Is there Hope? Original Rolleiflex

[kb244]

I got this rolleiflex here (looks like an original series from the look of it), two problems.

1) The waist level finder is well... to say the least useless.
2) The shutters need work, on any speed under 1/300th it takes about a second to open then close (so they all might as well be 1 to 2 seconds), 1/300th is much quicker though I suspect it's behaving like 1/100th or 1/50th.

I was quoted that It'll cost 100$ to clean up the shutters and get them working again, and I'm not even sure about the waist level finders, which seems to be missing pieces. Everything else seems decent though.

 

[Jerevan]

I think it looks like there's some hope. As long as there isn't a big dent in the lens panel or something, it'll probably be okay. I think you need to check the focus on it, before you send it off to shutter CLA. If the focus is out, it can run into some more money to calibrate, which may kill the deal.

The waist level finder might be possible to patch. Worst case, you could cobble it back to be useable open but non-foldable. It looks like it's missing the linkage in the front part of the finder, which connects to the piece you have dangling on the back part.

Anyhow, I think it's worth a try to get this original series Rolleiflex into shape.

 

[Claire Senft]

What is your goal with this camera?

 

[kb244]

To be able to use it out of fun, possibly aimed at Argus/Holga/Lubitel style pictures since I know those lens are typically uncoated and not the greatest in the world. Would be no point in selling it, but looks nice to have once I can manage to get it fixed up.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

To be able to use it out of fun, possibly aimed at Argus/Holga/Lubitel style pictures since I know those lens are typically uncoated and not the greatest in the world. Would be no point in selling it, but looks nice to have once I can manage to get it fixed up.

Uncoated lenses work great in my experience - a lens hood will provde some help controlling flare.

 

[Claire Senft]

You may have a lot of fun with the camera by making sure that it is mechanically and optically sound and give very little thought to reducing its grunginess.

It reminds me a true story of a bulleye pistol shooter who had a mind for fun. He was capable of shooting in the 95 percentile range. He acquired an old, rusty 1911 45 Colt pistol that was described as looking as if it had spent the last 10 years as a weight for a trot line. He got himself a very high quality match grade barrel, fitted the barrel to the slide, fitted to slide to the frame and did a first rate trigger job on it. The sights were left as they were except to be properly sighted. The grunginess was left unchanged. He would take this pistol to ranges were he was not known. Prettty soon some dummy would make fun of his pistol. Some bets would be made. And the fun would start. God, I wish I were there to see it.

So, maybe you could have some similar fun with a digital photographers that would choose to shoot off their mouth as to how superior their camera is compared to your piece of junk.

 

[Jerevan]

As Tom says, uncoated lenses give a different look to things. My experience of the Tessars is that they can be good, sharp lenses, even if they aren't as contrasty when uncoated. The filter size would be 28.5 push-on. I think (not sure) Zeiss made a few filters and hoods for their cameras which could fit.

 

[kb244]

You may have a lot of fun with the camera by making sure that it is mechanically and optically sound and give very little thought to reducing its grunginess.

It reminds me a true story of a bulleye pistol shooter who had a mind for fun. He was capable of shooting in the 95 percentile range. He acquired an old, rusty 1911 45 Colt pistol that was described as looking as if it had spent the last 10 years as a weight for a trot line. He got himself a very high quality match grade barrel, fitted the barrel to the slide, fitted to slide to the frame and did a first rate trigger job on it. The sights were left as they were except to be properly sighted. The grunginess was left unchanged. He would take this pistol to ranges were he was not known. Prettty soon some dummy would make fun of his pistol. Some bets would be made. And the fun would start. God, I wish I were there to see it.

So, maybe you could have some similar fun with a digital photographers that would choose to shoot off their mouth as to how superior their camera is compared to your piece of junk.

Meh I do that all the time shooting 'peices of junk' and get good photographs. I could really care less about what it looks like (provided the leather not like 'hanging off' ) I just want to get it functional.

 

[kb244]

As Tom says, uncoated lenses give a different look to things. My experience of the Tessars is that they can be good, sharp lenses, even if they aren't as contrasty when uncoated. The filter size would be 28.5 push-on. I think (not sure) Zeiss made a few filters and hoods for their cameras which could fit.

Unfortunatly can't try it til the shutters are fixed. It might be something somewhat like my Argus C3 lens, which is uncoated giving an odd look around the edges of the images, but is possible to be 'sharp' at the same time.

 

[Greg_E]

I have one of those of similar vintage... It's only in slightly better shape. Mine is waiting for other projects to get finished, then an overhaul. If the finder hood wasn't wrecked I'd offer to buy yours. The finder hood is really the only part of mine that needs more than a good clean/lube. Bought mine for $40 a few months ago. I also have some nice black goatskin waiting for this project...

If anyone has a good finder hood for this exact model 'flex, let me know how much you want for it. That would save me from having to manufacture the pieces I need.

 

[kb244]

I have one of those of similar vintage... It's only in slightly better shape. Mine is waiting for other projects to get finished, then an overhaul. If the finder hood wasn't wrecked I'd offer to buy yours. The finder hood is really the only part of mine that needs more than a good clean/lube. Bought mine for $40 a few months ago. I also have some nice black goatskin waiting for this project...

If anyone has a good finder hood for this exact model 'flex, let me know how much you want for it. That would save me from having to manufacture the pieces I need.

I can see what you mean, since you can just unscrew the finder top off.

 

[jon koss]

Eeek - Sorry to be a possible raincloud, but the lens, unless really beat, is not going to offer anything Holgaesque. The uncoated tessars are very sharp indeed if they are in good condition. I am looking at a print as I type from an ancient prewar Rolleiflex and it really resolves down to the last detail. And that's the good news. The bad news: Original Rolleiflexes from this period did not take 120 film as delivered from the factory! Try fitting a roll of 120 in there before investing any time or money. "If it does not fit, you must quit!" It may have been converted for 120 (or 620!) but then again...

Hope I am wrong here - please advise.

J

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Karl, greetings. A good source for parts, or for overhaul, is a fellow named Todd Belcher in Vancouver BC. Todd bought out the parts from F+H's Canadian division when they closed it down, and is a Rollei technician himself, although he does it in his spare time now. If you write to him, he might have the hood assembly for you. Email is todd_belcher@telus.net.

Sanders McNew

 

[kb244]

Eeek - Sorry to be a possible raincloud, but the lens, unless really beat, is not going to offer anything Holgaesque. The uncoated tessars are very sharp indeed if they are in good condition. I am looking at a print as I type from an ancient prewar Rolleiflex and it really resolves down to the last detail. And that's the good news. The bad news: Original Rolleiflexes from this period did not take 120 film as delivered from the factory! Try fitting a roll of 120 in there before investing any time or money. "If it does not fit, you must quit!" It may have been converted for 120 (or 620!) but then again...

Hope I am wrong here - please advise.

J

It's 620, but I can just respool it like I did some past cameras. (120 stuck out too much you couldn't get the back on. But a 620 spool went in, held in, and was windable just fine.)

 

[Greg_E]

Mine has the had the spool shaved to fit, so it might be possible.

 

[ragc]

I own several old Rolleis, including a Rolleicord Art Deco from 1932. The uncoated lenses are as sharp as can be...in fact, the little Art Deco can easily ouperform many of my "modern" TLRs in sharpness.

You can probably buy a junker Rolleicord or 'Flex on eBay for a lot cheaper than you can fix the hood (do you care if it matches the model?). You will probably have to get a new mirror (there is a guy in India who sells them on eBay, and they are good, front-silvered). As for the shutter, remove the inside element with a spanner and squirt some lighter fluid in there. Work the shutter until it is clear. You may need to soak up the junk occasionally with a lintless cloth. After cleaning the shutter don't lube it - leave it as is - but clean the back of the front element, as it will be filthy.

 

[kb244]

I own several old Rolleis, including a Rolleicord Art Deco from 1932. The uncoated lenses are as sharp as can be...in fact, the little Art Deco can easily ouperform many of my "modern" TLRs in sharpness.

You can probably buy a junker Rolleicord or 'Flex on eBay for a lot cheaper than you can fix the hood (do you care if it matches the model?). You will probably have to get a new mirror (there is a guy in India who sells them on eBay, and they are good, front-silvered). As for the shutter, remove the inside element with a spanner and squirt some lighter fluid in there. Work the shutter until it is clear. You may need to soak up the junk occasionally with a lintless cloth. After cleaning the shutter don't lube it - leave it as is - but clean the back of the front element, as it will be filthy.

I was thinking lighter fluid. However how does one 'properly' remove both the front and rear lens elements (I wouldnt want to be squirting lighter fluid in there with the rear element near it as well).

 

[Greg_E]

The front element should unscrew easily, the rear might need a spanner to get it out. Normally you would remove the front of the camera from the body, the screws are hidden under the leather (on newer cameras), not sure if this applies to the original.

 

[kb244]

both were hard to unscrew, what i did was unscrewed the the three screws on the front (not hidden under the leather) , pulled off the lens board plate, used a wrench to loosen the back element (spanner wasn't doing shit), then same for front then removed both of those and stashed them away, spent like 30 minutes putting drops of 99.99% isoprophly (sp?) alcohol in there and firing the shutters at various speeds, after the alcohol dried up I continued to fire it for several minutes. Now all the speeds seem accurate from 1 second to 1/300th , I cleaned up the front and back of each element with my favorite cleaner (Sprayway Formula '40' Glass Cleaner for Graphics Arts Industry, shit works great, been using it for just about a year now), reassembled it all. Taped up the waist level finder with some black masking tape that i usually use for bulk loading, so the top looks kinda like frankenstein but who the hell cares bout that (it'll just get more people looking)

I'll let it sit for an hour or so and see if the shutters remain good, tempted to go respool myself a 620 spool and try it out, but its currently at night.

 

[ragc]

I was thinking lighter fluid. However how does one 'properly' remove both the front and rear lens elements (I wouldnt want to be squirting lighter fluid in there with the rear element near it as well).

Good job! I would have not worked as hard...lazy I am told... the lighter fluid will not do any harm to the rear element (or the rear of the front one - I always go for the shutter from the back, as it's easier than removing the front). Anyway, sounds like you have it going. The lens will surprise you. Have fun!

 

[kb244]

Good job! I would have not worked as hard...lazy I am told... the lighter fluid will not do any harm to the rear element (or the rear of the front one - I always go for the shutter from the back, as it's easier than removing the front). Anyway, sounds like you have it going. The lens will surprise you. Have fun!

Test shots are hanging to dry right now. I took some shots in the bay window room that we're doing some "re-modeling" to (ripped up carpet, moved some stuff around etc) and used my 500W work lamp to light a broken bear figurine, so that I had least 1/60th @ f/4 , I shot at 1/50th @ f/4 on the rolleiflex, I also shot two directly at the worklamp at 1/100 @ f/11 , and developed those shots, they seemed to have come out just fine, and will scan them as soon as they are dry (the roll was TMax 100, respooled onto 620)

Right now I'm just trying to find the damn scissors that I think my wife borrowed so I can cut the TriX strip I tested in the Yashica Mat-124G

 

[kb244]

Well got the negs dry, noticed after i've developed the neg that the focus board was not exactly 'straight' by a margin, so unscrewed the three screws again, and got them all level and made sure could still go back and forth. Anyways this is in the bay window room of our house thats having some work done on it (ie: carpet pulled up etc) turned on the 500W work lamp so I could get least 1/60th @ f/4 reading on the meter, set the camera for 1/50th @ f/4 and did these two shots.

And this one at 1/60 @ f/11

Since I readjusted the screws that move the lens board back and forth ( and appears to be perfectly flat now) I'll likely pop in another roll and fire off some outside during the daylight.

The only thing I don't like of course is that the viewfinder/screen is a dog compared to my yashica, seagull, or mamiya C3 TLR lol. The images don't seem to be as sharp as my other TLR however as said did some lens board adjustment, and less-than-ideal lighting conditions, so again will get some shots tomorrow.