Tripod question

[rafael]

One more question, this time regarding the tripod fitting for my rollei 2.8F:

I have realiced that the screw in the tripod (Benro) is thinner than the nut in the bottom of the camera. I belive there are some kind of adapters, Am I right? how are they called?

In the other hand, I heard that a rolleifix could be interesting for tripod usage, what do you think? Would i need the adapter mentioned if using the rollefix?

Many thanks!

[DPurdy]

The adapters are usually available in camera stores because they are still used today. I think one way to refer to it is American to European. I believe the smaller size is an American standard and the larger size is the European standard. They are not expensive. If you have the smaller size screw on your tripod head then yes you will need the adapter in the Rolleifix.

There is good and bad about the Rolleifix. In theory it is good because it is quick and easy and it gives extra support to the soft metal of the camera back, keeping it from bending. The bad part is that you have to be extremely careful in using it or you will first scar up the bottom of the camera lens housing and second you will think you have it secured and let go of the camera only to watch your camera fall to the ground because it wasn't seated correctly. I have done both of those things.

It is no doubt that if you are going to carry your camera on a tripod over your shoulder or if you are going to aim your camera down a lot while on a tripod, you need extra support for the metal of the bottom of the back or you will bend it. Personally I prefer to use a Bogen 4 inch plate and a bogen hex shoe on a bogen tripod head. All safe and sound and no damage to the camera because the feet of the camera sit on the plate.

If you decide you want to use the Rolleifix they can be had by getting a pistol grip and taking the Rolleifix out of it. Sometimes cheaper than just buying the Rolleifix.
Dennis

[2 1/4]

I just purchased a Rolleifix myself, awaiting shipment. However after reading DPurdy's warning about scarring up the bottom of the camera lens housing, I'm having second thoughts. I prefer using a tripod over handheld, is there anyone here that uses a Leitz Tiltall tripod? If so what do you recommend?, as I'm not familiar with the Bogen setup.

[DPurdy]

I used to use a Tiltall copy called a Star-D. The only problem with it was that you couldn't change the head. I actually made a thin metal plate to go on top of the head so that the Rolleiflex feet would have a base to sit on. But what you don't get to do with one of those is put a ball head on it. A ball head is really good because it is lighter and doesn't have those handles sticking out and the one I have made by Gitzo is very sturdy. I can actually put my 4x5 on it.. or my Pentax 67 with a big lens is also perfectly stable. My Gitzo ball head is on Gitzo studex legs that I have owned for 25 years. If I was going to get a new tripod I would probably get a Manfrotto.

A lot of people love the Rolleifix. I have been called stupid more than once. If you use it just be care full to track the camera correctly and put the nubs into the proper sockets.
Dennis

[2 1/4]

Thank you for the reply.

[2 1/4]

Thanks for the reply and suggestions. One more thing, what about the Rollei panoramic head? Despite the Tiltall's inability to change heads, I've been using mine since the mid-seventies and old habits are hard to break.

[DPurdy]

That pano head attachment is interesting, I have the newer version. The difference between the older version, which is longer in shape, and the newer version which is shorter and fatter looking, is that the newer one needs a Rolleiflx to make it work right.
The theory of the pano head is that it holds the camera so that the turning axis is at the center of the lens rather than the film plane. That makes less distortion from turning. The offset is built into the old pano head but the new pano head needs the Rolleifix to offset the camera correctly.
What makes using it tricky is that it needs to be absolutely level when you use it or as soon as you turn the camera it goes out of level and the picture will come out smile or frown shape. The problem with using it level is that it tends to put horizons in the middle of the picture or in any case you are unable to adjust the view, you just have to have it level.
I am still intrigued with the idea of using mine because I would like to do some multiple image panels. So far the few times I have tried were frustrating because I couldn't compose the image the way I wanted. There needs to be someway to put a tripod head on top of the pano head so that you can tilt the camera while keeping the pano head level. I haven't worked that out yet.
Dennis

[2 1/4]

I guess I'll start shopping around for an early pano head. I'd like to try my hand at a panoramic as well. By the way, I saw some of your work in the new Rollei User's book, very nice. Were you using the FX?

[DPurdy]

If you area talking about the Blurb book we did a couple of years ago I think I have something like 10 images in there and some are with the FX and some with the F. The image quality is very nearly the same with either camera.
This evening I am going to load a new gallery on my pbase page that will contain several images mostly with the FX and printed in platinum. I will post the link here...
http://www.pbase.com/dpurdy/root
But the new Rollei platinum prints won't be there for a few hours.
Dennis

[DPurdy]

http://www.pbase.com/dpurdy/rolleiflex_platinum_prints

[2 1/4]

Thanks for posting the links. I especially like the Kansas Rolleiflex project.
I'm currently doing a somewhat similiar project. Actually I started it back in the mid-seventies and only recently decided to pick it back up. I hadn't touched a real camera in some twenty-five years until about a month ago.