Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,100   Posts: 1,636,434   Online: 1091
      
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 127
  1. #21
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    A website with some very useful information on Rolleiflex (and others) is: http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Suffolk, England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    360
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
    But my personal recommendation for you would be to look into getting a 3.5F with either the Xenotar or the Planar. It is a great travel camera, it is lighter than the 2.8 and the accessories are cheaper and the lenses are outstanding. Get the most mint condition one you can find and spend your savings on a complete overhaul and you will have a great camera for life.
    Just done that very thing. Picked up a very nice 3.5f for £295 on the bay. Everything looks good, even slow speeds not too bad. Will get a CLA though, last one for a Rolleicord cost £90 so all in all I'm chuffed to bits...

  3. #23
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    No matter which one I get in the end, I need one for street most definately.
    I am a shy guy and the Hasselblad is imposing and even though I rarely get
    a negative response when pointing it at someone, I am always cautious of
    its size and thunder-mirror. It doesn't scare people, quite the opposite, but
    a TLR would help my self-assurance for sure and enable me to take those
    discreet photos with the subject unaware.
    One of the reasons I carry Kalypso (my 501CM) on the street is that it intrigues
    people and is much less stereotypical than a common 35mm camera which
    helps my connection with them.
    A TLR would be even more perfect in that respect and the Rolleiflex has the
    looks and features I need: 6x6, WLF, great lens, quiet operation.
    It might take a while to get one, but I have already found a name: Nafsika.
    Yes, they are women's names from the Odyssey. And yes, I have all my cameras named.
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  4. #24
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,099
    Images
    38
    I guess, if you are already used to using an 80 mm lens on your hasselblad, you know what you want. But I would think most people would want a longer focal length for shooting people. I did just return from a trip in Mexico doing street photography with a 2.8F but I try to avoid people and actually shoot the buildings and the streets. Have you considered a Tele with 135mm?

  5. #25
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    Each one of the lens types is good for street photography.
    Wide for larger and/or more dramatic compositions and a telephoto for details, isolation and reaching.
    One could even say that a zoom of medium wide to short tele is perfect, but that often leads to lazy compositions
    and undisciplined photographers.
    I have shot a lot with a 50 prime on 35mm and the 80 is my most used lens on the Hasselblad.
    Yet I have done street with every lens, even the 40.
    The demonstration was shot with a 180 on the Hasselblad, a device akin to a portable artillery.
    I used it though because I was aiming to capture details and not because it was less scary than to approach
    people up close. Which is. I am shy to approach people and often have to think about it more than a bit, but I like the "normal" lens.
    I believe that I just need a quiet shutter to overcome those minor complexes and "free" my street photography.
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  6. #26
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    I've found the Rolleiflex 2.8FX being sold in the UK for 3000 euros without tax, 2500 in Denmark without tax and 4000 in Greece with tax.
    Why the huge difference in prices?
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  7. #27
    Denis P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Croatia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    466
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by arigram View Post
    The reason I am going for the Rolleiflex is because I want a street/travel camera that is more compact, more light and more quiet than the Hasselblad.
    ...
    Fast focus, TTL metering, well coated lens are all important to me and the ones I would lose with a new model are not.
    Ari, I'm not sure how important is TTL metering. My uneducated guess is that TTL would be used most in studio - and in those cases you can use a separate light/flash meter.

    If it will be used primarily for street shooting with fill-in flash, you have a valid point (regarding TTL metering).

    But, given that you said you want to be unobtrusive, I don't really see how you can be "invisible/unobrustive" with any kind of flash. So, for myself, TTL would be of minor importance in such a situation (street shooting).
    Once you strike the TTL metering off your list of features, you might as well use a second hand (used) Rolleiflex, which will be much cheaper than the prices you quoted.

    If you can find a used one in Greece, I would recommend trying it before buying - or at least comparing a good used one to a new one - and seeing whether 5-10x difference in price is worth it (for the intended purpose)....

    I can only offer my persepective - I purchased a used Rolleiflex T in Austria a couple of years ago, for about 280 EUR (in almost pristine condition, the lens was a bit cloudy because of the evaporting grease). After about EUR 50 for the cost of cleaning the lens, the camera was as new!

    It does have 75/3.5 Tessar lens, though. The 80/2.8 Planar (or Xenotar) would probably be more expensive - but a good used one should not cost much more than about 500 EUR. Compared to about 3500 EUR for a new one, it IS quite a difference in price!

    OTOH, any kind of Rollie (even the new one!) will probably have much dimmer ground glass than your Hassie (particularly if the Hassie is equipped with AccuMatte prism/finder!).

    So, my suggestion is to try before you buy - whether new or used...

    Denis

  8. #28
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,099
    Images
    38
    I just checked the price for a new FX at B&H Photo in New York and converted Euro it is about 2,900. The meter on the FX is a great improvement over the F and older meters. If you really want to use a camera meter it is a good one. A lot of people say the old F meter works fine for them but I have found them to be pretty bad to nearly useless so I use a hand held meter. The lens on the FX is sharper at 2.8 than the older ones are for the most part as well as more flare resistant.

  9. #29
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    Regarding the screen.
    I need this clarification as it is important to me:
    Denis mentions that the screen is dimmer than the Accumatte of Hasselblad (I have the 501CM and 503CW).
    Is that correct even on the Rolleiflex 2.8FX?
    Will a new screen such as the Beatie make a difference?
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  10. #30
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,099
    Images
    38
    Rollei offers a variety of screens including a very bright one. I have the stock screen which is a little less bright and also I have a maxwell screen for the FX. The Maxwell screen is thought to be as bright as the acumatte. It is so bright that it looks about as bright as reality. I find the stock FX screen to be only a little less bright and in fact I have replaced the Maxwell screen with the stock as I like the image quality of it better. I have a 2.8F as well and in that I keep a Maxwell screen which is much better than the older stock screen but the newer stock screen is very good. I think regarding Maxwell vs Beattie they are about the same though it seems the Maxwell has many more supporters with Rolleiflex users.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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