Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Vintage Classic Cameras: The Unvarnished Truth About Original & Old Standard Rolleis
Vintage Classic Cameras: The Unvarnished Truth
The Rolleiflex Saga, Part 1: The Rolleiflex Original and Old Standard. These classics established the form factor for the roll-film twin lens reflex and the latter are still awesome picture takers.
By Jason Schneider
Contrary to popular belief the original Rolleiflex of 1929 was not the world’s first twin lens reflex camera, commonly known as a TLR. In fact, the concept of placing a second viewing lens and waist-level reflex finder directly above the picture-taking lens and moving both lenses back and forth on a common lens board to focus dates back to at least the 1870s and possibly earlier. The original Rollei’s claim to fame is that it was the first truly successful TLR that used roll film, and with the introduction of the considerably improved Rolleiflex Standard (now known as the Old Standard) in 1932, it became an instant best seller and the signature product of Franke & Heidecke of Braunschweig, Germany, the company that created it.
The Original Rolleiflex of 1929: A landmark with an odd film size
The original Rolleiflex
The original Rolleiflex was inspired by Franke & Heidecke’s Rolleidocsop (1926-1939), a roll film version of the company’s very first camera, the 6x13 cm Heidoscop stereo camera that took sheet film or glass plates. Conceptually, the original Rolleiflex is basically a 6x6 cm Rolleidoscop with one of its stereo lenses lopped off the side and the viewfinder centered above the taking lens. Production versions of the original Rolleiflex “K1” (models 611, 612, and 614) that were produced from 1929-1932 were all 6x6 cm TLRs that had uncoated 75mm f/4.5 or f/3.8 Zeiss Jena Tessar lenses, red window, knob type film advance, and manually cocked rim-set Compur 1-1/300 sec shutters. Unfortunately, they all took 117 roll film which uses a narrow flange spool similar to a 620 spool but has a wider keyway. To use one of these ancient beasts you’d first have address the spool problem either by obtaining (very rare) 117 film spools or re-machining existing 620 spools, and then re-rolling 120 film and paper backing (which is the same width) onto the spool in the darkroom. I’m not sure whether it’s possible to modify an original Rollei to accept 120 film, but if you did so it would certainly lower the value of your prized vintage classic. Verdict: The Original Rolleiflex is a great historic collectible but definitely not a convenient camera for taking pictures.
Original Rolleiflex, second model with 75mm f/3.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens, courtesy The Leica Shop
The Rolleiflex Old Standards
Rolleiflex Old Standard, model 622 with 75mm f/3.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens
The Rolleiflex Standards: These “K2” models were referred to as Old Standards only after Rollei brought forth the New Standard, an economy version of the iconic Rolleiflex Automat, in 1939. Rolleiflex Old Standards are beautiful machines capable of excellent results and will certainly provide a vintage shooting experience for anyone who wants to experience the joys and frustrations of taking pictures on film with an 85-year-old camera. There were 3 models produced from 1932-1938, all with uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lenses—model 620 has a 75mm f/4.5, the 621 has a 75mm f/3.8, and model 622 has a 75mm f/3.5. Almost all of them were fitted with manually cocked 1-1/500 sec plus B & T Compur shutters and all 3 have a red window on the back or bottom, but it’s only for positioning the first frame. Once that’s done you push a spring-loaded button to set the frame counter to 1 and film then automatically advances and counts to the next frame when you turn the single-stroke film wind crank forward until it stops, then back to its initial position. That was pretty spiffy back in 1932 even though you do had to cock the shutter manually before taking each shot. But perhaps the one feature that transformed the Old Standard into a convenient user camera is that it takes readily available 120 roll film. On the plus side: the Tessar lenses fitted to these Rolleis are outstanding in terms of sharpness and definition, and they can also capture a charming “vintage look,” especially at their widest apertures, providing the taking lens is totally clear and free of haze and fungus. There’s even a sports finder built into the focusing hood which is useful for capturing laterally moving action. On the minus side, the lenses on the Old Standard don’t have a bayonet mount for adding close-up lenses, filters, etc., but they do accept push-on accessories, including hoods.
Rolleiflex Old Standard model 621 with 75mm f/3.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens and original leather case.
Upgrading your Rolleiflex Old Standard: Worth the expense?
If you plan on using a Rolleiflex Old Standard for more than occasional picture taking, you’ll probably conclude, as I did, that the original viewfinder is pretty dim and low contrast by modern standards. This is often exacerbated by a partially de-silvered mirror and the original viewing screen, which is mediocre at best, may not have aged well, and is just a smaller version of the plain ground glass screen typically used in an old view camera. The solution—first try replacing the original mirror (which is silvered on a glass substrate, then coated with a thin film of lacquer to protect the reflective surface) with a much more reflective and durable modern front-surface metallic mirror. And if that doesn’t do the trick, by all means replace the viewing screen with a topnotch modern one, such as the Maxwell HI-LUX screen (my personal favorite) or the Minolta designed Acute-Matte Screen for the Hasselblad. None of these solutions is exactly cheap but they will definitely transform your Rolleiflex Old standard into a camera that’s actually a pleasure to shoot with. At the moment, a clean, functional Rolleiflex Old Standard will set you back about 300 bucks and upgrading it will cost at least that much, so if you just want to take pictures with a nice old Rollei, the Rolleiflex Automat MX of the ‘50s is a more practical, if less vintage, alternative.
Vintage Classic Cameras: The Unvarnished Truth
The Rolleiflex Saga, Part 1: The Rolleiflex Original and Old Standard. These classics established the form factor for the roll-film twin lens reflex and the latter are still awesome picture takers.
By Jason Schneider
Contrary to popular belief the original Rolleiflex of 1929 was not the world’s first twin lens reflex camera, commonly known as a TLR. In fact, the concept of placing a second viewing lens and waist-level reflex finder directly above the picture-taking lens and moving both lenses back and forth on a common lens board to focus dates back to at least the 1870s and possibly earlier. The original Rollei’s claim to fame is that it was the first truly successful TLR that used roll film, and with the introduction of the considerably improved Rolleiflex Standard (now known as the Old Standard) in 1932, it became an instant best seller and the signature product of Franke & Heidecke of Braunschweig, Germany, the company that created it.
The Original Rolleiflex of 1929: A landmark with an odd film size
The original Rolleiflex
The original Rolleiflex was inspired by Franke & Heidecke’s Rolleidocsop (1926-1939), a roll film version of the company’s very first camera, the 6x13 cm Heidoscop stereo camera that took sheet film or glass plates. Conceptually, the original Rolleiflex is basically a 6x6 cm Rolleidoscop with one of its stereo lenses lopped off the side and the viewfinder centered above the taking lens. Production versions of the original Rolleiflex “K1” (models 611, 612, and 614) that were produced from 1929-1932 were all 6x6 cm TLRs that had uncoated 75mm f/4.5 or f/3.8 Zeiss Jena Tessar lenses, red window, knob type film advance, and manually cocked rim-set Compur 1-1/300 sec shutters. Unfortunately, they all took 117 roll film which uses a narrow flange spool similar to a 620 spool but has a wider keyway. To use one of these ancient beasts you’d first have address the spool problem either by obtaining (very rare) 117 film spools or re-machining existing 620 spools, and then re-rolling 120 film and paper backing (which is the same width) onto the spool in the darkroom. I’m not sure whether it’s possible to modify an original Rollei to accept 120 film, but if you did so it would certainly lower the value of your prized vintage classic. Verdict: The Original Rolleiflex is a great historic collectible but definitely not a convenient camera for taking pictures.
Original Rolleiflex, second model with 75mm f/3.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens, courtesy The Leica Shop
The Rolleiflex Old Standards
Rolleiflex Old Standard, model 622 with 75mm f/3.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens
The Rolleiflex Standards: These “K2” models were referred to as Old Standards only after Rollei brought forth the New Standard, an economy version of the iconic Rolleiflex Automat, in 1939. Rolleiflex Old Standards are beautiful machines capable of excellent results and will certainly provide a vintage shooting experience for anyone who wants to experience the joys and frustrations of taking pictures on film with an 85-year-old camera. There were 3 models produced from 1932-1938, all with uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lenses—model 620 has a 75mm f/4.5, the 621 has a 75mm f/3.8, and model 622 has a 75mm f/3.5. Almost all of them were fitted with manually cocked 1-1/500 sec plus B & T Compur shutters and all 3 have a red window on the back or bottom, but it’s only for positioning the first frame. Once that’s done you push a spring-loaded button to set the frame counter to 1 and film then automatically advances and counts to the next frame when you turn the single-stroke film wind crank forward until it stops, then back to its initial position. That was pretty spiffy back in 1932 even though you do had to cock the shutter manually before taking each shot. But perhaps the one feature that transformed the Old Standard into a convenient user camera is that it takes readily available 120 roll film. On the plus side: the Tessar lenses fitted to these Rolleis are outstanding in terms of sharpness and definition, and they can also capture a charming “vintage look,” especially at their widest apertures, providing the taking lens is totally clear and free of haze and fungus. There’s even a sports finder built into the focusing hood which is useful for capturing laterally moving action. On the minus side, the lenses on the Old Standard don’t have a bayonet mount for adding close-up lenses, filters, etc., but they do accept push-on accessories, including hoods.
Rolleiflex Old Standard model 621 with 75mm f/3.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens and original leather case.
Upgrading your Rolleiflex Old Standard: Worth the expense?
If you plan on using a Rolleiflex Old Standard for more than occasional picture taking, you’ll probably conclude, as I did, that the original viewfinder is pretty dim and low contrast by modern standards. This is often exacerbated by a partially de-silvered mirror and the original viewing screen, which is mediocre at best, may not have aged well, and is just a smaller version of the plain ground glass screen typically used in an old view camera. The solution—first try replacing the original mirror (which is silvered on a glass substrate, then coated with a thin film of lacquer to protect the reflective surface) with a much more reflective and durable modern front-surface metallic mirror. And if that doesn’t do the trick, by all means replace the viewing screen with a topnotch modern one, such as the Maxwell HI-LUX screen (my personal favorite) or the Minolta designed Acute-Matte Screen for the Hasselblad. None of these solutions is exactly cheap but they will definitely transform your Rolleiflex Old standard into a camera that’s actually a pleasure to shoot with. At the moment, a clean, functional Rolleiflex Old Standard will set you back about 300 bucks and upgrading it will cost at least that much, so if you just want to take pictures with a nice old Rollei, the Rolleiflex Automat MX of the ‘50s is a more practical, if less vintage, alternative.
shawn
Mentor
Nice writeup. I have a K2 622 and it is a sweet little camera. Totally agree about the viewfinder. For DIYers the mirror is available for $7.50 plus shipping.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/264846749010?ViewItem=&item=264846749010
And I used one of Rick Olsen's scratch & dent Brightscreens for $50 shipped. Major difference in brightness and less vignetting in the viewfinder.
Shawn
https://www.ebay.com/itm/264846749010?ViewItem=&item=264846749010
And I used one of Rick Olsen's scratch & dent Brightscreens for $50 shipped. Major difference in brightness and less vignetting in the viewfinder.
Shawn
charjohncarter
Mentor
I have a newer Rolleiflex, but this history lesson is great. Thanks for putting up for us.
Thank you...