|
|
Post by andys93integra on Aug 9, 2010 20:42:07 GMT -5
Have you seen the pictures i just took with the Rollei's? Well not just, they were taken about 3 weeks ago. They were taken with the 80mm Rollei. The pics i took with the 135mm were inside and they are not as good bacause they are so dark. So i did not upload those ones. I did not scan these pics, i just pics of them with my Nikon. andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p954633564Andy |
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Aug 10, 2010 12:51:09 GMT -5
I just want to say thank you to all of you who have posted. I have tried many other camera forums for information and feedback, but i wasn't expecting this kind of info and feedback from here, usually i get just about nothing everywhere i go online. So thank you!
Andy
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Aug 10, 2010 18:44:28 GMT -5
Andy, yes I have had a look. I presumed they had been photographed as the prints exhibit a little barrel distortion.
Most of us here will have the advantage over you of having started with film, rather than digital. Not only that but everything was manual back then: focus, wind on, exposure etc. etc. Digital does tend to make you lazy.
I always tried to make a note of f stop, film speed and to a degree what the conditions were like, so if I had frames that were poorly exposed or suchlike I could try to correct it next time round.
The biggest pain was trying to use the flash gun for fill-in or synchro sun. It was quite a relief if I got it right, and a miracle too come to that. Now the camera takes care of it all, the only "skill" bit is knocking down the flash by about a stop so it doesn't kill the picture. I found some photos today on a website somewhere or other - professional photos too - where there was just too much strength in the flash.
I have only been posting for a few months on here. Like you, Andy, I found the natives friendly, so I hung around.
|
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Aug 12, 2010 1:12:48 GMT -5
The pictures that i took with the Rolleiflex have a slight bend in them, i think that is what you are seeing.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Sept 12, 2010 22:51:06 GMT -5
Hello all i have another question. When i posted my thread about my Rolleiflexes i didn't know as much as i do now about them. The 1959 Rollei 135mm that i have has a thing that flips in and out on it and it says R III Rolleinar 0,35. I noticed that when it closed on the i could focus a little closer on objects than with it open. Here for reference, and the next photo after this one. andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p622103781/e1d703b5fThen i found this little pouch looking thing that i think goes with the Rollei's and it has this little piece of glass in it. I took it out and saw that it was roughly the size of the Rollei lens and thought the flap thing might be there to hold it in place or something. So i put it in there and it allowed me to focus on objects much closer than normal. Usually with the 135mm i would have to stand on the other side of the room to focus on something. Now with this little piece of glass in there i can focus on objects with in a foot or less. The little glass piece says on the side, Ednalite DURAKLAD coated USA Portrait +3 and then a triangle. Anybody know what this means? Is this thing just a magnifying piece of glass used for closeups? Here are some pics of the pouch and glass piece. andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p622103781/e386a7979Andy |
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 13, 2010 3:34:58 GMT -5
Andy, +3 will mean +3 dioptre, a measure of the 'strength' of a lens.
I have recently bought a set of close-up lenses of 1,2,4 and 10 dioptre. It's a relatively cheap way of doing close-up or macro phototgraphy - and just about the only way if the lens isn't removable or other means aren't available (such as tubes, bellows or proper macro lenses).
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Oct 18, 2010 21:46:20 GMT -5
So i just had the worst thing happen to me about the Rolleiflexes. I have two prisms for for the Rollei's, not waist level finders. I picked up the 2.8E3 Rollei (picked it up by the body of the camera) and the prism on top must not have been latched on and it took and tumble on to the floor. Now, we do have carpet but right under neath is concrete so there was not a lot of padding for about a 3ft fall to the carpet. I almost had a heart attack! I then picked it up off the floor and noticed that the big glass element on the bottom had not broken, however the little glass element where you put your eye up to had broken. &^%@,#$$&,*##%, and some more four letter words. I guess the only good thing that came of this is that the big element did not break. I guess the only other good thing is i have another prism from the Tele-Rolleiflex, so i guess i could switch the one prism from camera to camera. So i guess i will look for a new prism, or try and get this one fixed, and maybe look for waist level finder for both of them. Here is a couple pics, andysphotos.zenfolio.com/p622103781/e3727ad67Andy |
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Oct 18, 2010 22:14:20 GMT -5
Andy
I feel for you having dropped that prism finder but there is another up side to consider. From what I recall those finders are very heavy so at least it did not land on your foot.
Bob
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Oct 18, 2010 22:50:57 GMT -5
Andy I feel for you having dropped that prism finder but there is another up side to consider. From what I recall those finders are very heavy so at least it did not land on your foot. Bob Bob, Wrong attitude for a camera collector. He should have used his foot to cushion the falling finder. He might have suffered a broken toe or arch but that lens would be intact. Priorities, priorities. Mickey |
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Oct 18, 2010 22:53:12 GMT -5
Not to be some macho man lol, but i think i would have rather it fall on my foot. I would think my foot would be softer than the floor. I mean the finders have a decent weight to them but they are not that heavy. But i can sit here all day and say what should have happened, but anyway its broken and thats that. Not totally broken, because i put it back on the camera and you can kind of still use it, but it is difficult.
I have said before about other cameras i have that they would be expensive to fix and this one is probably the same way. I guess it is not a total loss because the prism was in not bad condition but not excellent condition. I also have reason to suspect it has been dropped or bumped into before because of the dent on the top of it that was there before i dropped it. There are no new dents from a few hours ago and it fell a good 3ft, so i think its been through worse than me lol.
Thanks, Andy
|
|
