleiflex TLR isn't going to work for you. There are also the Mamiya TLRs like the C330 with excellent optics, interchangeable lenses and macro scale bellows focusing. They are much heavier and bulkier than a Rolleiflex but a versatile compromise to a medium format SLR

 

<p>Personally, I use my TLRs when I need to shoot light and on the move. When I am out on a dedicated trip intending to shoot landscapes and nature, its my medium format SLR that comes along with its 50-250 lenses. That hasn't stopped me from using the TLR though:

 

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/2386791229_b81945a245_o.jpg">

 

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/2387620482_71296d9aac_o.jpg">

[zachk1]

I love my Rollei TLR, it was the first camera I used after a cheap o point and shoot. If only having a normal lens is OK for what you want to do than go for it. The Rollei is small and light, it has a wonderful ground glass to compose on, and the lens is first rate.

 

Oh and you get so many ohs and ahs when you pull it out.

[andrew_pogrebennyk]

Thank you for your tips. This forum is simply the best. I have a couple of days to decide and men, this decision is complex :) I am considering three options: Rolleiflex 3.5e or 3.5f with average wear, Mamiya RZ67 Pro with Sekor Z 110mm f/2.8W and 120 film back for $650 and Bronica SQ-Ai with Seiko PS80mm lens and film back. Both Bronica and Mamiya are in good condition. Bronica is almost 1kg lighter and is capable of producing good results when shooting hand-held. This forum as a nice comparison thread.

 

Mike: I am OK with shooting from Rollei's 80mm focal length most of the time. It will work. But I love wider angle as well, so the ability a 50mm wide angle lens to MF SLR camera is quite valuable. Mamiya RZ and Bronica have the nice ones.

Additionally, using ND and polarizing filters or polarizer on TLR looks tricky for me. ND is difficult to live without when shooting b/w or slide film with narrow exposure. Hey, when I was in Tibet it was basically indispensable :)

[andrew_pogrebennyk]

sorry for the typos, i was a a bit hurried ;) i meant "the ability to attach 50mm wide angle lens to MF SLR"

[mskovacs]

Sounds like a TLR is not for you. Polarizers are no problem but ND, out of the question. Its nice too when you can pack a camera that has interchangeable magazines.

[andrew_pogrebennyk]

Finally I have bought Bronica SQ-Ai with waist-level finder, 120 film back, Zenzanon 80mm F/2.8 PS and Zenzanon 50mm F/3.5 PS for about $600 (not incl. shipping). Can't wait to get hands on it, but I'm pretty sure I'll also buy a Rolleiflex in future :)

[jack_welsh]

I have TLR's and a Mamiya RB67, personally I would pick either the RB or a Mamiya TLR. Long exposure shots require a tripod, so the added weight is not that much of an issue. And, I have shot C330's and also the Mamiya Universal hand held. One thing that helps in handholding,or carrying a medium format camera,is a good grip holder.With one, I haven't found hand holding the RB with a 180 lens to not be so burdensome. The RB is easier to revolve the back than the camera of the Pentax67.The Rollei is a great camera, but it can't change backs in mid roll, and the lack of interchangeable lenses would be a negative.

[andrew_pogrebennyk]

<p>To express the opinion of Bronica that had formed after occasional using it for half a year and intense using on the two travels, I'd like to say that while it is capable of delivering good results, it feels plasticky (especially after touching Leica M3) and not-so well thought-out (or rather error-prone: e.g. I have wasted a couple of shots recently because I did not fix the mirror lockup switch in the S position). <br>

<br /> While WLF is good for landscapes, it's tedious when photographing people. To alleviate it, I've bought a 45D prism finder and a speed grip ($140 together), but they are yet to arrive. I also want more format choices. I think about adding a 4x5 field camera plus 6x12 back for landscapes and a 6x4,5 rangefinder for street and travel photos. I also like the feel of TLR: I have a Yashica 635 with Yashicor lens that I bought used at the market in India and I enjoy going out with it. The lens doesn't match my taste, though.<br>

<br />Meanwhile, an hour ago I gave in to temptation to buy a nice Rolleiflex T on eBay. It cost me about $320 with bay 1 hood and filters. I think I'm going to love the contrast of Tessar. Besides, it comes with a bright focusing screen adapted from the Mamiya RZ and has a working meter. Wonderful and lightweight camera. All I need to add is a case and probably 0,7x Mutar. It does work with Tessar, doesn't it?</p>