I'm gonna tell you what - Rolleiflex appreciation thread

[BrianShaw]

Very nice. I love the image. I love square images. I love Rollei images.

 

[removed account4]

View attachment 283256

is that from the Seagull or the Rollei ?
it has that classic seagull look...

 

[abruzzi]

I'd love a Rollei SLR (if I could afford a 6008!), but TLRs don't agree with me.

 

[NB23]

Actually, I have 3 Photograohic passions: the Xpan, Rolleiflexes, Leicas. My problem is that I can shoot any format equally well. Going from Pano to square is easy to the point that I don’t even notice. I just frame.

I understand that for some people, square is impossible to work with, always needing to crop. And for others, the pano format is mind boggling. In my case, I work them all equally.

On trips, or important projects, whenever I mix my Leicas with the Xpan or a Rolleiflex, I end up not using the Leica.

How funny is that: my main camera always ends up being number two (or three) when there’s a Rollei or a Xpan around. Is it truly a main camera, after all?

-The Xpan is the greatest engineered film camera ever made. Too many things to mention but it all boils down to mind boggling Quality and technical prowesses in a tiny, powerhouse package.

Not for every day life, great for important trips, serious projects.

- Leica, every day use, best companion. Such a lovey toy/tool. Fondle action. Heanly mechanical feel, addictive.
The problem with Leica is that, truly, it is mistaken for what it is. It’s addictive for sure, but it’s not a rolleiflex.
The never ending search for the magical glass/look/optical rendering is actually quite simple: people are looking for the rolleiflex look, but in the Leica land. Folks want the medium format magic, but from a Leica.

-Rolleiflex: Pure poetry. Pure artistry. From the camera itself (a true, beautiful design), to the photographic output. Poetry.

Difficult to compete on the “portability” front, versus Leica, but he (and she) who has the guts to use a Rollei as an every day camera will be immensely rewarded by TRULY poetic images. Just by the optics: the richness, the feel. This is what Leica users are chasing without understanding; the ELUSIVE Leica look is the STANDARD Rolleiflex look.

—-

I Love all three systems and I’ve explained why, above. It takes a looooot of shooting and printing to assimilate cameras and lenses to this level. I’ve just finished printing 500 rolleixlex 10x10 prints of around the city, street stuff, and 1000 5x5 prints of everyday life with the kids, and I’ve had many revelations regarding each lens (planar, xenotar, xenar... ikoflex Novar, coated, non coated, Tessar...) during the process. Magical stuff. The Best? 3.5F planar and 2.8F Xenotar. Meaty images, just so full of meat. Juicy. Wet rendering, as opposed to Dry rendering with the Tessar on the ikoflex. And so on.

But while the 6000+ prints of my kids I’ve shot with the Leicas were, after all, normal, standard to my eyes, with bot much magic going on, the Rolleiflex stuff is magical from print to print. Yes, medium format plays a definitive role, but the whole Rolleiflex experience, with its slightly debilitating, yet addictive, quirks is a way of life, in the end.

This was my HIGHLY subjective opinion.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Rolleiflex rules is what.

…says someone who never had a Fuji GW or GSW 6x9 in his hands…

 

[NB23]

is that from the Seagull or the Rollei ?
it has that classic seagull look...

I’ve never used a seagull in my life... it has the Rolleiflex look.

 

[NB23]

…says someone who never had a Fuji GW or GSW 6x9 in his hands…

Yess!

I’m not a tester, not a blogger, just a dude with highly subjective opinions on a forum filled with other dudes.

I could not use GW, GSW cameras on a daily basis. It would make me quit photography altogether!

 

[warden]

Actually, I have 3 Photograohic passions: the Xpan, Rolleiflexes, Leicas. My problem is that I can shoot any format equally well. Going from Pano to square is easy to the point that I don’t even notice. I just frame.

I understand that for some people, square is impossible to work with, always needing to crop. And for others, the pano format is mind boggling. In my case, I work them all equally.

On trips, or important projects, whenever I mix my Leicas with the Xpan or a Rolleiflex, I end up not using the Leica.

How funny is that: my main camera always ends up being number two (or three) when there’s a Rollei or a Xpan around. Is it truly a main camera, after all?

-The Xpan is the greatest engineered film camera ever made. Too many things to mention but it all boils down to mind boggling Quality and technical prowesses in a tiny, powerhouse package.

Not for every day life, great for important trips, serious projects.

- Leica, every day use, best companion. Such a lovey toy/tool. Fondle action. Heanly mechanical feel, addictive.
The problem with Leica is that, truly, it is mistaken for what it is. It’s addictive for sure, but it’s not a rolleiflex.
The never ending search for the magical glass/look/optical rendering is actually quite simple: people are looking for the rolleiflex look, but in the Leica land. Folks want the medium format magic, but from a Leica.

-Rolleiflex: Pure poetry. Pure artistry. From the camera itself (a true, beautiful design), to the photographic output. Poetry.

Difficult to compete on the “portability” front, versus Leica, but he (and she) who has the guts to use a Rollei as an every day camera will be immensely rewarded by TRULY poetic images. Just by the optics: the richness, the feel. This is what Leica users are chasing without understanding; the ELUSIVE Leica look is the STANDARD Rolleiflex look.

—-

I Love all three systems and I’ve explained why, above. It takes a looooot of shooting and printing to assimilate cameras and lenses to this level. I’ve just finished printing 500 rolleixlex 10x10 prints of around the city, street stuff, and 1000 5x5 prints of everyday life with the kids, and I’ve had many revelations regarding each lens (planar, xenotar, xenar... ikoflex Novar, coated, non coated, Tessar...) during the process. Magical stuff. The Best? 3.5F planar and 2.8F Xenotar. Meaty images, just so full of meat. Juicy. Wet rendering, as opposed to Dry rendering with the Tessar on the ikoflex. And so on.

But while the 6000+ prints of my kids I’ve shot with the Leicas were, after all, normal, standard to my eyes, with bot much magic going on, the Rolleiflex stuff is magical from print to print. Yes, medium format plays a definitive role, but the whole Rolleiflex experience, with its slightly debilitating, yet addictive, quirks is a way of life, in the end.

This was my HIGHLY subjective opinion.

That was a quality love letter to all three formats. Nice. I'm glad you mentioned the size of the square prints as I was about to ask. I've found 7x7 to 10x10 or so to be great for hand holding.

 

[Cholentpot]

Actually, I have 3 Photograohic passions: the Xpan, Rolleiflexes, Leicas. My problem is that I can shoot any format equally well. Going from Pano to square is easy to the point that I don’t even notice. I just frame.

I understand that for some people, square is impossible to work with, always needing to crop. And for others, the pano format is mind boggling. In my case, I work them all equally.

On trips, or important projects, whenever I mix my Leicas with the Xpan or a Rolleiflex, I end up not using the Leica.

How funny is that: my main camera always ends up being number two (or three) when there’s a Rollei or a Xpan around. Is it truly a main camera, after all?

-The Xpan is the greatest engineered film camera ever made. Too many things to mention but it all boils down to mind boggling Quality and technical prowesses in a tiny, powerhouse package.

Not for every day life, great for important trips, serious projects.

- Leica, every day use, best companion. Such a lovey toy/tool. Fondle action. Heanly mechanical feel, addictive.
The problem with Leica is that, truly, it is mistaken for what it is. It’s addictive for sure, but it’s not a rolleiflex.
The never ending search for the magical glass/look/optical rendering is actually quite simple: people are looking for the rolleiflex look, but in the Leica land. Folks want the medium format magic, but from a Leica.

-Rolleiflex: Pure poetry. Pure artistry. From the camera itself (a true, beautiful design), to the photographic output. Poetry.

Difficult to compete on the “portability” front, versus Leica, but he (and she) who has the guts to use a Rollei as an every day camera will be immensely rewarded by TRULY poetic images. Just by the optics: the richness, the feel. This is what Leica users are chasing without understanding; the ELUSIVE Leica look is the STANDARD Rolleiflex look.

—-

I Love all three systems and I’ve explained why, above. It takes a looooot of shooting and printing to assimilate cameras and lenses to this level. I’ve just finished printing 500 rolleixlex 10x10 prints of around the city, street stuff, and 1000 5x5 prints of everyday life with the kids, and I’ve had many revelations regarding each lens (planar, xenotar, xenar... ikoflex Novar, coated, non coated, Tessar...) during the process. Magical stuff. The Best? 3.5F planar and 2.8F Xenotar. Meaty images, just so full of meat. Juicy. Wet rendering, as opposed to Dry rendering with the Tessar on the ikoflex. And so on.

But while the 6000+ prints of my kids I’ve shot with the Leicas were, after all, normal, standard to my eyes, with bot much magic going on, the Rolleiflex stuff is magical from print to print. Yes, medium format plays a definitive role, but the whole Rolleiflex experience, with its slightly debilitating, yet addictive, quirks is a way of life, in the end.

This was my HIGHLY subjective opinion.

$10.

 

[removed account4]

it has the Rolleiflex look

I didn't know rolleiflex images had a look. just like I didn't know xpan cameras had a look or leicas had a look...
I've used rollicords, yeshicas, Kodak reflexes, lubitels and other TLR cameras since IDK 1980 never had a xpan (sorry im not a camera fetishist ) but I have used a a Leica none have a look, they are just negatives made by cameras.
sorry for my confusion between a 120 6x6 negative and a "rolleiflex" negative.
still looks like a 120 6x6 negative to me, even though you say its something different... doesn't look wet or juicy either, no clue what that even means, just looks like a scan.

 

[NB23]

That was a quality love letter to all three formats. Nice. I'm glad you mentioned the size of the square prints as I was about to ask. I've found 7x7 to 10x10 or so to be great for hand holding.

if I may: where the Xpan is economical is at the printing stage. Cutting a 8x10 in half to 4x10 makes a box of 100 sheets become a box of 200 sheets. The 4x10 print size is every bit the equivalent of a 8x10 by a mix of illusion and tactile feel. Holding a 4x10 is like holding a 8x10 but with some extra eye candy and holding joy. Hard to explain until you hold a fine expan print in your hands.

About the square format, it is indeed a format that wastes a lot of paper in a frustrating way. Cutting a 8x10 to 8x8 doesn’t save anything. Especially for 5x5 prints, losing 2” off every 5x7 sheet is not a very interesting proposal. But I have found a way which made me save a lot of money: ilford long rolls.

For example, a 5”x250’ roll is the equivalent of 428 5x7 sheets, which would cost roughly 200$. Four boxes at 50$ each, or two boxes of 250 rc for 95$ each...

But magically, if you cut that roll into 5” sheets, you end up with 600 sheets, and the roll can be found for 100$ more or less.
There is a 50% discount to be had with the square format, just like with the Pano format.

 

[NB23]

I didn't know rolleiflex images had a look. just like I didn't know xpan cameras had a look or leicas had a look...
I've used rollicords, yeshicas, Kodak reflexes, lubitels and other TLR cameras since IDK 1980 never had a xpan (sorry im not a camera fetishist ) but I have used a a Leica none have a look, they are just negatives made by cameras.
sorry for my confusion between a 120 6x6 negative and a "rolleiflex" negative.
still looks like a 120 6x6 negative to me, even though you say its something different... doesn't look wet or juicy either, no clue what that even means, just looks like a scan.

You said it had a Seagull look.

And since there was a look, and it was shot with a rolleiflex, it had to have the Rolleiflex look. No other way about it

 

[NB23]

That was a quality love letter to all three formats. Nice. I'm glad you mentioned the size of the square prints as I was about to ask. I've found 7x7 to 10x10 or so to be great for hand holding.

I was lucky to have scored 5 boxes of ilford 10x10 on ebay a few years ago. Cheap, fresh, perfect timing.
A few years before that, I scored three boxes of 10x10 250 sheets ilfospeed #2 and #3 matte. Cheap cheap cheap. One of the finest papers I have ever used.

 

[Bill Burk]

Has anyone ever put a magnificent lens on a Rolleiflex Classic? I always loved its small size and light weight. But mine had a popcorn Tessar so I sent it away.

 

[removed account4]

You said it had a Seagull look.

yeah I did, I was pulling your chain, sorry to cause stress and consternation
it is a nice pictorial image. looking forward to the next!

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Has anyone ever put a magnificent lens on a Rolleiflex Classic? I always loved its small size and light weight. But mine had a popcorn Tessar so I sent it away.

Do you mean retrofit a different lens on to a Rolleiflex Classic? The Tessar lens: stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, will anyone really see a difference compared to a later Rolleiflex with a Planar or Xenotar? Really?

 

[warden]

if I may: where the Xpan is economical is at the printing stage. Cutting a 8x10 in half to 4x10 makes a box of 100 sheets become a box of 200 sheets. The 4x10 print size is every bit the equivalent of a 8x10 by a mix of illusion and tactile feel. Holding a 4x10 is like holding a 8x10 but with some extra eye candy and holding joy. Hard to explain until you hold a fine expan print in your hands.

About the square format, it is indeed a format that wastes a lot of paper in a frustrating way. Cutting a 8x10 to 8x8 doesn’t save anything. Especially for 5x5 prints, losing 2” off every 5x7 sheet is not a very interesting proposal. But I have found a way which made me save a lot of money: ilford long rolls.

For example, a 5”x250’ roll is the equivalent of 428 5x7 sheets, which would cost roughly 200$. Four boxes at 50$ each, or two boxes of 250 rc for 95$ each...

But magically, if you cut that roll into 5” sheets, you end up with 600 sheets, and the roll can be found for 100$ more or less.
There is a 50% discount to be had with the square format, just like with the Pano format.

It's a fair point about squares on 8x10. I align mine with the paper vertical so there are equal borders on the top three edges and leave the larger paper area underneath, and that's where I hold the prints. I've never tried an Xpan or similar format but the 4x10 printing idea is attractive.

 

[Vaughn]

…says someone who never had a Fuji GW or GSW 6x9 in his hands…

I have used the Fuji. Apples and oranges, granted, but the Fujis feel like toys in my hands compared to the Rolleis.

 

[warden]

I have used the Fuji. Apples and oranges, granted, but the Fujis feel like toys in my hands compared to the Rolleis.

Problem is that I want the GSW 6x9, the Rollei, the XPAN, etc etc. They're all toys, and good ones too!

 

[gone]

The TLR strap uses gravity only minimally. They're heavy cameras, so gravity pulls them down more than those puny 35mm whippersnappers, making it a more steady. The tripod effect happens when you firmly pull the camera downwards, tightening the strap around your neck (a hanging in reverse, if you will), while holding the camera against your stomach and planting your feet on the ground a moderate amount apart. It sounds like a lot to do, but it's done quite quickly, and you can handhold shots down to 1/15 or so.

For what it's worth, I usually got better shots from the 'cords than w/ the higher end TLR's. That's a great shot NB23. Odd weather you're having there in Los Angeles

 

[JPD]

I have sold most of my Rolleis, so at the moment I only have the:

Original Rolleiflex 3,8
Standard 4,5
Standard 3,8
Standard 3,5
Automat 1938
Automat 1939
3,5 B with Tessar
3,5 F Six element Planar

Rolleiflex 4x4 1938

Rolleicord I "Tapeten" 4,5
I, 3,8
II, type 1
II, type 4
II, type 5 Xenar
Ia, type 1
Ia, type 2
Ia, type 3

I don't need more.

 

[Neil Grant]

so tell us what you what, what you really really what. And please start making sense.

 

[Valerie]

This grandma agrees! Rolleis rock!

 

[Bill Burk]

Do you mean retrofit a different lens on to a Rolleiflex Classic? The Tessar lens: stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, will anyone really see a difference compared to a later Rolleiflex with a Planar or Xenotar? Really?

I think the original Tessar would be fine. But I don't think it's coated. Has anyone tried that?

 

[Huss]

…says someone who never had a Fuji GW or GSW 6x9 in his hands…

I've got both.

There's no comparison.