Difference between Rolleiflex MX-EVS and 3.5E?

[jasonjoo]

*TITLE ERROR: Sorry, the Rolleiflex MX-EVS should read Rolleiflex Rolleicord!*

Hey guys,

I recently purchased a Rolleiflex 3.5E on eBay but am looking for a second body as a "back up" and so that I can have one camera with film for outdoors and the other for indoors.

I found a Rolleiflex Rolleicord for around $300 dollars and the seller claims that everything is in perfect working order. The both lenses are clear of scratches or fungus, shutter speeds are accurate, etc.

Is this a good deal? I'm already planning on sending my 3.5E to Harry Fleenor for a CLA and Maxwell screen, so I figure it may be a good time to purchase the backup and send it in together (maybe not for the CLA but for a Maxwell screen).

So the question is, what's the difference between the Rolleicord and the 3.5E (BTW, the 3.5E has a Planar lens, and the Rolleicord has a Xenar)?

Thanks,

Jason

Here's a link to the Rolleicord:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rolleiflex-Roll...92145644QQihZ017QQcategoryZ3354QQcmdZViewItem

 

[David H. Bebbington]

The biggest difference apart from the lens is the combined lever wind/shutter cocking on the Rolleiflex and the non-interlinked knob wind and combination shutter wind/release lever on the Rolleicord (I hate this lever, others seem to be able to live with it). Next would be the presence of a meter, definitely none on the 'cord, maybe on on the 'flex depending on model. A removable hood may not be an issue these days, the Rollei pentaprism is very rare now and the Rollemeter rangefinder attachment exceedingly rare. The price for the 'cord is quite high but the condition looks very good.

Regards,

David

PS: The Rolleicord seems to be a model V, made 1954 to 1957.

 

[Gerd Orfey]

For prices you can check older auctions via "advanced search" on ebay. This gives you an impression about the actual market price. IMO prices for the Cord in your country are much higher then in Germany. I paid for mine, also with case and in very good condition, 100 Euros.

The Rolleicord has been the much cheaper amateur model of the Rolleiflex. The lower price has been achieved with a very basic design and lower build quality.

A general problem with such old cameras, especially when they are nearly unused, might be the shutter. For me, a seller should guarantee that all times are working properly, especially the longer times.


Gerd

 

[luvcameras]

Rolleiflex info = http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm

Rolleicord info = http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm

 

[leeturner]

It really depends on which model Rolleicord. I picked up a Vb "whiteface" for £50 so $300 could be considered quite high for certain models. The Vb has removable hood and the focussing knob is on the opposite site to some older Rolleicords. It's a light and reliable camera and gives very sharp results. I have to compare it to my Yashicas as my Rolleiflex is a 2.8c and has a very different look.

 

[Steve Smith]

The Rolleicord has been the much cheaper amateur model of the Rolleiflex. The lower price has been achieved with a very basic design and lower build quality.

I think the lower price is mainly due to reduced features. I don't think the build quality is any less than for a Rolleiflex.

The camera in the link looks like a Rolleicord V (which is what I have) and if so, the serial number puts it between 1954 and 1957.

Mine cost me £34 which is about $60 which I thought was a bargain. This one at just under $300 seems a bit expensive but, as David says, it does seem to be in good condition.


Steve.

 

[elekm]

Optically, the difference is that the Rolleicord had either a Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar (prewar cameras) or a Schneider Xenar (Tessar formula). The Xenar is a fine lens, and among triplets, the Triotar is a very good lens.

The Rolleiflex 3.5E uses a Carl Zeiss Planar or a Schneider Xenotar (Planar formula).

There also are a number of other operational differences -- crank vs. knob advance, self tensioning shutter vs. manually tensioned shutter and location of focusing knob.

The Rolleiflex (depending on the model) had either a Tessar, Xenar, Planar or Xenotar.

 

[Larry.Manuel]

Harry Fleenor is great to deal with. I bought a 1956 Rolleiflex locally, then a Rolleicord Vb from Harry , and had him put in a Maxwell screen #1, and overhaul the shutter. It is great - I love it. Most weeks I put a roll of film through it. Now the 'Flex is there for film advance repair [it seized], screen and shutter overhaul. My enthusiasm lead to buying a Roliecord Va from eBay, and it's at Harry's for the full treatment too. The Rolliecord is funky - and there are fewer parts, therefore fewer parts to fail. That's one way to look at the more primitive aspect of it. I am very keen on these. There are enough "features" on the 'cord for me to make photos as well as with a 'flex. Good luck.

 

[jasonjoo]

Hmm, I guess I'll have to do some more homework. I am most concerned about build quality and overall longevity for the cameras. I hope these cameras (and repairmen/women) don't go extinct anytime soon!

 

[Mateo]

I think you should keep looking. I just got rolleiflex (I don't know the models) with 3.5 tessar that was made in the 70s for $250 from the local camera store. Everything is perfect except for the strap.

 

[elekm]

The Rolleicord and Rolleiflex cameras were built to last a lifetime. There are many 1930s and 1940s cameras that are still being used today. As long as the camera hasn't been abused and the optics are clean, there is no reason that a Rolleicord or Rolleiflex shouldn't be operational.

Now, keep in mind that nearly all 35- to 70-year-old (regardless of the brand) will benefit from routine service to clean and lubricate the shutter and focusing rack and clean the optical system, which generally will include the lens, possible (although not always) replacement of the mirror and the focusing screen.

As I mentioned in a different thread, there are plenty of Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords on the market, so you shouldn't have to settle for one that is damaged.