Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,958   Posts: 1,523,011   Online: 1223
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Another vote for the emerging consensus. I've shot both. I much prefer the Rolleiflex for the reasons already stated. A new Maxwell screen and a CLA will cost tons less than buying a Hasselblad rig of similar condition, will give you a better-than-new shooter, and will keep you going for another 20+ years without fail.

    Harry Fleenor by all accounts does great work, but he's backed up. If you're on the East Coast, you might consider Krikor Maralian, Krimar Photo Shop, www.krimarphoto.com in NJ. Krikor was the Rollei repair guy for Marflex and does ace work, and his turnaround is usually within a few business days.

    I break with the others and say stick with the E. I have a 3.5E and a 2.8C and prefer them to the later models, which have coupled meters and (gasp) batteries. If you prefer manual shooting, the E-series can't be beat. If you really want to obsess, the C-series is nice -- it's the last of the round-aperture Rolleiflexes. Beginning with the D-series, Rolleiflex went to a 5-blade aperture.

    Sanders
    Last edited by Rolleiflexible; 05-21-2007 at 11:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    I've never shot a Rollei - but would never consider my Hassey 503CW a good "street camera".

    As one poster put it - "the earth shakes" when you trip the shutter. I almost always use either a tripod or monopod when I shoot mine.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    87
    One thing I miss when using a Hasselblad that a Rollei has, is the viewing versatility. That is, you can use the WLF, or open the sports finder and still focus with the magnifier, but compose at eye level.
    I'm not certain the noise is necessarily that much of an issue though, but quiet is nice.

  4. #14
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,009
    Noise becomes an issue if you own a Rollei; if you own a Hassey it is not an issue.

    The rest of the world does not appear to care about the shutter sound. Probably because they do not understand why we are still using film.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    498
    Images
    4
    The sound that a shutter makes must be important or the digital cameras would not bother synthesizing it

    I have a Hassy 500CM, which I got to use as a handheld camera (I shoot primarily LF). The shutter is loud, and if you are trying to be inconspicuous, the TLR is much better.

  6. #16
    Mike Kovacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    274
    I've gotten so used to the Maxwell on my Rolleiflex 2.8E that I struggled for several months with my SL66 viewfinder until I saved the required $$$ for another Maxwell!

    A Rolleiflex is just so much more portable than a MF SLR like the Hassie or SL66. As long I only need the 80mm lens, the Rollei wins for the camera of choice to carry around and shoot, especially w/o tripod.
    If it says Zeiss or Rollei, the answer is YES!
    My Flickr Gallery

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3
    I'm going to close this thread out with the news that after much watching and some bidding on e-bay, as well as searching the various used camera stores online, I found and purchased a Rollei 2.8E Planar with an Beatte Intenscreen already installed. The screen makes all the difference in the world. I can see absolutely edge to edge, even under dim conditions. And the camera itself is in much better condition mechanically and optically than my old one was when I first got it, so I'm very happy with the way things worked out. Thank you all for your kind and useful advice.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    144
    The only Rollei TLR I had any experience with was my father's Rolleicord which had a horridly dim screen. I've never looked down into the newer models, but I'm sure they're better. The original screen that came with the 500-series camera was pretty bad, too. If you buy used--like a 500C/M--I'd recommend at a minimum the second generation Bright Matte screen or, better yet, the third generation Acute Matte screen. Occasionally, I find that the Acute Matte screen doesn't have enough contrast to focus properly on some subjects, but the viewfinder view is simply delicious! I have both and sometimes switch them out depending on what I anticipate photographing.

    Good luck.
    Regards,
    Alan Huntley
    www.silverscapephoto.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by PrexaDotCom View Post
    I have shot with a Rollei TLR 2.8E Schneider since the mid-1980s. The camera had not been well cared for before I got it. It had some problems to start with and I have used it quite a bit over the years and now it is developing problems which repair has not fully addressed... it's still useable, but barely, so I'm thinking of replacing it. I am considering *not* getting another Rollei TLR of the same period because of the finder... it was always rather dim and thus slow to focus, so I assume that all the 2.8 Ds and Es are like that. I know that a few have had an accumatte or some other focusing screen put in, but as I understand it this is not a standard modification, must be done by a repair tech and is rather costly. Rollei does have later TLRs with built in meter, etc, and presumably a brighter screen but they are very high priced. (Good old ones aren't cheap either!)

    So I am considering a Hasselblad 500CM. Will an early 70s Hasselblad (500CM, waistlevel finder, *not* accumatte screen, chrome 80 f2.8 C T*) be noticeably brighter than the Rollei TLR? Will I be able to see the corners well? The local camera shop / rental does not have any used 500CM in stock for me to compare, and their rental pool has only a 503CW, which might help me understand the sound and feel of the 500CM, but not the brightness. Is there any *brightness* advantage by moving to a mid 1980s - early 1990s 500CM without accumatte, and with the black metal 80 f2.8 C T* also from the mid1980s? I assume that an accumatte in either an early or late body will make a big difference and that there will not be much brightness difference attributable to the bodies themselves... is this correct?

    As a side note, some of what I do with the Rollei is street photography, and for that I really like its quiet shutter, as well as the way people react to it. I'm hoping that with a chrome lens on the Hasselblad it will look old enough to seem non threatening... but I'm kind of worried about the noise. I know parts are no longer made for the C lenses. I also know that the Hasselblad is much more complex mechanically than the Rollei, but has a reputation for durability. And I have been told that below 125 hand-held shots are subject to mirror vibration. But in its current condition my Rollei is challenging to compose and focus due to dimness, and I have to have it focused at 3 feet when I wind it or else it won't cock the shutter, half the time it wants to double-expose frame #1, the focusing movement has roughness, depth of field indicators don't move, etc.

    I especially welcome the experienced advice of any of you who have used both cameras to comment on finder brightness and any other issues I may be overlooking, and I thank you all in advance for your polite help.
    I've had Maxwell Bright Screens installed in both my Rollei 3.5 F cameras by Harry Fleenor and they are a joy to use. I've yet to see a better screen and am considering putting one in my large format camera

  10. #20
    Pumalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Here & Now
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,078
    Fix your Rollei and keep on shooting.
    " A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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