bob_brown5

To Lynn,

I'm sorry your Rollei TLR experiences with film flatness and lens quality are not what mine have been. I don't know what your phrase "worked for Rollei" means, and I don't want to belittle your comments, but they seem to contradict what I've experienced along with probably many others on this forum. I've used a pair of Automats (1951-54) with the simple Tessar and Xenar 3.5 lenses for many years, and I have no complaints whatsoever about image sharpness or contrast. In fact, they are a source of joy to me when I look at the resulting negs or transparencies. Stunning is an understatement.

 

I have other camera options if I wish to do macro or telephoto shooting. Sorry, but I have to heartily disagree with your thumbs down on the Rollei over the Mamiya in field experience.

 

Bob Brown

Simple & short-

I bought two Automats- one Xenar and one Tessar just so I could make the head to head comparison. Even at the "basic" level (not talking Planars or Xenotars here), these lenses both blow me away for sharpness, contrast and overall pleasing negatives and prints. I can find no discernable difference between the two makers with regard to quality. You don't need to spend the extra for the Planars and Xenotars unless you are after the status.

 

In fairness, I've never shot either of those "high-end" lenses though, so maybe I'd be in for a nice surprise. My point is that any of these Schneider or Zeiss lenses that are in good condition will yield a very nice photograph that you'll be very happy with.

 

Bob Brown

Brian,

Yes, the Automat X will take the standard PC connector on a cable that will fit onto your flash on the other end. I have such a setup using a Vivitar 283, and it works well. I wouldn't suggest trying to mount the flash to the Bay 1 ring on the front of the lenses. Although Rollei made a flashbulb mounting device to attach there, mounting a "heavy" electronic flash to the front of the lens seems to me to be stressing the optics mount for no good reason. If you are shooting handheld, get yourself one of those L brackets that holds the camera and has a side handle with a cold shoe on top for the flash. A short PC cord is nice for this setup. If you use a tripod, you can attach the flash to the top of a simple 3 legged light stand (fit a coldshoe to the top), or even hand-hold the flash away from the camera to prevent redeye. I use a coiled cord for this to keep the tangles to a minimum. The 283 and others like it have the auto sensor, and work well for fill-flash once you learn the ropes (I'm still learning- but its fun). Oh, and don't forget to make sure that the flash sync lever is in the X position, not the M. The M is for the old style flashbulbs of the '50's.

Hi Dennis,

According to a data sheet that I received from straight from the Rollei factory back in 2001, your 2.8 Planar camera is indeed a "C" model. Here are some bits of info for this model run:

 

"geliefert" (supplied) 1952-1955

 

Serial number range: 1,260,000 thru 1,475,405

 

No. of units produced: 215,406

 

By interpolation of the above info, we could surmise that yours was probably made in 1955, or possibly late 1954. The 2.8 D model followed the C from '55-'56, with only 20,101 being produced, and then the E, E2 and E3 models came after that. Their stats are:

 

E 1956-59

ser. 1,621,000- 1,665,000 with

44,001 produced

 

E2 1959-60

ser. 2,350,000- 2,356,999 with

7,000 produced

 

E3 1962-65

ser. 2,360,000- 2,362,024 with

2,025 produced

 

The 2.8 F model overlapped those years, running from 1960-1981, starting at ser. no. 2,400,000 through "keine Information" (no information). They list the total number of units produced as ca. 250,000.

 

The "Gucci" models followed, which I won't list here.

 

Regards,

Bob Brown

Call it what you like, but having to type in:

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons/patron-small.gif">

 

sure looks overly complicated to me. Sorry, but I don't feel like having to become a programmer to just put a picture up on a forum. I'll just skip the whole thing. I lose, you lose, everybody loses.

 

If you are comfortable with it, fine, but I'm willing to bet that there are many out here who are intimidated by having to type in a perfect long string of letters to a web address. The whole thing is arcane and unneccessary to begin with.

 

Bob Brown

So we're still left with the question... why don't the moderators of this forum allow us to post pictures directly without having to go through all the gibberish of typing DOS commands. I thought that type of thinking went out years ago. You'd have a much better forum with the "hurdle" removed. Moderators, what is your reasoning?

 

Bob Brown

 

P.S. It seems especially ironic that on a photo forum, obstacles are left in the way to showing the members' work! Should be just the opposite!

Daniel wrote:

I find it a little humorous that someone might be hesitant about buying a film camera for fear of film photography "disappearing" in the next few years but think nothing of plopping down thousands of dollars for digital equipment that they will end up replacing in the same time span.

 

Daniel-

You hit the nail on the head, man. Most of us never paused to think of it that way. Face it, my Canon Digital Rebel probably won't be able to fit the formats being used in 5-10 years, and it will be junk. My 52 year old Rollei TLR will be happily making fine images, and without even a simple battery!

 

Bob Brown

Santa Barbara, CA, USA

I picked up a couple of Automat Model 4's several years ago on eBay. They both have the f3.5 taking lens and were both built between 1951-1954. I was fortunate that they both function correctly with no additional expense to me for shutter speed errors or other mechanical troubles. One is a Zeiss Tessar that I bought from a hard-headed seller, and the other a Schneider Xenar that I bought from a very nice retired Kodak rep (his personal camera). I can see no appreciable difference between the two lenses- they're tack sharp.

 

At that time, I paid around $130 and 160 for them, respectively. Although others may tout the sharper image of the f2.8 Planars and Xenotars, I am no less than stunned at what my cameras will deliver. You can pay more if you like, and probably get fractionally sharper images with those newer models, but I don't see the need. The Automat 4's are among the first to have the X-sync, which allows electronic flash. They are also among the last models made without a meter, which is no problem for me as I use a handheld Minolta meter for accurate incident readings. Meters in the later Rolleis that came equipped with them are likely to have soured by now, and unless you want to spend money to repair them, they don't add much to the value of the camera. Even then, you are left with only a reflected light meter which, as its name implies, can only attempt to give you an 18 percent gray reading from your subject regardless of what it is. White snow, dark coal- they'll all come out middle grey. Contrast that to an incident meter reading which measures light falling on the subject- just as your eyes see it. Darks are dark, lights are light- you get the picture. (!)

 

If you manage to land a troublefree unit, you might need to consider a modernized ground glass conversion such as a Maxwell or Beattie. Being the tightwad I am, I haven't done this, and it is only a problem in low light situations. I just use a pair of reader glasses or a magnifying glass to fine tune the focus in this situation, and the results are great. I almost always use a tripod with cable release to get the utmost out of the cameras in terms of sharpness, so I do my action shooting with 35mm or digital. You will find that the Rollei will slow you down in a good way, and your enjoyment with the results will keep you coming back for more.

 

Rolleiflex gave the photographic community a real gift with these little workhorses. In field use, you'll find folks who understand the history of Rolleis will smile and pay you nice compliments. That adds something to the photographic experience that couldn't be had with a modern camera. Enjoy your new, old treasure.

 

Bob Brown

 

 

 

4

Christian,

This is off topic, but I'm wondering if you live in northern Germany. I have relatives there with the name Hinrichsen.... just curious.

Bob Brown

Danny Burk-

Your work is incredible! I wish I lived closer... I'd take one of your weekend workshops. Just stunning!

 

Bob Brown

Santa Barbara, CA

Hey Jack,

I've had great luck with a Minolta IVF digital meter. Works well in low light as well, and doesn't need the mercury batteries that my old Gossen Pilot required.

 

Pros tell me to stick with incident readings for best results. They seem to be right. Reflected metering only trys to steer your image toward an average 18% grey, which is often not what you want in a light subject or dark subject.

 

An esthetic tidbit- I have trouble if I take both my digital camera and my TLR's along. I sink into the snapshot mentality with the digital, and the film cameras take a back seat. I'm learning to take either one type or the other along, not both. The handheld meter supplies the correct incident metering for the Rollei every time and the results are quite pleasing!

Gosh, I bought 2 Rolleiflex 3.5 Automats on eBay over the past 3 years, and I paid $130 for a Xenar, and later $142 for a Tessar. They both have characteristic signs of light wear on the exterior, but the glass is clear, mechanicals work fine without having spent a dime on CLA's or anything else. Bottom line is, both cameras take stunningly sharp and beautiful pictures. I see no need to spend extra for the 2.8 model.

 

I bought one of each so I could do my own comparison of the lens manufacturers (indiscernable, by the way), and now I shoot color transparency in the Zeiss and black and white negs in the Schneider.

 

Nowadays, I've got one foot in the digital world, but even with digital's convenience factors, the Rolleis are still my greatest joy to use by far. Just the slower pace required to use the Rollei is refreshing. I think it is remarkable that a 50 year old camera, under $150, can deliver such top-notch performance.

 

I'd suggest taking a chance or two on eBay. If you are after a mint collectors item, you may be frustrated. If you are just looking for a damn good photographic instrument, fasten your seatbelt, take the plunge, and get ready to enjoy photography as it was meant to be enjoyed!

Chris-

 

Since when is a groom able to function as a spectator at a wedding, having the time and focus to operate a camera in a meaningful way? I've been through two of my own weddings, and the best advice I could give you is to focus not on the camera, but on your bride. If you choose the camera instead, there will be hell to pay for a long time to come in the future- trust me! It is a time to sit back, be 1/2 of the center of attention, and leave the driving (i.e. photo work) to someone else!

From the get-go, I was advised to shoot medium format with a tripod whenever possible. Sports, action, and run of the mill stuff can be dispatched with 35mm or now even digital. But, if you want to really draw the quality out of medium format, and I'm talking Rollei TLR's here, quit fooling around with your shaky hands and stabilize the damn thing on a tripod. You won't be sorry! Crisp Crisp Crisp!

 

It takes a little more effort with this setup, but when moving around at an event or out in nature, I just tuck the floppy end of the cable release into a handy screw recess on my tripod head, and bring the legs together as one. I shoulder the whole enchilada like a soldier with a rifle, and I'm ready to go! Ah! What pleasure!

Well folks, I'll tell ya.... I've got two Rollei TLR's. They are the lowly Automats from 1953-54 with a 3.5 Xenar and a 3.5 Tessar. I used the Xenar for about 2 years, and I couldn't stand not knowing what the Zeiss would be like, so I bought one of those on eBay just as I did with the Xenar previously. To this day, I am simply astounded when I enlarge a T-Max 100 neg on my enlarger. The sharpness is unbelievable. I almost don't care what the Xenotars and Planars can deliver... I'm on the top already as far as I'm concerned! I can find no detectable difference between the Zeiss and Schneider lenses, so for me that is no longer an issue.

 

In the field, I carry one of them with the B&W Tmax 100 (or 400) and the other camera I load with color Provia F 100 transparency film. It is like eating dessert when I get to view the results of either through a loupe, and later, again when I project them in the enlarger or on the wall (in the case of transparencies).

 

I'm now dipping my toes into digital photography, but so far, the pleasure I derive from my 50 year old TLR's cannot be matched by the 1's and 0's of a Canon. I think it has something to do with the "process" of slowing down to make each exposure...savoring it... kind of like eating a fine meal slowly as compared to McDonalds on the run. Its time consuming, to be sure. And I sort of like that.

In the early 1950's, Rollei changed the tripod mounting "disc" under the cameras to include a groove around the perimeter of the disc. This allows for mounting with the Rolleifix- Rollei's quick release that allows quick film changes without unscrewing a tripod mounting bolt.

 

For lack of a better description, the later models have this groove which makes the disc resemble a "pulley wheel" because of the groove cut in the edge of it. The older models don't have the groove, hence they cannot be grabbed by the "rails" of the Rolleifix as the camera is slid onto the fixture. I know because I own two Automats.... one will accept the Rolleifix and the other won't. Hey, it doesn't prevent me from loving both of them though... they are great!

If its simply a matter of the moderator turning on the date function, I would heartily add my vote to him/her doing so. At the moment, it is quite a jumble of headings, and the "mark" from my previous viewings is the only clue I have that I may have visited that listing beforehand.

 

Why not give it a try for awhile- it could be changed back to the present format if complaints are received.... but I think there wouldn't be any.

Short and sweet..... you won't be disappointed in the Automat. I can't speak for the 2.8C as I've never used one, but I'm simply in love with the two Automats I own. One is a Schneider Xenar and the other is a Zeiss Opton. Simply thrilling to use! Almost gives me chills!

Dave Henderson's advice to stick with 35mm is OK, but you will miss a wonderful life opportunity if you never experience the enjoyment of MF, and especially with an older Rollei TLR. You will need a separate meter, but when you've bought the camera and meter, you will start on an adventure that will pay enjoyable dividends. I print 11 x 14's (b&w) in my darkroom at home, and they are crystal clear using TMAX 100. Fuji's slide film is great for color as well, but I just send those in for processing. The resolution difference from 2-1/4 square to 35mm is inescapable- the best 35mm can't match the larger negatives. Take the plunge- the water's fine! You won't regret it!

With regard to loading the film.... First you send the paper flap under the first roller (film counter) and over the 2nd one (which then turns the film around the corner, sending it flat across the pressure plate to the take up spool. After inserting the paper leader into the takeup spool and winding it forward about 1 spool revolution (to insure the leader won't flop loose), YOU MUST THEN CLOSE THE CAMERA BACK before winding the crank to the number 1 frame! Winding it to #1 with the back open will spoil the first frame or two!

 

Also, I've lost entire rolls by forgetting to put the paper leader under the first roller which is how the camera senses when the film comes through, thereby knowing when to start the counter. Without engaging this roller (like you would do with a Yashica camera), you will wind and wind with no stop point until the entire length of the film is on the takeup spool! Surprise! The film counter never even got started!

Richard-

Your best answer quite possibly lies in an inexpensive Rolleiflex Automat TLR or (2nd choice), a Yashicamat 124(G). Yes, she'll have to forego the built in meter with the Rollei, but that is not hard to work around. You probably want to move to incident metering anyway for best results, and that requires a handheld incident meter. It is definitely worth the learning curve.

You would be looking at $150 to 200 on ebay, and she will learn the basics of MF with a thorough joy along the way. I've been down this road, and it has been very rewarding. Forget the extra lens cameras for the beginning. The Rollei is twice the camera in terms of quality as the Yashica, but both will deliver excellent results. I use 2 Rolleis that are about 50 years old, and I enjoy the fact that they make me slow down and appreciate what I'm attempting to capture on film. The results are stunning- newer is not always better, you know. Wish I could show you some results... I'm continually humbled and amazed!

Trevor,

You are right, MF does make you slow down and smell the roses, but that is not a bad thing. As has been stated elsewhere, you will wind up with a much higher percentage of keepers with MF over 35mm because you took your time and thought about what you are doing rather than just pointing and shooting.

 

I bought a deep red B+W Bay 1 filter from a gent in Holland about a year ago, but I've yet to test it, as I also have a Rollei red filter. It appears to be very high quality- glass and bezel both. I think I paid about US$16 for it, and a couple more bucks for shipping. Your suggested price in pounds sounds quite high as others have said. Good luck!

Yes, the Yashicamat 124 and the Rolleiflex have the same center/center distance, so the Rolleinar magnifiers will work correctly on either one with no parallax trouble. I have recently tested a Rolleinar 1 and found it to be exceptionally sharp- no need to worry about loss of quality by adding an auxiliary lens with those babies!

 

One cautionary note if you are going the other direction with magnification though. I've been acquiring and testing telephoto and wide angle auxiliary lenses for my 2 Rollei TLRs, (Sun, Yashinon, Spiratone), and I've found that in the case of the Rollei cameras (both Zeiss & Schneider lenses), some of these aftermarket lenses have a nasty rear element projection that won't allow the bayonet lugs to engage to the camera's mating part. The rear element actually rests on the inner lens mounting bezel of the Rollei, or worse, could potentially contact the fine German glass- heaven forbid!

 

Mind you, they all work well on a Yashicamat. The Sun lenses work OK on a Rollei, but the Yashinon and Spiratone lenses won't attach. Actually, the Yashinon will attach, but with a strong breath it will drop off- no kidding, its that tentative. I took one test pic with the Yashinon tele, and it was quite sharp, but I don't trust the mount. I've got more tests coming with new equipment on the way, so I will report it on this forum, maybe with a new thread so everyone can find it. Has anyone else had experiences with these Asian aftermarket wonders?

Antonio-

I like your certainty about using film for the rest of your life! I'm with you.

I use my Rollei Automat at classic car shows (Pebble Beach Concours for example), and throughout the day I get repeated compliments and interesting comments about the fact that I'm using a classic 50 year old camera to photograph classic automobiles. It warms my heart, as I can tell that many of the folks making the remarks have used them in the past or have a very high regard for this icon of MF photography.

 

Many are swinging digital & SLR's around their necks, but they can't stop fawning over the fact that their cameras just don't have the panache of the one I'm using.

 

Yes, I'm gloating a bit, I know, but it is really fun to have others recognize the Rollei that continues to soldier on with outstanding images (providing I'm up to the task, of course!)

 

The high-detail subject of the cars, the chrome highlights, the body contours, wire wheels, etc. make a feast for a photographer's eye.