Robert White has them for 47 UK pounds.
Er.. hello everyone. Recognise some names in here. I'm a Mamiya user myself, C330f with a metered chimney finder (and WLF and prism), 55, 80, and 135mm lenses and a left handed trigger grip! Also used a Lubitel in my 'yoof' (when I was 13, actually). Love the square format and, for the time being, that's all I can think of to say! Cheerio, Blights.
Hi all -- Mark Antony took the trouble of inviting me to join the group so I thought the least I could do was to join! I write you from Hartford, Connecticut USA.
I have probably too many TLRs, but then I have too many cameras of all types and formats. I have a particular fondness for TLRs, though -- they are wonderfully retro yet product great results. They've given me a special appreciation of the qualities of the Tessar-type lens design too, and whether that's a Xenar, Rikenon, Rokkor, Yashinon or Prominar, all do quite well. And I love using Rolleinars or similar for closeup shots as well. I also get a kick out of the different designs out there -- crank vs. knob wind, knob vs. lever focus, setting speeds and apertures by wheels or levers, etc. Who knew there were so many ways to do the same thing?
OK, I probably went on a bit too long! Looking forward to participating in discussions here.
OK so I am just curious, if a poll were taken, what is the main reason everyone likes a TLR camera?
For me it is not the square as I get sick to death of the square and wish there was a 6x9 TLR. That would be a beast and I would get it. Of course the film would have to travel side to side rather than bottom to top.
I guess my main reason for using a TLR is that I get really high quality images from a small package. I wouldn't mind the package being a bit bigger if I got a bit bigger neg.
I'm looking for Rolleinars. What would be a reasonable price to pay for a bay 3? I have seen then go from 50-150.
Hi all. I use a Rolleiflex 3.5F and a beat up Rolleicord Va. To respond to Dennis, I love shooting square and the design and shape of the TLR is just perfect for my style of shooting which is throw a camera in a bag and wander around. This is particularly true of the Va because of its light weight.
I'll try and post a few pics this weekend.
OK my reasons:
I have a Fuji 6x7 RF that I use for landscapes, manual Nikon F2 for Macro/tele, and a Leica for street type snaps (that sounds awful)
I have a project coming up where I will be taking portraits of artists in my area, did a test run on the 6x7 but it didn't feel right.
So I needed a rugged dependable camera that was good for portraits and I'd used the Rollei in the 80's
So seeing the excellent work from Sanders and Ari and the latter persons quest to obtain one i decided to follow suit and tracked down one on evilbay.
Dennis I'm sorry but I love the square format, I think it's wonderfully suited to certain subjects, of course you can crop but for landscapes I use my 6x7.
your mileage may vary.....
For me its a combination of 3 things:
1) The square format
2) Quality of picture
3) The mechanics and use/feel of the camera
"Really high quality images from a small package." I think that about sums it up. As I said before, something about them evokes a bygone time -- as one born in the '50s (though too young to remember any of it), I have an affection for the decade. It was also a high point of camera design too; think of the great Rolleis made then.
I love the square format -- it's unusual but works well. (And you can always crop.)
For me I like looking down to view (although sometimes it is a right pain) as I don't much like taking a picture of a person with a camera between myself and the subject. I like the quiet shutter and the simplicity of operation. The way you hold it. That the TLR is a 'gentleman' of a camera in that it tends not to draw attention to itself, that it's quite unassuming - even polite and that it is actually very very competent - we just don't shout about it do we?
Mark - you asked me what I photograph - I suppose I'm still finding my 'voice'/'style'/'concern'. So it's most things actually although people - esp. family and friends tend to figure most. Also buildings and landscapes - but I'm not much good at landscapes!
For me, my Rollei 3.5f is the most beautiful camera I have ever owned. Its handling is superb... it just feels right... I've had many cameras, but this one I have the closest connection to. The quality of the pictures is superb, the best I have taken. I have had so many positive comments from people when I am out shooting with my Rollei. They often stop to talk about fine cameras their parents or grandparents had. They will sometimes look appreciatively (for the first time, it seems) at the building or square or tree that is in front of my lens. The Rolleiflex has that power. People seem to instinctively respect this fine camera.
It's not that I don't like square pictures, it is just that I get really tired of them and the squarness of a TLR is not my reason for liking the camera. After shooting with the Rollei for awhile I have to get out with the Pentax 67 just to get the feel of the rectangle. The thing about a rectangle to me is the sense of movement from one side to the other in the compositions whereas it seems a square composition is always center weighted.
ts103706, I have two Rolleinars: 1 and 3. Both sets (u need a set to put them on both lenses ..the flat one for taking lens and the big one on the viewing lens. Pay special attention to the red dot that needs to be placed on top after mounting.). Fair price for either Rolleinar is around $50 a set, I managed to get R3 mint boxed for $60 (130 PLN)
Regarding Rollienars - I have #1 and #2: They work way better than they have any right to. My macro nature work has been satisfying to me. However - and this is entirely predictable based on the laws of physical optics - the depth of field is shallow, to put it mildly. At f/4, with #2, at closest focus, the depth of field is only about a centimeter, maybe less. [What was I thinking?] This, I learned from bitter experience. Even at f/8, the depth of field is shallow.
Here is a useful table:
By way of introduction, I have a 1954-6 Rolleiflex 3.5, a Rolliecord Va and a Vb, the latter purchased from Harry Fleenor, it's almost mint. All three have had full overhauls by Harry and all have Maxwell screens. I'm hooked.
Stacking my #1 and #2 Rolienars works fine, but only one Rollei Pareil can be used, so parallax must be allowed for.
Having used the Hoya close-up filters on my Nikon for some years, I have grown accustomed to the characteristic softness around the edges of my close-up work. With my Rolleinar 2, I see none of that. My images appear sharp right to the corners. Admittedly, I have not done any systematic testing, but to me they perform remarkably well. In fact, looking through my prints, I can see nothing in the quality that sets these images apart from the rest of my Rollei work.
I agree that square format can be a little limiting, especially taking into account the additional restriction of a single focal length lens. I often take pains to avoid center weighted composition. I try to think of my glass as divided into four quadrants, which oddly enough is very much in agreement with the rule of thirds.
Still, I seldom travel with just one camera. There are often compositions that will simply not work in 6x6 or without a different focal length. I am never ashamed to use my zoom as and when necessary.
The Rolleinar 1 is great for tight portraits. Last week I actually took a photo of my wife that she liked! I can die happy now.
Nick, you are a lucky man! In my 15 years of marriage and countless photos I've never once manages to take a photo of my wife that she likes.
Just got my T back from service (Brian Mickleboro)
First impressions is that everything seems great, speeds all work fine, he looks to have cleaned and re-adjusted the lens too.
It's raining here, but I'm hopefully going to take a couple of test films this afternoon.
All is well just uploaded a picture to the album "puppet man' tonight I'm gonna try some Delta 3200...