Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,279   Posts: 1,534,854   Online: 763
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66
  1. #21
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Here's a portrait shot at f/4 with a Rolleiflex 3.5E, focused as close to the subject as the camera allowed:

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

    If you want to frame more closely than this, you must use a set of close-up lenses called Rolleinars. The Rolleinars will not degrade the images, but at some point perspective distortion will become an issue with the regular Rolleiflex 75/80mm lenses. One reason I shoot with a Tele Rolleiflex now (with its 135mm f/4 Sonnar lens) is to minimize that distortion while shooting tighter portraits -- see my APUG gallery for numerous examples.

    Sanders.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    775
    Not one mention of the poor little Rolliecord?

    And Sanders, thanks for the mention of your prefered repair place... I have an old original model 'flex (f3.8) that I bought for a song. I was going to restore it myself because I like that kind of work, but haven't had the time to do so. I may just send it in for a rebuild. It is mostly in great shape for its age, but the hinges and locking braces for the viewfinder shade need to be repaired. Needs paint and leather, and probably shutter timed and focus lubed.

    But one question... Does anyone know of a brighter screen that also has a bubble level embedded in it for the original 'flex?

  3. #23
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonjoo View Post
    ...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!
    The later Rolleiflexes like the FX, GX and FW etc that have batteries for the light meters do not rely on the batteries - they are simply mechanical cameras with light meters.

    Best,
    Helen

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    9
    Thanks for the information on the prisms. However, I am really drawn to the WLF (they're just so big and beautiful )!

    As for the minimum focusing distance, what exactly is it? I'm looking at the f3.5 TLR's at the moment if that matters. I'd like to get tight crops, but this could be achieved with a bit of cropping as well correct? With the negative being so large, I'm sure I would not lose TOO much detail when cropping.

    And thanks for that information Helen!

  5. #25
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,043
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonjoo View Post
    Thanks for the information on the prisms. However, I am really drawn to the WLF (they're just so big and beautiful )!

    As for the minimum focusing distance, what exactly is it? I'm looking at the f3.5 TLR's at the moment if that matters. I'd like to get tight crops, but this could be achieved with a bit of cropping as well correct? With the negative being so large, I'm sure I would not lose TOO much detail when cropping.

    And thanks for that information Helen!
    You will find the minimum focus distance around a meter. the lenses do hold up to cropping well enough for head and shoulders but I think you will probably find you want the rolleinars and the distortion from the number 2 can be used very interestingly. See Irving Penn who I think used a 3.5 a lot.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    9
    A meter is quite a bit! I'll have to take a look at the Rolleinars as well.

    What kind of distortion are we talking about here? pin-cushion? Barrel distortion? In another category of its own?

  7. #27
    rusty71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    212
    Images
    8
    I would recommend a good T rolleiflex. You should be able to find one at reasonable cost in "user" condition. ten years ago I bought a 2.8E Planar in user condition for about 300 bucks. Remember only the mint Rolleis have been driven up by collectors.

    And someone made a good point about the Rolleicords. Anything from the model III onward is very usable. They have fine lenses and are cheaper. The only thing you give up is the automatic shutter cocking as the film advances. The advantage is the 'Cords are much easier to repair by any decent repairman and cheaper. I will vouch for Krikor Marallian being an honest guy. Harry is local to you, which may help. But his turn around time can be pretty long.

  8. #28
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Jason, it's perspective distortion. Actually, it's not distrotion at all -- it's a faithful rendition of the person photographed. But at a range of only two feet, closer objects begin to look disproportionately large, because of their closeness to you, in life as in photography. So, noses in portraits begin to look bulbous, because they are closer to the camera. That's the problem in a nutshell. Bigger noses.

    Having shot thousands of rolls of portraits with Rolleiflexes, I can say with some certainty that if you think you are going to rely heavily on Rolleinars to create full-frame headshots with a regular Rolleiflex, you are going to be sadly disappointed. For that kind of work, you have two Rolleiflex options. (1) Shoot from about three feet away, without Rolleinar, and crop. (2) Buy a Tele Rolleiflex and a set of Bay 3 Rolleinars to go with it. The Tele Rolleiflex will set you back big cash (Ken Hansen has one in user condition for something over $1,500) and then expect to pay another $500 or so for the Rolleinars.

    Sanders

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonjoo View Post
    A meter is quite a bit! I'll have to take a look at the Rolleinars as well.

    What kind of distortion are we talking about here? pin-cushion? Barrel distortion? In another category of its own?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,065
    Images
    39
    I'm with Sanders. I really love my Rollei Automat MV-EVS. (It was my fathers. He shot sports with it!) But Rollei TLRs are not great choices for headshot type photos. A Mamiya RB or RZ, a Hasselblad, a Rollei SLR or ... would make a better choice. The main advantage of a Rollei TLR is unobtrusive operation, low vibration, and portability.

  10. #30
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt View Post
    But Rollei TLRs are not great choices for headshot type photos.
    Tele Rolleiflexes excepted, of course -- they excel at tight portraits, if you fit them with Rolleinars.

    Sanders

Page 3 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