Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Roland Smith wrote: > > Friends with a lot of experience in medium format have told me that one of > the strong points for a Rolleiflex TLR is that its film system is one of the > best for keeping the film flat. Can anyone out there confirm this? > > Roland Smith > ><Snip> It's a great camera with many other advantages other than film flatulencies. My last paying job I used a Hasselblad ELM to take Polaroids with the 80 2,8 Planar. But I took the pictures with my Rolleiflex 2.8 F with 80 2,8 Planar. (And Delta 100 in Xtol 1:3) According to Marc and others over there in RUG land it is not quite the same lens! The one issue I was aware of was baffling in the lens. It's possible the image results might be better because of this. But I think the fact that my early 70's Rolleiflex is not multicoated might cancel this out, I don't shoot it for an optical advantage. It is quieter than a Leica and you don't have to wait for mirrors and diaphragms to do their thing. I love it's sportsfinder built into it's viewfinder. People find this camera very UN threatening! And they don't feel like mugging you for it either! So on this job But lenses on both cameras are 80's, close enough for a Polaroid check. Again I'll say I've never noticed film flatness problems with the Blad but I know they are there. I tend to not let film sit in my camera. Doesn't sit in my Rolleiflex either. And I shoot a lot of 220 with both! Mark Rabiner