Rolleiflex owners, please input

I have a 3.5F xenotar, and I shoot slides using the built-in meter!
the meter is a bit off, but I've learned to compensate. Really wonderful camera, my granny got it in the sixties and a small CLA four years ago was all that was needed to get it going.
I only use my hand held light meter in low light as the selenium cell gives up far too early.

Summer in the meadows by zozio32, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
froyd said:
All this talk about E's and F's made me wonder just to what I'm missing out on by using a MX-EVS (with EV dial that can be either linked or unlinked).

Within the realm of 3.5 models with winding cranks and un-coupled EV dials, whata re the major usability and IQ differences?

Meters and removable hoods are of little importance to me. But easier focusing, better ergonomics, etc would be.

Looking at websites with specs for all the 3.5 cameras (such as this one) it would seem the gap in pricing between various models is dictated by other factors than feature set. In other words a 3.5 Rolleiflex from 1950 onward are pretty much equivalent aside from hoods and meters? Looks like T's might have a different way to set aperture and shutter.
Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
The Rolleiflex T is a special case. Although a Rolleiflex model, it does not have the automatic film sensing mechanism that "finds" the first frame. The user manually aligns the arrow on the backing paper like most other 120 TLRs (including Rolleicords). Unlike all the Rolleicord models, however, it still incorporates lever wind and automatic shutter cocking. There are other differences also, unique to the T, such as the tapes used for shutter and aperture speeds and the shutter release, to name just a couple. The unique combination of features found only in the T puts it in a category of its own.
Regards,
Brett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom