Rollei TLR

[Dan Daniel]

Shot with Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar. Scanned with an Epson V700, inkjet printed by tiles. Quite clean in real life-

https://dandaniel.zenfolio.com/p518027120/e696dbdcb]

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I am hoping to produce some 16 x 20 prints.
My issues are ; will my negatives be capable of it and will my enlarger, see other posts, allow it.

A 16x20 print is roughly the same enlargement for a medium format negative as an 8x10 print is for a 35mm negative — well within the limits of the medium. Most any medium format camera with a decent lens will give you that ability.

 

[guangong]

I do as well. I can pull off a one-second handheld exposure with a Rolleiflex. The weight and form factor make it quite stable balanced in the palm of your hand. And you can add some stability by pulling the Rollei down, taut against the neckstrap. With a little practice, you become a human tripod.

Right on! The Rollei was built for hand held photography. Same holds for Hasselblad except that reflex mirror doesn’t allow for shutter speeds as slow as Rollei, although ergonomics of both is way better than others in their respective camera types.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Right on! The Rollei was built for hand held photography. Same holds for Hasselblad except that reflex mirror doesn’t allow for shutter speeds as slow as Rollei, although ergonomics of both is way better than others in their respective camera types.

I have both and if I had to keep just one it would be the Hasselblad hands down. I love my Rollei cameras, but the old 500C I have has just as good of image quality and many different focal lengths. The Rollei shines for being silent, well almost silent anyway, and with the waist level viewing your subject can be captured without knowing it. The Hasselblad is just as silent, almost, but that can only be accomplished by locking the mirror up, which then blacks out everything, including your subject. And locking the mirror up action on the 'blad is much louder than the shutter itself going off. All in all, you can't go wrong with either, and I think I'll just keep both as different tools for different jobs.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I have both and if I had to keep just one it would be the Hasselblad hands down. I love my Rollei cameras, but the old 500C I have has just as good of image quality and many different focal lengths. The Rollei shines for being silent, well almost silent anyway, and with the waist level viewing your subject can be captured without knowing it. The Hasselblad is just as silent, almost, but that can only be accomplished by locking the mirror up, which then blacks out everything, including your subject. And locking the mirror up action on the 'blad is much louder than the shutter itself going off. All in all, you can't go wrong with either, and I think I'll just keep both as different tools for different jobs.

They are very different tools but I would never ever try to pull off a one-second exposure handheld with the Hasselblad. The lens weight throws off the balance, and the mirror shake is huge. And if you’re trying not to attract attention, the WHOMP of the mirror kinda makes that difficult.

The divide between Hasselblad owners and Rolleiflex owners is as vast a chasm as the one separating Texas from New York. I find the Hasselblad much too finicky, too many parts, temperamental film backs, too many lenses, too bulky and unbalanced. A Hasselblad owner will tell me the Rolleiflex is unduly limited by one lens and the inability to change films in mid roll. I see the single lens as a virtue, and I thank the Almighty I can waste a few frames of a roll by switching out films mid roll if need be without going bankrupt.

 

[John Wiegerink]

They are very different tools but I would never ever try to pull off a one-second exposure handheld with the Hasselblad. The lens weight throws off the balance, and the mirror shake is huge. And if you’re trying not to attract attention, the WHOMP of the mirror kinda makes that difficult.

The divide between Hasselblad owners and Rolleiflex owners is as vast a chasm as the one separating Texas from New York. I find the Hasselblad much too finicky, too many parts, temperamental film backs, too many lenses, too bulky and unbalanced. A Hasselblad owner will tell me the Rolleiflex is unduly limited by one lens and the inability to change films in mid roll. I see the single lens as a virtue, and I thank the Almighty I can waste a few frames of a roll by switching out films mid roll if need be without going bankrupt.

What you say is very true, and you will get no argument out of me. Each has its place for me, and I plan on keeping both. Like I said earlier, just different tools. I'm very thankful that I had a Hasselblad (and one backup body) and many backs when I was shooting weddings. Now, could I have shot weddings with my 2.8C or the 3.5F? Yes, of course I could, but that Hasselblad made life as a wedding photographer much, much easier, that's a fact. Oh, and my first medium format SLR for weddings was a Bronica S2A. A really fine camera, but if you want to talk about loud mirror slap, this one wins hands down. Nobody slept in the church pews when I used the Bronica for weddings. We are very lucky as non -professionals to be able to afford cameras like this nowadays. Only pro's could buy this type of equipment when I was a kid. Well, doctors, lawyers, dentist and such also.

 

[VinceInMT]

I bought my Rolleicord VB in 1975 for $152.55 when I was stationed in Germany. It has a Schneider lens. I still use it, a lot. I’ve done quite a few 16x20 enlargements and am satisfied with the results. I use a Beseler enlarger with a Schneider lens. Some of my recent additions to the Gallery here where shot with that camera.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Now, could I have shot weddings with my 2.8C or the 3.5F?

Don’t be a masochist.

 

[craigclu]

I don't currently have a Rollei TLR but had most every iteration some years back. Wides, Planars, Xenars, Tele, etc.... I happened to be reviewing a stack of old 11X14's recently and would challenge anyone to pick which Rollei each came from. I settled into using an MXV the most as the EV system became second nature with an old L-398 meter I had. Hair-splitting between these good optics (especially hand-held) will yield little advantage in your decision, in my opinion.

 

[Steven Lee]

They are very different tools but I would never ever try to pull off a one-second exposure handheld with the Hasselblad. The lens weight throws off the balance, and the mirror shake is huge. And if you’re trying not to attract attention, the WHOMP of the mirror kinda makes that difficult.

Don't forget the auxiliary shutter also known as "barn doors", that's another moving part. Hasselblads generate a lot of drama during shutter release. A TLR easily offers handheld shooting at one stop slower shutter speed with similar results. Maybe even two stops on a good day. But pulling off one-second exposures is an exaggeration, of course. Personally, I don't go lower than 1/60s on my Rollei, and 1/100s on my Hassy.

I find the Hasselblad much too finicky, too many parts, temperamental film backs, too many lenses, too bulky and unbalanced. A Hasselblad owner will tell me the Rolleiflex is unduly limited by one lens and the inability to change films in mid roll.

Your criticism is not of the system but for how it can be used. Don't change lenses and don't swap backs. And suddenly nothing is finicky, film backs will last decades, there is only one lens, and nothing is temperamental. Basically you get a Rollei-like simplicity. Moreover, a Hassy doesn't require the front standard alignment like Rolleis sometimes do, in that sense they are actually simpler: just a metal cage with a rigidly attached lens. I will give the Hasselblad the nod for ergonomics too. The fact that Rolleis need to be hot-potatoed from one hand to another between focusing and exposure is a major WTF of their design.

I also dislike how Rolleis are loaded: you have to take the camera off a tripod, you better sit down because the back door gets in the way, better watch out for not poking fingers into the lens, the entire process is quite awkward. A film back, even if you only have one, is better because a film insert allows for reloading without touching the camera. This is much faster in the field.

But if a 80mm FOV is all I needed, I would pick a Rolleiflex simply because it's smaller.

 

[jp498]

Glad to see the idea of great 1s exposure as BS....Effectively needing both hands to operate the camera doesn't detract from it's simplicity; sort of like you need two hands to use a bat or golf club; it makes the hands and arms work together to steady and aim the camera.

Yes, loading the camera is not graceful. But I'm used to it, and not spoiled by other MF systems with backs.
I get the old film out first and put away, then move the reel over, and only then ready a new roll. Not trying to juggle too many things makes it manageable. If I were photographing some important event where the show must go on, I would likely have a 2nd Rollei ready to go. Just like I wouldn't be needlessly changing lenses on a Hasselblad or DSLR under the same constraints.

 

[GregY]

I've had a few Rolleis including a 2.8F over the years, as well as a Mamiya C330. My current Rolleiflex T ('58) bought for not much on Ebay, Maxwell screen & Harry Fleenor once over .....& the Tessar has made it my favourite.
(still wet print, 20"x20,".....Foma Variant lll... film was Pan F)[/img][/url]

 

[Rolleiflexible]

pulling off one-second exposures is an exaggeration, of course. Personally, I don't go lower than 1/60s on my Rollei, and 1/100s on my Hassy.

Glad to see the idea of great 1s exposure as BS..

Your inexperience is showing.

I routinely shoot handheld at slow shutters. Before calling BS, maybe you should try to teach yourself how to use a camera handheld at slow shutters. You must be mindful of your breathing. Use a shutter release cable. Hold the camera taut against the neck strap, if possible. Exhale. Then push the cable button.

I'm attaching a photo I made of my wife Melanie in Sainte-Chapelle in Paris, using a 1930s Voigtlander Superb TLR -- a one-second exposure wide open at f/3.5. The focus at the focal plane is a touch soft because it's an uncoated Heliar lens in difficult light, shot wide open. And in part because it's a one-second exposure of a living human being. But I can shoot long exposures like this any time. Shelve your presumptions, and you can too.

You could never do this with a Hasselblad. (Or at least I can't.)

PS -- Thanks to David Goldfarb for selling me the Superb ages ago. What a camera!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

While it's easy to shoot long exposures handheld with a Rolleiflex, you can do it with any camera that doesn't shake when you fire it off. I do it a lot with landscapes shot with a mirrorless Sony A7 -- sometimes because of fading light, and sometimes because you need a longer exposure for water. The attached is a handheld 1.6-second exposure from the A7, 20mm Nikkor-UD lens, probably at f/11. It is tack-sharp.

I'm not trying to brag here. This is a skill that should be learned by any serious photographer. It drives me nuts to see people online presuming that a skill is not possible, when in fact it is a simple thing to master.

EDIT: I felt guilty posting a naked digital file on Photrio, so I am also attaching a scan of the platinum-toned kallitype I made from the file as penance for the transgression.

 

[MattKing]

EDIT: I felt guilty posting a naked digital file on Photrio, so I am also attaching a scan of the platinum-toned kallitype I made from the file as penance for the transgression.

Don't worry - files from scanned film have never been cause for guilt here - even when it was referred to as APUG. So your penance will show as a credit in your Photrio transgression account

 

[guangong]

I have both and if I had to keep just one it would be the Hasselblad hands down. I love my Rollei cameras, but the old 500C I have has just as good of image quality and many different focal lengths. The Rollei shines for being silent, well almost silent anyway, and with the waist level viewing your subject can be captured without knowing it. The Hasselblad is just as silent, almost, but that can only be accomplished by locking the mirror up, which then blacks out everything, including your subject. And locking the mirror up action on the 'blad is much louder than the shutter itself going off. All in all, you can't go wrong with either, and I think I'll just keep both as different tools for different jobs.

Well said. I have and use both cameras. Each owes is status as best in class due to compactness, reliability, and ergonomics. I have never known of owners of one of these brands disparaging the other...new to me.

 

[guangong]

I’ve taken pictures of black&white printed text with my little Rollei 35 at 1/4 sec and enlarged only a small portion of negative with no evidence of camera shake. Tripping a camera shutter requires the same qualities as shooting a rifle or pistol...calmness and being totally relaxed without tension.

 

[ic-racer]

While it's easy to shoot long exposures handheld with a Rolleiflex, you can do it with any camera that doesn't shake when you fire it off. I do it a lot with landscapes shot with a mirrorless Sony A7 -

"First and foremost, there’s the new built-in 5 axis sensor-shift stabilization which is an industry-first for a full frame 35mm camera. Usually stabilization is built into some photo lenses, but here it’s built into the Sony A7II body."

??

 

[Rolleiflexible]

??

I got the A7 so I could shoot old lenses on a full-frame digital body -- here, a 1968 20mm Nikkor-UD lens. I use aperture priority and let the camera set the exposure time (which is why the EXIF shows 1.6 seconds) but otherwise use the camera strictly in manual mode. There is in-body image stabilization but it relies on lens data received from the mounted lens, which it cannot get from a 1968 Nikkor. (Or any of my other lenses.) You can get some limited assist if you dial in the lens data manually, but I've never felt the need for it so I never turned it on.

The Nikkor is a big hefty thing but mass helps to stabilize the camera for long exposures. I balance the camera by cradling the lens body, and brace my elbow against my torso to steady it for the exposure. It's a different technique from the Rolleiflex but it works just as well in practice. As Guangong said, these are habits well-known to marksmen and archers.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Rolleiflexible You are not changing my mind on what an acceptable handholdable shutter speed is, but your wife's portrait certainly makes a strong case for sharpness isn't being everything. Well done.

 

[ic-racer]

I got the A7 so I could shoot old lenses on a full-frame digital body -- here, a 1968 20mm Nikkor-UD lens. I use aperture priority and let the camera set the exposure time (which is why the EXIF shows 1.6 seconds) but otherwise use the camera strictly in manual mode. There is in-body image stabilization but it relies on lens data received from the mounted lens, which it cannot get from a 1968 Nikkor. (Or any of my other lenses.) You can get some limited assist if you dial in the lens data manually, but I've never felt the need for it so I never turned it on.

The Nikkor is a big hefty thing but mass helps to stabilize the camera for long exposures. I balance the camera by cradling the lens body, and brace my elbow against my torso to steady it for the exposure. It's a different technique from the Rolleiflex but it works just as well in practice. As Guangong said, these are habits well-known to marksmen and archers.

I had recently been looking into image stabilization for film cameras. VR Nikkor lenses and gyros to do this sort of thing.

I Want a Stabilization Gyro for Christmas...

For the person that has just about everything. What is lighter than a larger tripod? Maybe a Gyro. I think one of these would be great on the bottom of a 6x9cm or 4x5in camera. One issue I have with large format is that I'm sometimes not fast enough. Large format requires the most speed of...

www.photrio.com

When I learned about that Sony, I thought if Contax can make an autofocus camera by moving the film plane, could a film camera have image stabilization at the film plane too?

Oh, yes...No, my wife did not get the Gyro for me

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Oh, yes...No, my wife did not get the Gyro for me

Mmmmm shawarma.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

@Rolleiflexible You are not changing my mind on what an acceptable handholdable shutter speed is, but your wife's portrait certainly makes a strong case for sharpness isn't being everything. Well done.

Steven, thank you. It's not important for me to change your mind. It is important to make it clear to other readers that it is possible (and easy, with practice) to make longer exposures without a tripod. Otherwise the post repeats a fallacy that may lead others to limit the photos they make.

 

[John Wiegerink]

When I was in my 20's I could get very decent 1 sec exposures even with a 35mm slr, but at 73 and hand tremors those long handheld exposures are a thing of the past. Now, it's light carbon fiber monopod and tripods for that.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

When I was in my 20's I could get very decent 1 sec exposures even with a 35mm slr, but at 73 and hand tremors those long handheld exposures are a thing of the past. Now, it's light carbon fiber monopod and tripods for that.

I can still manage it at 65. But I know my days are numbered. Strangely, a monopod makes it worse for me. And I'm too lazy to haul a tripod around most days.