Best model of Rolleiflex TwinLens?

[gwhitf]

I am researching the Rolleiflex GX twin lens. Can anyone on this forum advise which model is the most solid, with built in light meter? I just need normal lens, 75-80mm. TTL Flash would be nice but not necessary. I found this site:

http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/TLR_newFseries_intro.shtml

but I'd love to hear from real photographers who are really using these cameras in daily use. (If anyone is...?) The GX seems to be the nice one, but at three-four thousand, I wonder if I need that "collectability factor". I want it to shoot photographs; not to sit on a shelf as investment. Maybe FX would be sufficient? Trying to stay away from anything that says "anniversary" on it.

Any recommendations highly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

[BJNY]

George,
I like the extra 5mm wider perspective of the 3,5 for portraits.
Beattie Intenscreen was a great improvement from stock focusing screen.

[Gigi]

Have a GX, which FYI is cheaper than the newer FX. Its a fine camera, not getting much use these days, tho.

The big issue is the shutter - there were three different ones used, I think a Compur, and two others. The switch turns on the meter halfway down, and then triggers the shutter. One of these models was quite stiff in the shutter. I have trouble with hand holding at 1/15 or 1/30 due to this, and thus kind of prefer the silky smooth earlier shutter of the older TLR (like my dad's D series). But they have no meter. So its a trade off. The film loading in the newer cameras (GX and later) is simpler and better. The build quality (heft) of the earlier ones is better.

Some will differentiate by the lenses: the older lenses have a look, but are more prone to flare.

[IanB]

I use an FX quite a lot, and like it. However, I'm not a pro, and don't use flash with it. It is an extremely satisfying and capable camera which produces excellent negatives. The meter is particularly accurate, and the viewfinder a joy - no need for a Beattie screen on later models. Lens 'bokeh' is particularly good (to my taste, anyway!).

Note that the GX came before the FX in the model series, so the latter is the last model - I don't know why! I think there is very little practical difference between the later GXs and the FX - only in the details such as the strap fixing and graphics on the body etc. GXs can be found with a range of different lense options, but the standard FX only has the 80mm Rollei-built Planar design. The focus knob is milled out of aluminium, and feels slightly cheaper than the real classic versions of the cameras, but it seems solid enough in practice. Some of the later accessories are a bit tacky, too, but the cameras can usually take second-hand equivalents from the good old days very happily.

I'd say both the GX and FX are actually better for using than collecting, but collectors seem to disagree with me!

Hope that helps.

[gwhitf]

Thank you all.

I do not understand this camera-worship concept. If you want to make money, go buy AAPL. I have read more than one place about this shutter issue, with the halfway-down resisistance. Does not seem good, but I don't want to drag a Sekonic around either. Maybe a hotshoe meter? No idea if they're accurate. I would want the 2.8 over the 3.5.

Look at ebay auctions; they'll blow your mind. One auction is a box of these cameras, for like $50,000 USD. You'd think it was porn. I guess to those collector guys, it is.

I think what all this says to me is, like we've said before, film is just a romantic notion. funny how when years go by, you forget all the tiny little weird stuff about those cameras, and all you remember are the good times. if i was honest, i've been using this d3x for months now, and i've never used a more elegant, rugged, easy to use camera in my life. It's beyond effortless. I should just shut up and get back to work. One camera, maybe three lenses, one software, and STFU, get to work.

[feppe]

Thank you all.

I do not understand this camera-worship concept. If you want to make money, go buy AAPL. I have read more than one place about this shutter issue, with the halfway-down resisistance. Does not seem good, but I don't want to drag a Sekonic around either. Maybe a hotshoe meter? No idea if they're accurate. I would want the 2.8 over the 3.5.

Look at ebay auctions; they'll blow your mind. One auction is a box of these cameras, for like $50,000 USD. You'd think it was porn. I guess to those collector guys, it is.

I think what all this says to me is, like we've said before, film is just a romantic notion. funny how when years go by, you forget all the tiny little weird stuff about those cameras, and all you remember are the good times. if i was honest, i've been using this d3x for months now, and i've never used a more elegant, rugged, easy to use camera in my life. It's beyond effortless. I should just shut up and get back to work. One camera, maybe three lenses, one software, and STFU, get to work.

Speaking as an owner (and shooter!) of a Mamiya C220 system and Gowlandflex 4x5 TLR, I fully sympathize. When I was researching MF TLRs years back, I went for the Mamiya partly because the prices of bodies and lenses generally don't have the collector-premium on them. Don't get me started on Zeiss Ikon MF folders or LF Heliars  

Mamiya C220/C330-series is worth checking out. No light-meters or other fanciness. They have interchangeable lenses which was the main reason for me to go for Mamiya over Rolleiflex.

[gwhitf]

Thank you all, so much.

When I was a kid, we had a Mamiya C330 in our Equipment Cabinet in college. It took a beating from all the students -- dropped on the floor, thrown in a camera bad, and it simply kept working, month after month. The prices for that camera are a fraction of Rollei; I"m going to find a super-clean C330 and get on with it. Thank you.

[KevinA]

The first place I worked we used Rollei TLR's for everything. During the week PR, commercial, studio portraits, Industrial location and most difficult of all was shooting large North Sea Oil rig safety stand by boats. These were converted deep sea fishing trawlers. Shooting from a fast rib bouncing around with the waist level finder and reversed image was an art in itself, I hand printed 20x24inch colour prints from these. Weekends they were used for weddings.
We had a Rollei SL66 and lenses but it never worked properly so the entire business was run on about a half a dozen Rollei F's . Plus a wide and a Tele with a close up lens. The Tele was never used much until I took over the studio portraits. I actually liked it, which is not everyones experience. What was good about using a Rollei TLR in the studio was we did not mount it on a conventional tripod, we had an old 1800's wooden tripod with a a large flat teak head, the camera would sit on there to compose the shot, if you needed to move quickly for a shot you just grabbed it. I would compose the subject then not look at the camera, but talk to the subject, if they moved much it was easy to glance down and turn the camera without adjusting the tripod
Any good condition TLR Rollei would be a joy to use, but so is a 500cm and more versatile.

Kevin.

[HarperPhotos]

Gidday,

From my experience owning two Rollie TLR’s one with Carl Zeiss lenses and the other Schneider lenses is my Yashica 124G TLR was the best out of all of them in image quality, contrast and handling.

Cheers

Simon

[bcooter]

I am researching the Rolleiflex GX twin lens.

I had a great experience on Sunday.  We used the lab Dupon in Paris for a scene in the film I'm shooting.

Back before digital I use to run at Dupon and was surprised they were still around. 

Obviously they have taken a big hit on the processing volume, down at  10% of what it once was in the film days, but it was so great to walk into a lab and smell the chemicals, see real photographers looking at transparencies and contact sheets, talking, somewhat sharing.

Dupon has a gallery with large prints they rotate and they're beautiful, shot with everything from old Rollei's to polaroids.  (These were new works, not vintage) and by todays' standards were not as sharp, not as detailed, but 10 times more beautiful than anything i've ever seen come out of digital.

I know the toothpaste is out of the tube, but for what we've gained in speed and efficiency we've lost tons as artists, collaborators, friends and the ability to go in daily and face to face converse with real people.

I'm not nostalgic or romantic, but seeing a group of photographers actually discuss photography in one room was something I miss.

I just finalized our Paris studio and though I won't go back to shooting hard edged commerce in film, I will buy some some film cameras and shoot some projects the film way.

I can't wait.

IMO

BC

[KevinA]

Gidday,

From my experience owning two Rollie TLR’s one with Carl Zeiss lenses and the other Schneider lenses is my Yashica 124G TLR was the best out of all of them in image quality, contrast and handling.

Cheers

Simon

Each to is own. I started college with a 124G, later I owned various Rollei's plus worked at a studio which had a quantity of Rollei's all shapes and sizes.I also encountered Micropress, Autocords and Mamiya TLR's, the Rollei F's won on all counts for me. Better still from the quality point of view was the Hasselblad with T* Zeiss, especially if shooting models on a white background a lot less flare creeping around the edges. I thought all the Jap cameras, Bronicas etc lacked a lens coating equal of the Zeiss.
I would expect the later model GX Rollei to be as good as it gets in the lens department and no flapping mirror either makes it quite appealing. If only it would take a 6x6 digi sensor.

Kevin.

[Rob C]

Nothing quite like a blindfold to spice up one's life.

Other than just cleaned, high gloss, black paint?

;-)

Rob C

[bcooter]

Nothing quite like a blindfold to spice up one's life.

Blinders work.

Actually living in denial is a prerequisite to being a photographer.

The odds of making it are about one in a trillion.   The family will gasp when you say "when I grow up I wanna be a photographer" and your Dad will go hide his wallet in the garage and make a note to pay off the local census clerk to have your birth status changed to adopted.

The blinder thing is the only thing that makes it work because if any of us wanted reality we'd been accountants.

If you looked at reality and only photographed that without some artistic interpretation in most instances it would be a pretty damn boring life.

That's our job . . . right . ..  to look at a bunch of ugly s**t, crop it out of our mind and make something good out of it.

Blinders.

Now I can promise you that 90% of what we do is in front of the lens, not in the camera and I can also promise you a plastic lump like the 5d is one hell of a machine at any price.

But just like putting on those special pair of jeans that make you feel 4" taller, if you really dig the equipment your using and it makes you feel more creative, or special, you'll probably shoot better, even if you only shoot 12 frames instead of 12,000.

I hear on these forums all the time about microns and CA and what lens is 4% sharper than the next and all I can think of is why do I even know what a micron is?   

I also recognize the name Kardashian and that's another bit of useless information that takes up brain space for no good reason.

Out the the 45 things it takes to make a good photograph maybe 15 of those really don't make a difference to anyone other than the artist him/herself.

But if those 15 things make you feel better about the whole process then go for it because if you feel good, you'll probably shoot better.

Also digital has just changed things.   Some good, some awful, but I do know that it has made us more secluded and singular.

If anyone thinks that sitting in your office/studio and processing out 12,000 images in lightroom is as interesting as going to the lab and walking down 5th Avenue, rue Joseph de Maistre, or Sunset Blvd. then they've never been there.

If your going to shoot life then I think it's a good idea to get out into it. 

If anyone really believes that having 5,000 facebook friends, or walking into a room and hugging the person that started you in photography is the same experience then maybe it would help to turn off the i-phone and take a drive around the block.

I embraced digital early on because it allowed me in commerce to get the committee idea in the can quickly, then get on to more productive and hopefully prettier images.   

For the first 5 years it was golden to me.

Now, digital has done a 180 on the artist, regardless of level.  We don't get to explore like we once did because 12 people stand around a monitor and our 2, 3, or 8 shot day became a 28 shot day.   

That's all well and good for the fortune 500 companies, but when I sit back and think about the 90+ grand a year I use to give to labs that now goes to apple inc., and a whole bunch of corporations, I really wish the last ten years and however many (many) thousands of dollars/euros/pounds I spent went to people  I personally  knew and liked.  The lab owners would invite me to dinner.  I don't think Steve Jobs, is gonna give me a lift on his G5.

Yes I can live in denial very well and enjoy nearly every minute of it.

IMO

BC

[KevinA]

Is  using film now about the journey of an image. Film is hands on and if you are shooting B&W it most likely is holding hands with the image from conception to birth.
You can drive to a viewpoint, look then drive on to the next, or you could pack a day pack and hike through the forest over streams and scramble up the hill to the viewpoint. You end up at the same place but a completely different experience getting there. You could say the guy in the car had a better journey in comfort and got to see more views in the time it took the hiker to get to one. It depends on what you want out of it as to which is best, more viewpoints or the experience of the journey to get there. That's how I see film, sometimes it's the journey I am after not just the viewpoint.

Kevin.

[robert zimmerman]

I'm not nostalgic or romantic, but seeing a group of photographers actually discuss photography in one room was something I miss.

why does peeling a polaroid apart, smelling that chemical polaroid smell and seeing that soft, colourful image make me so giddy?
why is looking over a real contact sheet sooooo much more fullfilling and soooo much nicer than scrolling through a program?
why is the soft, smokey flair from the pentax 67 105mm/f2,4 10x more beautiful than any modern, highly corrected lens?

I admit it, I'm a human and I'm nostalgic and romantic and irrational and moody and excitable.
that's the reason l picked up that first camera...and the reason walking into a lab is like smelling fresh baked cookies.

[feppe]

why does peeling a polaroid apart, smelling that chemical polaroid smell and seeing that soft, colourful image make me so giddy?
why is looking over a real contact sheet sooooo much more fullfilling and soooo much nicer than scrolling through a program?
why is the soft, smokey flair from the pentax 67 105mm/f2,4 10x more beautiful than any modern, highly corrected lens?

I admit it, I'm a human and I'm nostalgic and romantic and irrational and moody and excitable.
that's the reason l picked up that first camera...and the reason walking into a lab is like smelling fresh baked cookies.

The kids who are picking up digital cameras today will feel the same nostalgia when they grow older for opening Lightroom, browsing through the pictures and tweaking the sliders, when all they have to do in the future is to think about the end result and the computer will read their mind

[Rob C]

Until recenty I was a fairly strong advocate of film, and particuarly of b/white. Recently, since I did some stuff of musician in constantly changing lights, to be precise, I have felt my affections drift to digital (D700). I found the shooting far easier and also the conversion from colour to b/white looked rather nice to me. Then, a day or so ago, I played with some old 400 ASA 35mm and made a discovery: I don't really like the 'look' of it much anymore when scanned. However, were it 35mm Kodachrome, that would be different - except that scanning is a bore at best.

Having said which, I seem to have encountered my first dirty sensor experience: I have some marks on the files that resemble water marks (drying marks). The camera does have a vibrating thing to dislodge the dust that causes them, so I've acivated it a few times, and shall see if that solves the problem. (I never had it with the D200 at all.) However, I'd have imagined that dust-on-the-sensor marks would be irregular shaped things - these are fairly circular - I hope they don't represent something else. As I never change lenses outwith the office, I'm surprised, to say the least.

Rob C