Is Rolleiflex wise choice as a graduation present?

I'd go for the Rollei. Although I use digital for my professional work I use solely film for my personal work. A gift to myself will always be a film camera. Digital just doesn't give me the same fun and emotion as a good film camera does.
Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
The Rolleiflex makes no sense, so I'd say get it. That's what graduation gifts are for. Despite what some claim, medium format color is definitely worth it.

I have one myself, and it loves Portra.

martin
 
mfogiel said:
It is the same old story. You can scan MF on a flatbed - the results will be about the same as scanning photos from your Minolta on a dedicated film scanner, and the hassle of MF is immensely bigger than shooting 35mm. I doubt there are any good and reasonably priced labs in the whole of Eastern Europe - they are either totally crap or professional and more expensive than in the west. I would also advise against buying any digital camera second hand - these cameras are worth as much as their warranty, when it is over, you risk that the cost of a major repair will be almost as big as buying a new body. BTW no matter which Minolta you have it is nothing nearly as durable and beautiful as a Leica M. If you lenses are compatible with the Sony cameras, you could buy yourself one of the Sony Alphas.
Click to expand...

I like the M2 as a gift too, but different from the Rollei/medium format.

First and foremost, the big change from what he is using now is the waist-level finder - different perspective leads to different photos. I think this is even seen in your photos above - the two MF shots look to be done from roughly waist level, the 35mm/digital from eye level (both for a roughly average height person). While the photographer can compensate, in my experience, most don't (or at least not without thinking about it). Personally I also notice a big difference in the reaction of subjects between a camera held to the eye (which they feel is 'aimed' at them) compared to a waist level, which subjects either ignore or react out of mild, bemused interest.

This change in perspective is a useful thing for a photographer. At any rate, nice complement to 35mm.

Biggest difference quality wise is tonality and grain visible. Arguable, but I don't think you necessarily need a fantastic scanner for this. (And you can always get an optical print which will show the difference). I can see difference in the amount of grain in your photos above (in the B&W anyway). Tonality will depend and probably not visible in web photo but I frequently notice the difference, especially in larger prints. At 400 iso, B&W 120 (especially C41 process) shows really modest grain at good-sized enlargements; in contrast, I find grain gets intrusive on 35mm fairly quickly - but this is a personal taste/type of photography thing.

As for processing, I find the C41-process black and white films are relatively easily processed in commercial shops with decent quality. Traditional B&W really depends a lot on a zillion variables, right down to the person doing the processing and his mood that day, so you really need a good shop (and very hard to find) unless you're doing it yourself.

I'm in Eastern Europe and find it easier to get 120 film processed than in North America. Depends on city though and I don't know about Macedonia.

At any rate, the 'gift to yourself' depends much more on the person; I don't think he can go wrong if what he wants to try is a Rollei. Worst case, ends up selling it later for not much loss.
 
Fellas,

I think that I will go for the Rolleiflex 3.5E with Planar lens. I believe that I will see big difference in quality and in shooting than my 35mm Minoltas.
Since the price for Rolleiflexes pretty dropped, it's a shame to look for some other cheaper TLR's like Yashica, Minolta and others. I got some fair price i think, the cmera is pretty clean and it would be a memorable present to me :) (One thing i dislike is that I can't see and touch the camera with own hands, and buying a half century old camera on 'blind' isn't the wisest thing, but that's that).


The meter on the camera isn't precise, a thing that I don't like at all, but maybe a digital cam in my pocket will do the job well, or maybe I should look for some simple lightmeter as well?

I will get some slides along the way and also will get bunch of T-max 400 films.
 
Last edited:
Great choice.
The meter is a selenium meter which wears out over time. If it is accurate you're lucky. You'd better buy a meter if it's not.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
Last month my wife and I went on an Alaska cruise that departed from Seattle. I stopped by the local camera store (Glazer's) and they had a used 3.5f for sale. Checked it out and snatched it up. I used it along with my 5D for the trip and it work like a champ. I usually never trust the built meter but after a comparing it with my Digisix meter the Rollei's meter seemed to be pretty accurate. So I used the meter for a bunch of shots and the all came out fine, so I was lucky that it worked.

I now have three Rolleis, a Minolta Autocord and a Mamiya C330. I love these old TLRs and they are great fun to shoot with. I hope your new Rollei gives you many years of enjoyment!
 
Are you looking for a present which will expose you to something new (and something you might not otherwise try) or something that will be more of a wider scope functional tool?

Don't get me wrong here, the Rollei can absolutely be a professional tool but is relatively niche compared to a high end, modern film SLR. And I say this as someone who loves TLRs and rangefinders. Each would give you something completely different.

The other way to look at it - you could pick up a slightly more entry level TLR much cheaper (and invest in something higher end down the road if you like what you get from it). If you haven't already, I'd suggest picking up a cheap TLR before making the decision if nothing else. Everyone should try one some time. :)
 
Naumoski said:
(I live in Macedonia so the choice for getting a MF camera is very tiny, the rollei is the best MF I've found fore sell to date, so I'm looking in other RF/SLR/TLR medium format cameras too)
Click to expand...

Of course the Rolleiflex would be a more memorable one between the two, but you also need to consider the consumables.

Are 120 films and development commonly available in your city/town?

If you're going to develop yourself and/or darkroom print, are photo-chemicals easy to get?

Having said that, just with one Rolleiflex, you can find more about yourself and grow in B&W photography. A pursuit that can last a lifetime. It is both timeless and very rewarding, especially when you get to darkroom printing.
 
Brian,

I choosed to get a Rolleiflex because is most reliable of all old tlr's, and because I can't buy this kin of cameras in Macedonia, so I can't see them in 'live', (the rollei is from a buyer in Serbia, so it's close). In fact at first I was looking in cheaper TLR'S like Minolta autocord (since I have 2 minoltas and i like the rokkors, and it's a great tlr as well), Yashica etc (but I coudn't finde any of them).. but this Rollei came up to be in a great shape and in really working condition.
 
The photolab develop black and white film, negative and slide, 35mm and 120mm, and scanm them as well. If I use the rollei more and more I'll consider buying a scanner. Also if I photograph black and white more in 35 and 120mm I'll try to develop myself, I can find some chemicals.

A friend of mine shoots MF too and I'll get from him t-max 400 expired films (they are great in 35mm).



shadowfox said:
Of course the Rolleiflex would be a more memorable one between the two, but you also need to consider the consumables.

Are 120 films and development commonly available in your city/town?

If you're going to develop yourself and/or darkroom print, are photo-chemicals easy to get?

Having said that, just with one Rolleiflex, you can find more about yourself and grow in B&W photography. A pursuit that can last a lifetime. It is both timeless and very rewarding, especially when you get to darkroom printing.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nothing new to add. But i think you are making a good choice. Rollei is my first serious film camera and the one that stays despite the different equipment i buy and sell along the way. So far I have only scanned using flatbed scanner as i do not have a need for better quality yet. Later if I ever get to have my own dark room i am sure i will enjoy seeing the negatives from Rollei and wet print them.
 
The Rollei will take great shots and be beautiful in 10 years sitting on your shelf. The 5D will never have that appeal. It is simply a tool.
 
I bought an SLR camera to reward myself when I left university. I spent days agonising over whether to get the latest Nikon or Canon. That was in 1985. I can't remember which one I got in the end - it took nice pictures, but is long gone and forgotten. Last week I bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F and I am really impressed with it. It suits my style - slower and considered. However, if I was graduating now I would probably get a digital SLR, as I remember wanting something that was flexible and convenient.
How about a compromise - get a Rolleicord (much cheaper than a Rolleiflex, and almost as good in performance) first, to see if MF is your style?
 
I had idea to borrow a TLR first, but i can't find one in my town but in the capital city where I found 2-3 people who can let me try their cameras and run a film through them. I have held in my hands Kiev 88 once and the handling and seeing reversable was kinda tricky, I think I'll adjust to it, like I did to focusing using my first rangefinder - it's still tricky indeed, but I'am enough fast with it.

I'm still in negotiations with myself about choosing the rollei. I think that I'll like it for outdoor portraits where working can be slow and setting everything correctly (speed, focus, metering). Personaly I don't shoot very much often (like everyday or so).

mutikonka said:
I bought an SLR camera to reward myself when I left university. I spent days agonising over whether to get the latest Nikon or Canon. That was in 1985. I can't remember which one I got in the end - it took nice pictures, but is long gone and forgotten. Last week I bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F and I am really impressed with it. It suits my style - slower and considered. However, if I was graduating now I would probably get a digital SLR, as I remember wanting something that was flexible and convenient.
How about a compromise - get a Rolleicord (much cheaper than a Rolleiflex, and almost as good in performance) first, to see if MF is your style?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom