Photography Your Best Photography

Automotive photography, techniques, gear, editing, and photo-focused discussions.
b480b6c646e55c6de9c5269f89a0cd57.webp


ab7c43f359deef4dcbbd8718c6df0a71.webp


5feb2617053caf912991228594981ead.webp
 
A few weeks of shooting...

Some images I have taken over the past several weeks. Some good and some okay but at least I am up and about with the Canon...:D

Some really nice images being posted...







iPhone 4 image:







iPhone 4 image through the windshield:



Two from the Dog Park:



 
Thought I recognised these locations... you still in Melbourne? I live 5 mins from there!

No, I was just visiting a friend for the weekend. Her sister is an amazing photographer and she let me borrow her Rolleiflex. Liked using it so much that I bought one for myself recently.
 
No, I was just visiting a friend for the weekend. Her sister is an amazing photographer and she let me borrow her Rolleiflex. Liked using it so much that I bought one for myself recently.

Those things are fantastic - does it shoot 120? how much it set you back?

This isn't exactly still photography, but is photography all the same - an impromptu rendition of Jeff Buckley's version of 'A Satisfied Mind', sung by Charlie Lim:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Shot on a 5d Mk II with an EF 50mm f/1.4.
 
Those things are fantastic - does it shoot 120? how much it set you back?0

Yeah, 120 film. Some models can take 220 and with a Rolleikin adapter, you can even use 35mm film as well.

As for the price, I paid US$700 for mine. Expensive, but it's is one of the rarer models with an f2.8 Planar lens and is meterless, which essentially means it's going to command a higher than usual price. A basic Rolleiflex like an Automat or a T with an f3.5 Tessar lens will usually set you back around $300-$350, with no great difference in image quality.

040d0d113b764dc3df906284a3d6faa8.webp


5f7b57b5a717e27341988b1de5e2d238.webp
 
Very cool man. I get the 2.8 lens, but why would a meterless model be more expensive? seems to me it would just be less practical...

Second picture is great. though a bit stalkery given the car dash at the bottom ;)

Recently was given this by my grandfather, who bought this in [i think] the 1930s:

a80bf0a6508cc659e9643820e5838c93.webp


fully-functioning, takes 120 film, looking forward to trying it out
 
Very cool man. I get the 2.8 lens, but why would a meterless model be more expensive? seems to me it would just be less practical...

Second picture is great. though a bit stalkery given the car dash at the bottom ;)

I think the premium stems from the relative scarcity of the meterless Rollei's. In later models (E/F), the majority of them have light meters, most of which are neither accurate or functional nowadays. My personal view is that a meterless model looks better and considering that I already have a handheld light meter, an inbuilt meter wouldn't be of any use.

As for my second picture, I've had a few comments about that. I'll have to crop it a bit for my final edit. :D
 

Trending content


Back
Top