Lets Discuss: The Rolleiflex is the MF equivalent of the Leica

I'm just about to lay my money down for a 2.8E2 and the thought

occurs to me that in the 'fifties and 'sixties, the successful

photojournalist would tote a M3 and a Rollei while his poorer paid

press colleague was often to be seen with a IIIc and a 'cord.

 

So, given the re-introduction of the Rolleiflex line, is the Rollei

still the natural companion to the M?

It is for me...I have an M3 and a Rollei 3.5 Xenar.

 

jmp

I think in its day the Rollieflex may have been the natural companion to the Leica. But only because at the time it was one of the few available MF cameras with a decent lens. Nowadays the Mamiya 6, or 7 makes a direct functional comparison with the Leica M possible, and they surely are the current MF equivalents?

I agree with Steve. I like my Rolleicord and respect what it can do with such a simple lens in competent hands but the Mamiya 6 is the MF equivalent of the Leica. I had an Mamiya 7 but didn't like the size of the body nor the 65mm lens. Currently I have two Mamiya 6 bodies with the 50mm and 75mm attached and feel I can go around the world with this set up. With the bellow collapsed both bodies with lenses fit nicely in my Alice bag with room left for my passport and about four pro-packs. And the lenses are simply stunning.

A Rollei TLR in the camera bag is the best compliment to Leica Ms IMHO. Personally I

would love one of those little �Sports/Baby� Rolleis that took 127 format. The early

f2.8 60mm Tessars were killer lenses.

 

In recent years Rolleiflex TLRs seem to have been forgotten as serious tools for so

called �street photography�. The mantra on this forum is that only Leica can give you

the edge in unobtrusive photography. However I would argue that the Rolleis have

many of the qualities of the Leica M, small, quiet, excellent optics etc, but with the

added advantage of being able to surreptitiously compose and/or focus the image via

a waist level finder. The minute you lift any camera to your eye it becomes obvious to

all around that your intent is to make an exposure. With a generation who have grown

up in a world of the ubiquitous 35mm SLRs, and DSLRs the Rollei doesn�t even look

like camera. It just hangs there, but in skilled hands at the ready for use. I can feel a

�How�s Ya Rollei Hangin�?� thread coming along the vain of that renown and infamous

M5 thread.

 

From an Australian historical perspective the Rolleis were the camera of choice for all

but a few of the modernist and documentary photographers that began to emerge

here in the 1930s. Leicas were (and still are horrendously expensive here), which may

explain why they took a back seat to the Rollei. From memory a Leica would have set

you back over £100 in the late 1940s. That is if you could find one.

 

Craig

Peter, I don't think the Xpan is a medium format cam if it uses 35mm film.

 

Anyone know anything about the 'Texas Leica' Fuji 6x9? Why are they so rare, and apparently not popular?

Ray I think you will find that, strange as it may first appear, the Xpan is technically a

medium format camera, depite the fact you feed it with 135 format film. The image

circle produced by the lenses are along MF lines. That's why M lenses won't work on

the Xpan. The 24x36mm format mode is just an added bonus.

 

Cheers Craig

My mistake. A different type of medium format. ;)

Just got a beautiful Rolleicord Vb for $93! It will come along with my M4 -- my Gossen Luna Pro S will handle the readings. A happy combo. from the past IMO.

All I know is that I am much less embarrasssed to shoot people in the street with my Rollei

2.8F at waist level than when I have to bring my M up to my eye. I don't have a Mamiya 6

ot 7 but I don't see how I could do candid street shooting with such a big camera in front

of my face.

I still have a Rollei and a really beat-to-crap Minolta Autocord. They were actually used more than the Leica at most papers. Like the 4x5 press cameras they replaced they were usually equipped with flash. You youngsters seem to forget that when Tri-X was introduced in 1954 it was really grainy, as bad as TMZ is today. The fine grained emulsion of the day was Panatomic-X and that was grainier than modern Plus-X. The standard print in the newspaper business was 8x10 and editors were used to looking at 2X blow-ups from 4x5.

 

You'd use a Leica when you couldn't use flash, needed a wider angle, or a telephoto for local sports. Major papers shot baseball on 4x5 with a "Big Bertha", a 4x5 SLR built on a Graflex RB (revolving back) SLR usually with a 400mm f/4.5 lens. This was focused with a lever that had click stops pre-set for the various distances to the pitching mound and bases. Football wasn't a pro sport then. College boys played football. Baseball WAS sports.

 

The Rollei had the big advantage of 1/500th second flash synch. It only held 12 exposures so you could shoot a few frames and develop the roll, important to a culture that was used to developing one or two sheets of 4x5. You could hold it upside down over your head for a higher perspective or stoop down and put it on the ground for a really low angle. But mostly it was used as a smaller substitute for a press camera.

 

Most photographers worked with the wire frame "sports finder" on their 4x5's, not the optical viewfinder. When they switched to Rolleis they still used the open frame sports finder in the hood. With flash, or outside, you were mostly shooting at smaller apertures. It was easy to scale focus with the knob after you guessed the distance. The Minolta was better still, using a lever to focus. You quickly learned to "know" where to set the lever by feel for various distances. In any case, you needed to keep track of distance because flash exposure varied with distance. Auto strobes didn't come out until the 1960's and in the beginning pros didn't trust them.

 

Until quite recently medium format was the mainstay of wedding photographers and Rolleis were still favored by many. I've shot hundreds that way, hating the fact that it was always the same damned shots, nothing really creative, but that's what people wanted. Pro color neg film (VPS) was ISO 80, grainy, and you needed flash. You may as well use the bigger negative.

Ok I'm goin' get flamed for this...

 

I would have thought that the Hasselblad was the so-called medium format Leica equivalent? "Back in the day" if you wanted great optics for 35mm you went for Leica glass, for MF to went for Hasselblad�s T*s (yes I know that the T*s is actually a Zeiss product).

At my old photography school we had book (I forget the title, sorry) what profiled some of the great photographers with their cameras. If it wasn't Leica, it was Hasselblad, if wasn't Leica or a Hasselblad, it was a Speed Graphic. At this point in time I can only think of two famous Rollei owners (Walker Evans and someone else who I can't quite remember), but numerous Hasselblad owners and users... but then again I was sucker for Hasselblad advertising since day one.

Leica is almost infamous as the ultimate war photographer's camera; the Hasselblad has been to the Moon and the far reaches of space. Where has the Rollei gone to, that others haven't been or done?

 

I asked the members of the photography class a while ago what the ultimate 35mm camera was and majority answered Leica (with Nikon and X-Pan coming in 2nd equal). Then I enquired about MF, Almost in unison the reply was Hasselblad. Even the staunch Rollei user in our class got converted to the Hasselblad.

 

However, one point of note. Most Leica owners I know are owners, not shooters. Their cameras are kept in little glass display boxes. Most Hasselblad shooters I know are shooters, dragging their Lowpro bags with a content twice the value of their cars, to the ends of the world and back.

 

Stu :)

 

PS. Just remembered that other Rollei user: David Bailey.

enjoyed your comment, Al, made me go over and promise my Rolleicord an outing,

regards, BG

Don't forget Fritz Henle who wrote a book on using the Rollei. Bunny Yeager shot a lot of early spreads of half naked girls for Playboy Magazine in the 1950's and 60's with her Rolleis. I never saw her shoot with anything else in the 70's when she was doing a lot of model composites. (We lived about 3 miles apart.)

 

Until the 500C (1958?) came along the older focal plane shutter Hasselblads were very much specialty cameras. Putting a Compur shutter in each lens increased the price considerably. That was an era when 4x5 still ruled the studio. A 500C was a lot more money than a Rollei and most of the things for which it was used rarely required more than the normal lens. The '500C was noisy, had no instant return mirror, had a tendancy to jam, and together with an extra magazine you were as well off buying two Rolleis. For the studio you could buy a 4x5 with a couple of lenses for the price of a 500C.

 

The Rollei shared one very important feature with the Leica. They were both as close to 100% reliability as it was possible to design and build, then or now. Just as many of us are still shooting Leicas 30 or 40 or more years after we bought them there are a lot of old Rolleis still out there earning their keep.

 

When Mamiya introduced the Nikon made Porroflex finder for the Mamiyiyaflx TLR's it also made one that fit the late model Rolleis with removeable hood. While not as bright as the Rollei prism finder it weighed a fraction as much and was cheaper. Also, Rolleiflex hoods (not on the model T or the Rolleicord) started sporting a little mirror that fell in position when the sportsfinder was opened. The folded down magnifier then was over an opening just below the rear sportsfinder window, allowing you to focus on an upside down image in the center of the ground glass screen.

 

The old Rolleiflex is still a useful addition to your equipment. If you're in to comparing the relative merits of various lenses and their sharpness and bokeh Rollie gives you a choice. f/3.5 Xenars and Tessars were used on various models as were f/3.5 Planars and Xenotars. A few f/2.8 Tessar equipped Rolleis are out there in addition to the superb Planars and Xenotars. Some East German f/2.8 Zeiss Jena Biometers were also used, mostly for the Eastern European market. Should you opt for a Hasselblad your choice is an 80mm Planar with or without T* coating. What self respecting Leica user would put up with that total lack of lens choice?

Stu,

 

The Hassy is one of the all-time classics....but it is NOISY. Nothing stealthy about that one

at all. It is also bulky/heavy. I love mine though.

 

jmp

let's just cut through the bullshi* and say that these are cameras that capture light. that is all. there are no equivalents and any such posturing is a waste of everyones time.

 

why the need for such silliness and mis-direction?

<I>daniel taylor: "let's just cut through the bullshi* and say that these are cameras that capture light. that is all. there are no equivalents and any such posturing is a waste of everyones time.

<P>why the need for such silliness and mis-direction?"</I>

<P>Amen! Worth repeating.

While in college I had the use of an old Kurt Bentzin Primarflex which I always believed was the inspiration for the Hassy. I used it with a 400(?)mm Dalmeyer tele for football coverage. When the FP Hassy came out I broke the bank and got one and still kick myself for being a damn fool. It always failed in the most embarrassing circumstances. Even when they switched to Compur shutters I didn�t trust them and relied on a brace of trusty Rolleis and my Leica. You could buy a Leica and a couple of extra lenses for what a basic Hassy cost. And that wide angle body was always a joke. <p>

One thing Al didn�t mention was the problem of flash synchronization before the advent of Synchro shutters. Mendelsohn, King Sol, Heiland Sol, and several others made solenoid synchronizers that tripped the shutter and then fired the flash after the proper delay. They required constant adjustment and were never totally reliable, but were capable of remote control if you had a long enough cord. Every once in a while a Rollei shows up on eBay with one of the Heiland Sol trippers still installed on the lens board.

this question makes absolutely no sense to anyone whos primary interest is making photographs.....

grant, by inference, why would you even bother responding, since you're obviously so busy taking photographs?

its a moronic question...is that better?

I think Harvey may be on to something...

 

Last year I tried to shoot my Hasselblad with the 80/2.8 and a rented 60/3.5 handheld. That in itself wasn't the problem, but the incredibly long focus throw of the lenses killed any spontaneity.

 

Then I borrowed a Mamiya 7 II from a friend. Terrific camera, just like an over sized Leica with what maybe the sharpest set of MF lens on the planet. BUT they only go to F4 and even with Delta3200 loaded you eventually run up against a brick wall in the dark. It's also a fairly bulky camera...

 

Enter the Rolleiflex 80/2.8F. A lens to die for that is not only sharp but also fast. Focus throw is very short making it possible to focus very quickly. The shutter is dead silent except for a gentle 'snick' and free of any vibration since it's a leaf shutter. Nice big 6x6 negative. I added a Beattie screen with 6x4.5 markings for vertical and horizontal framing and have never looked back. It even fits in my regular Bilingham L2 bag along with a Leica. This is a terrific camera.

 

Feli

Harry, you forgot to mention the Geiss Kontakt to sychronize the old screw mount Leicas! A little gizmo clipped on to the rotating shutter speed dial, had a window for seeing the speed that was set, and a little arm that pushed in a contact on the side of the other gizmo that fit in the accessory shoe, which had it's own accessory shoe and a standard PC outlet. One model fit the I-C,II-C and III-C, another fit cameras through the III-B.

 

With the solonoid synchronizer on your Speed Graphic you pushed a button with your thumb that was located on the flash unit's battery case. You always fired the shutter that way even when you weren't using flash!

I was aware of th Geiss synchronizer though I never had one. If I wanted flash I used my Rollei or Graphic. In one respect the Geiss was superior to today�s situation, it would work at all shutter speeds due to the availability of long peak flashbulbs � which makes me wonder why we don�t have a long peak strobe � Dr Edgerton had one! (At least a rapid repeater). That would take care of the complaints about the Leica�s single flash speed. I still hardly ever use flash with my Leica and the limited range doesn�t concern me at all. I suppose that in old age, having fought your way out of such problems and arrived at suitable solutions, you can see no reason to try again to solve the problems you have gone over time and time again. You just do what works and quit worrying about it.

Ray- I had the Fuji 690. If I were just now buying one, I'd take the 670. If you are able to do your own processing, then the 690 makes sense; otherwise, few commercial processors are able to process 6x9 without seriously cropping.

 

The big Fuji 690 did everything it was supposed to do. Great lens & camera. Too bad it was discontinued. What Fuji SHOULD do is bring it back, but redesigned for the 6x6 format. It would be sort of an updated Kodak Chevron, but with a much more reliable shutter.