Rolleicord vs. Rolleiflex

[john_boyle3]

Is the Rolleicord Vb just as well built as the Rolleiflex 3.5E? Is

there any real advantage from a picture-taking point of view of the

Rolleicord vs. the Rolleiflex? I've used Leicas for many years and

am looking for a well made medium format camera for some portraits

and general scenic shots.

[mskovacs]

Rolleicord is built cheaper than the Rolleiflex but is still a very solid camera. Similar to the difference between a classic Leica and the contemporary models.

 

The biggest real difference is the lens. The 3.5E is going to come with a Planar or Xenotar which is a much better optic shooting at the wide apertures. The 75mm f/3.5 Planars and Xenotars in Rolleiflexes are widely regarded to be among the best lenses ever made in medium format. The 80mm f/2.8 lenses are not slouches either!

 

Operationally, the 'Cords have a knob wind and you have to cock the shutter separately. The 'Flexes have a crank wind that advances the film and cocks the shutter. The 'Cords are lighter and take cheaper Bay I accessories.

[andy m.]

Other will no doubt disagree, but my advice is to get a Rolleiflex.

[richard_deimel1]

Rolleicord is NOT built cheaper than Rolleiflex. It has the same solid construction. But it has fewer features (e.g., hand wind rather than lever wind), and the lenses are four-element lenses, the later ones Tessar-type Xenars, rather than the five-element Xenotars and Planars which are better wide open (but indistinguishable stopped down).

[mskovacs]

I thought that there were some internal differences in the quality of materials used but I could be wrong. As I said, they are all solid cameras, perhaps more solid than the modern Rolleiflex FX TLR.

[tito sobrinho]

They were very well built indeed. All transport gears are made of stainless steel in comparison to lesser TLRs, whereas the gears are brass made.

[richard_laepple]

The Rolleiflex 3.5E is better built as the Rolleicord Vb. You can see/feel it at some details like the camera back closing mechanism or the focussing mechanism and focussing knob, which is bigger on the Flex. I always found the focussing mechanism on the Flexes smoother than on the Cords. If there is an advantage from the picture-taking point of view depends on your special method of taking pics. If you prefer a light weight camera, the Cord may be the right choice. If you want sharpness wide open, the Flex does a better job. The Flex has a f2.8 viewing lens, which is a bit brighter than the f3.2 of the Cord. If you are not sure which is the best for you - maybe money is also a point - consider a Rolleiflex T, it stands between the Cord and the other Flexes.

[__stu_evans]

This isn't for you in particular, but you present the opportunity to make a point. Often people seek advice for buying the best of a category instead of working into it. In this case, a simple 'cord V can be had for $70 and a judgement made based on use. It's either kept or sold for a slight loss for the first-hand experience; there'll never be a cheaper lesson. The one reassurance ebay offers is that there is another chump who was willing to pay what I did.

[john_boyle3]

Many thanks for the very informative replies. I think that either one would suit my purpose. I'll look for one in good condition at a "reasonable" price and will definitely hold on to my Leicas.

[kerkko_kehravuo]

Rolleiflex and Rolleicord cameras are not that expensive. Even the latest models FX, GX and F can be bought relatively cheap. And the early ones, as mentioned above, can be bought almost for nothing. Would it make sense to buy several Rolleis. They all are so wonderful. All models are of high quality but with different caracter.

 

Kerkko K.

[mskovacs]

<i>Even the latest models FX, GX and F can be bought relatively cheap.</i> - I guess that strongly depends on your definition of cheap! These are expensive cameras.

[tito sobrinho]

Yes Kerkko, please, let me know where I can find them!

[kerkko_kehravuo]

It was relatively cheap, not indeed cheap. They are cheap as highly durable, timeless professional tools. They are very cheap if compared to high end digital marvels that have to be financially covered in two or three years before they are outdated. If a second hand GX of F costs 1500 euros, what other same level professional tool do you get with that kind of money. Buy it now and sell after ten years. If you have taken good care of your camera you get about the same amount back when selling. Does not work with all kind ov professional devices. That is economy - they are relatively cheap.

[tom_donaghy]

<p>I have and use both a Rolleiflex model T, with Carl Zeiss taking lens, and the Rolleicord Vb, with the Schneider lens. I have had shootouts with them, scanning the Fuji film to 4000 dpi and enlarging them to check for contrast, color separation, and sharpness. The Rolleicord won. You are querying the 3.5E which is quite likely optically superior to the model T, nevertheless, the little 'cord was a surprise. As far as handling characteristics, the 'cord is slower but lighter. For build quality, no difference between my two cameras. Anything shot from a tripod at f 5.6 or smaller will amaze you. I have had shootouts with my Canon DSLR and the Rolleicord as well, the DSLR using an APS-C chip and good optics--absolutely no contest when enlarging to 30 x 40 or 40 x 40 square, the 'cord or 'flex clobbered the digital camera.</p>

[rich815]

<p>>>>>>>I have and use both a Rolleiflex model T, with Carl Zeiss taking lens, and the Rolleicord Vb, with the Schneider lens......The Rolleicord won.<br>

Thanks for posting your results but frankly with cameras that old it's more than likely your particular samples (and their individual care vs. each other over the years) that showed which was best, not one lens formula or type over the other.</p>