Who is buying a new Rolleiflex TLR

[benny_spinoza]

<p>Arthur,<br>

And add to that list the Alpa. A very interesting camera system, that can be used with a roll film back (I assume the "baby graflok" type, e.g., 6 by 9 Horseman?) or a digital back with adapter plate.</p>

[pulsar0705]

<p>I used a Yashicamat 124G extensively in the 90's until around 2004. Great image quality, flash sync at any shutter speed, watch out for the flash x sync lever, that can catch out the unwary and leave you with no photos. Most regular users tape it down so it doesn't switch to M accidentally.</p>

[todd_k.]

<p>A new one? No. Far to expensive. Hipsters wannabe photographers seem to be picking up used ones as fashion accessories, so that market is fairly strong. Perhaps Rollei should start making a non functional model that could be sold cheaply to be used in Facebook and blog selfies.</p>

[etienne_w]

<p>I came completely by chance to TLR's about 10 years ago, seeing a second-hand Yashicamat 124G for roughly 100 Euros at the local camera store. For this price I couldn't have done much wrong and bought it for kicks, to give it a try. It was love at first sight. I loved the simplicity of the camera, the "one-lens-does-it-all" approach, and above all the square format and its particular dynamics.<br>

Being so much in love in TLR's, the next step was obviously to look toward a "real 'Flex". I had been considering a used 2.8 GX for the lens coatings (I shoot almost exclusively color slides), more recently produced shutter (to avoid a CLA) and integrated light meter (to avoid carrying one). This is when I had the chance to spend some time in Japan. Back then the Euro/Yen exchange rate was in favour of the Euro, and despite living in Tokyo I was still paid in Euros. I found a brand new 2.8 FX for a very good price, slightly over twice the price of used 2.8 GX's back then. This was a no brainer and I bought it in a heartbeat.<br>

I hence belong to the bunch of people who bought a brand new 2.8 FX. I am no collector, I acquired it solely to use it and heck, I still use it regularly. I would like to mention as well that current 2.8 FX prices are well beyond my budget.<br>

Side note, last year I bought my first digital camera to complement the Rolleiflex. The 'Flex with Velvia 50 being my "good weather" camera, I was looking for a bad weather/low light/carry everywhere kind of camera. I picked a Fuji X100s which IMHO has a similar approach as the Rolleiflex: one lens and manual controls. And it even does square pics!<br>

The 2.8 FX (and to a lesser extend the X100s) definitely cured me from GAS! Everything which does not fit into that focal length is simply not photogenic, period. I plan to use the 2.8 FX for a long time to come.<br>

Happy shooting,<br>

Etienne</p>

[baisao]

<blockquote>

<p>"Everything which does not fit into that focal length is simply not photogenic, period." - Etienne</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was tracking you up to this point. Can you elaborate?</p>

[etienne_w]

<p>Hi Jim,<br>

it was a reference to Brett Weston's quote about large format photography: "Anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic."<br>

In my case I sure sometimes wish I had another lens with a different focal length, e.g. a 100mm to complement the 35mm equivalent of the Fuji. Or a wide angle Rolleiflex (only thinking about its price is sobering). However, should this happen, I convince myself that I do not need another lens/camera and either work it out with the focal length I have at hand, or don't take the picture at all.<br>

This approach definitely improved my photographic composition skills while liberating me from the everlasting dilemma "what is the best lens for this shot" and from lugging pounds of equipment which proved useless most of the time. The best lens is the (only) one I have.<br>

Hope this clarifies my point.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Etienne</p>