I was always frustrated that the 75mm lens did not see as I saw the subject whereas the 80mm matches my vision exactly The Xenor or Tessar lenses are really nearly just as good as the Planar or Xenotar but the cameras are either older or not as robust or convenient to use.
To finally get the Rolleis I love I had to buy and sell about 15 of them in 3. I ended up with a good ole 2.
Sure, they are expensive, sometimes VERY expensive. Possibly the only cost saving measure of those models is that the auto loading feature has been replaced by the simpler, non-auto film loading of the Rolleiflex T. That's a blessing if you ask me: no more film or frames wasted due to misalignment of the sensor roll, different backing paper thickness, or similar reasons.
The lens is a multi-coated 2. As said above, condition is key. Only issue, their price. If you have the funds, I can only recommend those models. Messages: 21, You need to have an idea how much you want to spend, a rough budget and see what's available in that price range.
I was lucky to find a good Rolleiflex Automat MX with an f3. While it's an excellent camera with a good sharp lens it lacks some of the sophistication of later models, I also have a near mint 3.
With all these older TLR's it helps to know if they've been serviced I was given the 3. If a Rolleiflex was going to be one of my main cameras I'd go for a 3.
I'd prefer to see and try a Rolleiflex before buying. A good ceiling price for a Rolleiflex 2. Bottom end you could get a budget Rolleiflex T with a 3.
You might try handling a 3. I have both, and for me the extra weight of the 2. One is mint, the other a bit worn. I'd recommend a 3. They will hold value the most, are the best of the line up short of the 2. Messages: 11, Assuming you want the 80mm lens. If you want the newest camera CDS built-in meter and don't care about auto-start film sensing, go with the 2.
If you don't mind the selenium cell meter and want auto-start film sensing go with the last generation 2. Honestly, auto sensing really annoys me. Messages: 5, In , with the introduction of the 2. The 3. This was also the first 3. It was sold in Europe as the 3. I tend to just call it the 3. About 2 years after the 3. It came standard with a 4 element Tessar taking lens. The newer removable folding focusing hood with changeable focus screens, and a crank wind like other Rolleiflex, but a lever for changing shutter speed and aperture like those found on a Rolleicord.
It also was available with or without a built in meter. Despite it being a more budget friendly model, it is still a superb camera, and interestingly it seems to sell for around as much as a similar condition type 1 3.
Actually, a good way to break down the various Rolleiflex models into groups, is to sort them by filter mounts. Bay I accessories are fairly plentiful and generally inexpensive, Bay II accessories are more expensive, and finally Bay III accessories can be hard to find and quite expensive. A Xenar equipped Automat will provide images nearly indistinguishable in quality with images from a Tessar equipped Automat, and likewise, a Planar equipped 2.
In general though, a Planar or Xenotar should perform better than a Tessar or Xenar, especially wide open. My experience with my 2. I strongly suspect that has more to do with the difference of the 3. Is a working light meter really important?
Are user changeable focus screens a must have? In shopping for a used Rolleiflex, there are some things you want to be aware of. Many cameras have seen a lot of use and potentially have worn out film transport mechanisms. Most of these problems can be repaired, but you want to be aware of any issues before buying, and the price should reflect any issues.
I recommend buying from a reputable camera shop that tests what they sell and offers a warranty, or really doing your homework on any camera and seller online. Film photographer , Colton Allen is based in Oregon. Connect with him on Flickr , Instagram , and Facebook. The SLR is used at eye level, so you are more aware that the camera is being used. The TLR uses a waist level finder, which means the camera is held at chest level and you have to have your head down to look through the view finder.
There is also the different perspective when shooting from a TLR as the horizon and the background behind a subject will be shifted higher because the camera is closer to the ground.
It does take time to get used to using the camera as the image in the waist level viewfinder is reversed left to right by the mirror. So, if the object is moving to the right in the viewfinder and you move the camera to the right the object will move to the left! At first it can also be difficult to hold the camera level.
With the Rolleiflex you look and frame the image through the upper lens and take the photograph though the lower lens. This has two advantages, you can use slower shutter speeds because there is a lot less vibration and people are a less aware of you using the camera as the shutter is so quiet. The major appeal of the Rolleiflex is the build quality, these cameras were made to last. Made primarily from metal and glass and covered with leather they feel good and solid to use.
These precision instruments were made by craftsmen. This makes a 50 or 60 year old camera feel good and demand to be handled, loved and, most of all, used. It has all the advantages of a medium format single lens reflex camera. It also has all the disadvantages, quite large and heavy and a load of accessories. There is an odd combination of liberation and constraint in not being able to choose which lens to attach to your camera. Give it a try! So, what do you need to look for when buying your Rolleiflex?
The Original Rolleiflex was first made in and the last 3. They did make the 2. So most cameras worth considering are 40 to 60 years old. The most important thing is the condition of the optics and critically, that of the lower taking lens.
0コメント