This review is for the Rolleiflex 2.8 FX Medium Format Twin Lens Reflex Camera. The Rolleiflex is an intriguing camera – a long list of inspiring and master photographers considered this camera one of their favorites. Some famous Rolleiflex camera users include Richard Avedon, Robert Doisneau, Diane Arbus, and Vivian Maier, among others.
This was my first time using the Rolleiflex and thus, the review below is geared towards beginner Rolleiflex users.
1) Product Specifications
- Camera Type: Manual focus, leaf shutter, Twin Lens Reflex (TLR)
- Format: 6 x 6cm
- Film Back/Loading: Standard manual loading, match arrows, close back and wind to first frame
- Film Type: 120 film ONLY: 6 x 6 (12 frames)
- Lens/Mount: Built-in 80mm f/2.8 Rollei Planar HFT; Equivalent to a 52mm lens in the 35mm format; Angle of view = 53 degrees; Bay III filter mount size
- Shutter: Seiko mechanical lens shutter; Shutter speeds 1 sec. to 1/500th and B
- Shutter Release: Lock-able button release on camera body lower front; Accepts standard mechanical cable release
- Self Timer: Not Applicable
- Flash Synchronization: Flash synchronization possible at all shutter speeds; Standard PC connection for electronic flash connection on camera body lower front; TTL flash dedicated hot shoe on camera body lower side; TTL/OTF flash metering possible with SCA compatible flash units when used with optional SCA356 adapter
- Mirror Lock-Up: Not Applicable
- Exposure Metering: TTL center-weighted manual exposure; Metering range EV 3-18
- Exposure Bracketing: Not Applicable
- Exposure Compensation: Possible for TTL flash via ISO setting dial
- Depth-of-Field Preview: Not Applicable
- Viewfinder: Folding viewfinder hood is supplied as standard and is interchangeable with optional 45 degree and 90 degree prism finders. Parallax compensation corresponding to distance set. Interchangeable standard focusing screen is a split-image/micro prism type with grid-lines. Note: This camera uses the same focusing screens as the 6000 series Rollei models.
- Viewfinder Info: Metering indication by five LED’s
- Film Transport: Permanent manual film winding crank located on camera body side which simultaneously advances the film and cocks the shutter.
- Multiple Exposure: Yes
- Focusing System: Manual with rotating knob on camera body side; Minimum focusing distance = 1m (3.3 feet). This camera includes a gold-plated Rolleinar II close-up lens set. The Rolleinar II set is only available with this 75th Anniversary model. Optional Rolleinar I close-up lens set #ROR1SB3 allows for focusing at distances from 39 1/2 to 17 3/4″ (100 to 45cm).
- Power Source: PX28 type 6V silver oxide or lithium battery. Battery powers light meter only
- Tripod Mount: 1/4″ standard socket with integral mounting plate for rapid mounting with the optional Rolleifix quick-release tripod mount #96548
- Dimensions: 5.8 x 4.3 x 4.25″ (147 x 109 x 108mm) HWD
- Weight: 1.275kg (45 oz)
2) Initial Impressions
As soon as I received this camera, the first thing I did was read the manual and load the film. The instruction manual was not as descriptive as I would have preferred. Instead, I googled “how to load film in the Rolleiflex” and came across numerous youtube videos which solved my confusion. I was able to get the film loaded rather easily after watching a few video tutorials.
All the images from this camera are shot on 120 medium format film. The negative is 6 x 6, which means that all the images from this camera will be square format.
After loading the film, I then started looking through the viewfinder.
The Rolleiflex has a waist level viewfinder. This means that images are viewed by holding the camera at your waist, and looking into the viewfinder from above. The viewfinder image is seen upright, however the image is reversed left to right. What you view is actually the reverse of what is in front of you, which can make things a bit more difficult if you are not used to that sort of viewfinder. I spent 20 minutes just composing images around my office without even taking a picture, trying to get used to this foreign way of looking through the viewfinder.
Below: A view from above looking into the viewfinder while the camera is pointed out a window. You can see the image is upright, however the image is reversed left to right.
The camera feels somewhat heavy– it weighs close to 3 pounds. A camera strap is useful since the camera is heavy, but I wasn’t impressed with the camera strap that comes with this camera. While it attaches very easily to the camera, the material feels cheap. But, this is not a deal breaker for me– camera straps are easy to replace and there are many good options on the market as a replacement.
I also tested the focus before I started shooting any frames. I found it difficult to feel confident about focusing without using the magnifying piece. All of the images that I shot were with the the magnifying piece.
While I used the battery (it was easy to install) it is only necessary if you are planning to use the light meter. If the battery dies while you are on a shoot, you can use an external meter or the Sunny 16 rule to meter, and you can keep shooting. I do like that feature!
3) Usage
After spending an hour and a half to two hours reading the manual, loading the film, and practicing composition and focus, I was finally ready to start taking some images.
It is a fun camera to use and it is a conversation starter as it looks different from modern digital cameras. People are curious to know about it!
Even with the magnifying piece, it is still hard to nail focus. A lot of my images came back soft and some were wildly out of focus. But, I expected that as I only had about a month to use this camera. I am sure with continued use my focusing would improve.
I sometimes spent 30-40 seconds trying to get my composition how I wanted it. Looking through the viewfinder is counter-intutive as what you see in front of you isn’t what you see with the twin-lens waist-level viewfinder. But instead of it frustrating me, it felt more like a fun creative challenge. Regardless, I did still end up with crooked images– you will see examples of those in section 4.
I did not take this camera to any weddings. I knew I would be far too slow at focus and composition, so I used it for personal use and at an editorial shoot.
I sent my rolls of film off to my favorite lab, Photo Impact Imaging, and there were lines that looked like scratches going through the image. I asked my lab if it was something on my end or theirs, and they said something inside the camera was scratching the film.
I tried to blow out any particles that might have found their way into the film back, but every roll was the same. While I could not figure out the culprit of the scratches during the course of the review, I figured out my problem after mailing back this camera.
Because I used You Tube videos to teach me how to load film, the videos showed older models of the Rolleiflex. Apparently with this newest model, the way of loading the film is different. Past models required to load the film under the first and second rollers in the back of the camera. The new FX model does not want you to load the film under the first roller. Completely my mistake!
4) Samples
These are the first few images I have ever taken with a Rolleiflex and and I know they are not all great in the technical sense. However, they show the trial and error necessary when using a new camera, especially when that camera is film where there is a considerable wait between shooting the images and seeing the images!
These are all taken in natural light on Portra 400 film.
I found flowers are a great way to practice because they do not move! :) They are patient when I take up to 1 minute to focus and compose. :) :)
Below: You can clearly see the scratch marks that are on the negative because of my film loading problem.
Below: A self-portrait in a mirror ;)
Below: More unfortunate scratch marks.
Below: This was was super out of focus, but I converted it to black and white and called it “artistic” ;) But clearly, this would not be one for the portfolio!
Below: This “winner” is both out of focus and crooked. You win some, you lose some sometimes. ;) I could tell it was crooked when I took the photo, but I could not, for the life of me, figure out how to get the lines straight on this particular frame because of the counter-intuitive viewfinder.
5) Summary
This camera is not easy to use – it is the type of camera that makes you slow down, which is actually nice. I wouldn’t call the experience of using this camera frustrating, but there is a learning curve.
This would not be my go-to camera when photographing, but I did find it to be a nice creative challenge.
6) Pricing and Where to Buy
The Rolleiflex 2.8 FX Medium Format Twin Lens Reflex Camera is available at B&H Photo Video and costs $8850.00.
Rolleiflex 2.8 FX Medium Format Twin Lens Reflex Camera
- Features
- Build Quality
- Focus Speed and Accuracy
- Handling
- Value
- Image Quality
- Size and Weight
- Metering and Exposure
- Ease of Use
- Speed and Performance
Photography Life Overall Rating
Really interesting thanks Laura… MF hmmm I would love to have a play!
Sadly, these cameras will no longer be manufactured. Rollei is shutting down its production for good and liquidating its factory…
They seem to be back in business under a new label: http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/en/rolleiflex-tlr/rolleiflex-28-fx.html
Oops, Nasim, I have to correct myself, You’re right, they will auction their assets next week.
Ooh That is sad! Such an iconic brand! it’s amazing how expensive these cameras still are.
I had the pleasure of trying a Hasselblad 503 this weekend myself and faced the same difficulties and learning curve. But I enjoyed it immensely – even having to use my iPhone as a light meter. But the images from MF are something else… the depth is amazing and film can still be so relevant if you can figure out a way to keep costs down.
The first fully “serious” camera I used (as a teen) was a Rollei 2.8 with Xenotar. A superb instrument–solid, precise, gorgeously fitted and finished, and a delight to use, once one learns the left/right reversal on the ground glass. Rollei was THE pro camera of the 1950s, and though photographers didn’t think in terms of “frame rate” or “autofocus” in those days, repeatedly produced elegant photographs that are still of historic quality. I’m sorry to hear of the end of production for this great name.
They’re back in business:
http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/de/rolleiflex-tlr.html
That camera brings back great memories. It was my father’s first real camera that he bought when I was about 15 years old – his was the f3.5 with no meter. I liked it so much that I convinced my high school to buy the 2,8 that you have so that I could use it for the newspaper and yearbook. I then used his 3.5 for a college photo journalism course while all of the others used the standard college issue Yashica Mats.
I enjoyed your article for obvious reasons. I didn’t think that it was a hard camera to focus, but like you, I almost always used the magnifying piece. Also, I thought it was interesting that you mentioned different straps being available since, as I recall, the Rollei strap has integrated spring clips that fasten the strap to the camera. And finally, might I suggest that a better way to hold the camera is to cradle it with your right hand and steady it with your left hand on the focusing knob (or is it the other way around – sorry, you know what happens to memories as you get older.)
Thanks Don! Yes, I actually saw some camera straps that would fit the Rollei at WPPI. They do have a very particular set up, so not any camera strap would bit, but I know there are some great options out there!!
Thanks for your comment!
I bought an original Rolleicord V for $75 on Craigslist – worth looking around for used medium format if you want to experiment.
Very cool!!! If I were to pick up a Rollei of my own, I would definitely go the used route… but looks like that will be the only way to go since Rolleiflex is liquidating. :( :(
Just $8,850?? I ‘ll take two :-)
I know!!! Pricey! But there are used models on the market at places like KEH for much better pricing! :)
Great article Laura. I have been trying for years to achieve the look of the Porta film and was never able to achieve it. I tried every plugin available and many LR presets, nothing. Great skin tones!.
I am afraid I do not have the ability or the space to develop film an round us there are only one or two places that will do it. Cheers!
Mmmm…film. Luscious. Those Rolleis are great cameras, a friend of mine loves his. The waist level finders work pretty well, just takes time to get used to. Portra’s a nice film, good skin tones. If you’re going to continue shooting medium format, and let’s face it, you should, grab a few rolls of Kodak Ektar for some extra saturated goodness. Kodak call it their version of Velvia. I’ve just run a few rolls through a recent purchase; a Fuji GSW690III, which is 6×9 medium format range finder. Same aspect as 35mm but obviously much bigger. Haven’t developed it yet, but image examples around the web look gorgeous.
I have some Ektar, but STILL have not tried it! I should, though!
I thought about getting one of those for fun. Debating on it or that cheap Lomo 120 format with the super wide angle lens. Interesting to read your experiences.
NWCS- I have not tried a Lomo or a Holga. But I want to!!!! :) They look like fun!
I’ve also thought of the Fuji GA-645i which looks like a cheap but good way to get into some medium format goodness.
Wow, I didn’t even realise they were still available new (even if not for long).
I have a 1937 Rolleiflex (with f3.5 Tessar lens) that I bought second hand for $100 in the 1980s.
I was sent around Australia in 1987 taking photographs of Australian lighthouses for a bicentennial history “From Dusk Till Dawn”. I was mainly using my own 5×4 cameras (ie 5×4″ sheet film cameras, either a 19th century-style monorail camera or a more compact field camera) but I also took the Department’s Mamiya 645 as a “point and shoot” camera. The Mamiya died and I then used my Rollieflex instead, still a 50-year old camera at that stage. To my surprise, image quality from the Rollieflex was far superior to the then-modern Mamiya, though lack of multi-coating meant it was less capable shooting into the sun.
The planar lens on your camera should be superior to the Tessar on mine. You don’t mention any issues with parallex (due to the viewing lens being different from the taking lens and admittedly I don’t remember particularly having problems with that but the modern camera may be better corrected for this as well. I don’t recall having any problems with focusing (perhaps I was just more used to primitive processes) and definitely no scratches on the film, even with such an old camera. That doesn’t sound right. If you can’t locate and correct that, I would take the camera back for repair under warranty or exchange.
Here is one image that I remember taking with my ancient Rollieflex: https://murrayfoote.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/deal-lighthouse-from-cottage-ruin-6×6.jpg
Here is a blog post that lists the equipment I used on the Lighthouse project including an image of the Rollieflex: http://murrayfoote.com/2013/03/01/photographic-equipment-used-in-from-dusk-to-dawn/
(There are also many lighthouse images in the Blog under the “From Dusk Till Dawn(Lighthouses)” tab, mainly 5×4 but also 6×4.5, Rolleiflex and 35mm Fisheye.)
Beautiful image!! Yep, they are still making new cameras, but they just announced that their factory will be liquidated!!
Kudos for taking it on – having a Rollei has been on my short list for some time, and I really loved reading your experience as a total newbie with it (as I would be). Out of curiosity… do you already have experience shooting film (and/or using a light meter or just gutting it with Sunny 16?), or was that new also? And finally (sorry – are these scans of your prints?) One of the things that has held me back is the reality that I’m not going to invest in creating my own darkroom at this point, and sending film off feels… well, like I’m leaving some choices up to a developer that I’d rather make myself. Especially with some selective dodging/burning – but getting scans also seems like a you’re erasing the benefits of film in the first place by post-editing digitally… make sense? Anyway, loved it!
Hi Christopher! Glad you enjoyed it from a newby perspective! I am not sure that everyone would– especially those who are Rolleiflex experts. But if I am looking at a new type of camera, I do like to hear about a beginner’s perspective. I think it’s helpful when picking up a new camera.
I have shot film regularly for the past 3 years. I mostly use a Contax 645. And I use an external light meter, instead of relying on the in camera meters of older cameras. My preference is an external meter.
And yes, these are scans of my prints. I send everything off to Photo Impact Imaging and they process and scan my film.
Since most of my photography work is for my clients (I am a wedding photographer), I like to have an expert lab process my film– t they are better at working with the chemicals than I am and that I just don’t have the time to scan all my film. I do, however, make minor adjustments to my scans in Lightroom before I send off to clients. But I shoot film because I love the process and the end result! Film is my favorite medium. For personal work, I do sometimes use a community darkroom, but I just do that for fun. For client work, I need a more streamlined process.
Don’t ever let my RZ67 know this, but I’ve always wanted a Rolleiflex TLR. Great review, Laura, and I admire your calm mind, something I’d certainly lack given the same chance. :)
You can get the same level of joy, or frustration, with the Mamiya TLRs. Perhaps not as well made, but with interchangeable lenses. Not made anymore, of course, but lots of used ones out there (try KEH).⅝
JTW, I love KEH!! That is where I get lots of my film cameras from!
My hands down favourite camera of all time was the Rolleiflex SLX, same form factor as the TLR but an SLR with built-in motordrive & metering… thinking back, I did all my street photography using it and I managed to carry a giant manfrotto tripod as well.
Though I was much younger then, I didn’t have ANY concerns regarding weight, speed of use ( the motor winding was an elite feature back then ) or disorientation due to the reversal of the ground glass image. In fact the ground glass allow you to ‘really’ see the composite. Makes me thing we’ve all lost something in the move to digital.
After all our discussions about the use of the term “crop sensor,” I loved this part of the description of the camera: “Lens/Mount: Built-in 80mm f/2.8 Rollei Planar HFT; Equivalent to a 52mm lens in the 35mm format.” …”Equivalent to a 52mm lens…” So, if we call a sensor smaller than a 35mm format a “crop sensor,” what the hek do we call one that’s bigger? An Uncrop sensor? A non-crop? a better-than-crop? Gads, another debate!
It is called a reversed crop factor since pretty much 35mm film was adopted as a photography standard. Medium and large format lenses feature reduced depth of field in comparison to 35mm (“full frame”). This full frame is a modern term because in the 50-60s professional photographers were pretty much solely shooting medium format and all full-35m-frame cameras were considered consumer end.
Know anyone who bought a new 2.8FX recently? Ever? Pointless “review.”
Yes, I purchased one recently though I paid significantly less than the price mentioned in the article. Fantastic camera!
how much did it cost you? :)
I paid $3700 brand new in box with warranty from a Rollei dealer in Europe (+ $75 shipping). Worth every penny!
I own a Rollei 3.5 (Automat Model 4 circa 1952) that I shoot with occasionally and brought on my last trip to Europe as a secondary camera. As you point out, TLR are a different framing and shooting experience. Not having the camera directly between your face and the subject is a fun way to shoot.
I have never had film scratching as the rollers above and below the frame prevent the film from scraping on the front side and the paper backing prevents scraping on the back (unless you shot with 220 instead of 120). Perhaps one of your rollers is stuck and not rotating?
While it’s not a replacement for my primary camera, I enjoy shooting with a variety of older cameras to get a feel for photography with different restrictions. No auto-exposure, no meters, 6-36 exposures per roll (depending on 120 or 35mm and what frame size), etc.
Hi Brad! I didn’t mean for this to get posted until I added in the reason for the scratching!! I just figured it out over the weekend by talking with some Rolleiflex experts. The problem is that Rolleiflex changed how to load film in the FX model. So if you load the film like older models, it will scratch. I am sure the manual described this, but because I am a visual learner, I turned to You Tube for film loading instruction. My mistake!!
I’m confused. Hundreds, if not thousands of reviews have been done on 6 x 6 format TLR camera’s, what makes this camera any different or unique besides the price? Technically, the basic design is 80 years old and has been a favorite of event photographers for as long, so there are numerous used models available at a more “affordable” price. I understand the format is new for the reviewer, but to invest $9,000 for a novelty is beyond most of our budgets. If the purpose of the exercise was to explore the world of TLR 110/220 film format then the reviewer would have been better off with a “system” such as a Mamiya C220/330 which offers interchangeable lenses, pentaprisms, and bellows focusing. If it was solely to explore the 110/220 format then Hasselblad, Pentax 67, Mamiya 7, Mamiya RB/RZ, Contax 645, and many others were a more economical choice. Sorry, I just don’t understand what makes this camera worth the price.
First, it’s 120/220, and the Rollei was 120. 110 was for point and shoots. Second, I dont think that she was recommending it, just reviewing it for fun since it was a novelty for her, and probably other digital age photographers. I enjoyed it,and I used to own one.
My mistake- it’s been 13 years since I last purchased120 film for the roll film back of my Graflex Super Graphic. The question still stands about spending $9000 for a novelty, which to some of us is an extravagance. Fun would be to invest $1000 on a TLR or maybe a 4×5 view where the image is upside down and reversed in order to learn the nuances of medium format.
*…nuances of a larger format.
I think the quality and build of this camera along with some of the finest optics dictate or at least add to the price of this great piece of equipment. I will say that it is a bit difficult to get used to the reverse image and focusing. It can be disappointing at times. But when it works correctly it is a beautiful machine.
That was an interesting read because I used one of these cameras in years gone by for evidence collection at crime scenes. It was, however rather pointless as it was more about the reviewers inability to adapt to the camera system than about the camera itself. It seems to me that all of the 3/5 scores were due to the operators skill rather than the features or quality of the camera.
I like the review from the ‘noob’ perspective. The Rollei is my go to camera, I shoot weddings and Portraits with it and have done for many years. I love the View finder and how it is laterally inverted. It is possible over time to become very proficient at focusing which seemed to be your main problem, I only use the magnifier when using a close up lens.
That is another thing to mention the close focus is a rather limited 1m ish so a Rolleinar close up lens is a almost a necessity for good headshots.
Here is an image of mine:
Have Fun!
Hi Laura! Great article, thank you for the review. Congratulations on your 2.8FX, you just got the ultimate TLR! It will serve you well for the rest of your life (may it be long!) Don’t let the negative comments here discourage you. I have been a 2.8FX user for 10 years now, it is the most amazing camera I have ever used and I do not regret any cent I spent buying it. I recently added a Hasselblad to the collection, mostly for the convenience of changing lenses and backs. But my Rolleiflex is still the one I take if I want to have only one simple camera with me. Out of my (not very large) collection of cameras, the Rolleiflex lens provides the best images in my opinion. The 2.8FX has a very reliable meter which is a big asset when you want to travel light, not lugging tons of equipments with you. The meter is precise enough for shooting slide film.
A side note – judging from your camera pictures it seems that you are missing the focus knob cover. Here a few snapshots of mine with the cover in place and the cover removed. I suggest to get in touch with the seller to get one!
There are a few recommended accessories: filters are available in Bayonet III (Bay III or Bay 3) size. There are 2 kinds of lens hoods, a metal one and a rubber one – I personally use the rubber one and also use a UV filter. If you ever use your Rollei on a tripod, I highly recommend you to use a tripod adapter called Rolleifix. The Rolleifix provides a way of quickly attaching/detaching the camera from the tripod and also protects the baseplate of the camera from mechanical stress which could damage the film cover.
Hope this helps, let me know if you have any question! Have fun with the Rollei! :-)
Etienne
Looks the pictures disappeared when I edited my post to correct a typo. Here they are again just in case.
Etienne
I chuckled when you said the camera requires a learning curve. I was a police photographer and was issued a Yashika TLR camera. I don’t think I EVER got a photo that was completely straight. Things were crooked and I could never get it quite, exactly straight. But my goodness you could get right up on your subject if you wanted and the photos were So clear. Thanks for the article. It was good reading.
$8850.00. EEK! Cool camera, but out of my budget. There are old units from the 80’s available from time to time for around 1500.00 or so. Wondering how well they perform compared to the new ones.
Laura, I have a Vintage Roleiflex camera passed on to me by my grandparents. Could you help me place the year of manufacture, model and basically appraise it for me?
Check this out.
http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/allTLR4.shtml
I used a Rolleiflex for landscape photography in the 1990’s, took it hiking with me and the results were nearly always exceptional – a heavy beast to carry around up mountains but worth it. The comment about needing to “slow down” is telling, with so few shots per film and not exactly an easy film changing process to put in a new film on a cold mountain side I treated each shot as my last! It made the whole process of taking photographs relaxing and rewarding. I still have my Western Master light meter from those days but stupidly sold the Rollieflex on Ebay for a couple of hundred pounds ten years ago. Three years ago I bought a Mamiya 6×6 which so far hasn’t left its box but reading this article made me recall that its still waiting to be used and its time to dust it down and retrace my memories on taking photo’s the original way.
Thanks
Keith
I use two Rollei cameras regularly, both from the 1960’s: a Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar (80mm) and a Tele-Rollei f4.0 Sonnar (135mm). They are wonderful tools for film photography. If waist-level viewing is a problem, purchase a prism (be sure you have a later model that uses one) or use the open-frame finder. The prism provides a huge view, makes focusing easy, and eliminates the “reversed” image. Have some of your negatives scanned and they will produce files that “blow away” all but your most expensive digital cameras. I also use a Hasselblad, and it’s interchangeable backs and lenses are convenient, but the Rollei’s are by far my most enjoyable to use medium format film cameras.
I think it is one of the best ever made. I have used it extesively at Big Bend National Park and in New Smyna Beach,FL. It just seems to be more fun and I have not been disappointed. Currently it is being refurbished and I am using the pocket Rollei the 35S.