Roll Up for the Rollop

<p >The Rollop is a mid range German TLR from the 1950's, made by the Lipca company. My example has Ennagon lenses which may be Tessar type, but there's not much definitive information on the web about them. It's a well made camera, with knob wind and red window frame counting, but it has double exposure prevention (which needed some coaxing and excersise to get working) and an exposure value Prontor SVS flash synchronised shutter. The slow speeds and self timer even revived after a little lighter fluid and encouragement.</p><div></div>

<p >Opening the back revealed an unpleasant surprise. Lots of rotting foam light seals! I thought only the Japanese makers used this stuff in the 1970's and 1980's. I scraped it all off and replaced it as best I could with sticky backed black felt.</p>

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

<p >The only other problem was that the magnifier flips up when you open the hood, and you have to hold it down with your finger to see the full ground glass area. Not a huge problem as I nearly always use the magnifier anyway, and I find trying to fix anything on these fold down hoods really tricky. The sports finder even has a parallax correction slider. Inside the camera has an oversized bottom roller to minimise the film bending you can get with TLR's – a nice touch.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A friend has a Rollop too, but it's completely different, a pre-war 6x6 folder with a coupled rangefinder. I don't know what the connection is.</p><div></div>

<p >Back to the Botanical Garden. You're soon going to be fed up with these sculptures.</p><div></div>

<p>Number 2</p><div></div>

<p>Another one:</p><div></div>

<p>And another:</p><div></div>

<p>Looking at the next two, I realised there was a problem.</p><div></div>

<p >Flare, or a light leak? Perhaps I messed up the light seals although if it is a leak, it seems to be coming through the front somehow.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm referring to the hazy areas at the bottom of these shots. I took it into a dark place and looked into the back with a torch shining on the front. With the focus racked out I could just see a crescent of dim light around the top of the taking lens, It looks as if light is somehow getting from the viewing compartment into the film chamber when the lens board is extended. Heigh-ho.</p>

<p>Another one, this time it is flare.</p><div></div>

<p >Last one. A double exposure, well the double exposure prevention is rather temperamental. Film is Fuji Reala, scanned at 1200DPI on my Epson Perfection 4870 flatbed.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks for looking.</p><div></div>

<p>Nice work getting the Rollop up and going, John. A twin lens reflex, especially in the 50's, offered a good value for those who couldn't or didn't want to pay what the Rolleiflex (or even Rolleicord) costs. Not sure what the Rollop sold for back then (have to check my old Pop Photo magazines), but probably less than Yashicamat or Minolta Autocord, but maybe comparable to the less automatic Yashicas (like the A or D, possibly). Probably pricier than the ones sold under store names. Looks to me, from your results, that the Rollop is a good performer. Except for the red window film counter and knob advance, it looks to be a fairly full-featured TLR. I wouldn't be surprised if that lens is similar to a Tessar (if not in design, at least in number of elements). The lesser TLR's, such as the store branded ones in the 50's, usually had triplets. Thanks for posting.</p>

Very interesting camera.Light leaks usually come from

the side not from the front so it could be flare. Nice

results nevertheless.

<p>Why are there two red windows? Is it both 6x6 and 645?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments.</p>

<p>Mike, yes the Rollop seems to have been positioned somewhere above the Halina A1 and the Photina Reflex, perhaps on a par with the Weltaflex, but not up there with the Yashicas and Rollei's. In the mid 1950's in the UK there were import restrictions which prevented new Rollei's and Leicas from being available, so these lower tier TLR's were the only option unless you went second hand. - I've got a 1955 Wallace Heaton catalogue somewhere with the prices etc.</p>

<p>Kris, I do suspect a light leak. As stated I shone an LED torch into the front of the camera and when I looked in the back. I could see a faint halo of light around the taking lens, when the focus was racked out. The light seems to be getting from the viewing compartment through the tube in which the taking lens slides in and out. Difficult to see how to fix it.</p>

<p>Kent, the manual states that three different picture sizes are available with the appropriate mask. When I get a minute I'll scan and post the relevant page, if you keep an eye on the thread.</p>

<p>Interesting TLR,<strong> John</strong> and one I've never come across in the Southern Hemisphere. The closest we come is "Rollmops" a rather fishy delicacy of German origin, I believe, though I doubt if there's a connection. It looks a solidly-made camera, and the images from the Ennagon have a very pleasant OOF background. More and more, I appreciate just how much effect the advancement of lens coating techniques have had in the improvement of our art. Did you use a lens hood for these pics? Thanks for the post.</p>

<p>Rick, yes I did use a hood. It probably causes the corners to vignette, although some of the images are slight crops from the originals.</p>

<p><strong>Wallace Heaton Blue Book 1955/6 TLR's</strong></p>

<p>Photina Reflex Westar Lenses £20-19-9, Cassar Lenses £27-10-7</p>

<p>Flexora £23-12-9, Delmonta £21-17-3. Flexaret 3 £36, Rollop 2a £42-18-7, Microcord 2 £62</p>

<p><strong>Wallace Heaton Blue Book 1960/1 TLR's</strong></p>

<p>Halina A1 £10-10, Rollop 1 £31-8-4, Rollop Automatic 2.8 £49-19-2, Microflex £63, Ikoflex 1c £35-2-9</p>

<p>Rolleicord Va £48-13, Rolleiflex 4x4 £46-5-11, Rolleiflex T £88-15-9, Rolleiflex 3.5F £119-9-8</p>

<p>Rolleiflex 2.8E/2 £140-6-10, Tele Rolleiflex £185-6--0</p>

<p>Average wages in 1955, perhaps £10 to £15 a week? In 1961, perhaps £15-20. These were luxury items, even the cheaper ones.</p>

<p>Finally a page from the Rollop manual, explaining the different picture sizes.</p><div></div>

<p>Another thought, it seems odd there was no option for 16 6x4.5cm pictures.</p>

The 4x4 option would have allowed "Super slides" like you get with 127 film if it is the 12 exp. format (4x4).

<p>Regarding the flare and/or light leaks, one thing to consider is that while the inside of the camera is surely black (between the lens and the film), the inside surface might still be shiny enough to bounce and spread too much of the light, especially on a sunny day. I have a mid 1950s German 6x6 Goldeck (with a collasping lens tube) that shows that kind of reflection flare in sunshine. It makes much better photos in the evening, at night, in low light.</p>

<p>When these types of cameras were made, ASA 100 was considered fast film, so maybe the inside reflection flare was less of an issue?</p>

<p>John, an interesting point, I had one of those sliding tube cameras a while back, a Braun Paxina, but it didn't suffer from stray light.</p>

<p>The film was 100ISO and it was a bright day, but there are no significant shiny surfaces inside the Rollop. I'm convinced the problem is light getting from the viewing chamber into the film chamber, via the gap around the viewing lens, and around the end of the tube in which the taking lens slides in and out, when the focus is fully extended. Its hard to describe. You can only see it when the focus is racked out but I guess you rack it back and forth as you turn the knob to focus.</p>

<p>Not bad for its price class! If I'm being picky, then I'd say in 'Sculpture 3' and 'Sculpture 4' especially, the OOF areas (particularly in the corners) look a bit dodgy, rather more 'smeared' then 'swirly' to my eye. But the foreground and main subjects look crisp. Overall the price/performance trade-off seems entirely reasonable when the Rolleiflex 3.5F was around thrice the price of the Rollops. Nice resurrection job!<br>

<em>--Dave</em></p>

Don't know this model.. I had a Photavit from this era this seems a big step up . Also the Dbl exposure

thing was a bit dodgy !