Rolleicord IV vs Yashica Mat 124G

I have (and still have) a Yashica 124G that I got in 1975. I also have a mint Rollei 2.8F with prism and I just got a Rolleicord IV. I know these comparisons have come up before, I thought I would just add my thoughts:

I tried to make a table with this browser but it did not come out. Anyway, here are the salient features:

Rolleicord IV has no Fresnel, has focusing on the RIGHT, does not cock shutter when winding but has interlock, does not have crank (has knob), DOES have paralax correction (unlike Yashica), DOES have double exposure override (unlike Yashica), has fixed hood, does NOT take 220, Rollicord is very light and has easily removable back.

The Rolliecord I got came with the original instructions and the original warranty card. Overall works great but has 'snowflake' fungus on the 3.5 Schneider Xenar taking lens (wouldn't you know the viewing lens was spared).

The fungus is not too bad, but I have never willingly purchased a lens this bad. (This Rolleicord was a gift).

I have a roll of film in it now and will see. My guess is that wide open it will be a soft focus lens (nice for portraits) and stopped to f16 it will probably be identical to the Yashinon at f16.

Overall seems like a nice camera. One that I can take everywhere and not be afraid of damage. The whole camera can probably be replaced for less than the price of an leather or metal 'tropical' case for the 2.8 F.

I had accidentally ruined a 6x9 Fresnel for my Horseman by allowing isopropyl alcohol to touch it (it turned it white near the edge). Well, it looked like if I cut down that 6x9 Fresnel it might work on the Rolleicord. In fact it works fine, however, it is quite a thick piece of plastic, so it required a significant taper on the top and bottom to fit in the 'fresnel holder' tabs.

This fresnel really transforms the viewfinder. Without it you really can't see the edges of the frame. I knew there was a paralax correction but the bars could not be seen without the fresnel. Now they are visible.

I also realized I had a new old stock Rolleicord strap that I had picked up many years ago (thinking it was a 2.8F strap when I bought it).

It's a shame that there's fungus in the shooting lens. I have a Rolleicord IV and that lens is incredible! Have fun with it.

Rolleicord IV vs Yashica Mat 124G

Porsche vs Karman Ghia

Both will get you to where you are going, but I prefer to drive the former.

Vaughn

Also have both plus a 2.8C, Yash D and a couple of Yash EM's. I've had good results from all of them but the Rolleicord (Vb) is the one I use the most. Simple, reliable, light and produces great results.

Vaughn said:

Rolleicord IV vs Yashica Mat 124G

Porsche vs Karman Ghia

Both will get you to where you are going, but I prefer to drive the former.

Vaughn

Click to expand...

I actually would have used that analogy for the RolleiFLEX vs the RolleiCORD

I was thinking of some others also:

BMW 508 vs Toyota 2000GT
BMW 2002 vs Datsun 510
Porsche 924 vs Mazda RX7
Porsche Boxter vs Toyota MR2
BMW 3 series vs Lexus

I think I prefer the German car in each case.

Viewing Screen on the Rolleicord

Just a FYI post, in case any one happens to amble onto this thread via the search function.

Most contemporary medium format cameras have a viewing screen made of plastic that has a molded fresnel lens on the underside, with a 'frosted plastic' on the other side. It is usually a 'one piece' affair.

View cameras and some technical medium format cameras have a real glass ground glass and then have a seperate plastic fresnel lens that goes either in-front of or behind the ground glass.

The Rolleicord IV follows this latter approach. It has a real glass ground glass and it is supposed to have a plastic fresnel lens on top of the ground glass. There are little keeper thingies to hold the fresnel in place. The only problem was that Rollei did not include the fresnel with the camera.

The point I am getting at is that replacing the real glass ground glass with a plastic combined fresnel/frosted plastic screen is actually the 'hard way' to improve this camera. The 'easy way' is to just pop a plastic fresnel in on top of the ground glass (that is what it was designed for). The problem, though, is finding a plastic fresnel without the frosted side. I was lucky in that the Horseman VH series uses a separate ground glass and fresnel that is designed to sit on top of the ground glass, and I had an extra damaged one that was fine on the inner 6x6 portion.

Having a fresnel on this camera transformed it from a 'collectors shelf' camera into a 'user.'

Nah...from what I understand, the Cord and Flex both have the same excellent insides, built to the same standards/tolerences. The Flex just has a bigger "engine" (the lens) and a few luxury extras. I have two Rolleicords sitting on my desk -- Vb's (Type 2 and a type 3). They feel much more solid than any Yashica I have ever handled.

Now perhaps comparing my Brother-in-law's 1960 "bathtub" Porsche to my old 71 Super Beetle might be the same as a Rollei - Cord comparison. The engines looked identical and the body work was about the same quality -- and the speeds they could acheive were not that much different!

Vaughn

First Film

Just processed some FP4 in Rodinal 1:100.

Very impressive, this is going to be a 'keeper.' Although these were low contrast scenes, there is no way to tell from looking at the negatives that there is a little fungus on the lens. This was a good learning experience for me, in that I have a better grasp of how much fungus is required to alter the image. The amount of fungus on this lens probably alters the image only as much as some of the Zeiss Planars that I own that have little bubbles in the glass ;not much effect.

When I reach for a TLR, one of the things that will make me bypass the 2.8F is the bulk and weight of that camera compared to the Rolleicord. Especially since I have a prism and the pistol grip on the 2.8F.

BTW: the pistol grip fits on the Rolleicord IV, however, because of the angle of the grip, one needs to hold it in the RIGHT hand. This makes focusing and winding the Rolleicord difficult because both knobs are also on the RIGHT.

Vaughn said:

Nah...from what I understand, the Cord and Flex both have the same excellent insides, built to the same standards/tolerences. The Flex just has a bigger "engine" (the lens) and a few luxury extras. I have two Rolleicords sitting on my desk -- Vb's (Type 2 and a type 3). They feel much more solid than any Yashica I have ever handled.

Click to expand...

Yes, those Vbs must be nice! I wish I had one here to compare with this IV. I have only been able to compare the pictures and descriptions in the 'Rollei Collector's Guide.' I agree with you on the 'innards,' from what I have read, the Vb innards were the basis for the GX.

ic-racer said:

Just processed some FP4 in Rodinal 1:100.

When I reach for a TLR, one of the things that will make me bypass the 2.8F is the bulk and weight of that camera compared to the Rolleicord. Especially since I have a prism and the pistol grip on the 2.8F.

BTW: the pistol grip fits on the Rolleicord IV, however, because of the angle of the grip, one needs to hold it in the RIGHT hand. This makes focusing and winding the Rolleicord difficult because both knobs are also on the RIGHT.

Click to expand...

Interesting -- with the Vb's, the focusing is on the left like the Flex.

I bought a used 2.8F with a prism -- but because of the weight, I traded that back for the original hood. I learned photography with an older 3.5 and I just like the waist level hood better.

I got curious, so I just got out my scale -- the Rollicord Vb is 2 pounds, the 2.8F is 2 lb 13 ounces -- with my old, non-working, Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS right in between at 2lb 6 oz. The bigger glass on the 2.8F certainly changes the camera's center of gravity towards the front!

Actually used the 2.8F today -- it is my "snapshot" camera when I take my three boys somewhere when I don't want to haul the 8x10 around. Normally I use color negative in it, but today I used some Czech-made 100 ASA (Arista.EDU) since I got some for our students and I figured I should do a test or two with it.

Glad the fungus is not interfering with the images! If you ever send in the camera to be CLA, I wonder if the lens can be cleaned up also.

Vaughn

Vaughn: Lens can be cleaned, how well will be determinded by the amout of fungus: I just cleaned a Large format lens that had fungus and haze now its nice:[ ic-racer ++ Have that rollie CLA'd as soon as possible:

Vaughn said:

Glad the fungus is not interfering with the images! If you ever send in the camera to be CLA, I wonder if the lens can be cleaned up also.

Vaughn

Click to expand...

I got the thing cleaned up pretty well. I actually purchased the Rollei TLR and Syncro Compur manuals back in the 80s, and they cover the Rolleicord. (now these are available as an on-line PDF I see http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/repairmanuals.html). The fungus on the front lens group is actually on the surfaces between the elements. I don't have a spanner small enough to dissasemble the front lens group. My experience is that the fungus eats into the coating. I will probably just leave it for now. It really is not that bad, in fact, to a lay-person (my wife) the lens looked 'fine.'

My algorithm would be:
Most practical : Leave it as it is
Less practical: buy a 'jammed' camera on e-pay and swap out the lens elements
Least practical: sent the lens elements off to be polished and re-coated.

BTW: the film from yesterday was dry and I got to examine it with the 8x loupe and the f16 quality is excellent. When 'wide open' I am used to the Planars being still quite sharp in the center, with a loss of contrast. This Xenar, though, did not seem that sharp in the center when 'wide open' but I only had one of 12 to check. More tests needed.

seawolf66 said:

Vaughn: Lens can be cleaned, how well will be determinded by the amout of fungus: I just cleaned a Large format lens that had fungus and haze now its nice:[ ic-racer ++ Have that rollie CLA'd as soon as possible:

Click to expand...

Now you have me encouraged to get that front lens group apart. Hmmm:rolleyes: ...weighing the cost of a little spanner from SK Grimes with the cost of a 'jammed' camera with good lens on e-bay .

ic-racer said:

Now you have me encouraged to get that front lens group apart. Hmmm:rolleyes: ...weighing the cost of a little spanner from SK Grimes with the cost of a 'jammed' camera with good lens on e-bay .

Click to expand...

My initial photographs to test this camera were all in low contrast settings. I took some higher contrast photographs (i.e. sunlight scenes with shadow detail) and was not impressed with the results.

Basically the lens flare makes it so the negatives behave as if they are underexposed, no matter how much exposure you give the negative. That is, even with more exposure you get more density in the shadows, but there is still no SEPARATION of the shadow values (like an underexposed negative).

So the flare turns a scene with a LONG tonal scale in to one with a SHORT scale. One might think this would help the negative when it comes to printing, but I say NO THANKS to this type of help. The flare is compressing the values in the shadows proportionally more than the rest of the scene. Again, making it always look like it is under exposed, even with plenty of exposure.

I had been reminded of another technique to remove the trim-ring on the lens group. I used my handy rubber "jar lid opener" and a piece of plastic tubing. The tubinig presses down on the rubber, right over the retainer ring (keeping the rubber from pressing and scratching the front element).

This technique worked and I was able to get the lens apart. It has been a long time since I used this technique, but I like it, and will use it as a first line technique because it really does not leave any marks on the ring.

Anyway, after disassembly of the front lens elemets, I was able to clean all the fungus off the lens. So it looks like I got to it BEFORE the fungus ate through the coating.

Now that the lenses are clear, I suspect the camera is now worth more than the price of a Rolleiflex lenshood , so I went shopping for a hood and found an EX++ Bayonet I rollei lenshood at photorama for $25USD. So now I am anxious to try it out again.