Should I jump in to the TLR world?

[dan_stegal]

<p>On old Rolleis, make sure the shutter works.<br>

Long story short, Rolleis have a problem with their shutter - if it hasn't been "exercised" for while, they'll freeze. It happened to my father's camera - he let it sit for 30 years. If they've been using them frequently, you shouldn't have a problem.<br>

When I was asking around about it with dealers, one of the first things they asked me was about the shutter. When I inquired why it was such an issue, they told me about the Rollei reputation.<br>

Oh, and none of the typical eBay camera seller "the shutter sounds like it fires" crap. My father's camera's shutter sounded like it fired - the 'click' - but the shutter did not open. I even ran a roll of film through it to double check - nothing was exposed - even on 'B' for 10 seconds in daylight.</p>

<p>Many of those cameras for sale up their are just like my fathers': they've been sitting around in someone's closet for years.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>IMHO, a series 3 Rolleiflex 3.5F with six element Planar (appx. circa 1962) is the cats pajamas. On the other hand, an MX from the mid 50's with a coated 3.5 Tessar, on a tripod with the lens stopped down between f/11 and f/16, can be simply stunning depending on the individual example. But yes - go for it...and go the extra mile by investing in Bill Maxwell's focussing screen - then go out and discover "freedom in simplicity" at its best!</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>"the comments here re: the Rollei T's fragility"</p>

<p>I have both a 1950s Rollei with a Zeiss Opton Tessar (red "T" for coated) and a newer (but not much) 3.5F with a Planar (but no red "T"! I've been ripped off!), and the 3.5F is a heavier camera with a lot more metal in it. The shutter lock on the older one strikes me as easily broken when in the unlocked position, and not wanting to damage such a nice camera was the main reason I got the 3.5F. Also, the metal does seem kind of thin when opening it up to change film. There's nothing optically wrong with the Tessar; it puts gobs of lovely detail on the film. But the 3.5F really is better mechanically.</p>

<p>KEH (whom everyone recommends highly) has Rolleiflexes in stock at reasonable prices. You get a CLA'ed, functional camera from KEH, and no fooling around with flaky selllers on the 'bay.</p>

 

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>Agnes, as long as your considering medium format TLR etc type cameras, also take a look at other medium format cameras such as Pentax. They're very good and I have a Pentax 645 for sale at $400 if you're interested.</p>

[agnes_felicia]

<p>Now I have a few more ideas about the camera. So KEH's cameras been CLA'ed? Will the bargain condition be good enough or I should look for the good or excellent condition?</p>

<p>@Bryan: Thank you for your offer, but I really want to try the Rollei this time..</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>They say the proof is in the Pudding: Here is a scanned Ektar negative from my Rolleiflex that dates to 1937-1939 That has a Tessar lens on it 75mm @ 3.5 So look at the foto asnd you judge for your self : Scanned without any clean up do to it: sorry for spots and dust in it:</p><div></div>

[williams_gallery]

<p>I'm a big fan of TLR's and would recommend you try one out. One major thing to consider if you're new to them that is taken for granted by someone already owning one, is to remember that unless you have a prism, you are looking down directly onto the ground glass onto which the viewing image is projecting the light, so images are "flipped" left to right. By some miracle of the brain, this doesn't seem to affect me very much - the laws of composition seem to hold up. Even so, this arrangement is hard for some folks to adjust to. Personally, I feel it has helped me to really look closely first at the live scene, and then frame the image. <br>

I use a Mamiya C220 - I tried a Rolleicord and didn't care for it - it needed a brighter screen, and it had a small light leak. If I could afford the cost, of course I would LOVE to own a mint, CLA'd Rolleiflex (with ANY of the lenses) but given my budget, I am quite happy with the Mamiya. And while I have only used the "normal" perspective 80mm lens, the novelty of having a 55 wide available in 6x6 TLR is pretty great. <br>

The best thing about the Mamiya (apart from a fantastic lens) is the build quality. It is quite heavy, which I like, and since I have big hands, gives me something to hold on to. The robust build enables me to not think twice about packing it into the mountains (with lens cap on) or drag it around with me pretty much anywhere. <br>

Also, using a TLR when you wish to remain low profile is a great decision - no mirror so the only sound indicating exposure is the quiet leaf shutter clicking, manual advance, and I have found the "indirect" way of looking down while shooting is less confrontational and/or intimidating than a barrel lens point at someone. I have had people tell me they thought I was a surveyor when I've had it on a tripod.<br>

Just my two cents - I'll try an include a sample image...</p><div></div>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I too own a Rollie automat, roughly post war vintage.......and a Mamiya C220. I like the mamiya a whole lot for the lens interchangability and that's why I bought it. I bought the Rollie because I got a good deal on it.</p>

<p>Having used both, I actually prefer the handling of the Mamiya. The Rollie is actually too small for me to handle a TLR. I like the larger size of the Mamiya...I can steady it in my hands better for some reason.....plus it has a left-hand grip. the Rollie, I've only found a grip that goes underneath and I hate it.</p>

<p>On a tripod, all the handling likes/dislikes go away....so I've not sold the Rollie. it does take beautiful pictures. Is the glass better than Mamiya? Maybe in massive enlargements, but up to 11x14 inches I personnaly can't see a difference.</p>

<p>Altho, I must say, my Mamiya 7/lens images tromp on both of the TLRs I own....well, maybe not tromp, but noticably sharper. Probably a little better glass and a larger size negative can be attributed to that.</p>

[ken_kuzenski1]

<p>Agnes, with regard to KEH and bargain grade gear: Unless they've changed their policy, you can send anything back to KEH for any reason, within 30 days. So you're not at much risk ordering from KEH. Most of my used gear that came from a store (rather than a person) came from KEH in "bargain" grade, and I've never been dissatisfied with any of it. Be sure to give the camera a good test when it first arrives--shoot slide film, test the shutter speeds, look for light leaks, etc. Good luck, and have fun with that new TLR! </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Clearly there are many TLR fans here, so I'll stand against the wave and say TLR's are an aquired taste that is not every ones cup of tea. Coming from an SLR you may find the lack of depth of field preview to be a pain, you are always looking down so shooting at eye level is more difficult (but shooting at a low angle is easier). Of course you are composing in a square, which is not bad but takes some getting use to.</p>

<p>I agree with Gabor. Pick up a clean used Yashica D, Minolta Autocord or Ricoh Diacord for around $100. They are very good cameras, with good lenses, and see if you like this type of camera before dropping larger sums on a high end model. You might find these lower end cameras suit your needs just fine with money for a CLA and film/ processing left over.</p>

<p>I have several good TLR's myself but they don't see near as much action as my Bronica SQ-A which is a 6x6cm SLR with interchangable lenses and backs and within your price range.</p>

[ted_white2]

<p>Rather than reiterate what most have said about TLR cameras, and Yashicas and Rolleiflexes in particular, I would suggest that one way to get to know a TLR is to first put away your other cameras for a month and sally forth, cold turkey, with it. The first thing you'll notice, aside from reversed imagery, is that you can't follow action with it, at least not by looking at the screen (get a Maxwell or a Beattie, they brighten things up wonderfully). Flip up the sportsfinder and off you go. If you stop down enough and guestimate distance correctly you should get sharp images. When I got my first TLR, a Rolleicord, I initially tried carrying it about in its leather case, but soon got over that. Too cumbersome and fiddly.<br>

While a TLR makes one more contemplative and thoughtful, you can still shoot action stuff quite well, so it's more of an all around camera than most people would think. A friend who first saw me with my 'cord, said, " Well, I see you're one step away from a view camera." Not necessarily.<br>

As others have mentioned, taking street shots of people is not nearly as threatening as with an SLR, and you just might get better images because your subjects tend to be more relaxed. Then there's the curiosity factor. Most folks today probably have never seen a Rolleiflex, for example, and it seems to them as some sort of very serious camera. I have found photographing people quite a bit easier, perhaps because of this?<br>

I tend to shoot mostly in black and white because I can process it myself and because I love the larger neg when I'm working in the darkroom. Failing that, a good film scanner and printer will suffice.<br>

I can't recommend KEH too highly. I've bought several cameras from them over the years and their grading system is quite conservative. I once bought a "bargain" Pentax Spotmatic from them that most sellers would have rated EX.<br>

Good luck, Agnes. Let us know how it turns out.</p>

<p> </p>

[geoffrey goldberg]

<p>The posted images do not, for whatever reason, do justice to the crispness of the negs from the TLR's. There is a lot in them, they make stellar 16" sq prints - just so you don't let JPG reductions for the web sway the thinking! Here is a shot from a GX, scanned.</p><div></div>

[geoffrey goldberg]

<p>crop</p><div></div>

[geoffrey goldberg]

<p>one more</p><div></div>

[geoffrey goldberg]

<p>crop of BW</p><div></div>

[michael_dean5]

<p>I had a Rollie T for many years, and it finally did break. The shutter wouldn't cock. Got it fixed. I had taken thousands of photos with it. However I sold it and bought a 2.8F that needed repaired that had a Zeiss Planar lens . Got it repaired and it was great. Later I bought a 3.5E3 witha Zeiss planar lens that is magic. Every shot looks like 3D. The T lens was good but nothing I have ever seen compares to the 3.5 planar.<br>

The thing about the Rollie is that taking lens is matched to the viewing lens and if everthing is still adjusted then the focus is absolutly correct. Years of shooting the T got me adjusted to looking down and having everything backwards. Now I shoot a Pentax 645 and D90 Nikon. I still have the 3.5E3, and I sold the 2.8F (wish I hadn't).<br>

The Rollie prisms are not very good. I have one and never use it. Too dark, and are no good if you wear glasses.<br>

If you can find a good one the Rollie is in a class by itsself, and you will never regreat it.</p>

[michael_dean5]

<p>Another thing. On most of the Rollies (not the cord) when you set up the sports finder there is a lens that allows you to see the screen and focus the camera. Though not very well.</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>The Minolta Autocord is a great TLR & I highly recommend this camera great image quality on par with any Rollei !</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>****The TLR came out as young man's action camera marketed to shoot sports with.***</p>

<p>I used one in High School to shoot sports; with a stock screen.<br>

<br /> Today collectors and old farts tend to use them; often with poor eyes.<br>

<br /> Thus the bright screen dogma is preached. Today some folks cannot even focus on static objects; ie ebay cameras do not even focus well on a solid brick wall.<br>

<br /> The TLR has gone from a 1930's SPORTS CAMERA; to a 1950's 1960's + wedding camera; to a collectors camera.<br>

<br /> The existing cameras in use are old; the users are old too. Screens are dimmer today because mirrors are dirty; worn; covered with a smokers tar.<br>

<br /> A TLR was like the Canon EOS in the 1930's; an action camera. In the future EOS collectors will too state that one cannot shoot sports with an EOS; maybe they will require a tripod too? saying a TLR cannot be used for moving objects is absurd and comical; thats what they were designed for and a generation of folks used them for that. What it really means today is folks today cannot do it; thus it is not possible.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-516.jpg?t=1261068442" alt="" width="298" height="395" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-517.jpg?t=1261068481" alt="" width="367" height="945" /></p>

[dave l]

<p>Here are some reviews of medium format lenses. I think that they bear up what folks here have been saying and their pictures are showing.<br>

<a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html</a></p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>What it really means today is folks today cannot do it; thus it is not possible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kelly,<br>

I think you exaggerate: it doesn't really mean that you <em>can't</em> do it, but it means that they are hopelessly outclassed for this task nowadays. This seems beyond argument to me. In their day the Rollei's were presumably (arguably) the best thing to use, but those days have past long ago.</p>

[jmg1911]

<p>I just moved up to a 2.8F so I have a MX-EVS (first model) for sale. Krikor went over it last summer and installed a bright screen. Everything works except the self-timer and cosmetically it is pretty good. Comes with a "Neverready" case (worn, but useable) orange filter and 2 very nice rolleinars, 1 and 2. $300 for the kit plus shipping (I would be glad to check the cost whichever way you wish). Keh is good, too. If interested, leave me a message. Jim</p>

[agnes_felicia]

<p>Thank you so much for all the advices.. I definitely learned a lot from everybody here. Thank you.. Now I set my mind on finding an Automat or 2.8C and later, or a 3.5 E and later.. I guess they're pretty good. I'll look around everywhere, everyday, hopefully I'll stumble into a good one with a good price.</p>

<p>Jim, I PM'ed you..</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Agnes, I'm glad that you have stayed the course to get a Rollei, if for the reason alone that they are mechanically superior to the Yashica and other Far Eastern knock-ups of the period.<br /> The engineering of the Rolleiflex TLR has never been surpassed by any other brand TLR alternative.<br /> The Mamiya C330 found it's way into professional use because of it's expanded design, primarily allowing for interchangeable lenses, which are also renown for their sharpness, as illustrated by <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=290223">Chris Waller</a> 's very impressive, distortion-free cathedral interior. Being much larger, they are more robust than their little Japanese cousins and rarely ever report mechanical failure. So when the TLR was popular in professional use, it was either a Rolleiflex or Mamiya.<br /> On the other hand, I gave up sending the Yashica 124G for repairs to the film advance. It remains as a paper weight, until someone needs it for parts eg. the lenses. It's simply not a camera for professional use.</p>

<p>(Hmm - Chris really knows how to use that Mamiya)</p>