Sad Rolleiflex parody

Dogman said:
Just speculatin' here but maybe they consider the FX-N as a variation of the original 2.8F.
Click to expand...

The FX-N was built on the Rolleicord chassis because the Rolleiflex chassis dies, etc, had been destroyed long before.

I don't see this new effort as parody. I see it as homage. :rolleyes:

And, frankly, I'd love to have one to make photographs with. But I don't want to buy into yet another instant film format, not right now anyway. I already have four instant film formats to play with.

G
 
olo530 said:
It reminds me of the final scene of Six-String Samurai, where the boy picks up the sword and guitar of the fallen samurai. Sure, the boy cannot play or fight, but in this decaying world he saw something honest and beautiful and he is inspired to carry the flame.
The original Rolleiflex is dead. And MiNT cameras are crap in comparison. But they want to make better instant cameras when no one else seems to care about quality anymore. That’s why, in my opinion, they deserve to keep the name. Not for what they are now, but for what they aspire to be.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Rollei can make all the expensive and high end Rolleis they want but there's a reason they went out of business 2 years ago.

I've used the TL70 and while it's no Rolleiflex (pun intended), it is quite a capable machine and bring the TLR experience to the next generation... who has the interest and disposable income to make it a viable enterprise.

My personal beef though is... why Instax mini? Would love to see this work with Instax Wide or Instax Square.
 
Godfrey said:
The FX-N was built on the Rolleicord chassis because the Rolleiflex chassis dies, etc, had been destroyed long before.
Click to expand...

"Rolleiflex chassis"* notwithstanding, I'd take the GX or even FX over the F series 101 times out of 100. The F series seems to be a full-employment act for repairpeople; the GX and FX are somewhat less smooth, but it's very hard to argue with Seiko shutters, modern coatings and non-separating glass, easier focusing screens and TTL metering.

Dante
 
I don't get why it can't have f11?


I wouldn't mind someone doing a tlr with proper controls but a digital back.

Though, of course, I couldn't afford one.
 
Just shoot me for this, but from all tests I've seen (ex. Youtube), that camera outperforms any other instant camera that uses film in production today. Unlike pretty much all competitors, it features full manual controls and enables very shallow DOF. Personally, I feel this is more of an apple-to-apple comparison than comparing it to a Rolleiflex, despite its look. Still, would I buy it? Nope.
 
There's a Rf70 for Instax wide film. It's also from Mint.

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/02/09/mint-instantkon-rf70-shoots-instax-wide/

dugrant153 said:
Agreed. Rollei can make all the expensive and high end Rolleis they want but there's a reason they went out of business 2 years ago.

I've used the TL70 and while it's no Rolleiflex (pun intended), it is quite a capable machine and bring the TLR experience to the next generation... who has the interest and disposable income to make it a viable enterprise.

My personal beef though is... why Instax mini? Would love to see this work with Instax Wide or Instax Square.
Click to expand...
 
Wait a minute. Weren't they spelling it Rolleflex in the original posting? I see it's spelled Rolleiflex now. Did I miss something, or is it just another senior moment?
 
Nah, it's not a parody, it's an homage. And as others have said, it does seem to give better quality pics than other Instax Mini cameras.

My favourite thing about the Kickstarter is the stretch goal...

$25,000 funded

$65,000 stretch goal for a LENS CAP!

That's one expensive lens cap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom