Jani_from_Finland
Well-known
I had the urge last year and got a fine 2.8E with the Xenotar.
Unfortunetly for my shooting style it has mostly been left at home, i think i've shot 3-4 rolls thru it and just today finished a roll taking photos of my cats just to get it out for development as its been sitting in the camera for last 3 months. I have tried to sell it locally, but just not people here who uses these fabulous cameras that they are, so maybe going to post it here on the classifieds soonish.
Unfortunetly for my shooting style it has mostly been left at home, i think i've shot 3-4 rolls thru it and just today finished a roll taking photos of my cats just to get it out for development as its been sitting in the camera for last 3 months. I have tried to sell it locally, but just not people here who uses these fabulous cameras that they are, so maybe going to post it here on the classifieds soonish.
jdriffill
Established
Thanks, all, for the many replies and suggestions, and other interesting discussions about various TLRs. In the end I have bought a really nice 3.5F white face Xenotar through the classifieds here. Not the least expensive route, but the camera is in really fine condition, came newly serviced, and I have a case, strap, lens hood, Rolleinar 3, and Rolleipol with it. A test roll I shot last weekend looks v good. All the best, John
peter_n
Veteran
Nice and congrats on the new camera! Don't forget to post pix from it in the pictures thread!
Brian Legge
Veteran
...which Karl Bryan can replace with a much more solid one for a reasonable price during a CLA.
I picked up one with a perfect lens and a broken lever intentionally just to insure the lever was replaced. If I had one with the original intact lever I'd probably still have it replaced during a CLA by him.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Other cameras work well, the Autocords, Ricohflexes, Ikontas, etc. but if your wanting a Rolleiflex the only thing that will scratch that itch is a Rolleiflex.
The 2.8's are awesome but the 3.5's hold there own, some say they are sharper.
Heres a few images to wet your appetite:
Rolleiflex 3.5 Planar with Rolleinar 3
and 2.8E Planar
Good luck,
Todd
The 2.8's are awesome but the 3.5's hold there own, some say they are sharper.
Heres a few images to wet your appetite:
Rolleiflex 3.5 Planar with Rolleinar 3
and 2.8E Planar
Good luck,
Todd
maddoc
... likes film again.
I bought my K4C (3.5C or 3.5E first version, Planar, meter) in 2007 and had it overhauled (and Maxwell splitscreen installed) by Harry Fleenor some time ago. A wonderful camera for sure and if plan to travel with your Rolleiflex then the 3.5 might be the better choice than a 2.8. Also, hood, filter and Rolleinar are cheaper for the Bay II (3.5). However, my 3.5C does not allow to mount a prism and the 3.5 Tessar lens is tempting ... so I might add a 3.5T in the future... 
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I think the 3.5 "letter" series might be the best compromise between performance and size. The 2.8s are great but definitely bulkier.
I spotted a 3.5F for a song and it landed at Krikor's yesterday, should be shipping in a couple of days, fully overhauled and equipped with a Maxwell screen. Really looking forward to shooting with it.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Does he provide Maxwell screens? You'll be very happy with his work, Maxwell or no.
Yes, he has the grid screen and the split image screen in stock.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Hmm, I may need to get in touch with him.
graywolf
Well-known
Some of this stuff is interesting, some of it is nonsense. From a users viewpoint:
Rolleiflexes from about the mid 1950's have a level of fit an finish only found on Leica M3's, and Linhof Super Technika IV's. Those from earlier or later do not quite make the grade. Also German cameras have an idiosyncracy that most do not think of. The German patent system, that meant that everyone had to work around everyone else's patents, whether that was a good way to design it or not.
Now the Japanese did not care about pattens, they just copied what they thought was good, and improved what they thought could be improved. Their quality of workmanship was "workmanlike" not "craftsmanlike" as the German stuff was. That means that they were put together to work OK, not to be a work of craftmanship.
Some things like that Minolta Autocord focus lever was not a design fault, the cameras were intended to be serviced every five years or so, not to be used after the grease in the helical had turned into glue. Also the camera was not intended to be dropped on the floor. Yashica TLR's were intended to be cheap cameras (in the 1970's the list price on a Yasica D was $50), that they have held up as well as they have is something of a miracle. By the time the Japanese got it right the TLR was no longer very marketable. Also, the Japs did not have a reputation for quality until well into the 1970's, the quality was actually there before that in the stuff intended for export, sort of like Chinese stuff today. Just to give an idea I am currently working on a Yashica-Mat (80mm Lumaxars) from about 1957, and a Yashica-Mat 66 (Yashinons) from maybe 10 years later, the later camera is more cheaply built despite claims that the quality had improved.
TLR's are actually kind of specialized cameras, there are things they do better than any other kind of camera (people, for example), there are things only a masochist would consider using one for (action, for example). In the 1950's the combination of a TLR and a RF 35mm was considered the cat's meow, then 35mm SLR's took over the world.
Anyway, the 3.5E & 2.8E (including the E2 & E3 versions) series Rollei's of the late '50's arguably have the best fit and finish of any TLR ever made. I still regret selling my 2.8E2 Xenotar long ago.
Rolleiflexes from about the mid 1950's have a level of fit an finish only found on Leica M3's, and Linhof Super Technika IV's. Those from earlier or later do not quite make the grade. Also German cameras have an idiosyncracy that most do not think of. The German patent system, that meant that everyone had to work around everyone else's patents, whether that was a good way to design it or not.
Now the Japanese did not care about pattens, they just copied what they thought was good, and improved what they thought could be improved. Their quality of workmanship was "workmanlike" not "craftsmanlike" as the German stuff was. That means that they were put together to work OK, not to be a work of craftmanship.
Some things like that Minolta Autocord focus lever was not a design fault, the cameras were intended to be serviced every five years or so, not to be used after the grease in the helical had turned into glue. Also the camera was not intended to be dropped on the floor. Yashica TLR's were intended to be cheap cameras (in the 1970's the list price on a Yasica D was $50), that they have held up as well as they have is something of a miracle. By the time the Japanese got it right the TLR was no longer very marketable. Also, the Japs did not have a reputation for quality until well into the 1970's, the quality was actually there before that in the stuff intended for export, sort of like Chinese stuff today. Just to give an idea I am currently working on a Yashica-Mat (80mm Lumaxars) from about 1957, and a Yashica-Mat 66 (Yashinons) from maybe 10 years later, the later camera is more cheaply built despite claims that the quality had improved.
TLR's are actually kind of specialized cameras, there are things they do better than any other kind of camera (people, for example), there are things only a masochist would consider using one for (action, for example). In the 1950's the combination of a TLR and a RF 35mm was considered the cat's meow, then 35mm SLR's took over the world.
Anyway, the 3.5E & 2.8E (including the E2 & E3 versions) series Rollei's of the late '50's arguably have the best fit and finish of any TLR ever made. I still regret selling my 2.8E2 Xenotar long ago.
Shutterspark
The perpetual new guy.
I might have either a 2.8E1 or GX up in the classifieds in upcoming weeks, if anyone's interested in either model. No idea what to price them at however, given how erratic the market has been lately.
bugmenot
Well-known
I have a Rolleiflex 3.5F with just about every accessory it came with in 1959/1960. I may be putting it up on classified soon for anybody interested. Any clue on what the price is? The market seems a bit ... bizarre for these recently.
thompsonks
Well-known
"Now the Japanese ... quality of workmanship was "workmanlike" not "craftsmanlike" as the German stuff was. That means that they were put together to work OK, not to be a work of craftmanship."
I hope you're limiting yourself to Minoltas and the like. Have you ever used a Nikon RF?
I hope you're limiting yourself to Minoltas and the like. Have you ever used a Nikon RF?
Dan Daniel
Well-known
It is possible to break off the Autocord focus knob if you have the focus set to the middle distances and open the back to change film. The back can push the lever and the poor metal choice can snap. So there is more to this problem than grease drying out.
If you were a professional using a TLR day in and day out, changing film in alleys and cars and crowds and ditches, would you chance a camera that had a focus knob prone to snapping off? A couple of word-of-mouth stories and the camera would be dead among practicing journalists and such.
It is perplexing. The choice of metal is like a 'fuse,' a part designed to fail before other more important parts are damaged. Yet the parts it connects to are robust, and a camera without a focus knob is not very useful.
graywolf
Well-known
I have handled them, when they were new. I also handled the Leica M3, when they were new. The Nikon's fit and finish did not match the Leica's. It probably did match the Leica M4's, but by then the SP/S3 were discontinued. BTW, if I could have afforded it I would have bought that Nikon SP, it was the same price as the Leica ($375), only the Leica came with the f/2 lens and the Nikon with the f1.4. I wound up buying a Pentax H3 (S3 in the rest of the world) for $199. Back then, the idea of owning more than one camera never even occurred to me. I posted the following list of what I now own on another forum:
4x5: Toyo 45G, Crown Graphic.
6x6: A couple of Yashicamats, and 3 folders.
35mm: Pentax MX w 6 lenses (I have a 2nd dead body that could be replaced), and a Canonette GIII.
Digital: Olympus e420, and C-5050z.
Lighting: Norman 808m outfit, and several handle mount and shoe mount strobes.
Wow! That is a round dozen cameras. That seems lot for someone who is not a collector. Of course none of those are of the quality of the Super Technika and the Rolleiflex 2.8E2 that I owned when I was a working pro, my 35mm kit back then were Pentax MX'en (BTW, I am the one who coined the term MXen for MX's back in the usenet days when the pseudo grammarians, incorrectly, corrected everyone for using MX's as the plural.)
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
Would be interested in seeing these as I have been bitten by the Rollei bug lately..:bang:
EDIT: I just won an auction for a pretty Rolleicord III!! I didn't know this could be so infectious.
Best wishes with the sales to my friends above.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
Regarding fit/finish of German vs. Japanese TLRs, it's obvious that Rolleiflexes trump the Minoltacords, but I have to say my Kalloflex is one beautiful, solid TLR. And its design--focus knob and wind on the same side--has it all over the more awkward Rolleiflexes in my opinion. The Rollei lenses do have the edge, though. Anyone care to comment on the build quality of an English-made Microflex?