A question about the Rolleimeter ...

[macfred]

I'm in the market for a Rolleiflex T or maybe a R'cord Vb (I'm not quite sure which one, but that's another theme).
I'd like to inquire wether the Rolleimeter 3.5 will fit these models. Any suggestions ? Thank you !

 

[zanxion72]

For sure it fits both. At least this is what the golden book of the rolleiflex says. Btw, the T looks a lot better than the R/cord. I would go for a T.

 

[macfred]

For sure it fits both. At least this is what the golden book of the rolleiflex says. Btw, the T looks a lot better than the R/cord. I would go for a T.

Thank you, Zanxion ! I hope so - there are so many several points of opinion on the web ... two examples:

“The Rolleimeter3.5 is a coupled rangefinder for certain earlier Rollei models with fixed focusing screen. It is used in conjunction with the eye level frame finder. It fits Rolleiflex 3.5 models with serial numbers from 1,100,000 to 1,870,000''.
(from The Rollei Way by L. A. Mannheim -1965)

Those T-Models are series numbers 2,100,000 - 2,320,449 - so what ?
---
''The Rolleimeter was not made to fit on the Rolleicord Vb. Period.'' (from a thread on photonet.com = the user bought one and tried it out)

------------------

Maybe there are others here on APUG who can report ?

The T is my favorite too (I like the film advance better than the advance knob on the Vb) - but if I could find a Vb in great conditions, I'm also tempted to buy it. I'm not in a hurry, so I will have a closer look to both of them.

 

[anfenglin]

The T is very expensive these days, after having owned three Flex and three cords, I can tell you that a Rolleiflex Automat with a Tessar is very capable indeed.
A Rolleicord III with a Xenar (which mostly is coated) also is a very good machine. Then again, the older cords do not have the brighter screen but I tend to favour the older glass screens anyway.
A Rolleicord Vb has the brighter screen and the removeable hood but it also tends to fetch as much as a good Rolleiflex Automat.
Otoh, the older Automats also do not have the brighter screen, I was once lucky to get a 1953-54 flex which had been converted, that was a very nice machine.
These days I'm completely off TLRs so sold everything except the Rolleicord my grandfather bought in 1938.

Anyway, my gist is this: Any TLR made by Rollei is a great machine, there are no duds but remember, these cameras are quite old now.
I'd pick an older, serviced TLR over a newer one or one with more features any day.

If you are on the money concious side and you really want the crank, get a clean and possibly serviced Automat.

A good middle class camera which is not too expensive is a cord Vb (brighter screen), and then it starts to go up.
Good Ts are almost in the same league as 3.5Fs nowadays, but these are fun to shoot. All have 75mm focal length.

If money is of no importance, get a 2.8 GX or a 2.8f. The 2.8f is older but not too old, the 2.8GX is the newest if I remember correctly, these are a little bit too much IMHO.
These have 80mm focal length.
Have fun deciding!

 

[macfred]

The T is very expensive these days, after having owned three Flex and three cords, I can tell you that a Rolleiflex Automat with a Tessar is very capable indeed.
A Rolleicord III with a Xenar (which mostly is coated) also is a very good machine. Then again, the older cords do not have the brighter screen but I tend to favour the older glass screens anyway.
A Rolleicord Vb has the brighter screen and the removeable hood but it also tends to fetch as much as a good Rolleiflex Automat.
Otoh, the older Automats also do not have the brighter screen, I was once lucky to get a 1953-54 flex which had been converted, that was a very nice machine.
These days I'm completely off TLRs so sold everything except the Rolleicord my grandfather bought in 1938.

Anyway, my gist is this: Any TLR made by Rollei is a great machine, there are no duds but remember, these cameras are quite old now.
I'd pick an older, serviced TLR over a newer one or one with more features any day.

If you are on the money concious side and you really want the crank, get a clean and possibly serviced Automat.

A good middle class camera which is not too expensive is a cord Vb (brighter screen), and then it starts to go up.
Good Ts are almost in the same league as 3.5Fs nowadays, but these are fun to shoot. All have 75mm focal length.

If money is of no importance, get a 2.8 GX or a 2.8f. The 2.8f is older but not too old, the 2.8GX is the newest if I remember correctly, these are a little bit too much IMHO.
These have 80mm focal length.
Have fun deciding!

---

Thank you for your response, anfenglin !

I totaly agree with you - the T is pretty pricey these days (after Vivian M.) - my budget is about 700 EURO.
I'm looking for a cla'd model (maybe with warranty), where I can change focussing screens myself,
because I definitely need some focussing aids (like micro prism and / or a split screen).
I would rather buy a cla'd Rolleicord Vb than a T in bad shape. I saw a mint Vb on the bay (overhauled with 12 months warranty) for about 450 EURO (with some gadgets like yellow and green filters, the original hood and a complete Rolleinar I) - unfortunately I hesitated to long ...
But I'll take my time and I really enjoy the search - and finding ...

What about a Rolleimeter - any suggestions or experiences here ?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

http://www.rolleiclub.com/

 

[Andy38]

Hello,
Rolleimeter 3,5 doesn't fit Rolleiflex T, nor Rolleicord's ; I have one and it doesn't (tried on T, Cords and others...).
It only fits later Automat's (M, MX, MX-EVS) and E (K4C Planar or Xenotar), all with fixed focusing screen).

 

[macfred]

Hello,
Rolleimeter 3,5 doesn't fit Rolleiflex T, nor Rolleicord's ; I have one and it doesn't (tried on T, Cords and others...).
It only fits later Automat's (M, MX, MX-EVS) and E (K4C Planar or Xenotar), all with fixed focusing screen).

Thank you for sharing your experiences on the R'meter 3.5 !
--
So many opinions about this - I think I will try this out when I got my own T or Vb. Thank you again !

 

[Andy38]

I am sorry, but I'd like to understand how a Rolleimeter 3,5 fits a Rolleiflex T...
On later Automat's (and E), there is a hollow on each side of the name plate where fasteners of Rolleimeter can be engaged.
There is not on T.
And on earlier Automat's and Cord's, the nameplate is too thin.
So, I don't know how to adapt this Rolleimeter on T and Cord's...

is

 

[macfred]

I am sorry, but I'd like to understand how a Rolleimeter 3,5 fits a Rolleiflex T...
On later Automat's (and E), there is a hollow on each side of the name plate where fasteners of Rolleimeter can be engaged.
There is not on T.
And on earlier Automat's and Cord's, the nameplate is too thin.
So, I don't know how to adapt this Rolleimeter on T and Cord's...

is View attachment 183440 View attachment 183441

Andy, thank you for your descriptive explication !
Indeed, I suspect you are right. Now, it'a riddle to me, why so many maintain the reverse.

 

[btaylor]

I just discovered the Rolleimeter from reading The Rollei Way. I picked one up on the 'bay recently and set it up (calibration was easy, just followed the instructions) on my Automat last night. What an interesting and curious attachment-- turn the sportsfinder which is big and bright into a rangefinder. It is easy to see and use, though it makes for a bit of an awkward set up when carrying it around, and that thin unprotected glass strip down the center is a concern. My Automat is an early one, I tried it on my Rolleicord V (didn't fit, see above as well) as well as my 2.8D (it fit but didn't calibrate right)-- there is another version for the 2.8D and E. I have a 2.8D and early E, the D has a decided advantage for me because the focus for the magnifier for eye level focusing is adjustable, while it is not for most other models (you have to purchase diopters, but where would you find those these days?). That and the bright screen someone installed before I got it make the Rolleimeter much less useful for my D, so I won't be looking for one. I took a couple of shots of the Rolleimeter mounted on the Automat, in my searches it was difficult to find much practical information so I thought I would publish these for reference.
(BTW, the calibration disk that came with these units originally is not necessary for calibration, I imagine it just makes it a little less time consuming.)