Rolleiflex versus Rolleicord

[jpa66]

Hi all.
I'm looking for a Rollei tlr, and I'm trying to decide between a 'Flex and a 'Cord. I'd like to know what the merits/advantages/disadvantages of one versus the other would be. What I'm concentrating on is ease of use, size and weight, viewing screen brightness/focusing, film winding/spacing issues and of course, the quality of the lenses. I'd rather not have a built-in meter, and I'm looking for a model from the 1950's - 60's.

If anyone has any thoughts comparing the two, it would be appreciated.

Thanks,
JP

 

[Mudman]

Rolleicord - less expensive lens, no automatic film setting (i.e. the camera doesn't know when you hit the first frame), knob advance versus lever.

Rolleiflex - better build, higher quality lens, auto film setting. I've never used a Rolleicord, but I do have the MV-EVS (k4B) Rolleiflex, and I wouldn't trade it for the world (well, maybe a f2.8 planar, but even then that's iffy).

 

[david.elliott]

Hi all.
I'm looking for a Rollei tlr, and I'm trying to decide between a 'Flex and a 'Cord. I'd like to know what the merits/advantages/disadvantages of one versus the other would be. What I'm concentrating on is ease of use, size and weight, viewing screen brightness/focusing, film winding/spacing issues and of course, the quality of the lenses. I'd rather not have a built-in meter, and I'm looking for a model from the 1950's - 60's.

If anyone has any thoughts comparing the two, it would be appreciated.

Thanks,
JP

Screen brightness, focusing accuracy, spacing issues, etc all probably will depend upon the state of the camera you purchase. You could buy a perfectly functioning rolleicord or a rolleiflex in dire need of a cla.

Basically, just budget for a cla unless you know the camera has had one recently.

If you want a really bright screen, I recommend purchasing a Maxwell screen. But, they are pricy and I dont think it makes too much sense to put one into a rolleicord.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Better build - the 'cords are very well built. The money was saved by reducing features. The Rolleicord Vb, for instance, offers a Synchro-Compur shutter and interchangeable screens, and accepts most of the accessories aimed at the Rolleiflex. Ease of use suffers slightly as the shutter has to be cocked manually and the release lever is better suited to left-hand triggering, but adding a pistol grip solves this. It's rather light, though, which is why I eventually passed mine on.

 

[chris00nj]

I went through the same analysis a few months ago. The most difference is features and the lens which has been previously mentioned. Both are well built though. The big difference to me was the lens, although I liked the classic crank advance as well.

Earlier Rolleicords were made with the 3 element Triotar. Later ones were made with Schneider Xenar, 4 element lens. Rolleiflexes were mostly made with either the Zeiss Tessar or the Schneider Xenar.

If you want a 'Flex, they are obtainable. The "Automat" models from the 1950s are $150-$300 whereas 50s era Rolleicords are $100-$250.

Here's a Rolleiflex for $239:

http://www.collectiblecameras.com/product.php?productid=167325&cat=1060&page=1

 

[Steve M.]

This comes up about once a week, Glad people are still interested in the TLR's. Generally you won't have any film spacing problems w/ either. The 'cord is lighter than the 'flex. Tessar and Xenar lenses are exactly the same. Where the 'flex cameras stand out is you can get them w/ the Planar and Xenotar lenses, which are about as good as you can get in MF. The other lenses are fine. Capable of great photos. But the Planar/Xenotar are clearly better in my experience. The 2.8 modlels have a little brighter viewing screen, but not by much. Count on putting a different screen to brighten things up. I just use the standard screens and the little flip out magnifier and it works for me. The following were taken w/ a 2.8E Rolleiflex w/ Xenotar. Lens had a lot of cleaning swirls but was clean and sharp as all get out.

 

[rayfoxlee]

Hi jpa66
I have owned 2 'cords, a mint 2.8F and a Wide Angle (one I really regret selling). The Rolleicord Vb was probably the best bearing in mind the cost. The Xenar lens is surprisingly good - in fact I found it better than the Planar, much to my amazement. The 16-on set is well worth having if you can find one, as this allows you scan most of a 4x4 slide-mounted image in a 35mm scanner. The Vb is slow to operate, as a result of the wind-on knob and the need to manually cock the shutter, but this is something that becomes second nature after a while.

Screen brightness is not top quality, so I fitted a Beattie Intenscreen with a split image finder, but you need to have the hood that concentinas on top of the finder screen.

eBay prices are high for mint examples - between £200 and £300. Does this tell you something??

Hope you find a good one - you won't regret it!

Ray

 

[hans voralberg]

I have a 'Cord Va, which is good except the screen (Rolleiclear) is no way near even the default screen of the 'Flex. Also I dislike the lever cocking and shutter release, I prefer the button of the flex 😉

 

[Rob-F]

I don't think the Cord had an automatic transport. I could be wrong, but if it doesn't, then in addition to having to separately cock the shutter, you run the risk of an accidental double exposure, if you forget you didn't wind the film last time.

 

[ronnies]

I don't think the Cord had an automatic transport. I could be wrong, but if it doesn't, then in addition to having to separately cock the shutter, you run the risk of an accidental double exposure, if you forget you didn't wind the film last time.

My Rolleicord Va does have the interlock to prevent double exposures and it also uses the 'start' mark on the backing to line up the first frame so it does have 'semi automatic film setting'.

Ronnie

 

[jpa66]

If you want a 'Flex, they are obtainable. The "Automat" models from the 1950s are $150-$300 whereas 50s era Rolleicords are $100-$250.

Here's a Rolleiflex for $239:

http://www.collectiblecameras.com/product.php?productid=167325&cat=1060&page=1[/quote]


I actually saw that one last night when I was looking. Do you ( or anyone else )know anything about Collectiblecameras?

 

[raid]

I am used to the Rolleiflex TLR's with 2.8 taking lenses. They are unbeatable. If you often use smaller apertures, then all "Rollei" cameras are quite sharp. The film advance rank is a major advantage for the Rolleiflex. It makes the usage of the camera easier and faster.

 

[jpa66]

Double exposure prevention is pretty important to me, as I've been known to have the occasional mishap on my Yashica A ( a nice camera for what it is, but I'd really like something better, hence the Rollei search ).

I actually like tlr's. I enjoy walking around looking down into the viewfinder and snapping a picture - it's less intrusive than one that you put up to your eye. The shutter on my Yashica is so quiet that I sometimes think that it couldn't possibly have fired.

I was leaning towards getting a 'Flex, and I'm leaning more now.


Steve M: How much heavier is the 'flex than the 'cord? Is it a lot bulkier, or generally the same size? I want something that I can walk around with and not feel like it's a boulder hanging around my neck.

 

[ZeissFan]

The earliest Rolleicords had the Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar, a triplet. Later cameras came equipped with a coated Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar (Tessar formula).

The Rolleiflex had either an uncoated or coated Tessar or coated Xenar (same as Rolleicord) and then a Carl Zeiss Planar or Schneider Xenotar (Planar formula). Certain models had an uncommon Biotar or f/2.8 Tessar.

The focus knob on a Rolleicord is on the right side, while the Rolleiflex focus knob is on the left side. The other differences have already been covered.

The Xenar is an excellent lens, capable of stellar results that are indistinguishable from a Tessar.

If you enjoy shooting wide open all of the time (like you're a Leica shooter), then the Planar or Xenotar will give the best performance.

Shot wide open, the Tessar and Xenar will show round out-of-focus backgrounds at medium distances (3 to 20 feet, approximately).

Stopped down to f/8 or smaller, it's doubtful that people can tell the difference between a Tessar-type and a Planar-type lens.

 

[hans voralberg]

Zeiss fan, my Rolleicord Va focus knob is on the left side, like the flex, and I think the Vb is similar in that respect too.

 

[ruby.monkey]

The only real difference between the Va and the Vb, as far as I'm aware, is that the Vb has a removable WLF and interchangeable focussing screen, whereas the Va's is fixed.

 

[Bugleone]

The main difference in actually using the 'cord' models against the 'flex' models is in the film transport. The 'cord' has a knob to wind and non auto film loading so you are obliged to look at the backing paper when loading and line up the arrows against the marks on the camera body......... On the post war 'flex' models you just pass the backing paper thru the film counter mech and make sure its properly in the take up spool,..then you can just close the camera and wind to the first frame. This takes minimal attention and no especial looking so loading is much faster, more positive and less demanding.

The auto load mech was F&H's big improvement after they lost their patents at the end of WWII and everybody started copying the 'automat' models. The auto load/counter works by the two special rollers being able to detect the extra thickness of the film when it passes thru. This is true precision manufacture that not even Hassy could duplicate for many years.

 

[Mablo]

I prefer my Rolleicord V because it's much simpler and lighter than a 'flex. I installed a new focusing screen which can be bought for 30US from Rick Oleson (google it). It's quite okay, much better than the original.

 

[jpa66]

How much heavier and bulkier is the 'flex versus the 'cord? I'm assuming that there's not mush of a difference. I've held them both, but never compared them side-to-side.

 

[chris00nj]

There isn't much of a difference. They are basically the same since dimension. The 'Flex weights about 150 grams more more - approximately 970 versus 830 grams, depends on the model.