Old but gold:)

Hi, Mike,

Mike Shimwell said:

Click to expand...

Lovely shot, lovely machine.

The tiny self-portrait is very Hitchcockian.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Mike,



Lovely shot, lovely machine.

The tiny self-portrait is very Hitchcockian.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

Best of all it still works and feels really nicely made. The shutter seems fine and accurate enough for neg film and everyhting on it is functional - though you should be aware that there is no prorgam mode or auto iso. Review is also a bit slow.

I put a roll of Portra 160NC through it yesterday to test it out and scanned a couple of frames last night, then made 20 inch square prints. At f11 the prints were lovely right to the corners, though it's soft at the edges at f3.5 or 4. Pretty much what you'd expect from a 4 element Tesar design (actually a Scheider Kreuznach Xenat 3.5/75) from the mid to late (19)60s.

I've wanted to shoot some square portraits for a while, so I'll give this a shot and see how it goes.

Mike

I've got the Minolta 'Rollei wannabe' and a primitive American one too, but I've never had a Rollei. Tempted, but hasn't happened. I bought some bricks of Kodak Panatomic X 120 and have them iced for the future. Fuji Acros is awfully hard to beat though. Alas, too many cameras, too little time. Congrats, that is a beauty. To many, these were the equivalent of a Leica. They became an extension of your hand and you could shoot quickly. Confession time, did Vivian Maier inspire this camera?

Jim Galli said:

I've got the Minolta 'Rollei wannabe' and a primitive American one too, but I've never had a Rollei. Tempted, but hasn't happened. I bought some bricks of Kodak Panatomic X 120 and have them iced for the future. Fuji Acros is awfully hard to beat though. Alas, too many cameras, too little time. Congrats, that is a beauty. To many, these were the equivalent of a Leica. They became an extension of your hand and you could shoot quickly. Confession time, did Vivian Maier inspire this camera?

Click to expand...

Try a C330 from Mamiya! Plenty around and brilliant optics! The brightest viewfinder ever.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Try a C330 from Mamiya! Plenty around and brilliant optics! The brightest viewfinder ever.

Asher

Click to expand...

Too heavy. The fixed lens cameras were a delight to have around your neck all day.

Jim Galli said:

I've got the Minolta 'Rollei wannabe' and a primitive American one too, but I've never had a Rollei. Tempted, but hasn't happened. I bought some bricks of Kodak Panatomic X 120 and have them iced for the future. Fuji Acros is awfully hard to beat though. Alas, too many cameras, too little time. Congrats, that is a beauty. To many, these were the equivalent of a Leica. They became an extension of your hand and you could shoot quickly. Confession time, did Vivian Maier inspire this camera?

Click to expand...

Hi Jim

Actually, its not really inspired by Vivian Maier, though it could have been! I know that I'm not really a natural street photographer, whether I want to be or not... and I would likely use 35mm for that. I've just been hankering after something to shoot squares with since I left my old Ricoh GX200 on a train and I's fancied 2 1/4 square as well. I lookd at a C330 a few months ago, with 80 and 55 lenses, but the shutters had had it so it would have cost too much to fix. When this came up everything worked and the price was OK, so I took the chance. With hindsight it's a better choice as I'm quite happy with the fixed lens and weighs much less than the Mamiya.

I might just try a bit Vivian style stuff once I learnt o focus it and use quickly, though I suspect fast film and zone focusing may the way she went?

Mike

Ran a couple of rolls of delta 100 through it and scanned today, just to test focus and exposure. Close focus seems spot on at all apertures and distance is usually ok, though I had a couple of odd frames (at f5.6 and 11...). All based on centre crops - the edges and corners are soft to about f11.

Some results for fun. I've also included crops of the scan and a reduced size image of the crop, at the same scale as a 5D2 would make. A full scan gives a 15 inch square print at 600dpi compared with 240dpi for a 5D2. That's bigger than I would expect to make, but gives a scaling for the crops against a full print.

Mike



detail - 4,000dpi scan - I think there's a bit of camera shake


detail resized to 5D2 scale

A better close shot - stood the camera on the window ledge and used self timer. Focused on the egg. This is at a smaller aperture, but all were spot on and contrast only dropped slightly at f4.



scan detail at 4,000 dpi


and reduced to 5D2 scale

Distance shot - crop isn't blown on film, this is just a very quick and simple auto scan.


scan detail


and at 5D2 size

Mike, it is gold. And getting as expensive too!

Love the nostalgia you are bringing here. The first ' frame ' of yours reminds me how old I have grown!

Thanks for sharing.

fahim mohammed said:

Mike, it is gold. And getting as expensive too!

Love the nostalgia you are bringing here. The first ' frame ' of yours reminds me how old I have grown!

Thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

Cheers Fahim - yes the view over Leeds. I forgot you spent time there in your younger days. You photograph and write like a man with a young heart Fahim. Age is mearely a way to focus that.

Mike

A first 'real 'picture' from the Rolleicord

Mike


Edited to add that I concluded the first was too contrasty. Any thoghts?

Mike,

I have zero experience with such technology, but there is something in these pictures that i like a lot! Hard for me to explain. Then again, I do not find the bokeh in the portrait very sexy.

I also prefer the less contrasty version btw.

What does one have to pay for antiques like that, and out of curiosity, do you develop them yourself?

I was tempted to buy a LF camera a week ago, but stepped back from the idea as I don't have the time currently to explore this in the detail required.