Best Rolleiflex camera for beginner

[shannon_watson]

I am a beginner, and am desperate to purchase a Rolleiflex camera. My

question is, between the two that are in my price range (Rolleiflex

Baby and the Rolleiflex Original), which would be the better to start

with? I understand that the Baby was supposed to be an easier and

more practical camera, so I am leaning towards that. If there are any

other Rollei cameras that you can suggest, I would be most

appreciative.

 

Shannon Watson

[maury_cohen]

Are you starting a collection or is it possible you're using the term Rollei while nother TLR might suffice. Rollei's are great, but the Minolta Autocord and eeven more common Yashicamat's are great, less expensive and serviceable "copies" of the Rollei design. The Rolleicord is another less costly option. The Baby is actually smaller format (127). This film format is much scarcer than the 120 films for the "Original".

[christoph-erdmann pfeiler]

Please pay attention to the availability of appropriate films!

 

The non-120 films are

 

- hard to find

 

- hard to process (it is even difficult to get processing equipment, if You want to do it on Your own!)

 

- offers only a limited scale or types

 

- may run out of production soon

 

So, if You want to buy a Rolleiflex, take a model with 120 film.

 

If You are offered a Rolleiflex with a "Rolleikin", get it. You will be able to run 120 film and 135 film (the ordinary 35mm film) with the same camera. I do not know, whether any other camera manufacturer has made such an accessory. The us of the 135 film results in a sort of Tele effect, well suited for portrait.

 

A twin lens reflex is a very instructive tool for a beginner.

 

Because it is not so mechanically complicated, it is ease to recognize technical and arrangment dependencies.

 

You have to do everything by hand, so You are really aware of the photographic process. On the other hand, You will get more spoiled photos than from a highly sophisticated up-to-date camera in the very beginning. After 10 films this will shift just to the opposite.

[nolan woodbury]

First of all, great response by Christoph-Erdmann Pfeiler. Not much one can add to that but a brief over-view of the different models.

 

The post-war Automat models are what you should look for in an "affordable" Rollei TLR Shannon, although its been my experience that no matter what I do -or what I buy- it always seems to cost a minium of $500 to get a really decent shooter...whether its a minty, just been serviced unit or a fixer-upper. When talking Rollei, you can just about count on that as a base figure. Trust me.

 

That said, look for the models with the factory flash (X) sync port, starting with the Automat X up through the MX-EVS models of the mid 50's. Without electronic flash, your Rollei will be severely limited. If you move up to the later 3.5E or F models, you'll pay more...but not necessarily get more. Insist on a choice unit.

 

If you desire something a bit more affordable, then look for a Minolta Autocord, easily the equal to any Rollei TLR, or a YashicaMat. The Kalloflex is a good camera too, built like a tank.

 

Good luck!

[paul_chuah]

IMO, I would recommend you start looking at the Rolleiflex T(Budget pro level camera during its heydays). If that's still beyond your price range, the Rolleicords, model III onwards to Vb are worthwhile considering. Check them out at eBay to have an idea what they cost.

 

The Rolleiflex Baby that you're looking at uses the 127 film that is extremely difficult to find and is almost non-existent.

[norman_trabulus1]

I agree with the previous posts and think another brand, or possibly a Rolleicord, are a better choice. If, however, you want the rolleiflex name at a rock-bottom price, consider a pre-war Automat, New Standard, or Old Standard. The latter, with no double exposure prevention, and much like a later rolleicord (shutter needs to be cocked separately and red window needed for first frame), but with a lever wind, can be purchased in useable condition for under $100 and, if you use a lens shade with the uncoated lenses, you will find the old tessars remarkably good - check the shutter and the lens carefully, if they are ok, and the focus is not out of whack (harder to check), you will have a camera capable of very high quality results. The remarks about everything being totally manual, and an initially higher percentage of spoiled shots, are true the more so for these old cameras.

[Rob F.]

Ditto the recommendations for both the Rollei T and the YashicaMat. Excellent cameras for the beginner and for later on, too.

[john_hicks___]

I'd recommend a Rolleiflex MX or T; avoid the Baby since 127 film is very difficult to obtain.

 

Note that sooner or later you'll need to have the camera overhauled and probably want a new, brighter focusing screen...with that in mind I'd be much more inclined to save up for a 3.5E w/Planar or Xenotar lens, which imho would be much more worth paying the price of an overhaul for.

 

If your budget just can't be stretched that far, a clean Yashica 124 or Mamiya C33 would probably be a better way to go.

[jerry_lehrer]

Shannon

 

If you go to the Rollei Users Group (RUG) tomorrow, you will

find a really fine Rolleiflex 3.5 E2 for sale at a very fair

price. It will have all the needed goodies to go with it that

most sellers list seperately on eBay. (Lens cap, case, neck

strap, sun-shade etc). Friday is "For Sale" day on the RUG.

 

Jerry Lehrer

[shannon_watson]

I just want to thank all of you for your responses. Trust me when I tell you that you've been a great help. I promise to take your advice, and proceed accordingly. Thanks so much!!!

 

 

Shannon Watson

[edward_kang]

There are only two different types of rolleiflex TLR's worth having for use:

 

1) Automat 'T' designation with improved Tessar design.

2) Late model Planar lens designs.

 

Early model Planars are horrible. Early model Tessars are ok but completely disappointing compared to cheaper yashicamats.

[norman_trabulus1]

Edward Kang's comments about early Planars and Tessars go against the weight of most posts on this subject here and on other sites, except insofar as he states the tessars on the "T" are the best tessars; they may reflect some bad luck with earlier Rolleis. My 2.8C with early planar is very sharp and well color-corrected, but, despite the ten-blade diaphragm, has bokeh inferior to most tessar-type lenses I have used. (Planar types are known for so-so at best bokeh). I also have a 1932 Old Standard with 3.8 uncoated tessar (same as used by Doisneau) which, though understandably flare-prone, has fine color correction and super bokeh, and is, through an 8X loupe, sharper than either the rokkor on my recently CLA'd (by Mark Hama) Autocord I or the Yashinon on my Yashicamat LM. While one must be somewhat of a masochist, or at least a puritan, to use this camera on a regular basis, its demerits do not lie in its lens. There are a lot of individual variations out there, either in the lenses themselves, or resulting from alignment problems in particular cameras; it is probably best to "test-drive" any of these old cameras before buying them, if that is possible.

[j._patric_dahl_n]

I agree with Norman Trabulus. I have many pre-war Rolleis with Tessars and Triotars, and they are all very good and sharp. My Rolleiflex Standard with a 3,5/75mm Tessar is so sharp that if I make a 24x30 cm print and compare it to one taken with my 3,5F with the six element Planar, it's hard to tell the difference.

 

Norman wrote about bokéh; do you think that the later, six element Planars have better bokéh than the early five element ones and the 2,8 Planars? The results with my 3,5F are great, much better than with my 2,8F.

[edward_kang]

Maybe I'm a bit disillusioned by the early rollei lenses. I bought my TLR based on the recommendations of people on photo.net who said that early tessars had "excellent picture quality", but when I look at prints or high quality scans out to 6" or larger, I must say the lack of quality in early rolleiflex lenses is stark (to say the least). I get better results (in terms of sharpness) with a $50.00 canon 50mm lens at the same enlargement.

 

I must obviously be owning a very poor example if you can make a 24x30cm print and not see the difference in quality between a shot made with the "same lens" that I have and a planar. There's no way I could honestly make that claim.

 

Anyways, why would a beginner like to chance their hard-earned money on a 60 year old camera? Seems like a real mistake to me, especially after my experiences with Rolleiflexes.

 

I recommend Shannon Watson gets herself a cheap canon eos body and a new 50mm/1.8 lens.

 

by the way, if you could send me some pictures that you've taken with your 75/3.5's that show off sharpness (maybe lens targets) I'd be very interested.

[nolan woodbury]

Edward,

 

Its disappointing to read of your observations of the Rolleiflex TLR you own. May I inquire as to which model it is?

 

Properly serviced and set-up, your Rollei should outperform any Canon lens not just in terms of overall sharpness, but depth and contrast as well. Sure, there are some "Lemons" out there (or abused or improperly serviced/repaired units) but its rare to hear such comments. I have not extensively used many pre-war Rollei TLR's, but have several that I've shot and gained impressive results. However, a unit without a flash port is of little use to me. Depending on your screen resolution, you may see the Rollei TLR quality in these photographs:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/106750

http://www.photo.net/photo/106883&size=lg

 

Both camera's used (X & MX model Automats) are Tessar-equipped from the very early 50's. Find another, or send your unit to one of the many fine repairmen listed in the archives of the MFD for a full service and CLA.

[edward_kang]

Nolan,<br><br>

 

<img src=http://www.nd.edu/~ekang/photography/rollei/um-small.jpg><br><br>

 

Your examples look like mine when scanned negs on a flatbed. But when enlarged much bigger than that, the results are....not encouraging.<br><br>

 

Unfortunately, about six months after I bought my rolleiflex on Ebay, the rear element decided to separate on me (and I take care of my equipment)<br><br>

 

I've sent my Rolleiflex Automat X to Harry Fleenor to get it repaired. Do you know how much it will cost me?<br><br>

 

$130.00 to get the lens recemented and another $100+ to get it cleaned and adjusted.<br><br>

 

Total cost? Over $200.00 to get this camera "working again" after six months of use. Yet another reason to avoid the Rolleis, unless you have the money to back up your ill-fated decision.<br><br>

 

I don't dislike rolleiflex TLR's. However, I still stand behind my statement that there is absolutely no reason to get a rolleiflex just for the names sake. Other TLRs have equivalent or better lens quality at a higher reliability point than most rolleiflexes of the same or higher price.<br><br>

[nolan woodbury]

Edward,

 

Its obvious that you have your mind made up about this, and I won't try to change that. I do however, have a few points I'd like you to consider;

 

When pressed, I'd have to say I consider myself more of a Minolta TLR "fan" then any other marque, but of the 40 or so TLR's in my "user/collection" the Rolleiflex's have -far and away- been the most consistent in regards to optical performance, which is to say "there is substance to the claims of excellence" Of the 6 Rollei TLR's I have (both pre, and post war) be it a Xenar, Opton Tessar or Jena Tessar equipped example, all have proven to be excellent and consistent shooters in their own right. Sharp, contrasty, reliable and durable. Some are minty originals, others, hacked up and abused losers that nobody else wanted. None of the other brands of TLR's that I have experienced or tried can claim this. I must conclude then, there is more to Rolleiflex than just the name.

 

I'm sorry to hear of the problems with your Automat X, but -good gosh! It's a 50 year old camera! Surely you cannot hold Rollei responsible for those needed repairs! On the subject of repairs, have you checked the prices of Hasselblad or Nikon lenses lately? The over-$200 repair to your Rollei (which should work fine after Mr. Fleenor is finished with it) is chump-change in the world of MF photography. Example: My best Rollei TLR -a MX with a Jena Tessar- came to me from eBay with a broken aperture blade. Do I blame Rollei? No, I blame the dolt who forced the f-stop selector when the aperture blades were dirty or with the workings dry. Once repaired (more than $200, I promise you) the camera was returned to service and performs in splendid fashion. It's a tribute to the solid and....dare I say "timeless" design of the Rollei TLR that a seriously damaged 50 year old camera can be still be repaired and returned to professional duty. I've run hundreds of rolls through it since.

 

Lastly; You may prefer the optics and operation of some other brand of TLR Edward, and I'll respect and understand that always. Just be careful when you word your opinion as "fact" There are simply too many success stories and breathtaking Rolleiflex images to deny this camera, its makers and fitters, and especially those who have used them so successfully all these many years.

[paul_chuah]

Edward,

I do find your conclusions on all used Rollei TLRs unrealistic. As Nolan had pointed out, your camera is more than 50 years old with inherent problems or diseases waiting to breakout. Just so happened that your Rollei decided to break down on you at the most unfortunate time.

 

I have a 51 year old Rolleicord III and a 48 year old Rolleicord IV. When I got them, they were obviously very used. Before I proceeded to use them, I had them cleaned and serviced by a qualified technician. Back in my hands again, they performed flawlessly and I can tell you there isn't a wee bit of hitch after 30 rolls despite its age. It isn't too premature to assume that they can last for another 20 to 30 years of regular use.

 

The only problem I had with these mechanical cameras is that, the shutters or film counters tend to stick when not exercised often.

 

As a regular user of used TLRs and the new 2.8GX, I can tell you they do not exhibit quirky behavior like its electronic cousins. I can trust them totally when I'm on assignments.

[cpj]

For another 2-cents worth, I have owned a Rollei with a 3.5 Xenotar lens by Schneider since the early 1960s. It was made in 1956 according to the serial number. This camera has been through a lot of use--probably a couple thousand rolls of film or more--and I've never had a problem with lens separation or anything like that. The Xenotar is excellent and extremely sharp with 16x20 prints showing no fall off when compared oto 8x10's. The camera was used for photojournalism work for about 8 years and today all it needs is a good cleaning and lube as the 1/8th and 1/15th second speed are off. The half- and one-second speeds work find. I would highly recommend the Xenotar and any Rolleiflex of the Mid-1950s to Mid-1960's vintage.

[klaus_harms]

Hi from Munich!

 

Well, i started 30 years ago with a Rolleicord Vb as an alternative to my Nikon. At this time I had to learn using a lightmeter and it was one of my best practice i could get!

 

Later i bought another Rolleiflex with a Planar lens and this was and is one of the best 6x6 cameras on earth and that right now in 2001.

 

Greetings

 

Klaus

[su_niles]

Wow! Lots of info I didn't know. Gosh Shannon, it's no wonder you need to get some input. There are so many cameras out there all calling your name! I was milkfed on Nikon 35mm, then stepped up to Mamiya MF. All of it fun, really. But as one of the responses said, using a completely mechanical camera such as a Rollei will give you a fundamental understanding of how a camera makes pictures. Yes, it is important to (I think) to purchase from a reputable source, take into consideration film availability, and then set yourself free. I just got a Rolleiflex Tessar and I love it. I practically walk around with it with a rolls of film in my pocket. Read what people have written, if you feel a conviction in your gut about a camera armed with sufficient information, go for it. Good luck!

 

Su Niles

[caliber_60]

If You are offered a Rolleiflex with a "Rolleikin", get it. You will be able to run 120 film and 135 film (the ordinary 35mm film) with the same camera.

 

Is this true? Can you run both 35mm and 120 with Rolleikin installed?

[visionscape]

I cannot see any advantage in buying the later 3.5 e, f, models over the earlier automats. The tessar lens is actually a better lens. This is a dark secret amongst Rollei afficianados!