[rollei_list] Re: Why Rollei T?
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:42:25 -0800
I had inquired forever about the Rollei T and 220. Evans is completely
wrong. The T does not have a 220 capability. To validate this, I wrote
Herr Prochnow some time back and he replied:
"The Rolleiflex T was never made for film 220."
I saved the email and still have it, so I a, 100% certain on this. I
know no one that has a Rollei T with 220 capability, and you cannot
add a 220 switch as you can on the Rollei 3.5 or 2.8 Planar/Xenotar
TLRs.
Peter K
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:54:34 -0500, Jan Decher <Jan.Decher@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bob:
>=20
> Why a Rollei T and not a 3.5F? Do you prefer the characteristics of
> the 3.5 Tessar over the Xenotar/Planar for portraits?
> I also noticed in A. Evans' book that the T is much lighter (36 oz)
> than the 3.5 F(44 oz), has only Bay I filter mount and (type 3) is 220
> capable.
> Great features. I will start looking for one.
> Jan
>=20
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2005, at 02:02 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager
> wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:39:44 -0500
> > From: Bob Shell <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Using only one camera would be like eating the same thing for all three
> > meals seven days a week. I have a Rollei T and 6008i in medium format.
> > In 35mm I have a Rollei QZ35T.
>=20
>=20
--=20
Peter K
=D3=BF=D5=AC
Other related posts:
