Hi Eric, so have I,in fact the Rolleinars are not bad lenses either when used on my 20D, only the 4/80-200mm zoom tends towards fringes around high contrast elements. I don't have all that many Zeiss lenses for it because I don't see much point in duplicating the ones I've got with Contax/Yashica mounts. You're right, it is an engineers dream - and a very courageous step in leaving the well trodden paths of SLR design. It should actually have revolutionised the market. The Venice set is wonderful, particularly the Gondola reflections, which looks as if it was painted by an abstract artist. And Dusk is one I would have liked to have shot too.
Cheers Douglas LEICAFLEX wrote:
Hi Douglas, Enjoyed your series too! I'm a great fan of the Rolleiflex 3003 and CZ lenses. In fact, I have a converter to use these CZ Rollei "QBM mount" lenses on the Canon DSLR. My past experience with Velvia/Sensia/Ektachrome loaded onto the 3003 leads me to never want to sell my Rollei 3003 kit even though the convenience of digital erodes away on the "quality time" that I used to spend with this camera. As an engineer, I just love the modular design of this system. I've actually shot more with this 3003 system than any other SLR system. Allow me to share some pleasant memories with the list. Here are examples taken in Venice in 1999 with a Rolleiflex 3003 camera and 25mm Distagon lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ecky/331476658/in/set-72157594435520065 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ecky/331485858/in/set-72157594435520065 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ecky/331485681/in/set-72157594435520065 and here are 2 taken with the 85mm 1.4 HFT Planar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ecky/331485723/in/set-72157594435520065 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ecky/331485814/in/set-72157594435520065 The monochromes were scanned from Tri-X neg.'s then tinted in Corel Photopaint. Cheers! EricOn 19/03/2008, Douglas Sharp <douglas.sharp@xxxxxx> wrote:Hi, David, and thanks for taking a look. The shots are taken more or less straight of the CD I got back from the lab - of course they don't tell you what scanning parameters they used in the way of shapening (I suspect they did a lot of that - a little too much for my liking) and possibly tweaked the contrast too. I'm thinking of running them through my own scanner when I have time to see if there's a difference. In fact, on one scan on the CD the tarmac of the road was violet, even though the scans of the neighbouring negatives were ok as far as the colour is concerned - I reckon the predominant red of the shot (bricks) screws up their automatic processing. If I get a chance, the big Rollei (6006) will get taken out for a walk soon - I'm looking forward to seeing some BIG slides again. Cheers Douglas David Young wrote: > Hello again, Douglas! > > A few minutes ago, I wrote: > >> /However, on my monitor it appears that the contrast is a wee bit >> high, in all of them. I suspect this is a consequence of >> over-ripened (out of date) film. There also seems to be a fair bit >> of grain ... particularly in the last one ... imm030_31A. This, too, >> may be because of the beyond date film. I just didn't expect that >> much grain/ from any 6x6 negative. > > > It turns out that the Rollei 3003 is not a 6x6 but a rather rare 35mm > camera! I've been reading up on it, and it's quite a toy! I'd never > run across such a camera, or even heard of it. Looks to be a very > interesting device! For those who also do not know this camera, > Steven Gandy's Cameraquest site has a good blurb on it. ... > http://www.cameraquest.com/rol3003.htm > > However the format explains the grain, so I withdraw my comments about > the grain. My mistreak! > > (Still a nice series of photos!) > > Cheers! > --- > > David Young, > Logan Lake, CANADA >------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------ Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at: http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/ Archives are at: //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
