Will Rolleiflex / Rolleicord be considered a rangefinder?

W

wtl

Guest
And if yes, why is a Rolleicord so much cheaper than a Rolleiflex? I own and use my Rolleicord but just wonder how much better a Rolleiflex is. I care to know from a user's standpoint, not collector's. Any thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope! With a TLR you avoid the mirror slap, but you are still looking at an image on the focusing screen. One could attach a rangefinder on a TLR and have the best of both worlds, but default use is not one of a rangefinder. For your second question, most rolleiflex are of higher quality (construction, automation and lens design) though if you do step down the shooting (f8-11) you may be hard pressed to see the any difference. As with all vintage, the condition of the unit maybe more important that the type.
 
The Rollieflex was manufactured as 'prima facie' professional photographic tool......the Rolleicord, although also an excellent camera, was always intended to be a good camera for serious photographers, but NOT a pro tool in it's main use.

The Rolleiflex WAS pro photography between the mid 30's to mid/late 60's.....you may have seen the famous pic of Marylin Monroe disembarking from an airliner surrounded by a great crowd of press photographers, ALL except one being armed with identical Rolleiflex cameras.

In addition to press and publications work, Rolleiflex was used in just about every pro field from portrait and fashion to hospital, police and military.

In coventional photography to make prints by enlarging, even a well worn Rolleiflex will knock ANY 35mm camera into a cocked hat!
 
I consider TLRs as 1st generation reflex cameras.. they are fun to work with, but are not rangefinders. I enjoy them as much as my RFs or my 6x6 SLR, though :)
 
The Rolleicord's came with a Tessar or Xenar, 4-element Tessar type lens. The Rolleiflex was available with faster/more complex lenses, such as the Xenotar and Planar. Rolleiflex had the faster wind. Both were very well made and gave 1st class images.

But, they are reflex cameras, not a viewfinder/rangefinder type camera.
 
RF? = absolutely not

Cool? = absolutely yes

If I still shot film, I would still be shooting a TLR.
 
Yep, not a rangefinder, even though tongue in cheek I sometimes like to point out that my Rolleiflex has a rangefinder spot in the middle of the focusing screen.
 
Actually, there WAS an interesting attachment which could be used to turn the Rolleiflex into a rangefinder using the same 'co-ncidental images' method as for leica/contax etc....

I think the attachment was called 'Rolleimeter' and it fitted onto the front of the hood with the sports finder activated....th efocussing of the front plate moved a vane across the sports finder which carried the mobile image for the rangefinder........I used it once,....it worked well as i remember....

If anyone has the famous 'Rollei Way' book, there are pix and info on using this item....
 
You can get a rangefinder accessory for the Rolleiflex. I forget what it is called.

Earlier Rolleiflexes (until early '50s) had the Tessar or Xenar lens. So did the somewhat later Rolleflex T.
 
Okay, seems everyone agreed that it's not a rangefinder.

My Rolleicord has a Tessar 75mm 3.5 lens on it. Are you saying that this lens is not the same to SOME of Rolleiflexs, though it bears the same brand? Understand some Rolleiflex has that faster 2.8 lens, but with 3.5 lens, are they the same?
 
Later Rolleiflex's, the '3.5F' and '2.8F', had either Zeiss 'Planar' or Schneider 'Xenotar' lenses......there was a difference in price of about £10 (camera being about £150 at the time) but there was no difference in performance in any real practical sense.
 
wtl said:
Okay, seems everyone agreed that it's not a rangefinder.

My Rolleicord has a Tessar 75mm 3.5 lens on it. Are you saying that this lens is not the same to SOME of Rolleiflexs, though it bears the same brand? Understand some Rolleiflex has that faster 2.8 lens, but with 3.5 lens, are they the same?
Click to expand...

To add spice to the broth... :D

Rolleicords were the 'budget' cameras (read: lower priced) intended for amateurs and serious photographers who couldn't and wouldn't pay the higher Rolleiflex pricetag nor care to have its extra features.

The Rolleicord was sold cheaper (but not made cheap) than the Rolleiflex because it had less of the 'automatic' features which the Rolleiflex had.

The Rolleicord did not have the crank advance (quicker to use) but instead used a knob. Film was advanced a bit more slowly, but this did not matter to the average amateur, but likely essential to the press or wedding photographer.

The Rolleicord did not have the automatic shutter cocking which the Rolleiflex had coupled with the film advance. Instead the 'cord used a cocking lever which was the same lever used to trip the shutter. The 'flex had a real button.

The Rolleicord didn't use the shutter and aperture knobs found in the Rolleiflex. Nor did the former had the coupled, LV-locking controls. After using these often uncooperative LV coupled controls, the separate levers which the Rolleicord used for shutter and apertures were probably not a bad idea after all. :)

The Rolleicord did not use a film 'feeler' to automatically detect the first frame. The Rolleiflex had the backing paper threaded through 'fingers' which 'felt' the changes in paper+film thickness and set off the frame counter and film positioning mechanism to work. The Rolleicord used the standard "match the arrows on the backing paper with the red dots on the film track" routine. The last of the Rolleiflex (model G?) eventually abandoned the feeler and used the positioning dots instead.

Both Rolleicord and Rolleiflex will shoot with the same quality if lenses are the same in both cameras. It would be hard to detect the differences in shot made with Tessars and Xenars. A Rolleicord is never a compromise in quality, it just doesn't have all the extras which the Rolleiflex had.

The Xenar is quite good- I've shot with this for a billboard a few years ago. The only lens which can be considered as a toy in the Rollei TLR arsenal is the"Triotar", but even this lens can be quite interesting to use.

And finally, Rolleiflex are really big cameras. Rolleicords are smaller and a bit lighter. I've no Rolleiflex of my own, and I like using my Rolleicord 1a with Triotar and IV with Xenar. If only 120 were more available here....

:)
Jay
 
Last edited:
Tasty spice indeed. Thank you very much for the wirte up.

Just got three rolls of Provia back from my well beat-up Rolleicord Va. It's indeed stunning. Forgot how beautiful this camera can do. Has been sitting for two years and the shutter still seems to be right on. Seems to beat my M6 in that regard.

Thank you all.
 
wtl said:
And if yes, why is a Rolleicord so much cheaper than a Rolleiflex? I own and use my Rolleicord but just wonder how much better a Rolleiflex is. I care to know from a user's standpoint, not collector's. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

It could be a rangefinder with the Rolleimeter:

body34.jpg


source: http://www.butkus.org/chinon/rolleiflex_acc/rolleiflex_acc-2.htm

R.J.
 
Wow, that's some weird looking thing. I will probably not get one and learn how to use it. Nice to know though.
 
... it has, the Flex, or cord that is, nothing what so ever that even comes close to rangefinder technology ....

It is however a great camera, for street and situational shooting probably better equiped than any rangefinder, but a rangefinder it is not ....
 
Zorkicat calld the Rolleiflex a big camera: I have to disagree with that. Perhaps he was thinking of the Rolleiflex SLR. A big TLR would be the Mamiya TLR's though they do have interchangeable lenses.
 
My Rolleicord (Vb, I think, in need of a CLA and a new shutter release) has the fiddly EV scale setup - if I needed to change exposure often it would get very old.
 
The Rolleicord and Rolleiflex are reflex cameras. Hence, their description as twin-lens reflex or TLRs.

While you can add rangefinder-like abilities, composing and focusing most of your photos is done in the manner of a reflex camera.

If any Rolleicord has a Tessar lens, then it's extremely likely that this is not the original lens. One of the things that separated the Rolleiflex from the Rolleicord was the taking lens. Rolleicords had either a Triotar or a Xenar but never a Tessar. If it does have a Tessar, the lens probably came from a Rolleiflex.

The Rolleiflex had a Tessar or Xenar lens and later a Planar or Xenotar.

The Rolleiflex always had lever wind, while the Rolleicord had knob wind. Advancing the film in the Rolleiflex also tensions the shutter, beginning with the 1939 Rolleiflex Standard. Tensioning the shutter of a Rolleicord is a separate operation.

The 1937 Automat also introduced the ability to automatically sense the start of the emulsion with proper positioning of the first and subsequent frames. And the shutter released moved to the face of the camera, while the Rolleicord's shutter release was always on the side of the shutter.

Aperture and shutter speed selection on the Rolleicord was usually accomplished by moving levers on the shutter, while the Rolleiflex Automat and subsequent Rolleiflexes used the two small dials that sit to the outside and between the viewing and taking lenses.

Generally, the ease of operation of the Rolleiflex made it the camera of choice for professionals.

The Automats were fairly lightweight cameras. The Planar and Xenotar models, however, are not. I believe their weight is quoted at nearly four pounds.
 
Last edited:
ZeissFan said:
The Rolleicord and Rolleiflex are reflex cameras. Hence, their description as twin-lens reflex or TLRs.

While you can add rangefinder-like abilities, composing and focusing most of your photos is done in the manner of a reflex camera.

If any Rolleicord has a Tessar lens, then it's extremely likely that this is not the original lens. One of the things that separated the Rolleiflex from the Rolleicord was the taking lens. Rolleicords had either a Triotar or a Xenar but never a Tessar. If it does have a Tessar, the lens probably came from a Rolleiflex.

The Rolleiflex had a Tessar or Xenar lens and later a Planar or Xenotar.

The Rolleiflex always had lever wind, while the Rolleicord had knob wind. Advancing the film in the Rolleiflex also tensions the shutter, beginning with the 1939 Rolleiflex Standard. Tensioning the shutter of a Rolleicord is a separate operation.

The 1937 Automat also introduced the ability to automatically sense the start of the emulsion with proper positioning of the first and subsequent frames. And the shutter released moved to the face of the camera, while the Rolleicord's shutter release was always on the side of the shutter.

Aperture and shutter speed selection on the Rolleicord was usually accomplished by moving levers on the shutter, while the Rolleiflex Automat and subsequent Rolleiflexes used the two small dials that sit to the outside and between the viewing and taking lenses.

Generally, the ease of operation of the Rolleiflex made it the camera of choice for professionals.

The Automats were fairly lightweight cameras. The Planar and Xenotar models, however, are not. I believe their weight is quoted at nearly four pounds.
Click to expand...

According to Ian Parker:
1874031959.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1874031959/104-3250851-9491135?v=glance&n=283155

If the serial number is between 999,500 and 999,999 then you have a model 532 Rolleicord with a f/4.5 Tessar. They only made 500 of these for the German police in 1939. (Parker page 65)

blingbling.gif



4 pounds (64 ounces)? No way!
Check Parker or Evans:
2.8C = 48 oz
2.8F = 43 oz
Rollei Wide = 53 oz
Tele Rolleiflex = 54 oz

R.J.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom