| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| Rollieflex used for first time in 20 yrs! | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Mar 6th, 2014 07:47 | 1st Post |
| Shook the dust off my Rollieflex 3.5F Planar I've had since 1960 and shot a roll of 120 HP5. Bit of sun at last at Tichfield Abbey this was shot at same time with my D800 and 24-70 lens and pola filter. It will be interesting to compare the results. Can not show you the Rollie pix as I no longer have darkroom so have sent film off to Ilford's lab! It must be at least 15 yrs since I've shot film, do'nt miss it at all! Attachment: Abbey3844s.jpg (Downloaded 101 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Mar 6th, 2014 07:53 | 2nd Post |
| PS This is a studio pix of the same Rollieflex taken as a prop with Nikon D3X. Attachment: Rollieflex0492s.jpg (Downloaded 100 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by amazing50: Mon Mar 17th, 2014 11:03 | 3rd Post |
| Had my Hasselblad out on the weekend to finish off a roll of B&W iso100. Hope to process them later this week. I develop the negs and then copy the negs with my D5100 and print them 10x10 on a Canon IPF6100. Enjoy this once and a while and find that the quality of the prints is rather good.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Mar 20th, 2014 07:47 | 4th Post |
| Had the HP5 film developed by Ilford and a set of reasonable scans. Here is a result from a camera I have had since 1960 and still works as good as new. Not as sharp as the D800 pix but still quite good and some will like the grain! Attachment: Abbey005.jpg (Downloaded 75 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Thu Mar 20th, 2014 12:51 | 5th Post |
Looks like the film has lost sensitivity it is all B&W  I wonder what the D800 image would look like converted to B&W. Pretty similar I guess but it might have a smoother result more like FP4 ?
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Thu Mar 20th, 2014 19:22 | 6th Post |
| Here is the D800 image converted to B&W I did my best to match tones. At this size you can not see much of the extra fine detail but the D800 is very much sharper and more detail as we would all expect, but my point is the Rollieflex image would still make a very good 16x20 inch print! The D800 image has a far wider range of tones with very good shadow and highlight detail compared with the film. Perhaps the Rollie image could be worked more. It would have been better match if I had used an orange filter. I have found this a very interesting little exercise so hope it is also of interest here. It shows just how far we have all come in the last 15 years in terms of quality. Attachment: D800 Abbey.jpg (Downloaded 70 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Mar 20th, 2014 20:10 | 7th Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:Here is the D800 image converted to B&W I did my best to match tones. At this size you can not see much of the extra fine detail but the D800 is very much sharper and more detail as we would all expect, but my point is the Rollieflex image would still make a very good 16x20 inch print! Its easy to forget the size difference beween DSLR sensors and a 120 neg. We have come a long way. Thanks for sharing.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Fri Mar 21st, 2014 05:46 | 8th Post |
| Yes I do think that it has been worthwhile. The debates that raged on forums regarding 120 v 35mm and then film v digital and recently about How many MP required before digital is better than film get answered slowly and there is always the anti-technology camp. However I believe that we are firmly in a digital age. Graham's 120 image shows good detail in many areas but the D800 image does look more 5x4 like.  The next debates are already out there. Optical viewfinder v Electronic Viewfinder (EVF) APS-C v 4/3 format Having the new Fuji XT1 with its great EVF convinces me that this is good enough for everyday use and the IQ from the 16MP sensor is as good as my FX Nikon D3S. However under certain lighting conditions the EVF is not suitable e.g. my flamenco dance pictures. The debate over APS-C V 4/3 format is about sensor noise with small photosites and I dont think the technology is there yet!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Mar 21st, 2014 08:17 | 9th Post |
| The sad point is in days of Rollie, Hasselblad, or Nikon F3 (film) these cameras were almost for life they were so well made. In 40 yrs of using Hasselblad I only ever had 4 bodies and the lens lasted almost for ever. We seem to be needing now to get a new DSLR almost every three years. In less that 10 years we went Nikon D1, D1X, D2X D3X D800. But we all know the D800 is many times better than the D1 but it cost us photographers a lot of money to get there.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Judith: Fri Mar 21st, 2014 13:41 | 10th Post |
| The camera manufacturers will be loving it, though, Graham! I used to like the grain back in the days of film but now I don't. I much prefer the D800 image. :)
|
| Posted by jk: Fri Mar 21st, 2014 18:35 | 11th Post |
Judith wrote:The camera manufacturers will be loving it, though, Graham! Well with all that oil money you will be able to buy one. And an assistant to carry it if they come from south of the border as everyone will want the new Scottish Groat instead of the counterfeit pounds!
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Fri Mar 21st, 2014 18:38 | 12th Post |
| I agree the D800 is able to produce images as good as film 4x5 cameras. By Nikon D1X this picture I took in my studio was better than the quality of a scanned Hasselblad 100 ISO Transp image! (This was featured on our Nikon User Gruop at the time JK saw it then.) The scanned image from the 120 transp did not resolve the fin print on the label. Even at this reduced size you can clearly see how sharp the D1X image is. Attachment: Wine.jpg (Downloaded 104 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Fri Mar 21st, 2014 19:24 | 13th Post |
| Yes those images were stunning. Even better when I saw the prints! Like you say we have come a long way and spent a mountain of money for finer grain or more pixels, but did we really need them. I still have pictures I took with my D1 in 1999 in Yosemite and they still look great at 16"x12" prints.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sat Mar 22nd, 2014 06:18 | 14th Post |
| This is the image that changed my working methods for ever. The 120 colour transp looks good on a light box but to use it you need a very high quality drum scan and this is what that drum scan looked like in Photoshop. Compare it with the pure quality from the D1X NEF! QED? Attachment: Label.jpg (Downloaded 103 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Mar 22nd, 2014 08:21 | 15th Post |
Graham Whistler wrote:The sad point is in days of Rollie, Hasselblad, or Nikon F3 (film) these cameras were almost for life they were so well made. In 40 yrs of using Hasselblad I only ever had 4 bodies and the lens lasted almost for ever. There is no doubt that the digital upgrade route is whole body orientated, rather than mere film ASA improvements that were the norm predigital. Body retention used to be measured in years...now it's months. With the commensurate oncost of doing so. But here's the question... Had we known how good the D1X was at the time, would we have bothered doing all this intermediate upgrading? Personally I was disappointed when I got the D2X...unless I used a tripod, the images were always inferior (or at least no better) than the D1X I had sold for a pittance! When the D3 came out I was ready to get rid of the D2X. The carrot of FX was enough for me to do it...despite it being the same MP as the D2X! The change was a revelation. It was so forgiving of technique, so easy to use and the images were waaaaay better than my D2x...probably better than the D1X. But it's this relief, coupled with being a Yorkshireman , that's stopped me from upgrading further. The D3 more than matches the film photography I did and in truth it's ....good enough for my needs from now on. My equipment searching is now entirely directed towards getting D3 quality and performance in a compact lightweight camera...to remove the weight of the D3 system when travelling.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sat Mar 22nd, 2014 09:27 | 16th Post |
| Well Eric we need to meet or you need to try the Fuji XT1 it is all it is cracked up to. There are also some nice features that arent on any other camera that I have owned other than the Fujis.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Mar 22nd, 2014 18:35 | 17th Post |
jk wrote:Well Eric we need to meet or you need to try the Fuji XT1 it is all it is cracked up to. There are also some nice features that arent on any other camera that I have owned other than the Fujis. I hope to be in Yorkshire, second week in April. One of the tasks is to visit Harrison Cameras to fondle an XT1. I will be taking some redundant glass with me, that they have expressed some interest in a PX deal. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sat Mar 22nd, 2014 19:36 | 18th Post |
| Well you have the XE1 already with a 18-55 if I remember correctly. There is a nice new 10-24 that I dont have as I have the 14mm prime, and the 55-200 is a cracking lens that I can recommend.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Mar 22nd, 2014 20:15 | 19th Post |
jk wrote:Well you have the XE1 already with a 18-55 if I remember correctly. I have both the 18-55 and 55-200 and agree they are excellent lenses...compact too! I would hope to eventually replace the XE with the XT....you know me and not hanging onto surplus equipment.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sun Mar 23rd, 2014 07:44 | 20th Post |
| Definitely better to have the XT1 rather than XE1 but I do like the smaller footprint of the XE1 at times. The XPro1 feels the best in my hands as it is a little larger than both XE1 and XT1. The XT1 is the most functional and most like a DSLR in performance. You will need the XT1 and the new 10-24mm f4 OIS lens then you will have everything. That will cost you nearly £2000. Will that mean you get rid of D3 and some of your other glass ?
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Mar 23rd, 2014 18:25 | 21st Post |
jk wrote:Definitely better to have the XT1 rather than XE1 but I do like the smaller footprint of the XE1 at times. Haven't decided about the D3....except that I see no point in upgrading something that STILL fulfils my (remaining) clients needs. It really depends on how much use it gets in the next year. At the moment I am focusing on the Fuji X system as an alternative to the D7000 and it's DX lenses. It's a bit complicated because I still need selected lenses for D200IR ....and it's hard to disregard the DX multiplier advantage should I want long reach. I am a great believer in not building unused equipment stockpiles...too much choice is not necessarily a good thing. LOL
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by amazing50: Sun Mar 30th, 2014 20:14 | 22nd Post |
Graham Whistler wrote: This is the image that changed my working methods for ever. The 120 colour transp looks good on a light box but to use it you need a very high quality drum scan and this is what that drum scan looked like in Photoshop. Compare it with the pure quality from the D1X NEF! QED?I still like the "feel" of the film cameras and ritual of the process, but for everything else it has to be digital.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Oct 26th, 2014 07:30 | 23rd Post |
| Going back to the Rollieflex I have been scanning in some of my older 120 HP5 negs pre 1979 and it's interesting to see the development of film from then to now. Look at the grain in this image and it's a well exposed neg developed in D76. Compare with the recent pix above with the same camera and modern HP5. Attachment: Nov Dawn1978.jpg (Downloaded 18 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by TomOC: Sun Oct 26th, 2014 14:51 | 24th Post |
| All true and interesting, Graham. We've also entered the day when you can pack a travel hard drive with 100,000 files on it just in case you need them on your trip I'm happy not to be up all night breathing toxic chemicals and washing and drying prints Tom
____________________ Tom O'Connell -Lots of people talk to animals.... Not very many listen, though.... That's the problem. Benjamin Hoff, The Tao of Pooh |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Mon Oct 27th, 2014 05:56 | 25th Post |
| I'm happy not to be up all night breathing toxic chemicals and washing and drying prints I agree Tom I shut down my last darkroom mid 1990s. My modern injet printer (Epson R3000) makes first class B&W prints and there is a lots of great art papers to use with it!
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by jk: Mon Oct 27th, 2014 07:35 | 26th Post |
| Yes I did my last silver print in 1997. a Cibachrome via the Ilford Cibachrome processing machine I had. I sold all my darkroom kit off to fund a Nikon Coolpix 950 which cost nearly £900. Never regretted the loss of experience of acid stop, developer and fix stains on my hands and the smell of the darkroom.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by amazing50: Mon Oct 27th, 2014 13:32 | 27th Post |
| I still process the odd B&W 120 film. Don't realy mind the chemical smells ;~)
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sat Mar 26th, 2022 12:37 | 28th Post |
Shot from the past another 120 100ISO image from a studio shoot I have just scanned for a print. Pix were taken in my Rhodesian studio 1967 with a Rolleiflex SL66 and 150mm Zeiss lens Agfa B&W 100 ISO film. Click here to comment on this image.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Mar 27th, 2022 10:15 | 29th Post |
| Can’t believe it’s been 8 years since Graham started this thread. So much has changed camera wise. I would be interested to see the Sony A1’s delivery of a similar subject, Graham. Having said that, I can’t help feeling that we have got a little obsessed with new camera capabilities. Ultimately an outstanding photograph is down to the eye of the photographer, their command of composition and lighting and their experience with the equipment to hand. This portrait is a fine example.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by novicius: Tue Mar 29th, 2022 04:17 | 30th Post |
| A Fine portrait indeed...did not know the Flex was also equipped with a f3.5 Planar as well ( did not know there was such one ) , knew about the f2.8 planar ,and xenar on both the Cord and the Flex and ofcourse the tessar. This is the first time I saw this post, and I`m Baffled to see the comparison between the scanned HB pic. and that of the D1X , now I`m more than ever convinced to stay with my D3S and D3X , still have my D1 and D1X and Slr N,..was eying an 810 but will leave it out, new lenses is what my game is about then.
____________________ Back in Danmark I do not use my equipment to make photo`s .. I take photo`s to use my equipment The better I become at photography,the better my camera gets. |
| Posted by jk: Tue Mar 29th, 2022 19:26 | 31st Post |
| I always wondered about and wanted to have a go with the Rolleiflex SL66. 150mm lens on 120 film is near perfect for portraits.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| This is topic ID = 894 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Other Makes of Camera > Rollieflex used for first time in 20 yrs! | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2692 seconds (69% database + 31% PHP). 193 queries executed.
Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2692 seconds (69% database + 31% PHP). 193 queries executed.