Check out this link for the in production model of the Rollei TLR. I love my Rolleiflex (mid 50's vintage, and in mint shape) and take it out whenever photography starts to get me down. Some how this camera has some kind of magic. My creative juices just seem to start flowing again and things become exciting.
Now if I sell my van .........
ya - eric
its a great camera. a real joy.
u know, it is one of those things that is perfect. the new ones are built outstandingly good as well. and of course the new plannar. there is also the wide angle verssion. but i think that the true wa cameras are better there, though much more expenssive.
i know that they are planing to make the new long lense. i suppose it will be something like 120mm (image circyle, and zeiss has a disign of it as well, on hasselglad).
camera with inspitation.
I love TLR's (preferably 127 obviously)... Which has often led me to ponder: What happened to camera's in the 60's and early 70's to lead us to the sorry state we're in now:
Walk into a camera shop and say you're interested in taking up photography, and the salesman will say:
a) for the kind of work you're interested in you'll want a 35mm autofocus SLR with a zoom lens.
b) what kind of photography were you interested in again?
Somewhere along the line we decided that 35mm SLR was the answer, but can't quite remember what the question was.
Once upon a time there was diversity in camera's - at all levels you could choose between film formats, and camera styles, picking something that fitted you. Then the choice went away. It's now engrained in the mind set of modern photographers: I've got a komaflex slr and a rolleiflex; in use they're very similar except the SLR is heavier and noisier, yet my girlfriend (who has more photography experience than me - on modern cameras) is far more prepared to consider the Koma as a practical camera, simply because its an SLR.
The TLR has become a dinosaur, despite its superiority in many respects. The SLR crowd oftern point out that TLR's lack auto-exposure, auto-focus, motor drive etc but at the time TLR's went out of style, SLR's didn't have these features either. The new Rollei's give a hint of where TLR's could be with 40 years of development, but why can't we get a TLR with those kind of features (and more) for the price of a decent SLR.
It's a little like the cambrian(?) period in geology - there was a huge explosion in different species of animals, and then they all died of for some unexplained reason.
Not quite. More like survival of the "most convenient".
Originally Posted by 127
I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like...creativity!
Truly, dr bob.
The 127 format acquire a bad image, back in the mists of time - the '50's and early '60's. Prestige - one's image - was far more important in that period of ancient camera history.
There was a flood of cheap 127 cameras at the time. Single aperture, single shutter speed, single element meniscus lens - and single fixed focus (todays "focus free"). I think that the smaller 127 format required less plastic in manufacture.
The camera magazines either propagated or bowed to the idea of the inclusion of exposure information; "This photograph was taken at f/8, 1/50 second." - and quite a few of the unwashed crowd thought: "If I set my camera to f/8 @ 1/50th - I could take the same photograph. Not possible with the single/single/single 127.
The were some - too few - *wonderful* 127 cameras - the Rollei 4x4 was one - I think Yashica made another 4x4 TLR, and I seem to remember one or two rangefinder *gems*.
The massive shift to 35mm, with their prestige - displaced the 127. Certainly, there was nothing wrong with the format itself.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Hey, I still use my Brownie 127 TLR. As long as it's sunny. It's much lighter than my 8x10.
But that supposes that the 35mm SLR is the "most convenient". Personally I find the typical 35mm SLR big, heavy, unwieldy (lens heavy), intrusive, and noisey. They are a kind of "one size fits all", but its pretty hard to find something for which the typical modern 35mm SLR is the BEST solution.
Originally Posted by dr bob
If 100 years ago Kodak could build a small, lightweight, 120 camera at an entry level price, why can't we have that option now? Where are the rangefinders, the TLR's, the waist level finders, the choice of film formats... Most of these designs should be cheaper to produce that the complex mechanism that is required in an SLR. However to get any of these features in a new camera you need to step well outside the beginers budget, and you won't find them even in many so-called specialist camera shops.
SLR's at least film ones are going the way of the dodo bird as well. In a very short while you won't be able to buy a good quality 35mm film camera. Just cheapy digi do dads.
Yashica did make the "Yashica 44", a little gem very similar to the Rollie 4x4. I was using the Yashica C at the time but really lusted after the "44". Unfortunately, as a college student, it was out of my reach and illegal means were not in my psychological makeup.
I loved my Mamiya C220 and it's three lenses (65, 80, 135) dearly for years. After an interval of no photography at all, I returned with a P67 and three lenses which I now love equally dearly. Just the first glimpse of a big 6x6, or 6x7 negative was enough to kill any interest I may have had for 35mm shooting beyond it's use as an exrtemely portable convenience camera.
But the mania of the moment is digital...so very much like the SLR tidal wave of the late 60's and 70's that one needs to be well seasoned to resist the onslaught of 'film is dead' nonsense that has dominated the photographic zeitgeist. It sounds quite quaint to read a thread that still even remembers that there ever was an SLR steamroller. My antidote? I've taken the plunge into LF. Anyone know what real estate prices are in Luddia???