Rolleiflex owners, please input

[nephilim]

I own a 2.8F and have shot many (expensive) rolls of Velvia relying on the internal meter. It hasn't let me down. If I remember correctly, the selenium cell ages in proportion to the exposure to light, so I try to protect the meter from bright sun, which is btw the same I do with a Leica.

 

[emillu]

Thank you all for your valuable inputs!

I woulnd't necessary need the feature of removable viewfinder. Although replaceing the viewfinder and reverse the image could help me to focus. But, that viewfinder is heavy enough that could turn the whole system upside down. It is clear that everyone suggest to buy based on

1. Lens condition
2. Mechanically working condition regardless of model.

I personally would think that physical condition is as import of the Mechanical.

I senced that many good repairman can turned a poor mechanically working into 100% perfect.
However they couldn't do much with its physical!

Agree?

 

[Dan Daniel]

Given where the painted and bare metal surfaces are located on a Rolleiflex, the odds are pretty good that a camera in beat-up physical condition is also in beat-up mechanical condition. Other than obvious drops, bends, and such, of course. I guess it would be possible to cause lots of physical damage to the camera without taking a single photo. Or to take thousands of rolls without leaving a mark.

And places like the lens board and the focus hood- there really isn't a difference between physical and mechanical condition? A beat-up focus hood is not going to work mechanically. A bent lens board is not going to be parallel, etc.

My user Rolleiflex, a 2.8C, has missing paint and rub marks everywhere. And is in mechanically very good condition. Exactly what people mean when they say a 'user' camera. I recently bought a used Automat that was in pristine physical condition. With a gummed-up shutter and binding focus mechanism and crunchy winder, from sitting for so long.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I have an E2 Planar 2.8 (plus a Tele and a WA). They're heavier and more expensive than the 3.5 models and I really don't think the image quality is much different for most purposes. The DOF of the 2.8 when wide open is very shallow. Zeiss or Schneider lenses are all superb. The E2 (and later models) has the removable hood and that was a big advantage when I fitted a Maxwell screen (which I'd recommend even though people think they're expensive). Makes a heck of a difference to the viewing and focus.

They were sold with or without meters. Mine came without a meter but the guy who did the CLA knew where an unused sealed factory meter was available and got and fitted it for me. It's as accurate as those things are (in a general sort of way) but a hand held meter is a better option so don't worry too much about the meter. It was a DIY job to fit them so I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to remove a non-working one to tidy up the profile a bit.

One thing to watch for in terms of body condition is that these cameras sometimes suffer distortion of the base and back plate if they're mishandled when attached to a tripod. Hard to fix and there are no felt light seals - it's all in the door design! That's why most owners look for the Rollei tripod attachment as well - to avoid this problem. If you never use a tripod you'll be OK but it's a camera that seems to beg for a tripod at times.

 

[noeyedear]

My camera meter is as just accurate as my hand meters if used with thought. Plus I still use the camera meter even if my exposure is based on a handheld, it's a good reference to see if the light has changed or not.
A handheld is more useful and versatile, but I like having one on the camera for that quick reference.
You could think from some things I've read that selenium meters just stop working as they get old, which might be true in some cases, but the fact that my Western still works just fine as does the camera meter proves other wise. I wonder if it's more a case of a meter getting blamed for some other fault. The two meters I have which do have faults are my Gossen none selenium, which are both newer than my camera meter. I like having a workflow for taking pictures which does not require a battery.

 

[JPD]

One thing to watch for in terms of body condition is that these cameras sometimes suffer distortion of the base and back plate if they're mishandled when attached to a tripod. Hard to fix and there are no felt light seals - it's all in the door design! That's why most owners look for the Rollei tripod attachment as well - to avoid this problem. If you never use a tripod you'll be OK but it's a camera that seems to beg for a tripod at times.

Yes, the backs are made of soft aluminum. I have to be careful when I use early Rolleis on a tripod. Rolleis made from 1952 and later can use the Rolleifix. If there's a groove around the round thingy on the bottom then it can be used with a Rolleifix.

The Rolleifix is easy to use. Position the camera and slide it in and lock it in place with the locking-lever.

 

[marduk]

My 3.5E Planar will be the last camera to part with! Got for $400 some time ago in the classifieds. I've got some spectacular shots with it. It is going to be my main camera when hiking in the Alps. I am not annoyed by the non-removable viewfinder (disassembling is a 5min job with a screwdriver) or by the fast that it is meterless. I have a brighter Rick Oleson split-image screen installed, would prefer a plain Maxwell though 🙂

I also have a user 2.8C Xenotar but still didn't have time to shoot with it. It's an older camera with some design quirks such as viewfinder hood and locking tabs for aperture and shutter speed rings. Also you won't find any cheap bay III accessories, ever 🙂 I guess my 2.8C will be available for trades in Vienna.

There is a Rolleiflex 3.5 E3 on photo.net right now for $799, check it out.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

You could think from some things I've read that selenium meters just stop working as they get old, which might be true in some cases, but the fact that my Western still works just fine as does the camera meter proves other wise.

Amen to that! My handheld meter is a Weston Euromaster selenium meter I bought in the 1970's - that makes it about 40 years old - and it works fine and agrees with every other meter I have.

 

[randomm]

I often thought about getting the "faster" 2.8 but when I placed an add for ANY Rolleiflex TLR I got a response for a T.

Now, I refuse to let my Rollei T go... I bought it 2 years ago for $500 and it's probably the best money I've ever spent on a camera:

Cheers,
Dave

This is a wonderful photo. Makes me want to grab my Rolleiflex and run out to shoot...

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I happen to have gotten a 3.5E with a Planar lens AND a perfectly working, very accurate meter earlier this year, so they do exist. Don't hold your breath though and don't count on that meter. I like to use a handheld Gossen anyway. Buy the Rolleiflex for the lens, not for the features. The Planar is amazing. With that amount of film area and the ability of the lens to resolve, I believe it can run circles around anything in a smaller format when enlargements are equal. Easily as good as my DR Summicron and possibly better. (Interestingly, my M4 with DR 'Cron weighs MORE than my Rolleiflex!)

Those TLRs are truly amazing and I'm going to shoot mine tomorrow as a matter of fact.

Phil Forrest

 

[mel]

Phil, where did you purchase your 3.5E, the 'bay?

 

[mel]

dcsang, stunning image.

 

[Ronald M]

The selenium cells oxidize from humidity.

All my Weston Masters went to Hollywood light metric and they fixed them up. He has a store of cells and probably can not get more.

When it was a special cell built into a camera, chances a between slim and none.

 

[froyd]

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?

 

[Dan Daniel]

The real difference between an MX-EVS and an E or F (or C & D) is the lens. This is important to some people, and of no importance to others. Personally, I do find a significant difference in rendering between a Tessar (and its variations) and a Xenotar (I haven't used a Planar, but I have no reason to doubt people who say that it and the Xenotar are comparable).

Significant, but subtle. I can understand why many people say that there is no difference when you stop down. I disagree but I'm not going to argue.

Later models are also heavier than your MX-EVS.

For easier (or at least different) style of focusing, look for a Minolta Autocord or one of the Ricohs with lever focusing. Other than that, the basic ergonomics of a Rollei (and a Yashica) are about the same. People can argue all sorts of points, and everyone loves the camera they have and know because, well, they have it and know it.....

 

[dcsang]

Thank you for the compliments on that image guys - I will say this, in posting my Rolleiflex stuff to Flickr, the only two "explores" I received on Flickr were both Rolleiflex images... I guess that says something huh?

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Mablo]

One other thing. The Xenar has slightly less contrast than my Xenotar. I made up for that by always shooting Velvia 50 or Ilford Pan F+.

Great idea! I must remember this.

 

[Pherdinand]

shutter reliability is important point, but doesnt depend on the model - it depends on how it was used (or not used) before. Even trying it quickly at buying means not much - i bought a 3.5F with a seemingly good working shutter that got slowdown a week later in use.
You have to factor in a CLA on the shutter that will set you back 100 to 200 bucks, unless you have an excellent clean flex. Or you could find one tha thad already a shutter CLA in the last few years and there is a document proving that. (Like my 1938 Automat had...)

 

[Pherdinand]

more than 200$ on a shutter CLA?
huh

 

[Rdtaylor_sea]

Harry Fleenor is currently working on a 3.5E for me. His quote to overhaul the shutter, which was slow on almost all speeds, was $134.00.