DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
First impressions
- Thread starter oskarb
- Start date
Hi Roy
Thanks for response. There is somebody out there after all.
I'm working on the negative archive of an Australian social documentary photographer who worked in the 1930 and 40s with an early model sports Rollei (2.8 60mm Tessar). Even considering the crappy films of the day and poorly looked after 60 year old negs. I'm blown away by the image quality.
So I 'spose I'm interested in what people are, or were getting, with modern film.
Regards craig
Thanks for response. There is somebody out there after all.
I'm working on the negative archive of an Australian social documentary photographer who worked in the 1930 and 40s with an early model sports Rollei (2.8 60mm Tessar). Even considering the crappy films of the day and poorly looked after 60 year old negs. I'm blown away by the image quality.
So I 'spose I'm interested in what people are, or were getting, with modern film.
Regards craig
Craig - hi
That sounds interesting. I cannot now remember much about the detail = many years ago when I was a camera switcher! All I do remember was the first negative I put in the enlarger (probably FP4) when suddenly crispness and contrast jumped out at me in a way I'd neer seen before. Moving up to a 2.8 Planar was even more staggaring.
I am only a play around amateur and have only started back into photography now I've retired. But I've just bought a s/hand Rollei 6008i - wonderful machine - fabulous lens!! I tend to stick with the basic 80mm initially and get to know that first.
Regards
Roy
That sounds interesting. I cannot now remember much about the detail = many years ago when I was a camera switcher! All I do remember was the first negative I put in the enlarger (probably FP4) when suddenly crispness and contrast jumped out at me in a way I'd neer seen before. Moving up to a 2.8 Planar was even more staggaring.
I am only a play around amateur and have only started back into photography now I've retired. But I've just bought a s/hand Rollei 6008i - wonderful machine - fabulous lens!! I tend to stick with the basic 80mm initially and get to know that first.
Regards
Roy
Hi Craig,
I only can say something about the "Baby Rollei" produced from 1957 til 1968. It has a Schneider Xenar 3.5/60 lens and is coated ( not multicoated I think).
As far as I know, there were no add-ons available for the Baby Rollei, no additional viewfinders etc.
I like the tiny size of then 4x4, but if I had to pick only one, I would go for a 6x6.
Dirk
I only can say something about the "Baby Rollei" produced from 1957 til 1968. It has a Schneider Xenar 3.5/60 lens and is coated ( not multicoated I think).
As far as I know, there were no add-ons available for the Baby Rollei, no additional viewfinders etc.
I like the tiny size of then 4x4, but if I had to pick only one, I would go for a 6x6.
Dirk
Dear Dirk
It’s great to have the Rollei site finally up and running! I hate to tell you what you already know, but the format for these sister photo forums can only be described as excellent.
I think you are right about the add-ons. I understand that the 4x4s were originally introduced to compete with the emerging 35mm market. Also, I remember reading somewhere that Zeiss said back in 1931 that they could not make a standard f2.8 lens for the 6x6 cameras that meet their high standards, thus the Baby Rollei was born with 2.8-60mm Tessar. Interesting storey, even if it turned out not to be true.
What amazes me is the great contrast and sharpness of the Tessar. The little negs can easily be blown up to 16x16†for good quality exhibition prints. And I think it is uncoated. The camera lives about 600 km away so it’s a bit hard to check right now.
IMHO the Baby Rollei would have to be one of the most interesting cameras made. And the later Grey models are so sweet looking.
Best wishes to all and thanks for responses so far.
Craig
It’s great to have the Rollei site finally up and running! I hate to tell you what you already know, but the format for these sister photo forums can only be described as excellent.
I think you are right about the add-ons. I understand that the 4x4s were originally introduced to compete with the emerging 35mm market. Also, I remember reading somewhere that Zeiss said back in 1931 that they could not make a standard f2.8 lens for the 6x6 cameras that meet their high standards, thus the Baby Rollei was born with 2.8-60mm Tessar. Interesting storey, even if it turned out not to be true.
What amazes me is the great contrast and sharpness of the Tessar. The little negs can easily be blown up to 16x16†for good quality exhibition prints. And I think it is uncoated. The camera lives about 600 km away so it’s a bit hard to check right now.
IMHO the Baby Rollei would have to be one of the most interesting cameras made. And the later Grey models are so sweet looking.
Best wishes to all and thanks for responses so far.
Craig
lynn_jones
New Member
There were 4 different "baby Rollei's" starting back in 1931 and ending discontinuously 'til 1968. They were a great idea which didn't work very well, lots of problems, some of which involved sharpness. They were excellent mechanically. The old joke was, by a Yashicamat 44 LM and when the transport gears wear out replace them with Rollei gears.
Lynn
Lynn