How Was it With the rolleifex's?

Flyfishdk · Mar 18, 2011

Hi There

After i This week Got at really nice rolleiflex 2.8F xenotar and have falled in love With it allready. The way to shoot With it, the look and specially the mechanics. I have also been reading about the history anddevelopement of it, but i can't find out how they where rated back in the days. Where the expensive? Was it the top?

Please tell me as much as you know

holmburgers · Mar 18, 2011

Expensive yes, the top, yes! It was the work horse of professional photographers for many, many years. Other's will have more info than me...

jp498 · Mar 18, 2011

Judging by how much rolleiflex has been copied, it must have been quite something. And when walking around with a yashica tlr, I am often asked if that is a rolleiflex.

Made me get thinking... we treat new cameras differently now. Now we purchase new cameras as things that will be good for a couple years and then something with more bells and whistles or faster or better will certainly replace it. If it's not rugged no big deal, worst case it has to last it's warranty, best case it has to last till you get compelled to upgrade for more megapixel or better battery. in the 80's the first camera I bought by myself was a piece of junk and I went upmarket and bought a high end camera and have used it for 20+ years. People bought high end because they'd figure it would last forever and do everything with minor care and didn't think about digital turning the camera business into essentially the computer business.

Bill Burk · Mar 18, 2011

I had one of the early Rolleiflexes and it already had the crank winder on the side. The scratched, uncoated lenses gave me too much flare for my taste so I dismantled it. The lens stage was built on four geared helicals.

Flyfishdk · Mar 19, 2011

Very interesting thinking. I work as a photojournalist and have the "normal" of approach to my digital gear where I allways think about the next upgrade... it puts the whole thing in relief when getting a maybe 40 year old camera there just perform really outstanding and the build quality is so good.... maybe it's not that important at all.

What was the price for a new rolleiflex like my 2.8F xenotar? was it so expensive that it was only pros that used it or???

Best regards

Nicolai

jp498 said:
Judging by how much rolleiflex has been copied, it must have been quite something. And when walking around with a yashica tlr, I am often asked if that is a rolleiflex.

Made me get thinking... we treat new cameras differently now. Now we purchase new cameras as things that will be good for a couple years and then something with more bells and whistles or faster or better will certainly replace it. If it's not rugged no big deal, worst case it has to last it's warranty, best case it has to last till you get compelled to upgrade for more megapixel or better battery. in the 80's the first camera I bought by myself was a piece of junk and I went upmarket and bought a high end camera and have used it for 20+ years. People bought high end because they'd figure it would last forever and do everything with minor care and didn't think about digital turning the camera business into essentially the computer business.

Ian Grant · Mar 19, 2011

You need to look at what cameras were in use before the introduction of the Rolleiflex, the closest competitors were the reflex cameras from companies like Mentor, APM (Thornton Pickard) Soho Relfex, Graflex, Newman and Guardia etc, all essentially plate cameras although film packs and roll film backs could be used.

So while the Rolleiflex was 6x6 as opposed to 6x7/6x9 it was very much faster to use, the reflexes had non returning mirrors were slow to use, fiddly shutters to set, you needed to open the lens for focussing, and much larger & heavier.

Ian

Vaughn · Mar 19, 2011

My aunt bought my dad a 3.5 MX-EVS back in the mid 50's at a PX in Spain when my uncle was stationed there -- $200 if I got the story right. I still have it but it took a fall and is no longer operational.. I use an early 2.8F now.

R gould · Mar 19, 2011

I have got 2 rolleis, a flex automat 4 and a cord VA2 the rolleiflex was a workhorse, with a little bit of care they will last forever, they are my go to cameras,light to carry, easy and quick to focus and use, I couldn't get along without them now, I have other cameras for MF that I use and love, including another tlr, and all my cameras are at least 50 yrs old or older, but it is the rolleis that I use the most,the negatives that I get from them have what I can only describe as a glow, they are the leica's of the older MF world,Richard

Pumalite · Mar 19, 2011

I love them

Dan Daniel · Mar 19, 2011

Flyfishdk, if you have the time to sort through the archive, here's a collection of discussions among some Rolleiflex addicts:
http://www.freelists.org/archive/rollei_list/
The topics roam widely and the responses can go in strange directions, but there is a lot of information buried in there, and references to many sources.

It is an active list so you could ask questions, get resources, etc. As with any such group, spend time searching, and get a feel for current members before jumping in. They do answer; I was recently given a Rolleiflex 2.8A Tessar and they provided some nice details about the history.

dpurdy · Mar 19, 2011

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/?category=Rollei
Another place with 2447 threads on Rollei.

artonpaper · Mar 19, 2011

I used a Rollei back in the 60s, 70s, and into the 80s. The model with the Ziess Planar was said to be even sharper than the Hasselblad, due to the fact that the Rollei had a film pressure plate and the Hasseblad didn't. With the newly available electronic flash units like Ultrablitz, they became THE camera to use for reportage and events photography. And of course in fashion and other creative photography. I believe both Avedon and Penn used them when using medium format.

ic-racer · Mar 19, 2011

Pumalite said:
I love them

Nice pair! I love them also.

ic-racer · Mar 19, 2011

Flyfishdk said:
Was it the top?

Please tell me as much as you know

Yes, the top!

Crashbox · Mar 19, 2011

I don't see anyone with their Rollei's inverted in that photo- IMO that is one big advantage of a waist-level finder, turning the camera upside-down and shooting over everyone else... maybe I'm just over-analyzing it

ETA: Yeah, the subject IS elevated, aren't they...?

graywolf · Mar 19, 2011

Flyfishdk said:
What was the price for a new rolleiflex like my 2.8F xenotar? was it so expensive that it was only pros that used it or???

As I remember, back circa 1961, all the pro grade cameras cost about the same ($375), except the Hasselbald ($550). That was list which is what you paid if you did not live in NYC. That included the Linhof Super Technika, Leica M3, Nikon F & SP, Canon 7S, Rolleiflex F, etc. I bought a Pentax H3 ($199) because that was what I could afford. BTW, there was a hefty US import duty on them back then, so GI's overseas got a real deal on them. That was the days before credit cards, so you either had to find a dealer that would finance it, or save up the cash. Things were different back then.

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 19, 2011

Is that fellow in the center of the pack giving an avian salute??

:eek:

Ken

How Was it With the rolleifex's?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency