Having some issues with my lab scans, but the quality and clarity of the camera are proving to be there. I really enjoy having this camera now. Simple and intentional photography seemed so lost for a long time.
Kodak Gold 200 and Ilford HP5 Plus
I had a Rolleiflex 2.8D that I sold last year.
Its serial number (1604xxx) says that it's a 2.8D and looks the same with other 2.8Ds that I can find on Google, except one thing: removable finder and screen.
It had a removable finder and removable screen just like 2.8F/3.5F/T.
I really prefer this type of finder over the more classic one on my 2.8E. Idk why my 2.8D had the later finder. Was it modified?
I would really like to have my 2.8E have the newer finder too, but I imagine that the mod will be difficult since it involves installing a whole different part for the focusing screen, which might mess up focusing calibration.
Sorry if this was asked earlier, couldn't find info on the net.
I decided to film test the near 100 year old Rolleiflex I picked up at the market last Sunday. Got my scans back today and I have to say that I think I know why you guys like these cameras so much!
Just want to say I know these aren’t great photos, Just wanted to test that it was working :)
I picked up what looks like an ancient Rolleiflex at a market last Sunday. From what I can see, the lens and the rear glass look clean, the faster shutter speeds all sound solid. Could anyone tell me a little bit about this camera/what quirks I should look out for? Or if it’s even worth holding onto long term?
Which is the better purchase? A recently cla'd 3.5f planar for $1100? Or a 2.8c xenotar seemingly in great shape but untested for $650?
Thanks for the help!
Any one have an idea where I can get a neck strap for a Rolleicord III. All the ones on eBay are meant for cameras with the circular attachment. The III has the triangular one.
Thanks