been given a Rolleiflex

<p>This was an unexpected stroke of luck. A friend of mine wanted one of my prints and offered his Rolleiflex. I told him he could get more for it on the auction site, or here, than my print was worth. But he insisted!</p>

<p>I've always wondered what a Rolleiflex would be like. I've had a Rolleicord since the late 50's and love it. In fact, after playing around with the Flex I think I prefer the Cord. It's lighter, simpler ... I find those dials on the Flex awkward. I don't need a crank... actually prefer the manual shutter cock. Probably cheaper to maintain as well.</p>

<p>The meter on the Flex is off. The lens is a 3.5 Xenotar, not sure what exact model this is. It also has a 35mm film counter knob. The shutter definitely needs a CLA - all speeds are slow. Are cells still available for the meter? I'd just as soon have the meter and 35mm counter knob removed. I prefer incident metering anyway. And I don't like that the shutter and timer stay cocked when you advance the film. Don't like leaving a shutter cocked on any camera.</p>

<p>I might send it to Harry for an estimate. Oh, one thing I do like better on the Flex is that the viewing screen is much brighter. I have a Rolleigrid on my Cord but it's still not as bright as the Flex's screen.</p>

<p>My reading tells me the Xenar and Xenotar are both fine lenses but the Xenotar is said to perform better at the edges when wide open. But I rarely, if ever, shoot wide open.</p>

<p>I'm not complaining, mind you! A nice dilemma to have, but I'd appreciate some thoughts on this.</p>

<p>Thanks all,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>Hi Paul;<br>

You are very lucky indeed. A Xenotar is a Planar type lens designed by Schneider, yes it's Sharper at the edges than the xenar. The lightmeter on this jewel is made of selenium and it's impossible to charge it just dies away slowly. You should definitely have a CLA and try a roll . You should also send a picture of your new Rollei.</p>

<p>I believe you can advance to the next frame and you don't wish to cock the shutter DO NOT backpedal the crank. Should you forget that at some point you have advanced to the next frame, the crank does not allow advancing again and your task is now rotate crank anti-clockwise to arm the shutter for your exposing this ready frame!</p>

<p>Hello Vann,</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. Yes, that's what I suspected about the meter... might as well remove it.</p>

<p>I did try a roll but it was badly underexposed, using a hand meter. I'll try again. And yes, I did think of a picture... here's one. It's not the best angle but it's what I sent to Harry to emphasize the meter and the 35mm counter.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Paul</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Paul (Wheatland),</p>

<p>Good tip, I didn't know that. Thanks!</p>

<p>Paul (the other one!)</p>

<p>Ah! Looks like a nice 3.5E. You gotta good deal, even with the cost of the CLA.</p>

<p>Congratulations-- that's an excellent camera. I think you are correct and it's a 3.5E, which, to confuse things, was called a 3.5C in Europe. It looks the same as my 3.5E, anyway, except yours has cleaner cosmetics. (Incidentally, there's no need to remove the meter. Just don't use it.)</p>

<p>If you want to know for sure, just match up the serial number with any of a number of lists on the internet. <a href="http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/A-F_tlr.shtml">This one here on the Rolleiclub site</a> is a good place to start.</p>

<p>My Rolleiflex is my go-to backpacking camera. It's reasonably lightweight, given the size of the negative, and it never runs out of batteries. (I meter with Sunny 16.) When I want long focus, I crop. When I want wide angle, I stitch.</p>

 

<p>It is by no means impossible that the replacement cell might be found for the meter– it is also not inconceivable that you might find the incident light attachment for this. With respect, if you shot a roll of pictures with a separate meter and a slow-running shutter and the film was still badly underexposed, You need to study up the subject of using exposure meters, no matter whether you use the internal Rollei meter or not. The built-in meter can work better than you might imagine, of course it takes only an integrating measurement and reading the scale may be a little difficult, since to take a reflected light reading you need to tilt the camera down somewhat. It does, however, make for a very compact package!<br>

I have owned many Rolleis, none of them has ever been harmed by leaving the shutter cocked. The push/pull wind/fire lever on a Rolleicord I consider to be an abomination, I defy anyone to release this without causing camera shake at low speeds!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"And I don't like that the shutter and timer stay cocked when you advance the film"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>BTW: And dont leave a film advanced, it may loose flatness, advance and click^^</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone,</p>

<p>@ Dave S: I meant to enclose the serial number - it's 1858008. Thanks for the link... I did run across that site a while back and that's how I thought it might be an E.</p>

<p>@David B: You're absolutely correct... it doesn't make sense to have slow shutters and underexposed negatives! I am familiar with meters and how to use them. OTOH, I may not be using this particular meter correctly - or the meter is out of calibration. I've used a Weston V for years, and also a IV. Had both re-celled a few years ago, by Quality Light Metric. On the IV, he told me he had only three cells left and his UK supplier quit making them! Now I use a Sekonic L-398M, it's much easier to do incident readings than the Westons. As for camera shake on the Cord, I have a very short stubby release that fits in the cable socket... so you end up pushing up, into your hands. A very sturdy arrangement, I don't need to use the cocking lever to fire.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

 

<p>The meter on a Rolleiflex is "off" by design. Don't waste your time and money on it IMHO. You've only got to look at its shape, positioning and lack of shading to know that's it's never going to be accurate. Not unless you poke it into the face or other close proximity to the subject, and shield it from light coming from elsewhere.</p>

<p>FWIW, the CdS meter on Yashicamats is the same - near useless.</p>

<p>I picked up a 3.5E Xenotar for a song, and had Harry do the works, which was expensive.</p>

<p>However, the results are positively 3-D. I have never seen anything in film come out with such depth and density, period. It exceeds my Mamiya 7II, Rollei Automat (Tessar Jena), Pentax 645, any triplet lens, any 35mm combo among ~30 I have including pretty good rangefinders, etc. </p>

<p>If I had to trust only one camera for the best results among the ~40 I own, it would be the 3.5E. It's the Rolls Royce.</p>

<p>Congratulations! If the glass is good and when you have the funds, get that baby over to Harry for the full Spa Treatment. You'll love it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Brad, good advice. I'm definitely going to send it to Harry. Packing it up is on my "to do" list. I've heard nothing but good about his work. I gather I may have to wait, he's got a backup of jobs - which is a good sign!</p>

<p>Do you still have the meter on yours? I have a strange quirk... if I'm not going to use something, I try and simplify my life by getting rid of it. I'll ask Harry to check out the meter - he does have the plain focussing knobs. He also has the plain nameplate where the meter cell is located. What do you think?</p>

<p>Also, would you mind telling me what the charges were? Probably in the 200-300 range? Of course, every job is different. You can answer privately if you wish. And if it's none of my business, I'll understand!</p>

Paul:

 

Mine has no meter. I use a spot meter and it works

well.

 

I had the full cla plus the Maxwell screen, and it

came in just over 600. But around half of that is the

screen, which is glorious.

 

I splurged. Usually, I don't spend over 100 on any

camera getup. But this was so totally worth it.

 

I'd just be careful to know you're starting with a copy

that has good glass before dumping that kind of

resources into it.

 

Good luck! I expect you'll love it.

<p>Thanks, Brad,</p>

<p>I don't think I'll go for that screen. The Flex' screen is already brighter than the Cord's, even though the Cord's screen has a Rolleigrid on it. But I've heard wonderful things about that Maxwell!</p>

<p>Several times I've run across the advice to check for "good glass"... just what is that, and how do I know I have "good glass"? Thanks!</p>

<p><em>check for "good glass"</em><br>

"Good glass" essentially means two things, firstly lenses by a good manufacturer and secondly lenses in good condition. Rollei fitted only lenses by Zeiss and Schneider, both good makers. The general opinion is that Tessar and Xenar lenses are roughly equivalent, with their characteristic performance of good sharpness and contrast in the centre at full aperture, edges less good but improving by f8 or f11, definition in the extreme corners of a square 6 x 6 negative with a 75 mm lens (relatively short) never quite matching the centre. Older Planar and Xenotar lenses are also felt to be roughly equivalent, their characteristics are a significantly flatter field at full aperture but with slightly lower contrast.<br>

Condition is the problem. New lenses are bright and clear and have virtually no enclosures (perhaps the odd dust speck). Isolated dust specks are usually considered to be insignificant, even light scratches (usually on the front element and euphemistically referred to as cleaning marks) may be cosmetically undesirable but few photographers would note any quality loss in a test comparing pictures taken with totally clean and slightly scratched lenses. The great bugbear is mould, which looks like ice crystals, can be cleaned off by a competent technician if caught at a very early stage but will otherwise eat into glass surfaces and damage them beyond economic repair (which will involve total dismantling, re-polishing and recoating). The standard test for lens condition is to open the shutter and aperture and shine a flashlight through the lens from the back, both on-axis and slightly to one side, while observing from the front. Some eBay sellers pour scorn on this method and try to imply that people who do it are extreme obsessives with unrealistic expectations of old equipment – don't pay any attention whatsoever to this! <br>

A further test specific to Rollei TLRs is to check for smooth focusing operation. If focusing is stiff, This may well indicate the camera has been dropped with the lens board extended (i.e. focused on a close subject) and bent out of alignment. Can be fixed, but not cheap. Other than that, Rollei problems are in the main concern with dried-up lubricant (film transport and shutters) and can be cured by fairly routine servicing work.</p>

<p>Excellent, David, very helpful. I knew a few of those tips but never saw them all together in one complete and coherent message. I ran the flashlight test and it looks good to me. No fungus or scratches, but some dust, as you say.</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>For what it is worth, I had the meter removed from my Rolleiflex 3.5 Whiteface - I didn't trust it plus wanted the camera to be<br /> as small as possible. I have seen too many cracked meter housings.</p>

<p>Thanks, Bob, that's what I wanted to hear... bulk is an issue, besides, I don't trust it either, even with a new cell (if available), I feel I have much more control with a handheld. What worked for years was using my Weston V to measure zone 4 (or was it 3?) to get good shadow detail...</p>

<p>Where did you have that done? Just curious... quite sure I'll be sending my camera to Harry.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>When I purchased the camera from a guy in Canada I asked him to remove the meter and also the provision for 220 film.<br>

He removed the meter and replaced the little "window cell" with an appropriate blank. Harry very likely has the blanks as they appear to be simple plastic pieces. <br>

220 film in B&W is likely to be gone soon and I never have used it in any case.</p>