Pictures with old cameras (6): the Rolleiflex

[heqm]

<p>I have two favorite cameras out of the dozen or so I own. This is the <em>first</em> one; not the <em>most</em> favorite (they're too different to compare), just the first one I'll describe. Favorite, in the sense that if I just pick up a camera to go out shooting, this is likely to be the one I take.<br>

It's also the first one that followed me home. At the time it showed up I had two cameras, covering different kinds of traveling/shooting situations, and certainly didn't need another. But there I was, representing my organization at a large industrial concern that shall remain nameless and unlocated, and my office turned out to be next door to a decomissioned darkroom. Sand shifting in under the door had created a field of dunes inside. Metaphorical tumbleweeds blowing across the main street. In the middle was this device. It didn't work--you could feel the sand grinding in the gears if you tried--but the lenses looked good. Upon making inquiries I found the company didn't want it, and was happy for me to give it a good home.<br>

No extensive repair work was required. I was already familiar with using medium format and a ground-glass screen from my <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00dKa1">M645.</a></p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>I'm aware that the 3.5 Tessar is not the lens most sought-after, nor is this the model that makes collectors' hearts skip a beat. (<a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/rediscovering-craft/">Even a dedicated digital photographer desires a 2.8 Planar</a>). I find that makes no difference to me at all.<br>

As acquired, the camera was as above: bare (well, with the tattered remnants of a case, soon discarded). Over time I bought a case in good condition that fit (though it wasn't made for this model, exactly), lens cover (very important), lens shade, a filter set (UV, yellow, green, orange and Rolleinar I close-up) and a polarizer. Unfortunately, the case won't close with the lens shade in place, a nuisance. The polarizer is clever but clumsy: you attach it to the viewing lens, rotate as necessary, note the number of degrees (marked on the filter), and transfer it to the taking lens keeping the rotation. Not good for fast action. (Well, you do what photographers have done since time began: set up in advance.) I probably use the green filter most.</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>Why is this my favorite? I'm not completely sure. It's not as capable as the M645, for all that Rollei promoters consider it the most versatile of all possibilities (though Alex Perlman's <em>Rollei Manual</em>, 3rd ed., 1957 and Frits Henle's <em>Guide to Rollei Photography</em>, 1956 both antedate the M645 by decades, there were equivalents out there even then). The single lens is the most obvious limitation. You can in fact crop and enlarge the big negative to produce something like a telephoto picture, like this one:</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>(which clearly could use someone more experienced with scanning prints). But panoramas and telephoto shots are best done with a different camera.<br>

I find it's very good at taking pictures of people. Not close-up head shots; that produces distortion that I think is simply ugly (though Henle has a few in his book); but half-body compositions, and groups of two, or several people. The waist-level camera with the quiet shutter is, no doubt, a bit less threatening than a big lens held at eye level (as <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/the-fauxliflex-chronicles.html">John Kennerdell</a> concludes). My point is that the compositions one finds of small groups are often square ones, like this:</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>I don't think this is a great picture (I caught Teressa with a very unflattering expression), but I think the square composition works.<br>

In landscapes, the wider-than-50mm-standard format can act to draw your eyes from the foreground to the background effectively:</p><div></div>

[heqm]

<p>I'm still not entirely sure why this is my favorite camera. Maybe I just see square.</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>An interesting and thoughtful article, <strong>Alan</strong>. Don't worry about "sought-after' lenses; as with most marques there's a certain "desirability" factor which does not necessarily equate with the creation of "better" images. That's a great old Rollei with a very personal history, and I can understand the pleasure you find in having returned it to a useful state and in acquiring the accessories. Most of my photographs seem to be taken with a frame of rectangular proportions, most often in the vertical position, but I suspect it's somehow easier to think "square"; I find no trouble in framing in a square format, possibly because there's no alternative. Your nice "Pacific Coast" image shows this square frame to perfection.</p>

<p>Thanks for an entertaining post.</p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>Very interesting post. Thank you. The shutter button is peculiar. The manufacturer's name was also different from the more popular hyphenated one. Informative. sp.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>Nice results from your Rolleiflex T - the Tessar on these is supposed to have been recomputed, perhaps bringing it nearer Planar performance, but there is probably no difference in practice, except at maximum aperture. Also the T has very good light baffling inside the body.</p>

<p>I read somewhere that it was designed by a team at F&H led by Theodore Uhl, as a lower cost version of the Rolleiflex, with some plastic parts which are well hidden. The department responsible was known as T, which it had been thought stood for Tessar. When Reinhold Heidecker discovered that "T" actually stood for "Theodore", Uhl was promptly sacked for using part of his name in the camera designation.</p>

[heqm]

<p><strong>Subbarayan</strong>, I forgot the shutter button as something peculiar. You have to flip up the collar, then press down on the post; easily enough done with forefinger and thumb and something I don't even think about now. But it is different from the normal way of just pressing down on a button. I suppose it's intended to keep from taking pictures in the bag, or while walking along, though I wouldn't think that's a problem. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

Thanks for sharing, Alan. I have a Rolleicord III with the f 3.5 Tessar and I find it an excellent performer.

[aplumpton]

<p>Alan, as others have said the most sought after lens is not always that much better. For black and white photography, the Tessars, within their range (a stop down from maximum) are very hard if not impossible to beat for the pure beauty of exposed negatives and prints. The f2.8 optics are of course faster.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks for showing your Rollei Alan, always good to see one. Your T with the later Tessar is a tremendously good picture taker, and even the older Tessars have a real charm, as do the cameras.<br>

The tessar gives so little away to the Planar that you would be hard pressed to see the difference. Someone once told me that the main difference between the 3.5 Tessar and the 2.8 Planar is that the Planar is much better at 2.8 :)</p>

[lance_blakeslee]

<p>Alan, you can buy an accessory adapter to shoot 16-frame 645 format on your T. I use one in my 'cord Vb and really like the format and extra frames. All the best, Lance</p>

[heqm]

<p><strong>Lance</strong>, I'm aware of several adapters for the Rolleiflex to shoot other formats, but I'd never heard of one for 645. Since I already have a Mamiya M645, which works very well for that format, I'm not sure I'm highly motivated to find one; but certainly a few extra frames on a roll could be very useful sometimes. If I found a Rolleikin (35mm) adapter lying around unused I might try it out. A friend sent me a plate adapter: one can use 6x9cm plates; I've never used it, and of course plates are not in production now. (I think Ilford <em>may</em> do them as part of their annual one-off.) Someone seems to have modified it for sheet film, but 6x9 sheet film is also hard to get. Mostly I admire it for the fine machining.</p>