Will Rolleiflex / Rolleicord be considered a rangefinder?

[ZorkiKat]

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.

Between the Rolleicord and the Rolleiflex, the latter is bigger...wasn't thinking of other cameras when I made this comparison. Cameras made by others could be bigger....many of the other TLRs seem to have the Rolleicord specs in mind. They didn't really grow as big, but there were those which did. The Ciroflex for instance is a giant. Lots of mass, nothing much inside, except for the large spaces 😀

 

[fgianni]

Another major difference between the Rolleiflex and the Roleicord is that the flex has parallax correction, when you move the focus you can se the focusing screen tilting slightly.

Still I think the best TLR ever is the Minolta Autocord.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Another major difference between the Rolleiflex and the Roleicord is that the flex has parallax correction, when you move the focus you can se the focusing screen tilting slightly.

Still I think the best TLR ever is the Minolta Autocord.

Hi

My Rolleicord IV has parallax correction- there is a bar on the "top" of the focus screen which moves to mask areas seen on it as the lens focuses- bar goes down to mask top area as lens focuses closer.

I agree- Minolta Autocords used a nifty focusing lever under the lens board rather than a focusing knob.

Jay

 

[RichardS]

Unless I missed it, no one has mentioned the Rolleiflex T, which came with a Tessar 3.5 taking lens and was designed to fit in between the standard Rolleflex model and the Rolleicord. I used the Rolleiflex for years and still have it. It was and is a very good camera.

Dick

 

[wtl]

I have learned more these two days than my entire school year. Very cool! :angel:

Thank you all. These are a lot of information to digest. 😕

 

[payasam]

FrankS is probably alluding to the fact that the Rolleis, which give 6 cm square negatives, were at one time also called "miniature" cameras. Times change. Even in the Rollei world, we later saw the Rolleikin adapter and the not successful Rollei Magic. Rangefinder? No way. A mirror means reflection, so reflex.

 

[oftheherd]

It could be a rangefinder with the Rolleimeter:

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

R.J.

Thanks for that. I have the arms for the flash, but not the flash which holds the b-c unit and reflector. Actually, I think they are later ones, for the bayonet II or III. I always wondered exactely how they worked. Someday I need to find a market for them.

 

[Azinko]

I assume you mean the folding arm for 'Rolleiflash II'.......it folds into the bowl of the reflector when not in use....the arm holds the flash at 45 degrees to the lens by means of the lens bayonette.......replace arm for differrent lens fittings.

I have a complete Rolleiflash II in its box with arms and instruction leaflet.......not been used this 25 years.....

 

[RJBender]

FrankS is probably alluding to the fact that the Rolleis, which give 6 cm square negatives, were at one time also called "miniature" cameras. Times change. Even in the Rollei world, we later saw the Rolleikin adapter and the not successful Rollei Magic. Rangefinder? No way. A mirror means reflection, so reflex.

Payasam,

The 24 x 36 mm film format was referred to as the miniature film format from the early 1900s to the 1960s. Rollei's 60 x 60 mm is medium format.

Rolleikins are cool. This Romanian photographer is a big fan of Rolleikins:
http://www.fotografu.ro/pg2/index1.htm

There's a mirror in your rangefinder. No kidding!

R.J.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

OK, I'll play the Devil's Avocado here: is it considered a rangefinder now? No. Will it be considered a rangefinder later? We don't know how much English will (d)evolve in the next 100 years or so. So it could. But I doubt it.

 

[RJBender]

OK, I'll play the Devil's Avocado here: is it considered a rangefinder now? No. Will it be considered a rangefinder later? We don't know how much English will (d)evolve in the next 100 years or so. So it could. But I doubt it.

Extra hot guacamole?

Is the Rollei TLR a rangefinder camera with the Rolleimeter attachment ?


Is the Contax G a true rangefinder camera? Is there a RFF approved listing of rangefinder cameras?

R.J.

 

[payasam]

In as much as you speak of the present, R.J., you are correct. I wrote, however, that the 6 by 6 Rolleis were *at one time* -- specifically, when 4" by 5" or larger formats were common -- *also* called "miniature". It is implicit that 35mm -- whether Leica's 24 by 36 or certain Japanese sizes like 24 by 32, which I consider more sensible -- were, as you say, miniature. True, Leica RFDRs have mirrors or prisms: but I have yet to hear of one which has a focussing screen. Moreover, no reflective surface is involved in a Leica viewfinder, though other designs do have reflected frame lines. I used a Rolleikin on a Rolleicord for some years. Made a fine set-up for portrait work with its 75mm Xenar. The lens, though, was designed for a format considerably larger than 35mm, and the negatives it produced could not stand up to as much enlargement as could those taken with a "straight" 35mm camera.

 

[payasam]

Another difference between 'Cords and 'Flexes, at least those I saw and used, had to do with eye-level viewing. With 'Cords, you folded in a part of the front of the hood and got a sports finder made of just two holes. Parallax went to hell, and I chopped off the tops of many heads before I got the hang of it. You could of course turn the camera on its side if you wanted to amputate an arm rather than a cranium. With 'Flexes, on the other hand, you got a 45-degree mirror in which you saw the focussing screen. No parallax problems -- but, if I remember, no prism either, which meant people standing on their heads. There may have been variations and I'm willing to be corrected.

 

[wtl]

With 'Flexes, on the other hand, you got a 45-degree mirror in which you saw the focussing screen. No parallax problems -- but, if I remember, no prism either, which meant people standing on their heads. There may have been variations and I'm willing to be corrected.

Are you saying that 'flex viewfinder looks like a true large format that all images are upside down and left to right? My 'cord just flip the right to left, but not upside down.

 

[payasam]

WTL, in normal waist-level use, both Rollei TLRs' finders give an upright but laterally reversed image like your 'Cord. I was speaking of the arrangement in the Rolleiflex for eye-level use. A mirror folds down at a 45-degree angle above the screen, and you hold the camera up and look at the reflection of the screen. One of the oldest principles of photography is that, with few exceptions, the taking lens should be at the same level as the subject or object. Rollei's F&H offered a simple solution. Hasselblads, Bronicas, and so on also had and have several kinds of finder, the two main types being waist-level and eye-level prismatic. You can't change the position of the screen, but you can change the way you look at it.

 

[oftheherd]

I assume you mean the folding arm for 'Rolleiflash II'.......it folds into the bowl of the reflector when not in use....the arm holds the flash at 45 degrees to the lens by means of the lens bayonette.......replace arm for differrent lens fittings.

I have a complete Rolleiflash II in its box with arms and instruction leaflet.......not been used this 25 years.....

Yep, that is what I am talking about. I don't have anything but the arms. Got them in a deal for other stuff on evilbay. Someday I am going to sell those and other things to support my GAS habit. If anybody wants such a thing that is. I really didn't want them myself.

 

[ZeissFan]

According to Ian Parker:

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)

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.

Whoops -- you're right. Don't know what I was thinking. Although the Wide and Tele are getting close to that. I knew it was 48 ounces, but in my twisted mind, that became 4 pounds.

Interesting fact about the one model of Rolleicord with the Tessar. I wonder if this person here has that model.

Great info.

 

[wtl]

Interesting fact about the one model of Rolleicord with the Tessar. I wonder if this person here has that model.
QUOTE]

Not me, as someone mentioned, I probably has the reworked Rolleicord with a Rolleiflex's Tessar 75/3.5.