Bought on ebay...what do you think?

[Ejg206]

Hi All

I am a total newby to this but bought this on ebay for my partner as his TLR I heard him talking about these and plan to take to a repair shop to ask about it tomorrow.

Thoughts before I go?

Any comments or things I should look into?

Seems like it will require repair and a service but was it a good deal? Can the cosmetic work be fixed up do you think?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rolleifle...jsXQUPdeCTw4fKlucNlZ8%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Thanks!! 🙂

 

[ThreeToedSlothLuke]

I have one of similar vintage also cosmetically "challenged" and I rather think I paid a fair bit more for it.
I did send it out for a CLA; the lens was cloudy and, as it turned out, the shutter speeds were quite a way off. That cost more than the purchase price but it was well worth it. Later I had the focus screen replaced with a Maxwell which makes it much easier to focus.

I did buy a replacement skin but by the time it arrived I had decided against replacing it. Gives the camera a certain aged elegance.

 

[Greyscale]

This camera

Produced this photo

Hopefully yours is similarly rough and ready. From the photos in the listing, the front element looks clean, at least. I would expect a little haze on the rear, and probably some dust. You are missing the switch for the timer, but that can be easily replaced. But even so, use a lens shade to eliminate flare, and you should get good images. A Rolleiflex at 60% is still going to be better than most other cameras.

I plan on never reskinning this one. I love it just the way that it is.

Think of it this way, for a camera to be used enough to earn a patina like that, chances are it has been a good camera for a long, long time.

 

[Dan Daniel]

That's a nice price for that camera. If it functions, you'll be in great shape. Even getting some work done you'll be doing well. I think your partner will be thrilled.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Hi All

I am a total newby to this but bought this on ebay for my partner as his TLR I heard him talking about these and plan to take to a repair shop to ask about it tomorrow.

Thoughts before I go?

Any comments or things I should look into?

Seems like it will require repair and a service but was it a good deal? Can the cosmetic work be fixed up do you think?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rolleiflex-Automat-tlr-camera-/291921682792?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=COSdvMjsXQUPdeCTw4fKlucNlZ8%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Thanks!! 🙂

It's easier to remedy mechanical issues than poor cosmetics due to parts availability. I prefer to seek out a tidy camera with good lenses that requires service. In some cases repair parts might be needed but Rolleis wear gracefully, so cleaning, adjustment and lubrication will often return proper function, then leaving you with a tidy, working, camera. The one you have acquired can probably be made to work well, but, without cannibalising external parts in superior condition from a donor camera, it is going to be impossible to make it look as good as a well-cared for, original example. It's one to fix and use as it is, to make good images with, and to accept its appearance as a part of its history and story.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Ko.Fe.]

"shutter speeds 1 to 500+B and aperture work well, focus and film transport fine"

according to the listing. Optics condition is unknown from the listing. Might be done deliberately. Once in your hands do flashlight test, to see if you not going to see this.

I was told it is evaporated lubrication, after I sold it. Knowing this, I cleaned the lens which was looking like this in another camera.

 

[Ejg206]

Thanks everyone for your advice, it has arrived and looks lovely. Will try the torch trick and also take it for a service- the place I have found costs £120 for a service, does this sound about right to you? I'm in London. Thanks again, will let you know how I get on! E.

 

[Chromacomaphoto]

Price is good in the U.K. I would think, assuming they do the job right of course. Hopefully it will all be fine. I imagine the recipient of this camera will be very chuffed indeed*

*(colloquial British English expression meaning to be quite happy)

 

[p.giannakis]

£120 sounds a bit too steep for me. A year ago, Miles Whitehead quoted me £45 plus p&p to service my YashicaMat assuming that no major parts need replacing. Contact him to see if you can get a better quote. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

£120 sounds a bit too steep for me. A year ago, Miles Whitehead quoted me £45 plus p&p to service my YashicaMat assuming that no major parts need replacing. Contact him to see if you can get a better quote.

Yes, but a Yashicamat is not a Rolleiflex, the extra complexity of the latter means that more adjustments may be needed, especially in this case. Given the external appearance the camera has clearly had an extremely hard life so it's likely to need a great deal of time spent on it in order to get it back to factory specs.
Cheers
Brett

 

[scigeek]

Yes, but a Yashicamat is not a Rolleiflex, the extra complexity of the latter means that more adjustments may be needed, especially in this case. Given the external appearance the camera has clearly had an extremely hard life so it's likely to need a great deal of time spent on it in order to get it back to factory specs.
Cheers
Brett

The camera in the picture isn't the camera we're discussing, which is "lovely".

Great buy, and cheap even if you do spend another £100 or so on a good CLA.

 

[Sid836]

The camera in the picture isn't the camera we're discussing, which is "lovely".

Great buy, and cheap even if you do spend another £100 or so on a good CLA.

Penny wise it is always better to spend more on a verified working one. CLA does not always cost that cheap not to mention the additional time one would have to wait until things get sorted out.

Also, there are other things one should consider, such as the state of the lenses. Is there any separation, if yes can you fix it yourself, does it cost much sending it away to get it fixed?

 

[DownUnder]

As one who has an amazingly large collection of seemingly derelict but functional Rollei TLRs, as well as a carton of accessories for same, I would venture the following comments:

The taking lens looks clear, at least externally.

The body is beautifully, even gorgeously retro.

Rolleiflexes are chick magnets and if you are not careful, if you take it out on a weekend outing you may end up engaged to the loveliest lady in your town. I say this seriously...

1950s Rolleis are built like Sherman tanks and take the cheaper Series I accessories, which are plentifully and cheaply available on Ebay and from other sources.

Whatever you paid for it (and this was entirely your decision), you will never, ever go wrong with buying a Rolleiflex of any vintage.

All this from one who bought his first Rollei in 1966 and still uses it, and who has had an ongoing love affair with them (and the loveliest lady in my town) for the past half century.

Take it out and enjoy playing with it. If you have to, get it CLA'd. As long as it focuses correctly and the shutter speeds are not all over the place, it will give you some truly beaut images. (And by the way, focusing and wonky shutter speeds can easily be put right at not too great expense.)

Of course you will post a few images for us to view and enjoy on this forum, won't you?

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

The camera in the picture isn't the camera we're discussing, which is "lovely".

Great buy, and cheap even if you do spend another £100 or so on a good CLA.

Perhaps a post has been edited, because I've re-read every post in the thread and didn't see a mention of a second Rolleiflex by the thread starter. Did I miss it?
Cheers
Brett

 

[seany65]

@Sarcophilus Harrisii,

I think the 'camera in the picture' (mentioned by scigeek), is the one in the photo posted by Greyscale, and that it is the one meant by you, when you say:

"Yes, but a Yashicamat is not a Rolleiflex, the extra complexity of the latter means that more adjustments may be needed, especially in this case. Given the external appearance the camera has clearly had an extremely hard life so it's likely to need a great deal of time spent on it in order to get it back to factory specs.
Cheers

Whereas the first Rollei (and the only one) mentioned in the OP by Ejg206, does look in good physical condition, and this is the one mentioned by scigeek as being 'lovely'.

 

[xayraa33]

Everyone has gone Rolleiflex bonkers lately.

 

[Greyscale]

@Sarcophilus Harrisii,

I think the 'camera in the picture' (mentioned by scigeek), is the one in the photo posted by Greyscale, and that it is the one meant by you, when you say:

"Yes, but a Yashicamat is not a Rolleiflex, the extra complexity of the latter means that more adjustments may be needed, especially in this case. Given the external appearance the camera has clearly had an extremely hard life so it's likely to need a great deal of time spent on it in order to get it back to factory specs.
Cheers

Whereas the first Rollei (and the only one) mentioned in the OP by Ejg206, does look in good physical condition, and this is the one mentioned by scigeek as being 'lovely'.

I think that mine is lovely. 😉 Interestingly, that photo is by far my most viewed and faved photo on Flickr, by a very, very large margin.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

No, I was referring to the one pictured in the eBay listing linked in post one, with the badly bent back, dent on the viewfinder hood, missing self timer lever and many other signs of having led an extremely hard life. Which is not to say, at all, that it cannot be made to be a very nice user. My point in post 10 however was, and is, that such a camera is likely to need a lot more time spent on making it right, than one which has been sympathetically used and has not been dropped multiple times and generally banged around, something that is virtually unarguably the case with the eBay example, given the vast amount of external scarring visible all over it.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[seany65]

@Sarcophilus Harrisii.

Ah, I see.

I've just had another look and while I can't see a 'badly bent back', I can see the dent in the hood, and in the 1st pic, it looks like the the base of the camera isn't flush to the body, with this condition getting worse near the front.

I must confess I hadn't looked properly at it.😱

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

@Sarcophilus Harrisii.

Ah, I see.

I've just had another look and while I can't see a 'badly bent back', I can see the dent in the hood, and in the 1st pic, it looks like the the base of the camera isn't flush to the body, with this condition getting worse near the front.

I must confess I hadn't looked properly at it.😱

Yes that base of the camera is the back. It's been distorted fairly badly to be sitting like that when the lock is actually fastened. Possibly twisted. It can happen a few ways, if someone is rough opening the camera it can be bent backwards, this will put a twist in it, deform it near the hinge or send the correct radius at the corners past 90 degrees (which is what seems to be the case in the first picture). This one is bad enough that it may not actually be completely light tight as it is, at certain angles to a strong light source, potentially. It's able to be improved. With careful bending, some templates, clamps, small blocks, punches, and a very light panel hammer, I could make it fit reasonably well, and work OK. But the fit will never, ever, be as tight as a good original one. Because they're made of aluminium there is a lot of stretching which happens, especially around the corner area. You can get them back in working shape but the fit is never as snug and perfectly even as a good, undamaged one. This all takes time to do of course, and the worse one is twisted the longer it takes to make it as good as possible.

As an aside it's this sort of issue that causes me to disagree when some people claim they're bulletproof etc. A comment I read somewhere just the other day was that a Rolleiflex is "built like a Sherman tank". Well, nup. No. Ain't so. They were made to very high standards indeed with excellent materials, and they are durable, and long lasting. This is all absolutely true. But they do not appreciate being banged around, it won't do the focus mechanism any good or the alignment of the lens board, finder and back condition. They repay careful ownership with very long service life. If they really were bulletproof it wouldn't be possible to terminally kill a back with nothing more than thumb and finger pressure, yet if you grab the base of the back with your fingers and bend it back on itself hard enough, this is exactly what you'll do. Durability and longevity are not the same as an ability to tolerate abuse...

When the time is invested in making the eBay purchase in post one right, then there will be another working usable Rolleiflex out there to be cherished, and maybe passed on to another family member one day or to another photographer. So please don't get the impression I'm trying to discourage the owner from having it attended to,. Quite the contrary, in fact, because I think it is important to save every one that can be rescued. Condition will simply dictate the time and financial investment needed to make any particular specimen as good as it can be.
Cheers,
Brett