Debusti Paolo
Well-known
I agree with Dexter: you'd try a bronica rf645!😀
http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/
Here's a link to my favorite that the buyer
has scanned and posted online so far:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YUrw6ooCZj4/Sias55SapUI/AAAAAAAAAOg/7wSlLLIwb0g/s1600-h/A36.jpg
Sanders
The Rollei's are a little weird to handle because they are 'two handed', focus with one hand, expose and advance film with the other. The two wheels for speed/aperture is also a little odd. I use to have a friend who loved to make fun of the Rollei's because they were so 'un-ergonomic'.
I wonder if it is just the Rolleiflex itself as well. As I have posted before, I used to have a yashica 124 MAT G that I really enjoyed using. I got a Super Press 23 to replace it and later acquired a Rolleiflex. I never really cottened to it. I always thought it was because of having the 6x7 Super Press. But maybe not. I kind of enjoy using my Welta Perfekta, but that is probably because it is kind of retro. I just don't think I enjoy the 6x6 negative size as much. That may be just me, and not the OP's concern.
I seem to have either wasted space or a lot of clutter in pictures taken in the square format. I know I can crop, but why??? I will keep plugging away and try to learn how to use the camera and its square results.
I think MF cameras generally are harder to get used to than your average 35mm rangefinder or SLR. It's a different style of photography ... maybe it's just not you?
It's far too easy to see images on this forum that make you go 'wow' and start convincing yourself that you need an MF camera. My first real experience wih MF was with an Iskra ... I was amazed at what a pain in the arse piece of crap it was compared to my 35mm gear. Then I got an RF645 and realised it didn't actually need to be that difficult! 😛
Hi Keith, You may be right that MF isn't a good format for me, but I'd like to give it a fair shake and keep working at it a while. I've looked at a the RF645 but they are out of my price range, so it's the Rollei or nothing for now....
I find looking down at that 6x6 screen in the waist level viewfinder fascinating. Aside from the reversal of the image, you're actually looking at the photograph you're about to take before you take it ... a good composition can leap out at you occasionally. It's not the same with an SLR and a rangefinder shows you nothing really! 😛
I'm afraid it would sit unused as I find my Hexar AF so simple to use, and I love the pictures it makes. The Rollei takes great pictures too, but I really don't need the big neg as I rarely print larger than 8 X 10. It was a knee jerk purchase cause it looked so darn nice...... I'm thinking my Hexar and a CLE would satisfy all my needs for quite some time.....
There is a long tradition of
amateurs shooting Rolleiflexes, from the
likes of Eudora Welty (known for her pen,
not her Rolleiflex) down through the decades
to today -- an unknown Chicago woman,
Vivian Maier, died earlier this year. The
buyer of her storage locker contents found
a trove of 40,000 negatives, and thousands
of undeveloped rolls, of street photography
she shot as a young Jewish emigré in Chicago
in the 1950s -- all shot with a Rolleiflex:
http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/
Here's a link to my favorite that the buyer
has scanned and posted online so far:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YUrw6ooCZj4/Sias55SapUI/AAAAAAAAAOg/7wSlLLIwb0g/s1600-h/A36.jpg
Somehow, it would not have carried the same
impact if it had been a Nikon or a Pentax.
Sanders