Considering a TLR

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by FrankS

...

built during an era where engineers ruled as opposed to accountants, you will enjoy both vintage Leica and Rolleiflex. IMO

I remember those days.

[SteveM(PA)]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Many cameras have passed through my hands. I have had experince with a lot of different types, brands, styles, and models. IMO, Leica RF's are more refined feeling than other RF cameras I have tried. (If you are satisfied with your Bessa, consider yourself lucky.) The Rolleiflex is the same as a Leica in this respect. It simply feels like a more refined and higher quality peice of machinery than alny other TLR I've tried or held. IMO, if you are a Leica person, then you would also appreciate the Rolleiflex. Each is the best designed, engineered and best built camera in its class. This is just my opinion. Leicas and Rolleiflexes will not create better pictures than other cameras by themselves, that is the responsibility of the photographer, but if you find satisfaction of owning an item that is built to the highest standards possible, built during an era where engineers ruled as opposed to accountants, you will enjoy both vintage Leica and Rolleiflex. IMO

I agree with Frank. Something beautiful and completely pleasurable to use is going to be something your hands will want to have in them. And then you'll get the results of the Planar lens, and you'll be very pleased. The 3.5E metered Planar I bought for my wife for Christmas a few years ago is a masterpiece of machine age design. Some of my favorite portraits were done on it. One of these days I hope to treat myself to one. And all the pieces have very nice leather cases and boxes that I think you'll appreciate. I think the Rolleiflex experience is a diversion you'll really enjoy.

[Solinar]

Frank, that was well said and I wholly agree.

With that said, can I still keep my $50 Minolta Autocord? It's a gem of a TLR.

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by Solinar

Frank, that was well said and I wholly agree.

With that said, can I still keep my $50 Minolta Autocord? It's a gem of a TLR.

Absolutely, yes.

Other camera brands and models are perfectly good and are favoured most highly by other photographers. Finding a camera that you can connect with is part of the game.

[Solinar]

I'm just giving you a hard time Frank. By the way, that IIIf still works a charm.

[FrankS]

No worries, Andrew.
Glad to hear that the "Duane" limited edition IIIf is doing well. (Shouldn't have sold it.)

[BudGreen]

Originally Posted by Floyd Takeuchi

My suggestion: if you can handle the price, get a very good condition Rolleiflex. If you are already shooting Leica, and you like TLRs, you'll probably end up there soon enough. If you don't like working with a TLR, you probably will be able to sell it for what you paid for the camera.

This was my original thinking. I’ve got all kinds of ways to rationalize expensive gear.

Originally Posted by Finder

I have a Mamiya TLR and it is a very flexible camera. The bellows extention is amazing. The C330 cocks the shutter automatically when you wind on. The C220, winding and cocking the shutter are separate actions. I have the C220 and I got used to that little foible fairly quickly.

The Sekor lens is sharp. You will be getting better quality out of the Mamiya than your Leicas.

One thing about TLRS. The viewfinder image is reversed left to right. This can make following moving subjects a challenge. Mamiya made a prism for their TLRs to correct this, but they add to the bulk and weight of the camera.

I checked out the Mamiyas. Although I haven’t heard a bad thing said about them, I think the bulk and weight might be too much for me at this point. If and when I really get hooked on the larger negative, I’ll be more willing to compromise with a heavier more flexible system.

Originally Posted by dreilly

Another bonus of the TLR is that novelty value someone above mentioned--for me it was a great boon. People recognize it as an old camera (and never ask if it's digital!) and, depending on where I am in the world, it often gets lots of smiles and makes people more willing to pose for portraits or candids.

I have to admit that the novelty aspect is appealing to me.

Originally Posted by FrankS

Many cameras have passed through my hands. I have had experince with a lot of different types, brands, styles, and models. IMO, Leica RF's are more refined feeling than other RF cameras I have tried. (If you are satisfied with your Bessa, consider yourself lucky.) The Rolleiflex is the same as a Leica in this respect. It simply feels like a more refined and higher quality peice of machinery than alny other TLR I've tried or held. IMO, if you are a Leica person, then you would also appreciate the Rolleiflex. Each is the best designed, engineered and best built camera in its class. This is just my opinion. Leicas and Rolleiflexes will not create better pictures than other cameras by themselves, that is the responsibility of the photographer, but if you find satisfaction of owning an item that is built to the highest standards possible, built during an era where engineers ruled as opposed to accountants, you will enjoy both vintage Leica and Rolleiflex. IMO

This is a compelling argument for the Rolleiflex. The quality of the Leicas is at least partially responsible for igniting my interest in photography—they’re just a pleasure to use.

Thanks everyone for the wealth of well-reasoned advice. Now it’s decision time.

[tkluck]

Rolleiflex.
Rolleiflex is to TLR what Leica is to 35mm RF.

As usual, a lot of good adivce here. I can only add an additional 2cents worth of my own:

Get a TLR with a crank. Much nicer than a knob.

[Ariya]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Many cameras have passed through my hands. I have had experince with a lot of different types, brands, styles, and models. IMO, Leica RF's are more refined feeling than other RF cameras I have tried. (If you are satisfied with your Bessa, consider yourself lucky.) The Rolleiflex is the same as a Leica in this respect. It simply feels like a more refined and higher quality peice of machinery than alny other TLR I've tried or held. IMO, if you are a Leica person, then you would also appreciate the Rolleiflex. Each is the best designed, engineered and best built camera in its class. This is just my opinion. Leicas and Rolleiflexes will not create better pictures than other cameras by themselves, that is the responsibility of the photographer, but if you find satisfaction of owning an item that is built to the highest standards possible, built during an era where engineers ruled as opposed to accountants, you will enjoy both vintage Leica and Rolleiflex. IMO

What he said.

[dreamsandart]

My father's Rollei was the family camera while we were kids in the 50s/60s. I finally bought myself one at one point and its finally worked into being my one and only travel camera. One lens makes it simple, medium format for quality, and its fun to use and everyone loves to see and talk about it. Love the 'Rollei' feel, square format, ground glass view, really silent shutter, and the Planar or Xenotar are fantastic lenses. Have a 3.5 Planar myself in a 12/24 f camera just serviced by Harry at Oceanside - he's the best :-) and you might want to see if he has any Rolleis for sale, makes it simple, and a Rolleiflex does not have to be 'expensive', probably less than an M3 with a 50 Summicron.

If you have as much Leica gear as you mention, you may as well 'jump' and get the best, a nice Rolleiflex and have done with it. Spend some time with just the Rollei and learn to use it, it does take time, but like a Leica rangefinder once you get it, its pure fun. Like the Coke adds used to say ' everything goes better with... a Rollei.'

[FrankS]

I can highly recomment the E model with f3.5 Planar lens which came just before the highly covetted and expensive model F with faster f2.8 Planar lens and removeable waist level finder.

[Todd.Hanz]

I have a couple Rolleiflex's, a 3.5F with working meter and a 2.8E, both stellar performers and like Frank mentioned...built like Leicas. I also have a couple Yashica TLR's, 124G and a 635.
Each TLR produces a unique image quality or thumbprint dependind on the taking lens, both my Rolleis have planar lenses and the Yashicas have Yashinon or Yashikor, all work very well. I prefer the results from the planar lenses the most but lately have seen alot of Tessar equipped models that give amazing results (esp. stopped down).

The Planars have incredible bokeh when shot close up and wide open, Tessars are bitingly sharp stopped down, you won't be disapointed with a Rollei no matter which one you get.

All that being said, I just picked up a "Ricohflex Dia L" TLR form a junk shop for 25 bucks, the lens is a Tessar style and it looks very promising, it's built like a tank but much smaller than a Rolleiflex. I had to clean it up quite a bit but it seems to be a nice performer and a "sleeper" on ebay. Here is a sample image from that camera (shot at f4): http://apeture.my-expressions.com/index.html

I also have many images on my photoblog taken with Rollei's and Yashica's if you want to see more.

Good luck and keep us posted on your choice,
Todd

[Todd.Hanz]

BTW,
something else to consider in your choice is a lens hood, it seems the planars are either bay II or bay III, and will run you 50 to 75 bucks depending on the condition, Tessar equipped models are bay I and are far more abundant thus less expensive.

I found an aftermarket hood for my bay III, 2.8E Rolleiflex at a camera show for 40 dollars, all metal with a nice crinkle finish...looks like this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/Bay-III-Lens-Hoo...QQcmdZViewItem

it's a great quality hood.

Todd

[BudGreen]

Originally Posted by Todd.Hanz

I also have many images on my photoblog taken with Rollei's and Yashica's if you want to see more.
Todd

Actually, those amazing TLR photos on your blog were one of the things that got me started on this path to begin with. Thanks for the advice and of course the photos!

One question: How limiting is the 3.5 versus the 2.8 lens? I realize that these are not available light cameras, but coming from a world of Noctiluxes and Summiluxes, it seems that the 2.8 would be a great advantage.

[FrankS]

Different cameras serve different purposes. You already have the ideal cameras and lux lenses for available darkness situations. On the ohter hand, if you have the money, go for the faster Planar lens.

[KoNickon]

I think, nice though the Mamiyas are, that as a first TLR you should avoid their size (not really intended for carrying around but more for tripod use) and complication (the interchangeable lenses).

I think the Autocord is a good suggestion, but you'll want one with a smooth focusing helical -- these can get stiff, and when they require effort to push from side to side it really makes them slower to use.

Rolleicords are very nice, and I think the V (as opposed to the Va or Vb) is a good value these days. The quirk of the Rolleicords is that their shutter is both charged and tripped by a lever under the taking lens -- push to the right (as you hold the camera) to charge it; pull back to the left to take the picture. A little tricky to use, especially at slower speeds. A straightforward shutter button is more familiar to use.

One of the key things that makes a TLR enjoyable or not is the brightness of the viewing screen, and here's where a couple of things have an effect. First, a viewing lens with a maximum aperture of wider than f3.5 makes a difference. Also, if the viewing screen has a Fresnel design that helps things as well. The brightest screen I've seen is with the later Yashica TLRs (like the Yashicamat 124G and later versions of the D) which have both the Fresnel screen and an f2.8 viewing lens. This makes a big difference for indoor use. I reckon the later Rolleiflexes, especially the 2.8s, would be very usable here. The Rolleicords, in my experience, aren't so good in this regard since their viewing lenses are f3.5.

You can buy, or at any rate you used to be able to buy, Fresnel screens in the correct size that you could just drop on top of the viewing screen of a TLR, and these do help with the dimmer ones.

Other things to keep in mind: Film winding, whether crank or knob style, is on the right hand side of every TLR I'm aware of. But some have focusing knobs on the right as well (like the Rolleicord V), while others have a lever mechanism like the Autocord or the Ricoh Diacord which you can use with either hand. Some have shutter buttons on the right side, some on the left. Some (like the Rolleicords, the Mamiya 220, Diacord, Yashica D) require a separate action for charging the shutter. While you can get used to any of these, you may find you have a strong preference for one setup over the other, so you need ideally to play with some of these and see what you like best.

If you can find a Yashicamat in good working order -- i.e. there are no frame overlap problems -- these are reliable cameras, and the Yashinon lenses (preferable to the three element Yashikors) really do a nice job. If you don't mind knob winding and separate shutter charging, one of the later Yashica Ds with a Yashinon lens, which date from the late '60s-early '70s, is an excellent value. The Yashicas aren't as well built as the Rolleis or the Autocords, but they do seem pretty reliable.

[Todd.Hanz]

The shutters on these cameras are leaf shutters so there is very little to no vibration when you press the release. I shoot, almost exclusively, Fuji Acros 100 in mine down to 1/4 second with great results. I use a Domke gripper neck strap and pull it taught to help prevent camera shake while shooting. I find my Rollei's compliment my Leicas well for available light.

Of course if you're wanting to use f8-22 in low light a tripod is in order, which means another accessory, the tripod adapter

Todd

[clarence]

Originally Posted by BudGreen

One question: How limiting is the 3.5 versus the 2.8 lens? I realize that these are not available light cameras, but coming from a world of Noctiluxes and Summiluxes, it seems that the 2.8 would be a great advantage.

To me, it depends on how you plan to use the camera. If you are shooting candids at a relatively high speed, you would need some depth of field to play with. In this case, the 2.8 is not always easily used, especially with the focal length of a standard lens in medium format.

On the other hand, if you are planning to use it for posed portraits, the extra speed could help you as you take your time to focus properly.

Having said all of that, half a stop of extra speed isn't too great an advantage.

Clarence

[micek]

I have actually relegated my M4 to the camera cabinet in favour of a Rolleicord V for my street shooting. The Rollei is more discreet, it is quieter, its shape means that if necessary, you can rest it on a street cafe table or bench, for instance, and focus without drawing attention to yourself (I use a short cable release to shoot) and the resulting negative is much much nicer than any 35mm equivalent. I love it.

[raid]

The Rolleiflex is your "50mm" lens, so compliment it with a Leica having a 24mm lens and a 35mm lens and your are set for some first class enjoyment of German engineering like no other. The crank is important and I like the fool proof film advance system of the Rolleiflex. It is nearly impossible to mess it up. The Planar is a wonderful lens that is only matched by the Xenotar. The classic look will make people smile and relax while you take photos. It is built very well but it is not bullet proof. I had to have my Rolleiflex adjusted by Mark Hama recently. I have a Maxwell screen in place of the original (dimmer) Rolleiflex screen.

Just writing about my Rolleiflex makes me want to take this camera on my next trip.

[David Murphy]

I see a lot of discussion of Yashimat here. My understanding is that the 124-G was to most modern of these and a good camera. I am sure they are decent cameras, but the problem I have with them is that their prices seem to be going through the roof. Some seem to get more than certain Rolleiflexes. This reminds me of how some of the offbeat Japanese LTM rangefinders of the 50's (Tanack, Leotax, etc.) are now worth a lot more than the camera they copied.

[raid]

Try KEH for not so costly Yashicas.

[GeneW]

As Frank mentioned, a good Rolleiflex is a good match for a Leica in terms of build quality, optics, and that special 'feel' that comes with beautifully-crafted equipment. I've had my 3.5F Planar model since 1970 and every time I use it I don't understand why I don't use it more often. But I will never part with it. My Hassy will go before I ever consider letting go of my Rollei. I think the main reason I use 35mm more is that it's more convenient to develop and scan than 120, but man, those 120 negs! A delight!

Gene

[BudGreen]

Originally Posted by raid amin

Just writing about my Rolleiflex makes me want to take this camera on my next trip.

That's the reaction I'm hoping for.

[MelanieC]

Hi Bud,

I've been taking pictures for about as long as you have (since January). My main cameras are an M3 and a Rolleiflex 2.8F that both belonged to my dad. He had taste and an appreciation for well-made things so I guess it makes sense that these are the two cameras he chose. My Rollei is in excellent shape with a relatively bright screen and an accurate meter.

I don't have experience using any other kind of TLR. I don't use the Rollei as much as the M3 because I find it to be less versatile and a bit more difficult to carry around. The M3 lives in my purse -- the Rollei is actually about the same size, but has more parts that stick out and/or move so I feel a bit weirder about just throwing it in there and bumming around with it like I do the M3. I also take different kinds of photos with it because I'm just slower with it -- it takes me longer to set aperture/shutter speed, to focus, to advance. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, and I also think that if I got more used to the camera I wouldn't be as slow.

It takes me longer to compose as well, but my compositions are usually better using the Rollei than the M3, perhaps because of this. In terms of "keepers" per roll I have a much higher percentage with the Rollei than with the M3. And the way the photos look -- especially considering how much of a novice I am -- is just amazing. It's like a magic box to me. The Rollei is a fabulous available light camera, as far as I can tell. The only clunkers I've produced thus far as ones that I really should have known better than to try to take the shot -- but I wanted to see what magic the camera might do. (Well, it IS still just a camera. It doesn't have night vision.)

Everything about this camera is extremely solid, but it doesn't seem as hefty as the M3 does (it's got a lot more air inside it, so that makes sense). The shutter is practically silent. It is very easy to focus accurately. It is beautiful to look at. I haven't handled the alternatives, but given my experiences with the 2.8F and the comments thus far, if I were you and the cost did not matter, this is the choice I'd make. As I've said before, I'd rather my dad still be around than to have his cameras, but I consider myself extremely fortunate that without that choice, these are the cameras that he left me. I can't really second-guess my dad's judgment here.