Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,459   Posts: 1,643,798   Online: 847
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Mike Kovacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPablo View Post
    How about folding cameras, like the Ikontas?
    These are just not in the same league optically as the Rolleiflex. Fun to use, compact, but no Rolleiflex. The TLR was the professional medium format tool of its day.
    If it says Zeiss or Rollei, the answer is YES!
    My Flickr Gallery

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Kovacs View Post
    These are just not in the same league optically as the Rolleiflex. Fun to use, compact, but no Rolleiflex.
    Not in the same league optically? IMO, a folding camera with a good quality lens mounted on it would optically outperform any TLR. One nice thing about view cameras is the huge availability of lenses that can be mounted on them. As far as convenience and ease of use, folders are definitely not in the same league as TLR's (or SLR's).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Kovacs View Post
    The TLR was the professional medium format tool of its day.
    Were TLR's around before Hasselblad SLR's (or any other MF SLR's)? I was always under the impression that TLR's were just a more affordable alternative to MF SLR's (I had a TLR before I could afford a MF SLR). I can't imagine TLR being the professional medium format tool of its day if Hassies were in existence at the time (or any MF SLR).

  3. #23
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by max_ebb View Post
    Not in the same league optically? IMO, a folding camera with a good quality lens mounted on it would optically outperform any TLR. One nice thing about view cameras is the huge availability of lenses that can be mounted on them. As far as convenience and ease of use, folders are definitely not in the same league as TLR's (or SLR's).

    Were TLR's around before Hasselblad SLR's (or any other MF SLR's)? I was always under the impression that TLR's were just a more affordable alternative to MF SLR's (I had a TLR before I could afford a MF SLR). I can't imagine TLR being the professional medium format tool of its day if Hassies were in existence at the time (or any MF SLR).
    1. There is no way a MF folder is going to come anywhere close to the optics of a Rolleiflex, not even the Super Ikontas. Most focus with a moving front cell. All suffer from imprecise alignment of lens and film plane, an unavoidable consequence of the folding design. Folders are nice -- I have a couple -- but they are way out of a Rolleiflex's league for optical precision.

    If, by "folder," you mean a view camera, then you are on firmer ground. But my Rolleiflex negatives seem to hold their own against my 4x5 negatives when enlarged to the same sizes. The differences at 4x5 are not so great. Rolleiflexes are superbly-tuned machines.

    2. Rolleiflexes predated the Hasselblads. But it would no doubt have come as a great surprise to Richard Avedon and Irving Penn and Imogen Cunningham and Margaret Bourke-White and Robert Doisneau and Willy Ronis and Robert Capa and Diane Arbus and dozens of other great photographers of the past century to learn that their Rolleiflexes were budget cameras, inferior to Hasselblads and other MF SLRs. Believe it or not, some of us actually do find the Rolleiflex an elegant and effective alternative to clunky cumbersome beasts like the Hasselblads.

    Sheesh, where do people come up with these ideas?

    Sanders
    Last edited by Rolleiflexible; 06-21-2007 at 03:37 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    232
    Oh OK, I didn't realize that TLR's predated hasselblads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanders McNew View Post
    If, by "folder," you mean a view camera, then you are on firmer ground.
    Yes, I meant a view camera. The MF 'folder' that I had in the early 80's was a view camera, and with a good quality lens on it, I don't believe that it would be optically inferior to a Rollei. On that I will just agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanders McNew View Post
    But my Rolleiflex negatives seem to hold their own against my 4x5 negatives when enlarged to the same sizes.
    Really? What lens do you have on your 4x5? My 4x5 negs blow away any MF camera that I've ever used when enlarged to a fairly large size (like 20x24).

    Hasselblads are clunky and cumbersome?

    Rolleiflex images hold their own against 4x5?



    Sheesh, where do people come up with these ideas?

  5. #25
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by max_ebb View Post
    Really? What lens do you have on your 4x5? My 4x5 negs blow away any MF camera that I've ever used when enlarged to a fairly large size (like 20x24).

    Hasselblads are clunky and cumbersome?

    Rolleiflex images hold their own against 4x5?



    Sheesh, where do people come up with these ideas?
    Really. I have a number of lenses, including a Sironar and a Commercial Ektar, as well as a raft of older glass. you say your 4x5s "blow away" "any MF camera that [you've] ever used." Have you used a good Rolleiflex?

    Hasselblads are clunky and cumbersome. (1) Their mirrors slap loudly and with vibration. (2) Their shutters jam. (They even sell an unjamming tool for that.) (3) Their film holders leak light and develop spacing issues, requiring service at regular intervals. (4) They are awkward to shoot handheld because of their shape and balance. (5) The viewscreen goes dark the moment you take the picture, leaving you blind for a followup shot.

    If you really need the whole family of lens lengths, then maybe -- maybe -- a Hasselblad is worth the hassle. Otherwise, the Rolleiflex is by far the superior camera. Do this: Compile a list of great photographers of the past century who used a Rolleiflex. Then compile another list of those who used a Hasselblad. Compare them. What do you find?

    Wedding photographers shoot Hasselblads. Artists shoot Rolleiflexes.

    Sanders

  6. #26
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Stever View Post
    Have you ever handled a Hasselblad?
    Sure have. Shot one for a couple of years and then sold it. The short lens on a conventional Rolleiflex was too short for what I do. My first attempt at a fix was to buy a Hasselblad and a 120mm macro-Planar. It gave me the focal length I needed, but I hated the way the camera handled. My 3 film backs had to be rebuilt, one twice, and I never got consistent fram spacing with them. I twice jammed the shutter. I desperately wanted to like the camera. But it felt like a brick in my hands, Victor Hasselblad's good efforts notwithstanding.

    So I gave up on roll film and went to a view camera. Which, of course, presents its own awkwardness, but also its own rewards. And I shot the view camera pretty much exclusively for 3-4 years. But I always yearned for the simplicity of the Rolleiflex.

    Last December I finally shelled out for a Tele Rolleiflex. I should've done that years ago. It gives me the focal length I need, with the form factor that works best for me.

    So, yes, I do speak from extensive experience with the cameras.

    EDIT: FWIW, I intended the "Sheesh" remark to respond to the notion that a Rolleiflex was a budget camera for MF work, for those who couldn't afford Hasselblads.

    Sanders.
    Last edited by Rolleiflexible; 06-21-2007 at 05:21 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanders McNew View Post
    If you really need the whole family of lens lengths, then maybe -- maybe -- a Hasselblad is worth the hassle. Otherwise, the Rolleiflex is by far the superior camera.
    Rolleiflex is by far superior to Hasselblad? LOL, you are one funny dude. You have every right to your opinion, but I already said that I will just agree to disagree, so peddle your tripe to someone else, I'm not buying it.

    TLR's might not have started out as 'budget' MF cameras, but that's what they became once MF SLR's hit the market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanders McNew View Post
    Wedding photographers shoot Hasselblads. Artists shoot Rolleiflexes.
    So you're saying that anybody who shoots anything but a Rollei is NOT an artists, or just the Hasselblad shooters who are not artists? So I guess that Ansel Adams did all his art on a Rolleiflex, and lied about using large format?

  8. #28
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by max_ebb View Post
    TLR's might not have started out as 'budget' MF cameras, but that's what they became once MF SLR's hit the market.
    Hasselblads "hit the market" in the early 1950s but -- whaddayaknow?! -- Avedon and Penn and Arbus and Doisneau and Ronis and Capa and many others all kept on shooting their Rolleiflexes!

    And Rolleiflexes were wildly expensive. That's why they made Rolleicords -- so normal human beings could afford them. Eudora Welty, the writer, was also an avid photographer. Ms. Welty shot a Rolleicord -- she couldn't afford a Rolleiflex. One day she lost it in a train station, and that was the end of her photography. Today, a new Rolleiflex will cost you four thousand dollars or more, depending on the model.

    Only a child of the eBay era could imagine a Rolleiflex as a budget camera.

    Quote Originally Posted by max_ebb View Post
    So you're saying that anybody who shoots anything but a Rollei is NOT an artists, or just the Hasselblad shooters who are not artists? So I guess that Ansel Adams did all his art on a Rolleiflex, and lied about using large format?
    I confined my remarks to Hasselblads, didn't I? Fight fair, if you're going to fight at all. I made you a challenge: Draw up a list of great 20th-century photographers who shot a Hasselblad and compare it to a similar list of Rolleiflex users. You didn't do that. Nor did you tell us whether you've ever shot a Rolleiflex and, if so, whether you made more than passing acquaintance with it.

    Of course different people have different hands, different eyes, different needs. No one camera is right for everyone. But your remarks about Rolleiflexes betray a fundamental ignorance of the subject.

    Sanders
    Last edited by Rolleiflexible; 06-21-2007 at 06:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #29
    JJC
    JJC is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moorestown, NJ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Stever View Post
    Have you ever handled a Hasselblad? Did you know that Victor Hasselblad had small hands and purposely designed it so that it was not clunky?[See Hasselblad website under History]

    If you want to talk about clunky how about starting the the Mamiyaflex C through C-330 and then taking on all the view cameras?

    Sheesh, where do people come up with these ideas?

    Steve
    Mamiya TLRs aren't clunky! ...Although my hands *are* big. :rolleyes:
    "Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Jim Horning

  10. #30
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    The Rolleis were the workhorses of small format professional cameras practically from their inception in 1929. Many editors, however, refused to use small camera negatives and insisted on 4x5.

    Miniature cameras (that is 35mm Leica, Contax) were cameras for amateurs with big incomes. No down and dirty professional photographer would even consider shooting a minicam professionally until the late 1950s. "Photojournalists" the glamour boys and girls on the cutting edge being the exceptions which test this rule--even so, folks like Bourke-White, Haas, others relied on Rolleis when they needed a small camera rather than a 4x5.

    The Nikon F (1957?)and Tri-X (1954) began to wear away the professional prejudice in favor of the image quality of the large negative for professional, especially news photography. As late as the early 1960s, many editors insisted a 35mm slide be duped up to a 4x5 transparency before they would look at it.

    Anscojohn, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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