Rolleiflex urge

Been a year since I used mine, but that's due to a light leak I haven't got round to fixing. Though my other TLR's are fun too (both the Kalloflex and the Flexaret have seen use this last month) the E3 trounces them both when it comes to smoothness, fit and finish, not to mention the qualities of Planar wide open. Many go on about this and that lens has the best bokeh, all I can say is the Planar has the best out of focus performance of any of my lenses.
 
I went through a 2.8F Planar, and a MVX Tessar last year. The Planar was too expensive for me - to hold onto. In some ways I thought my Mamiya 6 IQ beat the Rolleiflex 2.8F, and the amount I had invested in it, brought up an idea in my mind, that one would have to go, and so I sold it off.

I well understand the itch, I wanted another go at a TLR. This Spring I searched for a good condition Autocord (without a meter) and found one.

I paid a third of what I had for the Rolleiflex 2.8F, and I actually prefer the Autocord. The focusing knob beneath the taking lens, the size (it's smaller than the Rolleiflex). The film winder mechanism allows a roll of 120 to stay flatter. I think it's a better camera for me. It's overall less fussy than the Rolleiflex.

Karl Bryan CLA'ed mine, and explained the engineering and manufacturing specs of some of the Japanese cameras. They came from companies that were initially military/industrial grade, and after the war, forced to supply the consumer/professional market. They were better built, better parts, image quality is sharper and contrast-ier, which are the type of images I like. Karl also told me using a collimator, he measured my Rokkor 75mm 3.5 - 4 element lens, and it resolved 150 LPM wide open.

I think there is some myth built up around Franke & Heidecke products. Not disputing the overall quality, but when people say "It's the best, the Rolls Royce of TLR's" I tend to let them let out their diatribes. I'd think about it, unless you just really want to hold it in your hands and admire cool old stuff, I bet you would get just as good results from a well made Japanese TLR.

My .02
 
bgetty said:
i know how you feel! i'm currently lusting after a yashica-mat 124 (or 124G) as an entry into MF, but my budget is terribly strict to allot for the added cost of an epson V500 and some 120.

if you have the means, i'd go for a used (see: lightly exercised) rollei 2.8 in perfectly functional condition with clean glass. nice cosmetics are a plus, but as long as the controls are silky smooth and the glass is unmarred, i would try to snap one up a bargain price.
Click to expand...

A good choice for entering. When I first started doing MF I first bought a Mamiya RB67 outfit and after rethinking that it was actually really large and only really good on a tripod I have dedicated it as the landscape/portrait camera. Then I bought a Bronica ETRS outfit which is okay. I realized that after I bought a Yashica Mat 124 for a price I could not pass on that if I started with that it might have saved me a lot of money.
 
mrisney said:
I think there is some myth built up around Franke & Heidecke products. Not disputing the overall quality, but when people say "It's the best, the Rolls Royce of TLR's" I tend to let them let out their diatribes. I'd think about it, unless you just really want to hold it in your hands and admire cool old stuff, I bet you would get just as good results from a well made Japanese TLR.

My .02
Click to expand...

Diatribe, to be ignored:

Two different issues you raise. The second one, getting just as good results from a Japanese as a Rollei, I agree. People (like me!) find certain lenses to their liking, but by the time you get to the level of an Autocord or Rollei lens, this is mostly taste. Well, and large aperture performance comparing a Rokkor/Tessar design to a Planar/Xenotar design. And the large aperture differences are good for both designs, just different. Again, taste and preferences are at work at this level.

And camera condition- critical.

But on the quality of parts and finish, I will disagree with you. I've been inside Autocords and inside Rolleiflexes, worked on both. The Autocord is a great design, executed at a very good level of finish. The Rolleiflex is a very good design, executed at a great level of finish. It's minor, but as someone who has been around machine work and designers for decades, the Rollei oozes attention to detail and execution in every piece. The finish on even minor gears and levers is better than the Autocord. Pure and simple.

Recognize that before the end of WWII, Japan was not known as a machine work country. There was no Leica or Rollei tradition, no auto industry of high quality, etc. There is a very good reason that Japanese cameras and lenses came with that gold 'quality' sticker- they needed to change their reputation for shoddy machine work. And boy, did they ever!

Of course they had one advantage over parts of Germany in that their existing manufacturing base, never as large as Germany's base to begin with, was pretty thoroughly destroyed by bombing throughout the country. Meaning that they had to rebuild from scratch, and could abandon old technologies and adopt more sophisticated ones with no penalty of lost investment.

And Japan could also re-think what a camera was, where they could find a market of their own. The 35mm SLR was their puppy more than any other country, and they brought their newly acquired machinist skills to bear on the design and manufacturing of these cameras, and changed the direction of photography.

Since few if any of us are using TLRs on daily basis in commercial or journalist work, the finish differences between an Autocord and Rolleiflex will probably never lead to wear and tear on parts that makes the camera unusable. They do exist, though.

Sorry to get on my high horse here. Like the idea that the Rolleicord is the same finish level as a Rolleiflex, only simpler, the idea that the Autocord is the same finish level as a Rolleiflex I find false. 'Quality' is a concept that seems to be disappearing. In a world where someone can claim a piece of pie is AWESOME!!, putting it on the same level as the Grand Canyon or Michelangelo's Pieta, I find it important to maintain certain distinctions.
 
"'Quality' is a concept that seems to be disappearing. In a world where someone can claim a piece of pie is AWESOME!!, putting it on the same level as the Grand Canyon or Michelangelo's Pieta, I find it important to maintain certain distinctions."

Amen, and Hallelujah! That bit about pie and the Grand Canyon sounds like you've been reading my mail! Thanks for saying this!
 
Dan Daniel said:
It's minor, but as someone who has been around machine work and designers for decades, the Rollei oozes attention to detail and execution in every piece. The finish on even minor gears and levers is better than the Autocord. Pure and simple.
Click to expand...

You seem to have some wealth of knowledge that other well known individuals, who perform CLA's and actually still work on TLR's - don't.

Show me your data.
 
Data?? Seriously? What would you consider data in this case? Photos comparing the stamping and finish work on the shutter cocking plate from a Rolleiflex and Autocord from the same time? The Rolleiflex's use of a cast bolted connecting lever to transmit the cocking action to the shutter compared to he Autocrd's stamp metal and slotted tab mechanism? The Rolleiflex's finish work on the film spool drive gear compared to the Autocord's drive gear?

I love the Autocord. My ideal camera would be a 3.5 Xenotar or Planar mounted on the Autocord body because of its focus mechanism and solidity and its film path design. And I might be darn close to making that happen with a recent Xenotar I picked up. Minolta made a large number of improvements on Rolei's design, rethought things in a great way. As I said, a great design. Very well executed. But not as well-executed as a Rollei.

Look at the strap lugs and back hinge pieces on an Autocord and on a Rolleiflex of the same era- MX-EVS or Planar/Xenotar series. You tell me which camera was more fully designed and better executed.
 
Dan Daniel said:
back hinge pieces on an Autocord and on a Rolleiflex of the same era- MX-EVS or Planar/Xenotar series. You tell me which camera was more fully designed and better executed.
Click to expand...

That's a good one. Fundamental design flaw with Rolleiflex's. If they are tripod mounted. You cannot change film without removing it from the tripod. Autocord's can stay mounted, unlatch, respool, and repeat.
 
The Autocord should be compared to the Rollieicord, which doesn't seem as beefy and silky-working as the Rolleiflex. I've had all three and currently use the Rolleicord the most because, as mrisney says above about the Autocord, it's smaller and lighter - and it has a simpler rewind mechansim, a knob instead of a wide-sweeping, propeller-like lever.

I also prefer the four-element Tessar for its ability to render out-of-focus background objects with more of their recognizable shapes and contours over the Xenotar. Overall the Tessar seems a bit grittier and less polite. But the 3.5 Xenotar was no slouch - it was tested as sharp wide open as at f/8.

The dedicated screen on the Autocord seems pretty good. The Rollieicord Vb's screen can be switched easily for another - which I found necessary, the original was too dim. The Rolleinars are great close up attachments - I think much of the 1950's Vogue magazine work was done with them.

Check out John Deakin's 1952 portrait of Francis Bacon here at the V&A (Deakin was famous for losing his Rolleis) -

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/m/memory-maps-francis-bacon-in-wivenhoe-by-marina-warner/
 
I just bought three TLRs over the last few months. I have two Minolta Autocords, and one Rolleiflex K4A. Both the Minolta and the Rolleiflex seem very well built. I couldn't fault either one of them on build quality.

The Minolta weighs about an ounce more than the Rolleiflex, so they are pretty even on that score. Both were loaded with film and had lens caps and straps on, but it's ballpark about 2 and a quarter pounds.

The ground glass in my two Minoltas is much brighter than in my K4A Rolleiflex, and more evenly lit. I plan on replacing the gg in all of them because none of them are equipped with a split rangefinder focusing prism, and I require that in order to focus them in anything other than very bright daylight.

One of my Minoltas is making its way back to me from Karl Bryan right now, and it will be sporting a new Grip Tac leatherette and will have a Rick Oleson split prism gg installed. A Maxwell Precision Optics screen would be very nice too, I have one on my Hasselblad 503CXi, but also more expensive.

I like the ergonomics of focusing the Minolta slightly more than the Rolleiflex, but both are easy to use.

In terms of picture taking quality, I haven't been able to compare them properly yet. They all need a CLA. The Rolleiflex will be up next for CLA.
 
summaron said:
The Autocord should be compared to the Rollieicord, which doesn't seem as beefy and silky-working as the Rolleiflex.
Click to expand...

Ya, that's what I was thinking.

No matter, there is something to be said for each camera mentioned in this thread and comparisons are difficult. If one can make good images and likes the way a camera handles, then they should go for it. Otherwise the bickering could go on eternally since all engineered products are, by definition, compromises based on trade-offs.
 
summaron said:
The Autocord should be compared to the Rollieicord, which doesn't seem as beefy and silky-working as the Rolleiflex.
Click to expand...

I see no reason not to compare the Minolta Autocord with the Rolleiflex. As I mentioned, I've got both sitting right here beside me, and they are more alike than not.

My Rolleiflex is an Automat K4A, manufactured between 1951 and 1954. My Autocord is the 1958 export version with Seikosha MX shutter. Neither camera has a meter. Both have film in them, so I can't open them up, but they are virtually identical in size, weight, and features. The controls are laid out a little differently, and I find the ergonomics of the Autocord very satisfying. The Rolleiflex seems a bit more awkward with the focus knob on the left side, but I'm sure it is fine once you get used to it.

The Autocord is about an ounce heavier than the Rolleiflex, and it is ever so slightly deeper from the front of the lens to the back. They are the same width and height. They have the same shutter speeds, apertures, and taking lens focal length. They have different optics and different shutters, and I haven't been able to compare results on film yet.

My Autocord is every bit as beefy as my Rolleiflex, and as smoothly operating (or silky-working, if you prefer). I've never handled a Rolleicord, but if it is less beefy than a Rolleiflex, then it is also less beefy than an Autocord.
 
loquax ludens said:
...They have different optics and different shutters, and I haven't been able to compare results on film yet.

My Autocord is every bit as beefy as my Rolleiflex, and as smoothly operating (or silky-working, if you prefer). I've never handled a Rolleicord, but if it is less beefy than a Rolleiflex, then it is also less beefy than an Autocord.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the Rokkor gives the Tessar a good run, if not besting it. My Seikosha MX Autocord is a wonderful camera.

If you want to see why your Autocord weighs more than the Rolleiflex, take a look at a set of photos I made showing the focusing helix of an Autocord-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18067251@N04/sets/72157626869741228/

5790473193_3372307dce.jpg


Those are some very hefty hunks of brass. Then lens board is also 3mm thick aluminum, machined, while the Rollei is thinner stamped steel.

The Autocord focus system is an great solution to the TLR problem of having two lenses track each other. I would consider it bomb-proof, in that you pretty well would need to crack the body to throw it out of alignment.

A Rolleiflex (or Yashica-Mat) has nothing with this kind of weight, nor this kind of solidity. At the end of that photo series is a shot of a Yashica-Mat focus rail. A Rolleiflex rail is a bit stouter, better finished, but the basic design is the same. The lens board rides on two of those, one on each side of the lens. Not the strongest.

I was talking to someone this afternoon who has looked into Japanese cameras a lot. He said that there's an idea that so many cameras from the '50s especially, were broken into sub-assemblies for design and fabrication development. So you could have something like this beautiful helical system on the Autocord combined with another system to handle lens board rotational forces...

If you look at the first photo in my series, there is a silver 'dish on the upper right. In this dish is a metal bar across the top edge. The lens board is stopped from rotating in a circle by this bar. The Minolta service manual tells you what to do if there is any slop or binding in this area: take a punch and hit it with a hammer.

Seriously- take a hammer to the camera to adjust out slop or tightness. The official service manual. In the same camera with that beautiful focusing helix!!

This is what Rolleiflexes didn't suffer from. The machine work tradition was longer, the base of knowledge to solve such problems was so much richer than in Japan.

It is this 'total package' that many Japanese lacked for a period. And what leads me to say that Roleiflexes are at a higher level overall. There are internal parts that would show this, also. They simply didn't need to cut corners or pull out a hammer. If it was a problem, there was solution near at hand through either old knowledge and skills or a labor force that knew how to tackle such issues. And it shows...

It also shows its limits in, for example, not adopting a brilliant answer like Minolta's to the focus rails, something that would easily be accommodated by the rest of Rollei's design. Old school, stuck in their ways, lots of machines dedicated to certain ways of doing things that would need to be reconfigured.

Does any of this make a difference in the photos we can take with these cameras? Only in the way that a camera can work well with you or me or anyone else. Or against you or me or anyone else. Each camera is capable of meshing with different aspects of why we photograph.
 
No, no, keep going! I'm surprised that you haven't mentioned the Autocord's Achilles heel, the focusing lever. Seems like a really nice design was betrayed by making the lever out of such weak material.
 
To John (OP): I gave in quite recently to the desire when I located a 2.8 Planar D (1955-56) for a very friendly price. My earliest serious camera was a baby Yashica, and I prefer shooting my Bronica with the waist-level VF, and have been using the WLVF with my GXR, as well as with an older SLR Ricoh ST401. The seller was letting the Rolleiflex go because of low use, but said it was always sharper than his Hasselblad.

I haven't developed anything yet--I'm on an extended road trip, including a family funeral--but am quite happy to have added this precision machine to what I like to pick up. TLR means different visual and compositional attention. That matters a great deal.

Robert
 
jdriffill said:
Why don't I just use the cameras I have, and not bother about this? Will I have time to use such a thing much in the next few years before I go completely digital -- along with everyone else? (And obviously any old cheap digital camera will produce better pictures.)

Rgds, John
Click to expand...

You and others can "move on" to digital and whatever you consider "better pictures."

I will keep using film and make sure that film is still there for the next generation to enjoy. And I doubt that I'd be alone in this.

Oh, and Rolleiflex TLRs are amazing. Especially the f2.8 models.
Do get one 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom