Rolleiflex or Mamiya C33?

[marcus_w1]

Hello, I currently own a Mamiya C33 TLR, but I am thinking of maybe

buying a pre-1960 Rolleiflex TLR. Which camera would take the better

photograph? the Pre-1960 Rolleiflex TLR or my Mamiya C33 TLR? And do

Rolleiflex TLR cameras take better quality photo's than Rolleicord

TLR cameras? Any thoughts or ideas will be appreciated.

[frank.schifano]

Why not take the money that you would spend for the Rollie and get some other focal length lenses for the Mamiya? The quality of the glass for these cameras is excellent and I don't think that you'd be able to do much better with the Rollie. I have two C220's and several lensboards. I wouldn't trade them for a Rollieflex or two or three.

[skygzr]

If you're not happy with your pictures then buying a Rollieflex won't help.

 

But, to answer your question, the Mamiya has several advantages. It's cheaper, has interchangable lenses and will focus much closer. It's heavier than the Rollie, though.

 

All things being equal, I doubt you'll notice that one takes a better photo than the other. After all, you're taking the photo, not the camera!

[conrad_hoffman]

This is a guess, but it probably comes down to how good a sample of each camera you're talking about. Newer examples of the Mamiya lenses in black shutters with good coatings can be very good. If the body has correct alignment and focus agreement, not much should beat it. OTOH, old uncoated fungus infested Mamiya lenses won't even come close, and there are a fair number out there. How clean is the Rollei? We're talking fairly old equipment here. If both cameras are in top shape, the photographer will certainly be the limitation.

[warren_colligan]

Marcus; two thoughts. You might want to try to find an 80mm. F3.7 lens for your Mamiya. I've got two normal lens sets for my Mamiya C220, a regular 80mm. F2.8, and a 80mm. F3.7; the F3.7 Sekor lens with its Copal shutter seems to perform much like a later Rolleiflex with a Tessar. The 80mm. F3.7 was advertised as a "budget lens", but it performs well and doesn't seem cheap. Second, you might want to consider a late Ikoflex instead of a Rollei. Later Ikoflexes are normally cheaper than a Rolleis, but they have the same lenses (Zeiss coated Tessars) and shutters (Synchro-Compurs) as most of the normal pre-1960 Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords. Ikoflexes do have a pretty strange film loading and film transport sequence, but if you can live with it, they are somewhat superior to a Rolleicord. IMHO, the good Ikoflexes are the 1C, 2A, and Favorit. Good luck.

[kelly_flanigan1]

All the Mamiya C lenses have been coated; even the first ones from the 1950's. If you have an uncoated C Mamyia lens; then you are scrubbing you lenses too much. :)

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

You can use a Rollei pretty much like a 35, it's light and quick and surprisingly effective for street shots and candids.

 

Having had a Rollei T and now owning a C33 I think the C33 has the sharper lens, sacrilegious though it may sound. But boy is it heavy! Either one-or the Autocord or some Yashica TLRs will take excellent photographs, provided it's owner can.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

I should have said that my 105 3.5 Mamiya lens is sharper than the Tessar on my old Rollei-but I got lots of great photos with it too. Here's one I just printed, from 1972:<div></div>

[bruce_appel]

For a somewhat contrarian view, let me chime in. I had a C330 with an 80, a 65, and 180mm lens if my memory serves correctly. While it was a perfectly servicable outfit, I was never really happy with it. I have an old rollei with a Tessar that takes noticably sharper images when stopped down a bit. I then got a rollei with a 2.8 planar, and the mamiya lenses I had, could not compete. It may have been my samples, but my rolleis win hands down, and are in small very ergonomic packages. Of coarse no interchangable lenses.

I found the c330 to be a big, heavy, clumsy beast best used off a tripod. For the same weight and space I can carry a 4X5, so why bother?

[h._p.]

I don't buy the idea that Rollei lenses are better than Mamiya and I've used both, on and off, for thirty five years. The Rollei *is* a faster camera to use but the difference is very small.<div></div>

[nuno_campos1]

"Which camera would take the better photograph?"

 

Maybe the camera that has a better eye behind her viewfinder?

Do not get me wrong, this is just a thought, but are you really limited by your Mamiya?

I bought a lot of cameras before I realized that making good photos has to do much more with burning film and get out with a camera (any is better than none) than being preoccupied with my equipment and how sharp my lenses are, how good were my cameras.

The problem with my photos is all about my eye, not about my cameras.

 

Best regards.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have a Mamiya C3 80, 105, and 180mm lenses; plate/sheet back; 120; 220 backs; WL and metered poro "mirror-prism". The rig is used way less than my Rollies. I used the 180mm and C3 all day at an nice airshow; and got alot of cool plane/jet images; but this is really a heavy rig. A Rollei may be better or worse in sharpness than your 80mm C33; because there is alot of crap cameras on the market. With the Xenotar/planar lenses; i have found them to be somewhat sharper in the far corners than the Tessar/Xenar Rollei models. The 80mm C3 lens seems of mine seems to be between both lens types in performance. My 80mm C3 lens here is great at F8 and F11 in the corners and the center. I just find the Mamyia to be a clunkier heavy rig compared to my Rollei E3 and Cord IV models; abit more like a studio camera.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Any TLR can make a decent photograph; even a Kodak duaflex II for small size photos. Bunny Yeager shot alot of the great classical Bettie Page images with a Kodak TLR; before she got a Rolleiflex. It probably would be more productive just to use the C33; and spend more time with lighting methods; and shooting more images.

[david_m]

For handheld, Rolleiflex. On tripod Mamiya C33. If you need other focal lengths, no contest.

[rick_helmke]

If I recall, Avedon had a closet full of Rollei TLR's so they must have something going for them. He produced so much amazing work though not just with 2 1/4 cameras. Someone mentioned that it is the eye behind the camera and that's true. Problem is, I can't produce crap with a TLR camera. Don't know why, it just never worked for me like a good tool should.

 

Rick H.

[marcus_w1]

Thank you all for all your thoughts and ideas! I recently compared two pictures, one from my Mamiya C33 TLR and one from my Zeiss super Ikonta 532/16 6x6 RF folding camera and theres a small difference between the two pictures, the Zeiss super ikonta has a little more contrast in B&W and its gust slightly sharper. I've not yet compared any colour pictures, because I only got the Zeiss a few weeks ago!

But, the Mamiya is a great camera, although it is very heavy and big!

[conrad_hoffman]

Kelly, you're right as usual- I'll give you a good deal on my extra Scotchbrite and Brillo pads if you need some ;-) I do believe the quality of the coatings and maybe the optics themselves varied widely over the years. I had a C3 and several lenses way back around '72, and I was never happy with them. Took some great photos, both color and b&w, but they never had the snap of even a Yashica MAT-124. Today I have a C330 and several lenses, and they can produce as crisp a shot as anyone could desire. IMO, the odds of getting a good sample are higher if you stick to black shutter lenses of recent vintage, though I've no doubt there are some good chrome shutter lenses as well.

[dave_leonard]

I think a bigger problem than lens inconsistancy with the Mamiyas was the viewing and taking lenses being a bit out of alignment with each other. This caused many a picture to be just a bit out of focus, with quality of the lens being blamed when shimming one of the lenses would have fixed the problem. I've had three 80mm and one 180mm (all chrome shutters) on two Mamiyas (C2 and C220), and all were very sharp and contrasty, with a very creamy skin tone and good three dimensionality (a bit better than my old Yashicamat 124G I used to have.)

 

Dave

[andy m.]

I assume you are talking about a later Rolleiflex Automat. Anyway,

the Mamiya is quite heavy and big, the Rollei is light and smaller; the Rollei has a dark(ish) viewing screen, the Mamiya's is probably brighter. The Rollei has a 75mm lens; the Mamiya a small selection of focal lengths. <p>They are both old and condition is critical.<p>

 

They will both take great photographs, but I would not want to walk too far carrying the Mamiya- although it would be great for certain applications.<p> I have owned both cameras and still have a Rollei.<p>

 

ps. Don't forget the Minolta Autocord.

[kblessinggr]

I just kind of skimed thru this thread. I looked at possibly a rollie, one of the main reasons I picked my C33 Pro over a Rollie ( or similar ), were.

<br><br>

1) Lens are interchangible on a Mamiya TLR.

2) The Mamiya is more suited for closeup photography, not only does it give you exposure compensation, but also parrallax compensation in the focus screen, and with my 65mm f/3.5 I can almost get 3:1 macros.

3) The camera feels much more solid, yes a bit heavy, but even though it's not pretty I tend to find that a attractive trait.

4) A C33 or C3 with some lens, and such can be had for under 200$ and in great condition. My fiancee got her C3 Pro with 105mm, 65mm, light meter, filters, and such for 140$, I got my C33 Pro body from keh for 80$. Where as a rollie considered a collector item and kind of hard to find it for too cheap.

[richard_keistler]

You can't go wrong with either camera provided they're in proper mechanical and optical condition. I wouldn't go back much further than 1960 with the Rollei. Consider a 'Cord V or later, the Xenar lens is great, just Schneider's version of the Tessar. I have a half dozen of them and I prefer the mechanical simplicity. Vb if you can since it can do interchangeable hoods and screens with the 'flex.

[ray_nieves2]

<p>While years late for this debate, I had a C330F with the 55, 80, 135, 180 and 250 lenses. It is just too big a camera to hand hold, esp. with the bellows racked out to take on tele lenses. This is a camera that is only comfortible on a tripod. The same is true for the wonderful Koni-Omegaflex TLR with 4 excellent Konica lenses. The black lenses for the Mamiya are very, very good and up to 11x14 one would be hard pressed to tell the diffference from a Rolleiflex. <br>

Now, having said that and having used all 3 TLR systems for years, what I kept were the Rolleiflexs. In the end, later versions (D-F model Xenotar/Planar's) just were better made with great lenses when you blew them up...and afterall, why bother with medium format if you are not going to enlarge past 11x14? I once carried a tele-rolleiflex (134/4 Sonnar) with my C330F and a 135 Mamiya. After a while, the C330 felt so much bigger and heavier that if not on a tripod, I preferred the Tele-Rollei. Stopped down the Mamiya was very good, but wide open, even at 8x10, the Rollie was just sharper. I got consistantly good hand-held shots (1/125) on the Tele-Rollei but fuzzy shots with the larger, heavier Mamiya at 1/250. Hey, this was my experience. I know there are some who prefer the Mamiya and are happy with the results provided. All kinda moot today with digital, but I still love & use my Rolleis!<br>

Just consider that after the Mamiya C cameras came out, one would think with good, interchangable lenses, Mamiya would have put an end to the Rollei TLRs. In time Mamiya stopped making the Cs (late 80's I think) while the FX and GX Rollei models were made past 2001. </p>