delder Loc: Maryland

I had a used Yashicaflex in High School and loved it. @ 5'7", I found that the ability to shoot from above my head opened up a lot of shots in crowd situations!

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Not an SLR, but my Rollei 35 f3.5 was the best P&S I ever had.

BebuLamar

You called it P&S but it's no P&S. You have to set your aperture and your shutter speed and you have to estimate the distance and set it on the scale on the lens. How can it be P&S. It's small but not P&S.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Sounds good BUT, like our friends at Hasselblad, when they went digital, the prices may be astronomical! I use the Rollei TLR system for many years. They were superb and reliable cameras with great lenses. I had one with a 2.8 Xenotar lens, and enter with a 3.5 Xeonotar- both were razor sharp. I also use a Rollei Wide and a Tele-Rollei.No issue with the waste-level viewfinder becse all my cameras had eye-level prism-finders equipped with Brightscreen viewing screens with micro prism. In on 3.5 model, the sports finder was equipped with a Rolleimeter range finder.

The cameras seemed, to the uninitiated. like a rather clumsy box but with a Rollei Pistol Grip, a well-balanced flash bracket, and eye-level viewing, these models were made very efficient and ergonomic for fast shooting situations. The viewfinder was parallax -corrected for its minimum shooting distance and their close up, there was a prism for the viewing lines that compensated for parallax,

When 10x10 wedding albums became popular, I could fill the frame. For other print formats, I would leave space for the required crop, however, the negatives were of such good quality, edge-to-edge sharpness, that even a cropped section yielded good enlarged prints. I produced many large prints between 16x20 and 30x40 with no loss of sharpness.

If the coming new issue of Digital Rollei is anything like their film predecessors, I'd be interested.

netsailer Loc: Tampa, FL

your response got me to thinking that the 120 film was kind of like using a large sensor as opposed to the smaller ones in older/lower end digital cameras. The large negatives allowed sharper images when enlarged. And could do a fair amount of cropping and still be using the equivalent of a 35mm negative

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Pentax made a SLR into the 1980s the model 67 It looked like a 35 on steroids.
It was a 6X7 format

Zooman 1

I had the C-3 and the C-220 both were great cameras. I miss the double extension bellows close up ability even with the parallax problem.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I used a Rollei when the only other 120 roll film option was a Hasselblad, which was beyond my price point. It was a wonderful camera! However, options later included the Bronica and Mamiya C330, M645 and RB67. More broadly speaking, WordPerfect was displaced by Word and Lotus 1-2-3 was displaced by Excel. There are countless other analogies, including vehicle evolution. It’s just the nature of technology, capitalism and competition, but that doesn’t change my fond memories of that beautiful Rolleiflex camera.

fhayes Loc: Madison, Tennessee

I find it laughable when someone slams film and film cameras. You can just scroll along to what fancies you. I embrace film and digital. Yes (in case you are wondering or want to complain about something else) I have a darkroom with three yes THREE omega enlargers and on my computer I have lightroom and photoshop.
WHAT is my fascination? I can shoot whatever format I want. I ENJOY shooting whatever and wherever I want. If you have a nicer digital or film setup, I am absolutely happy for you!
For those that NEED to voice/type the negative (pun intended), may the blue screen of death devour everything on your hard drives.

p.s.
I recently acquired a RollieMagic II it makes a frame of about 2" square. I am in absolute joy that all it needed is a roll of film to get going!

MJPerini

I would be skeptical of rollei making real TLR
First, if it is digital, there is no need for 2 lenses....think about that.
Second, no one has made a 6x6 sensor because the market would be so small and the sensor so expensive.
Third, if the sensor were smaller than 6x6, there are already options from Phase one (roughly 4.5x6 cm)
and other smaller MF options
They could make another 'toy TLR' like Minox.
I loved Rolleiflex cameras and other 6x6 cameras, but don't think the economics will support them.

fhayes Loc: Madison, Tennessee

TLR vs. back button focus/viewer. Making a bit of a joke here.
Other than novelty you are correct TLR had its day.

P-J Loc: UK

Having worked/sold Rollei in the UK (twice) we had a lot of interest from Rollei owners/users asking if they would ever produce a digital TLR?
As they were bought out by Samsung & now as far as I know Samsung no longer produce cameras, & Franke & Heidecke (Rollei Fototechnic) no longer exist in Braunschweig, Germany & has had various owners/guises inc. Danish owners & former employees etc. it will be interesting to see who is actually going to manufacture these 'new' digital TLR cameras.
I just hope they have more success than they have had since the Samsung takeover.
I still have a Rolleiflex TLR inherited from an uncle.
Though now my photography is digital 99.99% of the time

Love 'em or hate 'em

Good luck to them.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I didn't see anyone on this thread slamming film or film cameras.

BebuLamar

I think Samsung no longer own Rollei. Yes I wonder how close the true TLR it would be. Petalpixel seemed to say it has a 70mm f/2.8 lens so the sensor would be relatively large. Doubt that it would be 6x6.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

Interesting to hear - used Rollei SL-66, and SL 6006 series until digital - probably had a dozen - liked them a lot - but they did have a habit of breaking - really grate lenses - hope it goes well for them