This makes sense to me at normal viewing distances.
The meter measurements are taken from the viewing lens. The new center-weighted metering system with kind of cool LEDs is really old school to every 35mm out there. But as much as I may like the newer Rolleiflex TLR, I can get the same thing done with both. Now I know people who depend on TTL, and at least some metering, will disagree. If you don’t count the metering, LED’s and flash TTL advancements, they are still pretty much the same cameras. But do the cameras they use live up to the newer Rolleiflex TLR’s? Sorta. They are a very diverse group of photographers that have used this camera. Helmut Newton, Diane Arbus, Vivian Maier, are just a few of the photo stars that used the Rollei at one time or other in their careers. The only thing I would additionally do, especially with the older models, is change to a brighter focusing screen. Both are factory trained by Rolleiflex, and both have the special tools and inventory of parts to make any age Rolleiflex TLR hum. For Rollei’s, Harry Fleenor on the west coast, and Krikor Maralian on the east coast. If you are seriously considering a 50+ year old camera, I would have it CLA’d. There is no horizontal or vertical positioning. The downsides of any TLR camera? Well, the image you see in the viewfinder is backwards. This has an effect on the people subjects who curiously feel less self conscious when shooting. Also, you are looking down when shooting. Also, a viewfinder that doesn’t go dark, and compared to any SLR, it’s very quiet. And, as the mirror is fixed, the advantages of lower vibration for slower shutter speeds when shooting handheld is obvious. The metal on metal is precise and light tight. The back door is manufactured with such tight tolerances, that there is no need for it. First, on all the Rolleiflex models, you will find no light sealing foam. Let’s see what the newer Rolleiflex models offer. But when stopped down, I doubt you could find any real world difference. I.e., Zeiss Planar is sharper than a Tessar. All performed to varying degrees of contrast and sharpness. The differences between the letter designations is pretty minor until the FX. But let’s get back to the classics Rolleiflex 2.8F and Rolleiflex 3.5. I’ve never actually seen those two, and am not sure they are available in every country. Plus, they have two other cheaper models, the Rolleiflex 4.0 FW and the Rolleiflex 4.0 FT. It’s an opinion that is treated as fact because it comes from so many sources online. In fact, the new 80mm Zeiss Planar lens on the FX is considered even sharper than the original 2.8F! How that is possible, I don’t know. So, you have to love TLR’s.īruce Weber,….When only sleeping with your Rolleiflexes will do. It is a new company, DHW Fototechnik, but they have advanced the line while keeping the build quality. Like the cover photo of a gold plated GX “Royal” sitting next to a Rolleiflex FX model.
But discounting their naming conventions, I don’t think there is another camera in any format with that long of a run. Yes, I know there’s an older Rolleiflex GX.maybe the Germans don’t know ‘F’ comes before ‘G’. I think the Rolleiflex TLR FX-N, which was introduced at Photokina in 2012, was the latest model.