Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,957   Posts: 1,586,083   Online: 954
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 66
  1. #11
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    They tend to be. But the 2.8C is an older camera, and that has good points and bad points. One good point is that the shutter is an older design, with a round aperture. But that is also a bad point -- many will prefer the more advanced shutter design, that allows aperture and shutter speeds to be adjusted together. The 2.8C also has plastic tabs for the shutter lock and flash sync, that are prone to snapping off -- a weakness to be aware of. I think the 2.8C's body has a more Deco look to it than later Rolleiflexes. My guess is that the Planar is an E or F series, which would command a higher price.

    One last thought: You might contact Ken Hansen and see what he has available. Ken had a shop on Madison Avenue for decades, and sold Rolleiflexes and Leicas and large-format gear to New York's most prominent photographers. (He sold 31 Rolleiflexes to Richard Avedon over the years.) Ken closed his shop a few years ago, but he continues to trade in Rolleiflexes and Leicas from his apartment here in the city. His prices are not the cheapest. But he has every Rolleiflex he sells cleaned and adjusted by Krikor Maralian of Krimar Camera (on a par with Harry Fleenor), and a Maxwell screen installed, before the camera leaves his hands. And Ken warrants the cameras, and will always take a camera back if it does not meet your expectations. I bought my first Rolleiflex from Ken in 1999, and I just bought a Tele Rolleiflex from him last November, and I cannot overstate his integrity, or recommend him highly enough. You can certainly find a Rolleiflex less expensivley on eBay, but you will likely end up spending more money putting it into working condition. With Ken, you get a measure of assurance that the camera is in sound condition, with no hidden issues, and no need to send it out for repair.

    You can reach Ken at KHPNY19@aol.com. Honestly, you should check with Ken before springing for a camera from KEH. KEH is a fine business, but I'd buy from Ken first if he has something that meets your needs.

    Sanders

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    9
    Thanks Sanders. I will be sure to send Ken an email and let him know you sent me there!

    But at the moment, I am looking for the best deal in town. However, since I am already considering the Maxwell screen and a complete CLA by Harry Fleenor, I may just spend the same amount of money with Ken. Harry Fleenor is local to me, so that is a bonus as well.

    Do you have any specific models I should request for? Since the f3.5 models seem cheaper, I may just go with one of those, though I am a bit weary at this point. I'd like to take indoor candid portraits with available light.

    Thanks again for your help!

  3. #13
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Harry is local to you, but Harry usually has a backlog of work measured in months. If so, and you are in need of service work, you should consider using Krikor. You can find him at www.krimarphoto.com -- his turnaround is usually a few days and his work is dependable.

    As for models ... I would ask for a 3.5E. It is the acme of Rollei build quality, and the last Rolleiflex not to have light meters coupled to the shutter.

    I shoot portraits under hotlights and in available light, so I totally appreciate your concern for speed. Trust me: The 2.8 doesn't get you any further than the 3.5. This is film, not digital. The extra half-stop is lost in all the variables of metering and exposing and developing your film. And as you come to know the camera, you will find that they balance well in the palm of your hand, making it very easy to shoot handheld at slow shutter speeds. I've shot handheld at 1/15 and 1/8 second with great results, with the help of a cable release to minimize camera movement.

    The concern for shooting handheld portraits in available light might -- might -- lead me to opt for the Planar/Xenontar over the Tessar/Xenar cameras, because they will be sharper (in theory) wide-open. For that kind of work, it is probably worth the extra cash for the better lens. But I wouldn't lose sleep over the 3.5's speed vis-avis the 2.8 lenses.

    Sanders

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    9
    Thanks again Sanders. You really know your Rollei's well and I apprecaite all your help!

    I'm really not TOO concerned with sharpness, though if one lens is particular sharper than the other, that would always be a bonus. I will have to take a look at the 3.5 Planar/Xenonthar lenses. I'll also have to contact Harry and see how long it will take for a CLA.

    Edit: After a quick search on eBay or KEH, I cannot find a 3.5E. If the TLR does not have a light meter built in, does it mean the camera can run without a battery? Not so much necessary, but that seems pretty cool to me!
    Last edited by jasonjoo; 05-24-2007 at 02:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    531
    Images
    133
    There is another issue to consider as it comes to available light indoors. DOF is much shallower with MF than it is with 35mm or even d*****. So this 1/2 stop is of limited use anyway. The focusing lens is always 1:2.8

    Ulrich

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    9
    Thanks Ulrich. I've been thinking about that as well. I guess the DOF would be VERY shallow at f2.8!

  7. #17
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonjoo View Post
    Thanks Ulrich. I've been thinking about that as well. I guess the DOF would be VERY shallow at f2.8!
    Shallow, but not unusably shallow, if you know how to shoot with it -- you have to make sure that all critical elements are near the focal plane but it can be done. I have no exact examples online, but here's a link to a portrait I shot at about f/5 with my 135mm Tele Rolleiflex, from 2-3 feet away -- a DOF thinner than what you will see wide-open with a regular Rolleiflex:

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...00&ppuser=5854

    As for light meters and batteries, the E-series Rolleiflex meters do not use batteries. I do not know when the Rolleis first required batteries. I prefer a mechanical camera without batteries.

    Sanders

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Morris, Illinois USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    147
    Images
    18
    I shot this one @ f3.5 on an automat mx if that helps.

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...user=9086&sl=l

  9. #19
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,066
    Images
    38
    There are a couple of other concerns that might or might not interest you. There is a prism available for the rollei that I use a lot and is only usable on the later models.. E2, E3 and F. Also you will find with portraiture that you often need the close up lenses (Rolleinars) and they are more expensive in 2.8 (bay 3) than 3.5 (bay 2). I am committed to the 2.8F and 2.8FX and though the TLR has its drawbacks it is... (I can't think of an apt word) ..delicious? to use.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,565
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
    There are a couple of other concerns that might or might not interest you. There is a prism available for the rollei that I use a lot and is only usable on the later models.. E2, E3 and F. Also you will find with portraiture that you often need the close up lenses (Rolleinars) and they are more expensive in 2.8 (bay 3) than 3.5 (bay 2). I am committed to the 2.8F and 2.8FX and though the TLR has its drawbacks it is... (I can't think of an apt word) ..delicious? to use.
    The prism also fits the Rolleiflex T.
    There is also a 6X45 kit for the Rolleiflex T that changes the film advance to 16 shots on a roll. Place the steel mask in the film chamber, and a small cam is actuated in the camera that changes the film spacing and exposure counting. (Gotta love that German engineering) Another mask is inserted in the viewing screen, et voila! a 645 TLR! You pretty much have to use a prism with it. Just try to cope with focusing a TLR on its side when right and left are reversed. I think it may cause brain damage...

    BTW -the prism attachment for Rolleiflexes produces a viewed image that is correct, like an SLR.

    Of all my MF gear, I use my Rolleiflex T the most.
    Rick Jason.
    "I'm still developing"

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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