Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,741   Posts: 1,515,567   Online: 935
      
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 73
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    390
    Images
    5
    No one has written about the 6000 series side of the family. So here goes. Incredible lenses, especially the latest PQ/PQS Schneiders. Before the used market was flooded, if you added up the cost of a motor drive and meter prism as bulky add-ons to a basic Hasselblad package, the Rolleis were cost-competitive and far better integrated in operation. There was even a time when Rollei USA made sure there was rental stock in major cities. OK, that's enough nostalgia............

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4

    Rolleiflex? No, but thanks anyway.

    I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical.

    I have given up on medium format completely and have gone back to 4x5. If I'm gonna lug all that weight around, I may as well go for the best quality I can get. I sold the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

    Bottom line is, my Rolleiflex was not flexible at all. No interchangeable lenses! What you see is NOT what you get, thanks to the twin lens design. Need to use a polarizer? Forget that! So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand? NO! So what is keeping the prices so high? The answer is simple: Rolleiflex has a cult following for whatever reason. And just like the old Leicas, prices will continue to be ridiculous. I can find something just as good or close to it for a lot less money.

    Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,293
    Quote Originally Posted by azdustdevil View Post
    I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical.

    I have given up on medium format completely and have gone back to 4x5. If I'm gonna lug all that weight around, I may as well go for the best quality I can get. I sold the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

    Bottom line is, my Rolleiflex was not flexible at all. No interchangeable lenses! What you see is NOT what you get, thanks to the twin lens design. Need to use a polarizer? Forget that! So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand? NO! So what is keeping the prices so high? The answer is simple: Rolleiflex has a cult following for whatever reason. And just like the old Leicas, prices will continue to be ridiculous. I can find something just as good or close to it for a lot less money.

    Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.
    I did. Along with my 35, 4x5, and 8x10. They all have their uses. My Rollei is no more difficult to tote than my Nikon, and although it's limited to a 75mm lens, the negative which is roughly 4x the area of a 35 more than makes up. Polariser? put it on the viewing lens, set it, then transfer it to the taking lens. Parralax? Doesn't matter farther than 10 feet. Weight? About the same as my Nikon, and about 1/4 of my Linhof 4x5. Cost? mine was free. But the other three, that I did buy, broke even or brought profit when I sold them.

    Horses for courses; the Rollei is a big negative in a small package.

  4. #64
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,386
    Images
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by azdustdevil View Post
    I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week.
    Apples and oranges...

  5. #65
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,050
    Images
    340
    A Rolleiflex is expensive because it is a classic. Sometimes camera manufacturers get thing just right in terms of design, ergonomics, weight and build quality. The Rolleiflex is such a camera as is the Leica II and M2.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  6. #66
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,159
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by azdustdevil View Post
    I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical....
    So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand?
    Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.
    You're welcome, I have two. And I don't know what you're talking about with three grand for a used Rolleiflex. I have two of them, both with the preferred 2.8 Planar lens, that I paid less than $600 for each. The first one did need an overhaul, so it ended up costing me around $1K, but that's still a far cry from the three grand you're talking about. And Hassy's are not a beast, at least not to me. It was an incredibly easy system to learn, and to use. No, it's not as fast as a modern 35mm SLR with a zoom lens and autofocus, but that's an apples to onions comparison as well. Yes, twenty years ago, a NEW Hassy system was expensive to buy, but certainly not now, unless you're going for a 203 or 205 series body. You want a bulky beast of a medium format system? Try an RB67. Now THAT's a pig.

  7. #67
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,011
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by azdustdevil View Post
    I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical.

    I have given up on medium format completely and have gone back to 4x5. If I'm gonna lug all that weight around, I may as well go for the best quality I can get. I sold the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

    Bottom line is, my Rolleiflex was not flexible at all. No interchangeable lenses! What you see is NOT what you get, thanks to the twin lens design. Need to use a polarizer? Forget that! So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand? NO! So what is keeping the prices so high? The answer is simple: Rolleiflex has a cult following for whatever reason. And just like the old Leicas, prices will continue to be ridiculous. I can find something just as good or close to it for a lot less money.

    Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.
    It is interesting how our opinions change over time

    http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=6883
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #68
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,163
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by azdustdevil View Post
    I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical.

    I have given up on medium format completely and have gone back to 4x5. If I'm gonna lug all that weight around, I may as well go for the best quality I can get. I sold the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

    Bottom line is, my Rolleiflex was not flexible at all. No interchangeable lenses! What you see is NOT what you get, thanks to the twin lens design. Need to use a polarizer? Forget that! So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand? NO! So what is keeping the prices so high? The answer is simple: Rolleiflex has a cult following for whatever reason. And just like the old Leicas, prices will continue to be ridiculous. I can find something just as good or close to it for a lot less money.

    Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.
    I agree with the others who say you don't know what you're talking about.

    I have and use two Rolleiflex cameras an Automat Opton Tessar and a 3.5E Xenotar, what I see and want to take is what I get. I had given up MF for my project work shooting 35mm which I found I never printed & 5x4, however I went back to 6x6 after buying a Yashicamat 124 off this forum 6 or 7 years ago and getting my Rolleiflex serviced.

    A good 2.8 or 3,5E is as good as any modern Rolleiflex and can be found for about £500 / $750 although I was given mine non fuvctional about 15 yearsago, lack of use from new had let the lubrication go solid. My second Rolleiflex the automat was $75 at a flea market and is in excellent working order with a good Opton Tessar.

    These days I alwayscarry a TLR alongside my LF kit and do shoot with both.

    Ian

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,206
    Images
    21
    Bit of a necrothread, but what the heck. While the, um, secondary-OP?---do we have a term for "the person who resurrected the thread and threadjacked it a bit?"---took a bit of a "highly expressive" tone, I think the actual objections are all points fairly taken; for those who need interchangeable lenses, high accuracy in the viewfinder frame boundaries, polarizers or other filters where direct visual feedback is important, a TLR *isn't* a good fit. And like Leicae, certain Rolleiflexen are clealry priced by a collectors', rather than users', market, and I don't really think there's any photographic characteristic that differentiates a $3K 'flex from a $750 'flex.

    Me, I find the limitations of a TLR to be things that don't bother me at all. On the other hand, I think 4x5 is an awkward compromise, big enough for the equipment to be a hassle but too small for contact printing to a normal "hang on the wall" size. I'm with Ian on this one---TLR in hand, LF kit loaded on the nearest pack elephant.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    210
    A few years back Rollei agreed to continue building the TLR on a custom one off price basis and the current price was set at what was needed to pay for such a low production rate and standard of quality.
    Quality.. My old Rollei T bought used in 1970 has had one CLA in the 40 years I've owned it and never needed a repair. One of my 50 year old 4 x 5 lenses needed a internal clean between groups. Seems I get whay I am willing to pay for. If price is your deal stopper so be it. Buy a used Rollei. If you want new it will truly cost you its hand built.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin