Rolleiflex urge

[jdriffill]

I have this urge to buy a Rolleiflex. Very disturbing! In the MF department, I have a perfectly fine Yashica 635 which has not seen a lot of action in the years since I bought it -- though actually it seems to take good pictures -- and a Hasselblad 500 CM which I thought was going to be the end of the story, as well as several older folders (Zeiss, Agfa, Epsilon, Adox). I'm not sure what it is. Is it the appeal of owning this silent simple solid old mechanical thing with a great lens, a landmark in 20th century photography? How much will I actually use it? (And does it matter?) Or just the urge to buy yet another camera?

Why don't I just use the cameras I have, and not bother about this? Will I have time to use such a thing much in the next few years before I go completely digital -- along with everyone else? (And obviously any old cheap digital camera will produce better pictures.)

And if one were to get one, does one go for a 'user' camera in good working order, or pay a lot for a beautiful collectable-condition specimen? E.g., a 3.5C Planar 'user' for ca 450 gbp, or a 2.8F in exc+ condition for 850GBP, or a near mint 3.5F with case, box, etc.. for ca 1400 GBP?

Or maybe a Rolleiflex T (around 275 - 325 gbp)? Or a Yashica Mat, or a Minolta Autocord??

Hmm! well -- if in doubt....

Any observations, most welcome!

Rgds, John

[bgetty]

i know how you feel! i'm currently lusting after a yashica-mat 124 (or 124G) as an entry into MF, but my budget is terribly strict to allot for the added cost of an epson V500 and some 120.

if you have the means, i'd go for a used (see: lightly exercised) rollei 2.8 in perfectly functional condition with clean glass. nice cosmetics are a plus, but as long as the controls are silky smooth and the glass is unmarred, i would try to snap one up a bargain price.

[Frontman]

Originally Posted by jdriffill

I have this urge to buy a Rolleiflex. Very disturbing! In the MF department, I have a perfectly fine Yashica 635 which has not seen a lot of action in the years since I bought it -- though actually it seems to take good pictures -- and a Hasselblad 500 CM which I thought was going to be the end of the story, as well as several older folders (Zeiss, Agfa, Epsilon, Adox). I'm not sure what it is. Is it the appeal of owning this silent simple solid old mechanical thing with a great lens, a landmark in 20th century photography? How much will I actually use it? (And does it matter?) Or just the urge to buy yet another camera?

Why don't I just use the cameras I have, and not bother about this? Will I have time to use such a thing much in the next few years before I go completely digital -- along with everyone else? (And obviously any old cheap digital camera will produce better pictures.)

And if one were to get one, does one go for a 'user' camera in good working order, or pay a lot for a beautiful collectable-condition specimen? E.g., a 3.5C Planar 'user' for ca 450 gbp, or a 2.8F in exc+ condition for 850GBP, or a near mint 3.5F with case, box, etc.. for ca 1400 GBP?

Or maybe a Rolleiflex T (around 275 - 325 gbp)? Or a Yashica Mat, or a Minolta Autocord??

Hmm! well -- if in doubt....

Any observations, most welcome!

Rgds, John

Do it! I picked up my first Rolleiflex a couple of years ago when I found one sold as "junk" for a cheap price. The camera was beat up, and the taking lens had heavy scratches and cleaning marks. I intended to use it for a bookend, but I ran a roll of film through it for fun, and found that it took wonderful pictures. If a such a beat up Rolleiflex could take such nice photos, what would one in good condition do?

Anyway, I have a taste for the 2.8 models, and have collectected A through F. Cosmetic appearance means less to me, so long as the camera works. I actually prefer the older, beat-up looking cameras, these are not as expensive, and often work no worse than minty-looking cameras.

[loquax ludens]

I have a Rolleiflex K4A. It's a well-built camera, but the screen is very dim. I'll have to get a Rick Oleson split prism ground glass for it before I can really use it. The gg in my Minolta Autocord is much brighter, but it also lacks a split prism. If you have very good eyesight and are able to focus without the split ring, you can probably get by fine with the original Minolta Autocord gg.

[Brian Legge]

I have a perfectly good Autocord. I love using it but have been lusting after a higher end rollei for a while.

I was going back and forth between lenses as both the Xenotar and Planar have brilliant reputations. After spending too many hours looking at photos on flickr (searching for examples of both, deciding if I like how the lens renders and then looking at the description to see what it is), I've come to accept that I have a strong preference for the planar lenses.

I definitely prefer either to the Autocord wide open. Around f/5.6 though all of them perform around the same level to me. I find background aberrations very distracting though so I end up preferring a much more modern look.

The brighter viewing lens would be nice - and I often shoot wider open - but I don't think I can really justify a planar rollei unless I came across a great deal with one.

At least for now, I'll probably stick with 35mm for any time I'm at all short on light and save the TLR for brighter times.

[Dan Daniel]

TLRs are my favorite style of camera. Rolleis are the best made TLRs. Other TLRs have their strengths, but a Rollei has a precision and smoothness hard to find elsewhere. Similar to a Leica M3, you just know you are holding an example of what humans can do in their best moments.

And you can usually sell it for what you paid.

As a user, I think the 'C' series (E to Americans, yes?) is the best value. I recently picked up one in very good condition but a dented focus hood for a good price. 3.5 Xenotar. I pulled the meter within an hour of getting it. I knew I was going to use it, drive it into the ground, so resale isn't an issue for me. Lens quality and shooting experience are important, and it has that.

[Brian Legge]

Very, very nice. I almost picked up a D with a 2.8 Xenotar two days ago but the seller decided they'd rather hold on to it. I totally get why - particularly with results like that.

[Vics]

Watch the classifieds. I'll be putting my MX up there with a bunch of accessories this weekend.

[twopointeight]

Get the cleanest E2, E3, or F you can find in the $1000 range. Then send it to Harry Fleenor for a CLA and installation of a Maxwell screen. You will then have one of the best cameras money can buy.

[ReeRay]

I've just refurbished my late grandfathers Rollei Automat type 5 3.5F Tessar TLR. Harry Fleenor did a full CLA, shutter and transport overhaul and Maxwell bright screen fitted. And it's a dream.

Don't hesitate - you will not be disappointed.

[jonmanjiro]

John, my thoughts are in this post. Just substitute Rolleiflex in place of Hasselblad

I too have an irrational urge to try a Rolleiflex but I've somehow managed to resist until now....

P.S. Is that W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 seeing much action these days?

[redisburning]

I had a lot of fun playing with the Autocord. I sold it to fund a few LF things, I don't really regret it as while the camera certainly met my expectations for the price, it met my expectations for the price.

once you find "it" you don't immediately know it is "it". yes, you know it's good. but you try and convince yourself that there may still be something better out there. you have to get other good stuff and when you are driven back to "it" time and time again, then you'll know.

I've gone through this a few times, in addition to cameras I've also done it with pens, pocket knives, computer mice, etc. don't worry about it. I would go for the Rollei. If it doesn't push you back towards the 'blad, sell the 'blad. If it does, then you shouldn't lose much on resale.

[raid]

All Rolleicord and Rolleiflex cameras can produce amazing images in the right hands.

[jdriffill]

Originally Posted by jonmanjiro

Is that W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 seeing much action these days?

One good reason for not buying a Rolleiflex -- or anything else -- is that the splendid W-Nikkor 3.5cm/f1.8 ought to be seeing more action than it is. I used it a lot last summer. But it has been resting since. Great lens. I'm very glad to have it.

Many thanks, all, for your thoughts on the Rolleiflex issue, and the encouragement to get one. Very interesting! I'll be thinking about it for a little while. Or maybe not...

[jdriffill]

Originally Posted by Dan Daniel

I pulled the meter within an hour of getting it.

Pulled the meter??? Are they detachable?

[DC1030]

Go buy a Rollei 2.8. If you buy something other, like autocord or so,
you'll still lust for the rollei. if you buy a 3.5, you'll lust for the 2.8...
i know what i'm, talking about.

[peter_n]

Originally Posted by Vics

Watch the classifieds. I'll be putting my MX up there with a bunch of accessories this weekend.

The MX was my first Rolleiflex, I took the route of an inexpensive body to see if I liked using the camera while I read The Classic Rollei A Definitive Guide by John Phillips. There's a bewildering number of models and variations on models and the Phillips book provides an excellent roadmap. FWIW I now use an E3 which is one of the models without a meter.

They are wonderful cameras - good luck in your quest!

[jdriffill]

Originally Posted by Vics

Watch the classifieds. I'll be putting my MX up there with a bunch of accessories this weekend.

Thanks, Vic. I'll look out for it.
All the best, John

[thegman]

I know what you mean. I had a 3.5E Planar, but sold it. I did not like the stares I got while using it. However, I do look back wistfully for it. The image quality is stunning, not as sharp as a Mamiya 7 or Hasselblad, but wide open, it's just a really beautiful look. You can get sharp if you stop down though. They are tiny and feel great too.

If I were to buy again, I'd consider a GX, if I was feeling wealthy, if not, then I'd probably just get anything in nice condition. I got one with a meter the last time, this time I would not bother. Accuracy is unlikely to be great, better off with a handheld or Sunny 16 I think.

[leicapixie]

Many years ago, i purchased a Rollie Automat 75mmZeiss Tessar lens f3.5 which reqd an immediate CLR and fitted a new ground glass. It has the automatic loading, a hood, aY2 filter and lens cap. System in a hand.
I was shooting Fashion and Documentary often using Mamiyaflex C2,C3,C33 and finally C330. I traded that system for a Pentax 6x7, some lenses.
When i sold the Pentax system, i kept the Rollei.
It takes superb pix. It is so quite. I wish i had someone to print my color in an analogue manner. I have a scanner but need the film holder.
I would suggest getting almost any Rollei.

[Dan Daniel]

Originally Posted by jdriffill

Pulled the meter??? Are they detachable?

Yep! Well, the one on mine came off easily. First version E 3.5. Below the meter window projection is a single small screw, slotted head. Back this out- it is captured so it will stop at after the screw comes out maybe 2mm? Now rotate the meter unit counter-clockwise and pull out. Maybe a slight press toward the body while doing this? Small rotation, maybe 20 degrees?

There are two small tabs on the bottom that go into slots. The screw pushes a rod down which captures the meter. As so often with Rollei- simple, elegant, very effective design and execution.

I noticed a felt rim inside the focus knob, where the meter body edge would sit. Anyone know if this is a light trap, or just a bearing surface? I put a film cap cover with an added rim of foam into the opening for cosmetics, but not certain if a cap is needed to prevent light leaks.

[Ezzie]

Been a year since I used mine, but that's due to a light leak I haven't got round to fixing. Though my other TLR's are fun too (both the Kalloflex and the Flexaret have seen use this last month) the E3 trounces them both when it comes to smoothness, fit and finish, not to mention the qualities of Planar wide open. Many go on about this and that lens has the best bokeh, all I can say is the Planar has the best out of focus performance of any of my lenses.

[mrisney]

I went through a 2.8F Planar, and a MVX Tessar last year. The Planar was too expensive for me - to hold onto. In some ways I thought my Mamiya 6 IQ beat the Rolleiflex 2.8F, and the amount I had invested in it, brought up an idea in my mind, that one would have to go, and so I sold it off.

I well understand the itch, I wanted another go at a TLR. This Spring I searched for a good condition Autocord (without a meter) and found one.

I paid a third of what I had for the Rolleiflex 2.8F, and I actually prefer the Autocord. The focusing knob beneath the taking lens, the size (it's smaller than the Rolleiflex). The film winder mechanism allows a roll of 120 to stay flatter. I think it's a better camera for me. It's overall less fussy than the Rolleiflex.

Karl Bryan CLA'ed mine, and explained the engineering and manufacturing specs of some of the Japanese cameras. They came from companies that were initially military/industrial grade, and after the war, forced to supply the consumer/professional market. They were better built, better parts, image quality is sharper and contrast-ier, which are the type of images I like. Karl also told me using a collimator, he measured my Rokkor 75mm 3.5 - 4 element lens, and it resolved 150 LPM wide open.

I think there is some myth built up around Franke & Heidecke products. Not disputing the overall quality, but when people say "It's the best, the Rolls Royce of TLR's" I tend to let them let out their diatribes. I'd think about it, unless you just really want to hold it in your hands and admire cool old stuff, I bet you would get just as good results from a well made Japanese TLR.

My .02

[MaxFrank]

Originally Posted by bgetty

i know how you feel! i'm currently lusting after a yashica-mat 124 (or 124G) as an entry into MF, but my budget is terribly strict to allot for the added cost of an epson V500 and some 120.

if you have the means, i'd go for a used (see: lightly exercised) rollei 2.8 in perfectly functional condition with clean glass. nice cosmetics are a plus, but as long as the controls are silky smooth and the glass is unmarred, i would try to snap one up a bargain price.

A good choice for entering. When I first started doing MF I first bought a Mamiya RB67 outfit and after rethinking that it was actually really large and only really good on a tripod I have dedicated it as the landscape/portrait camera. Then I bought a Bronica ETRS outfit which is okay. I realized that after I bought a Yashica Mat 124 for a price I could not pass on that if I started with that it might have saved me a lot of money.

[Dan Daniel]

Originally Posted by mrisney

I think there is some myth built up around Franke & Heidecke products. Not disputing the overall quality, but when people say "It's the best, the Rolls Royce of TLR's" I tend to let them let out their diatribes. I'd think about it, unless you just really want to hold it in your hands and admire cool old stuff, I bet you would get just as good results from a well made Japanese TLR.

My .02

Diatribe, to be ignored:

Two different issues you raise. The second one, getting just as good results from a Japanese as a Rollei, I agree. People (like me!) find certain lenses to their liking, but by the time you get to the level of an Autocord or Rollei lens, this is mostly taste. Well, and large aperture performance comparing a Rokkor/Tessar design to a Planar/Xenotar design. And the large aperture differences are good for both designs, just different. Again, taste and preferences are at work at this level.

And camera condition- critical.

But on the quality of parts and finish, I will disagree with you. I've been inside Autocords and inside Rolleiflexes, worked on both. The Autocord is a great design, executed at a very good level of finish. The Rolleiflex is a very good design, executed at a great level of finish. It's minor, but as someone who has been around machine work and designers for decades, the Rollei oozes attention to detail and execution in every piece. The finish on even minor gears and levers is better than the Autocord. Pure and simple.

Recognize that before the end of WWII, Japan was not known as a machine work country. There was no Leica or Rollei tradition, no auto industry of high quality, etc. There is a very good reason that Japanese cameras and lenses came with that gold 'quality' sticker- they needed to change their reputation for shoddy machine work. And boy, did they ever!

Of course they had one advantage over parts of Germany in that their existing manufacturing base, never as large as Germany's base to begin with, was pretty thoroughly destroyed by bombing throughout the country. Meaning that they had to rebuild from scratch, and could abandon old technologies and adopt more sophisticated ones with no penalty of lost investment.

And Japan could also re-think what a camera was, where they could find a market of their own. The 35mm SLR was their puppy more than any other country, and they brought their newly acquired machinist skills to bear on the design and manufacturing of these cameras, and changed the direction of photography.

Since few if any of us are using TLRs on daily basis in commercial or journalist work, the finish differences between an Autocord and Rolleiflex will probably never lead to wear and tear on parts that makes the camera unusable. They do exist, though.

Sorry to get on my high horse here. Like the idea that the Rolleicord is the same finish level as a Rolleiflex, only simpler, the idea that the Autocord is the same finish level as a Rolleiflex I find false. 'Quality' is a concept that seems to be disappearing. In a world where someone can claim a piece of pie is AWESOME!!, putting it on the same level as the Grand Canyon or Michelangelo's Pieta, I find it important to maintain certain distinctions.