joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Rolleicords have better parallax correction than the Mamiyas (I own Rolleicord V and Mamiya c330f). Rolleis only focus to 0.9m - no exposure compensation required. The key advantages of the Mamiya are the exchangeable lens and the close-up capabilities. Other than this, the weight of the Mamiya is a hindrance for me - more of a tripod affair. Since I have the Rollei the Mamiya is in semi-retirement.
jeanba3000
squareLover
I agree with Joachim: if you closely look at the Rolleiflex finder (F or GX), you'll remark that it is parallax corrected, the frame itself around the focusing screen goes up and down according to the focusing knob action. On the Mamiya you have a red cursor that gives you the corrected top of the framing but not the bottom.
On the F, you also have a clever moving depth of field indicator on the focusing knob, coupled with the aperture knob action.
With the automatic film loading and all its features, the F definitely is a state of the art of cleverness. I love mine and won't trade it for a GX. Even the last FX is cheaper built.
The F's old light meter generally is dead or not very accurate. Mine is usable with tolerating negative color or black film in average day light… I usually use a tiny Gossen Digisix handheld light meter
Lenses are mono coated, the difference will be sensible only with direct sun in front (flare), but the color accuracy won't be different from a MC lens. Use a lens hood and avoid direct sun exposition and it will be great and contrasty.
If the focusing screen has not been changed for a more modern and brighter one, you might find it a little dark.
The GX has got for him a modern light meter with LEDs in the finder and TTL flash control (for Metz or Quantum flash), multi-coadted lenses and a modern clear focusing screen (same as the 6008 Pro, not as bright as the 6008 Integral's HD-screen).
The most important thing, for every TLR camera, is that the front lens board or the back with the film pressure plate haven't received any shock that would deform them and misplace the focusing planes of each lens, causing inaccurate focusing between the finder's screen and the film plane, ruining any effort of precise focusing and sharpness.
On the F, you also have a clever moving depth of field indicator on the focusing knob, coupled with the aperture knob action.
With the automatic film loading and all its features, the F definitely is a state of the art of cleverness. I love mine and won't trade it for a GX. Even the last FX is cheaper built.
The F's old light meter generally is dead or not very accurate. Mine is usable with tolerating negative color or black film in average day light… I usually use a tiny Gossen Digisix handheld light meter
Lenses are mono coated, the difference will be sensible only with direct sun in front (flare), but the color accuracy won't be different from a MC lens. Use a lens hood and avoid direct sun exposition and it will be great and contrasty.
If the focusing screen has not been changed for a more modern and brighter one, you might find it a little dark.
The GX has got for him a modern light meter with LEDs in the finder and TTL flash control (for Metz or Quantum flash), multi-coadted lenses and a modern clear focusing screen (same as the 6008 Pro, not as bright as the 6008 Integral's HD-screen).
The most important thing, for every TLR camera, is that the front lens board or the back with the film pressure plate haven't received any shock that would deform them and misplace the focusing planes of each lens, causing inaccurate focusing between the finder's screen and the film plane, ruining any effort of precise focusing and sharpness.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
rlouzan
Well-known
I totally agree with Roger + the Rolleiflex 3.5F is much quieter than the 2.8F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS: Hand Made Leather Camera Straps
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...2/limit/recent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS: Hand Made Leather Camera Straps
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...2/limit/recent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I had a 2.8F Planar for a long while. Never used it much, because the meter was not working well. I would have to set it to ASA 50 for Tri-X at 320, for example, to get it to meter semi-accurately in daylight. But, then it would be off indoors.... So, i just never trusted it. I had a Maxwell screen in it, and liked it very much.
I much later bought a GX because i wanted to actually use a TLR, and felt i would be much more confident with the metering. That issue was resolved with the GX meter. But, the feel of the camera was just not there. It's a fine camera, for certain. But, if you're used to an older model, you'll probably feel that the GX just isn't up to the standard. How much or just how significant that is depends on how important tactile and sensual factors matter to you in general. I didn't have any issues with loading either camera and never really even noticed a difference with the 'auto' feed mechanism. That wouldn't be a factor for me.
I eventually sold the GX. But, i don't remember why! Probably because i have always had a Hasselblad at the same time and because i was using MF so infrequently, i couldn't justify having them both.
I do want another TLR, though. I would first look for an older model with a working+accurate meter. If it costed as much as a GX, though, i would really struggle with a decision. I'd probably go for the GX - having a meter i could trust and that i believed would LAST would probably outweigh the issue of 'feel,' which may even have faded since i no longer have a vivid memory of the older model.
The one thing i DID love about the 2.8F was the 12/24 function. I wanted to use the TLR for travel, and reloading a TLR on the street in an exotic or uncomfortable environment would be unwelcome. Unfortunately, there are fewer 220 films available now, so it's less of a consideration.
I much later bought a GX because i wanted to actually use a TLR, and felt i would be much more confident with the metering. That issue was resolved with the GX meter. But, the feel of the camera was just not there. It's a fine camera, for certain. But, if you're used to an older model, you'll probably feel that the GX just isn't up to the standard. How much or just how significant that is depends on how important tactile and sensual factors matter to you in general. I didn't have any issues with loading either camera and never really even noticed a difference with the 'auto' feed mechanism. That wouldn't be a factor for me.
I eventually sold the GX. But, i don't remember why! Probably because i have always had a Hasselblad at the same time and because i was using MF so infrequently, i couldn't justify having them both.
I do want another TLR, though. I would first look for an older model with a working+accurate meter. If it costed as much as a GX, though, i would really struggle with a decision. I'd probably go for the GX - having a meter i could trust and that i believed would LAST would probably outweigh the issue of 'feel,' which may even have faded since i no longer have a vivid memory of the older model.
The one thing i DID love about the 2.8F was the 12/24 function. I wanted to use the TLR for travel, and reloading a TLR on the street in an exotic or uncomfortable environment would be unwelcome. Unfortunately, there are fewer 220 films available now, so it's less of a consideration.
edodo
Well-known
Anyone compared the new FW and the old rolleiwide?