You would guess

[royall_berndt]

If I hadn't cropped this from the original square frame, you'd guess what brand of camera took it. It was a Rolleiflex 3.5F with

the Planar lens wide open.<div></div>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Why do you think so?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I don't understand..?</p>

[ken_jeanette1]

<p>Only Rolleiflexes take pics of scantily clad women???</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Huh?</p>

[gene m]

<p>Fuji 64T ? Huh ? I'm confused. Could someone clear this up for me ?</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I think .. if OP posted the complete unadulterated picture the square format would give it away that it was taken wit ha

Rolleiflex. By cropping the image the tell-tale square format is lost and what might have been obvious is now a "secret"

camera.

[royall_berndt]

I thought that the original square frame and the look of the image would shout Rolleiflex. Maybe that Planar doesn't have the

signature I think it does. Fuji 64T is the film I used.

[rogerwb]

<p>It surely shouts to me but the type of camera isn't what it is saying.</p>

[gene m]

<p>Ah ! I see.</p>

<p>I think.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Well, if you put a bunch of - ahem - naked lights behind the subject and pointed them towards the camera, the way the lens reacts would give us a clue as to the camera used. ;-)</p>

<p>Just remember to slip off the lens cap and leave the diaphram wide open. After all, you don't want to miss the shot.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I suppose if we knew that you didn't own a Hasselblad, Mamiya 6 rangefinder, Yashica Mat 124G or any other camera that took a square format besides the Rolleiflex then we would guess that you used the Rolleiflex.

[marc_bergman1]

<p>From the picture I assumed you borrowed Gene's Beautyflex.</p>

<p> </p>

[royall_berndt]

Well, the lens is not a Tri Lausar, but it's pretty good.

[gene m]

<p>Har !</p>