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!

Rollei Integral vs Integral 2 vs AF

Hi Geoffrey,

I also considered the 6003 due to the slimmer back and lighter weight, but figured for my use I'd end up getting another magazine pretty quickly. The handle is removable on all models, just optional on the 6003.

The digital back option is nice, but much too costly for me at present. Besides, the computer steals way too much of my life as it is already :)

As for sharpness, as I mentioned I haven't really had time to evaluate the differences closely. The few rolls of chromes I've gotten back looked great, but as I mentioned so have my Bronica PS produced ones. If it is true as you say that I can expect an improved image quality, so much the better for me :) But, it wasn't one of the main reasons for my purchase. Most of my use is handheld, which makes the better ergonomics of the Rollei important (the added heft seems to help stability and allow sharp images while hand holding at slower shutter speeds as well, from what I've read).

Hasselblad magzine are notorious for dodgy fit, and s&le-to-s&le variation is reportedly quite high, so you may have just had a poor ex&le (or two). Still, I agree with you that Rollei seems to have a superior system for ensuring the film stays flat during exposure.

Like you I opted for the Schneider optics (80mm/f2 Xenotar) and hope to add a 40mm/f3.5 Super-Angulon and either 150mm/f4 Tele-Xenar or 180mm/f2.8 Tele-Xenar at some point later when finances allow.

Thor
 
>Well, you convinced me to hold onto the camera. I would like to use it for many subjects. I am loving the digital. but think that the quality when I enlarge the picture will be as nice as the Rollei. I guess I am still holding on to film. I embrace digital, but think that it shall be a long time before I can afford ANY digital back along with a new system. Thanks for your advice, and your pictures were fantastic. > Lainey

>>>Posted by Carlzeiss (Carlzeiss) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 9:36 am: > >I wouldn't sell your Xenotar TLR for a few reasons: >1. Photographic potential even with fixed focal length lens should not >be underestimated.<<
 
> To me, a huge advantage of the TLR (and 6000 series) is the ability to compose on the focusing screen with the waste level finder. I shoot chromes and have them scanned to disk; the turnaround time is 3 days and the scans are inexpensive. When I want to "enlarge" (done in photoshop) an image and get a lot of detail, I then pay the extra $$$ to get a detailed scan done.

The MF negative can be scanned decently on a flatbed scanner with a transparency unit too, and you can't really do this with 35mm.

It takes a lot of cash to get a digital camera or digital back that can beat the properties of a good transparency film in 6x6 format, for detail and the range of tones. And you can crop the 6x6 image to whatever proportions you want (my finished images usually end up as 8x10 or 11x14, I find). So don't get rid of that Rolleiflex! (unless you want to sell it to me cheap of course . . . )

Paul Butler
 
How nice to hear somebody appreciate the waist-level camera! I am so tired of seeing distorted photos of people, particularly children. I heard that Rollei had produced a waist-level digital camera, but so far I haven't found out where and for how much it is on sale. There is also a lot to be said for square pictures. Sergei Eisenstein wanted to use this format for movies, but even he could not make this come about. Jonathan
 
Back
Top