vdonovan
Vince Donovan
Sanders, your work is amazing. Just goes to show, it's the photographer, not the camera.
My own entry in the close portrait sweepstakes: (Bronica SQ-a, 150mm with extension tube):
My own entry in the close portrait sweepstakes: (Bronica SQ-a, 150mm with extension tube):
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Rollieflex.. just look at what Avedon did with the 80mm. Fabulous. Irving Penn did pretty good portraits with it as well.
Here, I prefer a little more distance with the subject. Thus I've got a 100mm Planar on my Hasselblad. I like the controls of the Hasselblad over the Rollie. The Rollie GX was light and rendered great images -- the glass superb. Since I could only afford one of these pricey cameras I decided to keep Hasselblad so I could have a two lens kit (100mm & 60mm).
Here, I prefer a little more distance with the subject. Thus I've got a 100mm Planar on my Hasselblad. I like the controls of the Hasselblad over the Rollie. The Rollie GX was light and rendered great images -- the glass superb. Since I could only afford one of these pricey cameras I decided to keep Hasselblad so I could have a two lens kit (100mm & 60mm).
robklurfield
eclipse
Sanders and Vince, beautiful work. Sanders, some very enthralling faces on your Flickr site. You certainly have a way of getting models to open up to you and leave their nervous behind. The studies of your wife certainly capture your muse.
historicist
Well-known
Both! I'd go for a SL66 or a Bronica S2 over a Hasselblad personally, the blad is very small and compact but apart from that I don't think it has a massive advantage over competing MF SLRs. I've never used an early Bronica but the price difference is huge and they can't be that much worse and have a similar classic look. The SL66 is a much better camera in all ways apart from size.
But the Rollei TLRs have a certain magic, and I think the Planar on the Rollei is a bit better than the one on the blad (though this might just be sample variation on the ones I had). Close focussing with Rolleinars is no problem (and they correct parallax too) and the camera is very small and light. Ergonomically it is a bit poorer than the SLRs, but not bad.
Probably the best way of choosing is to try them out and decide for yourself, a lot depends on personal preference.
But the Rollei TLRs have a certain magic, and I think the Planar on the Rollei is a bit better than the one on the blad (though this might just be sample variation on the ones I had). Close focussing with Rolleinars is no problem (and they correct parallax too) and the camera is very small and light. Ergonomically it is a bit poorer than the SLRs, but not bad.
Probably the best way of choosing is to try them out and decide for yourself, a lot depends on personal preference.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I shoot the really tight headshots with a
Tele Rolleiflex with two stacked Rolleinars
-- the 0.35 Tele Rolleinar on the camera,
and a regular Bay III Rolleinar 1 on top
of that. It works.
I shoot most everything else with a
Rolleiflex 2.8C, with a 0.70 Tele Rolleinar
always mounted on front of it. The
0.70 Tele Rolleinar isn't as strong as a
regular Rolleinar 1, and it allows a
pretty tight focus when necessary.
ChrisN
Striving
Jay, Vince and Sanders - great photos to illustrate your points - thanks.
Jay Decker
Meat Robot
You bring up a good aesthetic consideration here. As a personal aesthetic preference, I tend to prefer tight portraits ("head shots") that are taken with a little more distance between the subject and the camera. The advantage to having a greater distance is that the perspective is more "normal" and less like a close-up where the facial features can appear distorted or out of proportion, e.g., large nose. I finished a roll of tight portraits using 135mm, 180mm, and 250mm lenses that I am eager to develop and evaluate any aesthetic differences between the lenses.
That said, it is less important to have longer focal length glass and to maintain subject to camera distance as your film format size increases. As the film size increases the image size compression onto the film is less. If you went to 8x10 film size, a tight head shot is essentially a macro photo on 8x10 film.
edodo
Well-known
I love high definition tight head shot because I can't reach that level of definition with my leica M4+nikkor 85mm that is achievable with a tele rollei or a 150mm on blad! Anyway my nikkor is f2.0 while the others are F3.5/F4. So in my case I cannot justify going the tele rollei way just for the extra glamorous and so magical tight MF portrait!
Going the Flex way or the Blad way is a question of funds imho, I heard blad are way easier to knock and get a CLA, while the rolleiflex are tanks.
Going the Flex way or the Blad way is a question of funds imho, I heard blad are way easier to knock and get a CLA, while the rolleiflex are tanks.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Personally I loathe TLRs because of the handling. Hasselblad + 80mm is a lovely package but any other lens makes it too heavy and bulky for my taste, at least once it's off the tripod. For results and versatility, it's a Linhof Technika every time. Or (if you can sacrifice some versatility), an Alpa, though that's serious money. But I'd not consider the vast majority of folders (especially with Tessars) because so few of them are sharp. I love f/6.3 Tessars. Anything faster is an unacceptable compromise in my book.
For large head portraits, either a Leica with 90mm (Summicron or Thambar, for completely different looks) or 8x10 inch De Vere with 21 inch f/7.7 Ross.
The only reason for this post is to point out that there are lots of other options and opinions.
Tashi delek,
R.
For large head portraits, either a Leica with 90mm (Summicron or Thambar, for completely different looks) or 8x10 inch De Vere with 21 inch f/7.7 Ross.
The only reason for this post is to point out that there are lots of other options and opinions.
Tashi delek,
R.