rolleiflex X question

[peter_snowdon]

hello! i'm new to this forum, and to still photography, but since i'm

using video increasingly in my work (journalism), i decided it was

time i learned a bit about light, composition, etc...

 

i'm thinking of buying a rollei as a learning tool, and a local

dealer has recommended me a rolleiflex X. it's in very average

cosmetic condition, and comes with no extras. but he has overhauled

it, claims it is in perfect working condition (i'm too new to this to

tell for certain) and offers a 6 months guarantee. he also says it

has had a brighter screen installed. (i can't really judge aagin, but

the screen has a grid pattern on it: would that make it a fresnel

screen?) it has the tessar lens, and from the serial number is a Type

2. the dealer is the biggest and most reputable in my town.

 

i have two questions:

 

1. are there features which the X lacks which make is less attractive

than later models? i'm thinking of things which make a real

difference (parallax correction), not simply convenience (EV, built-

in light meter)?

 

2. what would a fair price for this be, assuming that it does work

perfectly? he is asking £250 sterling: that was more than i

originally wanted to pay for my first camera, but since it has been

cleaned and has the bright screen, maybe that's a good deal?

 

TIA for any advice or comments!

 

peter

[lemastre]

The price is a bit high, but the bright screen and the apparent

condition of the camera probably would justify it. And the camera

does not lack anything you need (I don't consider a built-in light

meter a necessity). However, you can pick up a TLR that does what

this Rollei does for considerably less money. I'm thinking of

Minolta Autocord and YashicaMat, or even the Rolleicord (Rollei

without a crank). The the first two aren't built as well as the

Rollei, but for a starter they work fine. Neither camera is still in

manufacture; so you will be looking at used gear. And for TLR lens

interchangeability, there's the Mamiya C220 and C330 line -- also no

longer produced. All TLR have a parallax problem at closer distances,

and there are gadgets that mount on the tripod to correct this by

letting you elevate the camera an inch or so before you expose. When

you say the screen has a grid pattern, do you mean horizontal and

vertical colored lines, like graph paper? These would not be the

sign of a bright screen. Bright screens usually have a very fine

pattern of concentric circular grooves cut into the underside of the

screen, i.e., a fresnel lens, and they are not inexpensive. The

original Rollei screen was just a piece of frosted glass that showed

no particular pattern and was pretty dim, especially at the corners.

You probably should check out one of the Rollei web sites, which you

can find by entering Rolleiflex into Google.

[jon_harkness]

hi, the rollei x is quite old. you should be able to get a nicer one say a 2.8e , e2, the model T or better yet a 3.5f or 2.8f. if you get a user it can be very affordable. these models have much more to offer in reliability and features. and they have better lenses. I just bought a rollei T around a 1958 model and they are very good way to get into 6x6

[nolan woodbury]

No offense Jon, but your response to this question bugs the heck out of me. I say that because I've spent many $$ and even more time comparing most or all of the camera's you mentioned and there is no way that I could consider one "better" or nicer" than the other...at least in terms of optical performance. Properly cared for and close to original in condition the Automat "X" will produce images indistinguishable from a 2.8F or a E2...if not better. In dealing with glass this old, how can you say one will be better than the other? Its impossible. This is not to say the later Rollei TLR's don't have some desirable features; removable hoods for fitting eye-level prisms, 220 capability, provisions for fitting a Rolleifix, etc. The early Automat's are better optically than you think, even it takes a good bit of looking sometimes to find a "special" one.

[grep_mat]

I own an Automat X. I also own a "modern" Rolleiflex GX.

 

A Rolleiflex will indeed make an excellent learning tool,

and a very useful one, too, for as long as you use it!

 

My Automat has a standard ground glass screen that has black lines in a 5x5 grid pattern. In my opinion, a ground glass is much better for focusing than a "bright" aka Fresnel screen, unless the Fresnel screen has a focus aid such as a split prism rangefinder. Fresnel screens are "brighter" (but really only at the corners) than a ground glass, but they provide less detail. As a previous poster said, a "bright" screen will have very faint concentric rings about the center. The trick to using a ground glass screen is to always use the magnifier for focusing, then backing off and using the whole screen for composition. A Fresnel screen makes composition easier, but sharp focus (lacking a rangefinder, which the GX has) is much harder.

 

The Automat X has all the features you could ask for in a wholly manual, fixed-lens, mechanical camera. Its Tessar is a true legend: a famously sharp and contrasty lens! But, for best results, stop down to f/5.6 or so.

 

Please check that your taking lens is free from fungus, dust and scratches. These are now pretty old cameras and you never know how they have been treated. Look at it with a bright light. Set the shutter to 1 second and repeatedly look at it all the way through from the front and back. It won't be perfect, but hopefully it will be very good. Check that the shutter speeds work well, particularly the slow speeds. Check the focusing lens and mirror too, but this is of course much less critical. Oh, and does it come with its expensive metal lens cap?

 

The Automat does not have parallax correction (which my MX has), but that is a bit of a frill. No light meter, of course. Otherwise, it has everything you can ask. It even automatically senses the start of the film (hence "Automat"), which my GX does not do!

 

I'm concerned that the camera store claims it "overhauled" it. Work on these cameras require skilled and knowledgeable technicians. Or perhaps they only cleaned it a bit. But of course they may be very competent.

 

The price seems a little high for "very average" condition, but the prices on these have been rising, so maybe it's o.k. If the condition is cosmetically average but optically and mechanically excellent, I'd say go for it.

 

-"grepmat"

[roger_michel]

i assume since you are quoting pounds, you are talking jessops classics. they are always high on rollei (as are uk dealers generally). i also wouldn't trust their "we just had it overhauled" stuff. i've bought many things from the lads in pied bull yard, and few have worked perfectly out of the gate. to be fair, though, they ALWAYS have stood by their goods and got them sorted in the end. it's just that i hate the wait. in view of the price differential, i'd consider importing a camera from ken hansen in nyc or koh's (who always has a lot of rollei stuff in his shutterbug ad). get them to lowball the value on the customs declaration and you won't even owe duty. now, as to camera, i wish i had a bay iii hood (metal) for every tlr thread that started off by saying, "sure rollei is good, but for less money get a yashicamat or an autocord. they're just as good by f5.6." i've owned more than a hundred tlrs, including minoltas and yashicas and rolleis of every vintage. while sample to sample variation in older camera lenses is great, i've never owned a yashica or minolta that was on a par with a decent, average e or automat (or even a t). just forget saving the 30% and buy a rollei. it is a better camera than the japanese knockoffs in every respect. i know we all have our pet cameras (and everybody likes to bash the big kid on the block), but can't we please agree on the general superiority of the rollei in the used tlr arena. even that kooky iconoclast ivor matanle says in his classic camera tome that he honestly couldn't recommend anything but a rollei among vintage tlrs. now, bugbear #2: the lens on an automat IS NOT generally as good as the comparable speed/focal length lens on an e, the optic on an e is not as good as the "same" lens on an f, and a planar on an type 1 is not as good as a planar on a type 4 (and yes, the planar is generally better than the xenotar). to pretend that optics, especially coatings, did not improve from 1950 to 1980 is just a whopping slice of baloney (or balogna to you purists/bolognesi). zeiss refines its lenses all the time without changing markings. new glasses are incorporated, new ways of polishing glass are developed, calculations change slightly, and of course coatings make a HUGE difference (please don't even start with the "use a shade and it won't matter stuff -- people need to recognize that flare steals sharpness long before it's recognizable as flare). my advice, therefore, is to get the most recent camera you can. any f is an amazing machine, and on ebay, from a reliable (i.e. high, perfect feedback) seller, a type 1 in perfect mechanical but dodgy cosmetic condition will cost no more than UKL325. such cameras may represent the best value in the entire realm of vintage photographica. if you'd rather go with a dealer who will offer a guarantee, go with a late e for the same money. steer clear of the t; i know people -- including me -- who love em (light, simple and beautiful), but it's only self-delusion that's got us thinking that the results are as good as produced by the planar cameras. and by the way, you will love working with a tlr -- ttlesque viewing, with the silence, speed, lack of shutter blackout, ease of filter use, and lack of shake of an r-finder PLUS you get the 'MUNGUS neg. how can you go wrong?

[nolan woodbury]

I'm sorry Roger, but you'll never get me to agree that a Rollei TLR is "a better camera in every way" than a proper Minolta Autocord, Kalloflex (perhaps the argument could be made here however?) or even a YasicaMat, because plenty of us have simply discovered otherwise..pet camera or not. The Autocord for example, offers better film flatness and a well cared for/preserved Rokkor lens is as sharp as any Tessar/Planar of that era. I do agree however, coatings and techniques improve with time, but you mentioned "Old TLR's" and that's pretty much what I'm about, with many different models and brands my user collection; lots of Rollei's too. Planar equipped E, F. GX better than a Jena/Opton Tessar or Xenar? Maybe, maybe not. That's my point. It very well may take Peter 10-15 camera's to find out for himself.

[victor_randin]

"The Automat does not have parallax correction (which my MX has)..."

 

All versions of an Rolleiflex Automat have been equipped with an automatic parallax correction device. The main difference between Automat 1,2,3,X and Automat 4, MX-EVS is in their shutters: Compur or Compur-Rapid (1-X) and Syncro-Compur(4,MX-EVS).

[roger_michel]

nolan -- i am WELL AWARE of the fact that i am not going to convince yashicamat or autocord (or ikoflex or kalloflex) lovers that rollei is top gun, i was simply stating the objective fact that rollei IS in fact better. i own several autocords, and see nothing about its marginally novel film path that will insure greater flatness than a rollei. i should add that rolleis -- like most tlrs -- are already so much better in this regard than the vast majority of med format slrs (hasselblad is a joke -- the film path ALWAYS induces kink unless you shoot an entire roll in about five minutes [which, come to think, is how most pros use this pro camera]). as for lens quality, the fact is that the rokkors and yashinons, while decent performers (in a format size that places few demands on the lens), they are simply not the equal of the zeiss planars -- especially the f3.5 versions. admittedly, part of the gap can be put up to QC, and so there may be a few "hot" yashinons out there, but, on average, the german glass was/is simply much better. and when i say better, i mean in terms of objective resolution. i certainly agree that there are some lenses out there with low resolution that nonetheless produce subjectively beautiful images exactly because of the particular type of distortion they produce. finally, as to build quality, i won't even get into particulars. rolleis are obviously better built than the japanese cameras. please understand, i own more than 500 pre 1965 (i.e. classic) cameras, including many mamiya, yashica, minolta, zeiss and rollei tlrs. the camera i use most is at the moment is, in fact, a N.O.S. (still had the price tag, dessicant sachet and import form) original yashicamat that i bought a couple of months ago from new england photo in arlington, mass (a great old timey camera shop). i have put about a hundred rolls of film through the camera, and ALL of the results are presentable. i love it for its reliability, its simplicity of operation, and its workmanlike (no better) performance. i also appreciate the fact that i won't be sad for too long if it gets stolen, soaked, or smashed (this is the main reason it's seeing so much outdoor summer use). but i have not fooled myself into believing that i couldn't get sharper results with my 3.5F or my 2.8GX (buy a new one from ken hansen while they're still on sale!!). for the snapshots i'm taking, ultimate sharpness is just not an issue (plus i have so many cool bay 1 accesories). however, if i was only going to have one TLR, it would certainly be my GX (amazing sharpness, GREAT meter [even if i don't need to use for the majority of outdoor shots], and very beautiful and rugged). and if i couldn't afford that, i would have a beater 3.5F. given the modest difference in price between that and a nice yashicamat, the decision is a nobrainer. NOW NOW, if i was going to make a case for the superiority of a japanese tlr, i could do pretty well touting the mamiya system. but i won't. that's a different thread.

[roger_michel]

nolan makes one EXCELLENT point that i forgot to mention. a point that may make all the rest of this jibba-jabba (as mr. t used to say) irrelevant. whatever camera peter buys today is probably not goingto be a lfetime keeper. it likely will take a number of years to find just the RIGHT camera for him. and this is a fun journey. maybe i shouldn't risk depriving him of that by revealing what i believe/am almost sure lies atthe end of the road. go ahead peter, buy an auotcord. after you get sick of its silly system for setting aperture and exposure times and soft-at-the-edges-even-at-f11 lens, you will appreciate that 3.5f all the more. and nolan will always be willing to take the minolta off your hands . . . unless he's switched to a mamiya c330 by then! cheers!!

[grep_mat]

Victor, you are quite right: the Automat indeed has parallax correction. Despite the recent debate, I think we can all agree that the Rolleiflex Automat is a fine instrument. I personally love both my Automat and my GX, but I wouldn't give up the former for anything.

[roger_michel]

i certainly agree that the automat is a very fine instrument, quite up to the task of tackling nearly any job in general photography. just use a yellow filter for mono work and a shade for everything. and peter, any relation to lord snowdon (or was he snowden)?

[roger_michel]

just noticed this: nolan, do you really mean to say that a late '40s tessar (or planar for that matter) may be the equivalent of the current 2.8 planar on the GX? do you really think lenses have not improved at all in the last 60 years? c'mon!!!!

[murray_twelves2]

Hi Peter -

 

I can't contribute much about the selling price for the Rollei Automat X, in England, but I can say that installation of a good bright screen costs around $135.00 in the US. I have found that the Maxwell screens are exceptional. They dramatically increase brightness, and they still provide at least the contrast of the original, darker screen. I was surprised to find that even composition in the finder, on a sunny day, is easier with the Maxwell screen, as more detail is discernible. Do you know what kind of bright screen was installed in the X in question? If it is a later Rollei screen, it would also be very good.

 

I, too, am a fervent admirer of Zeiss Tessar and Tessar-type lenses. My own "arsenal" includes 2 Rolleis (an Automat MX and a Rolleiflex T), 3 Minolta Autocords, 2 Yashica TLRs, and a Ricoh Diacord. Of these, my favorites are the Autocords, though the Rolleis are awfully close.

 

I would have to respond to the comment that Autocords are soft in the corners at f/11. I have never heard anyone else say this, and it certainly isn't my experience. It could be that Nolan and I got all the good ones, and that the bad ones were relegated to Roger :-) Autocords are typically soft in the corners at f/5.6 and below, but they are sharp across the frame by f/8. I get best performance at f/11, but f/8 to f/16 is very sharp and contrasty.

 

Nolan once sent me a 16" x 20" color print that he had taken with a favored, beaten-up old Autocord from the '50s, and I was absolutely astounded by the quality of the image.

 

I have spoken with a well-regarded technician who has worked on all of these cameras, and who did quite a bit of lens testing at one time. He doesn't feel that any Rollei offers any optical advantage over the Autocord, and he feels that the Autocord mechanism is at least as rugged and reliable as that of the Rollei.

 

I think that the film flatness point made by Nolan is valid. The fact that the film is not bent over a roller before it is drawn over the film plane is significant. I will happily shoot a Rollei, as long as I know that I will go through the roll of film quickly. If there is any chance the film will sit in the camera, I will only use an Autocord.

 

After all of this discussion, I'm inclined to say that unless you're doing professional photography, with specific requirements for certain types of lenses or accessories, none of this really matters!

 

I would love to own a Rolleiflex 2.8 GX, but it wouldn't improve my photography. I have everything I need to harness any creativity I can muster and to produce images of exceptional quality. Yes, you might be able to distinguish between a photo taken with the GX and photos taken on older Rolleis or an Autocord, but I doubt the difference would be significant or even noticeable under normal viewing conditions. You can get quality images with a Yashica Mat TLR, also.

 

I would say, if the price for the Automat X you are looking at is fair in England, and you have the money to spend, I don't think you'll have any regrets buying this camera. You could create outstanding medium format images with it, and you could decide later that you want to move up to a Rolleiflex F or to something completely different, such as an MF SLR or even large format.

 

Have fun, Peter!

[roger_michel]

u must be rite about me getting the bad ones. i've had the same experiece with used cars. but really guys, the rokkors and yashies are still corner soft at f11 -- but maybe there's too much diffraction distortion by then for you to see it!! and i still say that the f stop and speed settings on the autocord are screwy!!

[nolan woodbury]

Roger, this "discussion" is getting nowhere, and I suspect that Peter -the original postee on this thread- may have quit reading the responses days ago. Be that as it may, you've clearly made your point regarding your opinion of Minolta's, Yashica's, ect/all and I respect that. What I post in terms of information are facts I've gathered myself, what I post as opinion is information or insight I've heard from others. The fact is, different cameras and different glass can give different results...be it pleasing to one and not to the other is totally up to the individual. In my case, the work the comes from my Autocords, Rolleis, Kalloflex, 4x5, 35mm...all of it, is subjected to the hard glare of different publishers and art directors. Some of it is thrown back at me, but much of it is used. Surprising (to you? not me) are the number of slides taken with the Minolta Autocord picked for publication. Even more amazing is how that can be accomplished considering the soft corners and the burden of working with those screwy f-stop and shutter speed controls! Seriously Peter, Roger, and all; to each his own. Shoot what you like and like what you shoot, if you don't then get something else.

[roger_michel]

Agreed, of course, as to your gen'l point. but i don't agree that discussion threads on the MFDF ALWAYS have to hew to the topic of the original query. it certainly is important to answer the question (and peter got that!!), but the extrie stuff that emerges from meandering threads can be fun. cheers!