Rolleiflex dilemna !

Let us know which one you decide on. Once you get one cleaned up and up to spec - they're wonderful cameras to use. All Rollei's have their pros and cons. Be aware, they also have a way of multipling and inviting other Rollei's into your house.
 
I've had 5. MX-EVS, T, 2.8D, 3.5E, 2.8E.

Optically, all Rollei's are excellent in my honest opinion.
I prefer the handling of the MX-EVS and 3.5E. The 2.8E feels a little heavy and large but not that bad. I don't like the shutter linkage on the T and I don't like the WLF on the 2.8D.

I'd wait for a 2.8E or go for the 3.5F but that is because I don't like the moving magnifier on the C.
 
One thing to consider is that the F series had the option to add a prism in place of the waist level finder. So if that's something you might be interested in, keep it in mind
 
If the lenses from both camera's are excellent (i.e. without cleaning marks), the 3.5 is as good as the 2.8 - Xenotar and Planar are as good imho. However I had for quite some time a 2.8C but used my Zeiss Ikoflex with a 3.5 lens more. Why was that? and here it comes to actually what you want to do with the camera's: I used the camera mainly for assignments where I had to change the F-stop / shutter speed quite fast. Considering you want / have to do that, the 2.8C has a big con: it has no coupled f-stop/shutterspeed since that was only introduced as from model D. Therefore I would (considering the lens is ok) always choose the later model.

However if you don't need coupling than I would choose the 2.8C because of its nice OOF rendering (has more aperture blades)


some shots made with the 2.8C I had some years:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorki_2007/sets/72157626329462836/
 
Ok everyone, thank you for all your answers. They were very helpful. As for the camera, I decided to snitch the 3.5F for 750 Euros. I just got it today morning and checked the camera for any flaws. As far as I can see there are not any !!! I will shoot some pics tomorrow and see if the exposures are right. The one thing that bugs me a little bit is that the bottom of the camera does not stand totally plane, it wiggles very little, but is noticeable. Any thoughts ?
 
The bottom of the 3.5 - any Rolleiflex should close very snug. That is how light is kept out. Sometimes, if some has dropped them the bottom/back of the camera can bend. Run a roll of film through and check for leaks. It is also not uncommon that the small feat on the bottom will get bent - same reason, putting it down hard or dropping. As long as it doesn't leak light I would use it. It's a great camera - you will not be sorry.
 
frogfroggy said:
Ok everyone, thank you for all your answers. They were very helpful. As for the camera, I decided to snitch the 3.5F for 750 Euros. I just got it today morning and checked the camera for any flaws. As far as I can see there are not any !!! I will shoot some pics tomorrow and see if the exposures are right. The one thing that bugs me a little bit is that the bottom of the camera does not stand totally plane, it wiggles very little, but is noticeable. Any thoughts ?
Click to expand...

It's not uncommon, sadly. It's not the feet that get bent, though. The feet create a pressure point so that if the camera is dropped or even put on a hard surface too firmly, the bottom of the camera back will be depressed inwards taking the foot with it.

If the fit of the back along the edge of the body and around the corners is still good it is not so hard to straighten the back, if the damage is not severe. I made a template from some timber by drilling holes to accommodate the four feet. After carefully assessing which was low I was able to gently apply pressure with small g clamps, blocks, a small panel hammer (and a punch on the inside of the feet) to true it up. The clamp in particular is helpful because you can precisely and smoothly modulate exactly how much pressure is applied to the back and where it is applied. I keep a stash of small softwood offcuts near my repair bench for exactly this kind of purpose.

Last one I did this way, when placed on a sheet of float glass the camera would glide smoothly across it on all feet like a skater on ice. So it can be fiddly, but it is within the scope of DIY repair if you take your time and make some tools to assist.

Regards,
Brett
 
thank you, now on to the next question ....

thank you, now on to the next question ....

The bottom snugs and closes tightly, as far as I can tell. I fiddled around the bottom a bit and see there, it was plane. And once I open the back again and reclose it, its not plane again.

Another fact that I want to mention is the transport lever, should it wind very smoothly or with a little resistance/drag ?
 
another very common reason for the bottom of the camera staying not completely aligned is because of a slightly bent back due to lack of care when putting the camera on a tripod
The bottom of the back in rollei tlrs is a weak point, screwing the camera on a tripod in an unproper manner or leaving the camera on the tripod when walking with the tripod can severely bend the back on the bottom
One way to avoid this is by using a rolleifix
 
Congrats on the 3.5F. Just to go back to another quirk of the C models, to change either shutter or aperture, you must depress a little chrome tab beside the wheel before turning it. This helps prevent accidental setting changes, but it makes it hard(er) to operate if you are using it with gloves and/or don't have great finger strength. It also slows it down. Also, the shutter on the C has a sort of overdrive to help it hit 1/500th of a second, which means you have this extra resistance in the shutter dial when setting 1/500th. You should NOT change the speed to or from 1/500th when the shutter is cocked. Otherwise you run the risk of breaking the shutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom