Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,490   Online: 958
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Confusion Circle View Post
    I got it for $375CDN. It seems to be in perfect working condition except for the self-timer - it won't trip the shutter.
    Wow! What a steal. Congrats!
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  2. #12
    Antje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Near Erlangen, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    478
    Images
    3
    What a beauty. Congratulations!

    Antje

  3. #13
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    Nice Camera. I have the 12/24 3.5F Planar. The distinguishing feature of the F versus the E is the removable waist level finder. By the way, the f3.5 Planar that you have should be a great performing lens.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  4. #14
    Mike Kovacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by naturephoto1 View Post
    Nice Camera. I have the 12/24 3.5F Planar. The distinguishing feature of the F versus the E is the removable waist level finder. By the way, the f3.5 Planar that you have should be a great performing lens.

    Rich
    Not exactly - the type E2 and E3 series also have the removable finder. The big difference between E and F is availability of no or uncoupled meter in the E, and the coupled meter in the F. Personally I think the coupled meter isn't worth paying extra for, but the F's are the newest cameras you can find, especially the later model from the '70s and early '80s.
    If it says Zeiss or Rollei, the answer is YES!
    My Flickr Gallery

  5. #15
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Kovacs View Post
    Not exactly - the type E2 and E3 series also have the removable finder. The big difference between E and F is availability of no or uncoupled meter in the E, and the coupled meter in the F. Personally I think the coupled meter isn't worth paying extra for, but the F's are the newest cameras you can find, especially the later model from the '70s and early '80s.
    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for correcting my error. I am by no means an expert on the differences in the different Rollei TLR models. I do however enjoy using them and can attest to the performance of my f3.5 Planar lens and camera.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  6. #16
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,759
    Images
    40

    Congrats!

    Looks like you have gained a fine tool for a very good price.

    If you can find someone who is a good Rollei mechanic, they can clean it up and get that self-timer working. Add the cost of the tune-up, and you'll still be ahead!

    My first camera was a older 3.5 -- I seem to have skipped 35mm altogether. For its size and ease of use, one can't get a much nicer medium format camera.

    Vaughn

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    129
    Again, many thanks for the informative replies!

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    22
    Beautiful tool, photographic feeling.
    Regards.

  9. #19
    wilsonneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    578
    Images
    17
    I had that camera and traded it on the 2.8 Planar version, and regretted it. I believe the 3.5 was a tad sharper. Great camera. Hold on to it. I also have a 2.8 Xenotar that needs total overhaul and lens recoating, but probably won't happen.
    Neal

  10. #20
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by wilsonneal View Post
    I had that camera and traded it on the 2.8 Planar version, and regretted it. I believe the 3.5 was a tad sharper. Great camera. Hold on to it. I also have a 2.8 Xenotar that needs total overhaul and lens recoating, but probably won't happen.
    Neal
    Hi Neal,

    Both Planars and the Xeonotars are great lenses in either speed. There is probably enough variation that some in either speed will outperform some in the other speed.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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