Rolleiflex 3.5B MX-EVS problems

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 15, 2024

I picked up 3.5B MX-EVS. I'm planning to find someone to give it a CLA.

This 1954 K4B is the earliest version with EVS. The aperture dial does not have a push button in the center. No button and only the words "Germany" are printed. Is it possible to modify this aperture dial with the 3rd K4B knob which allows one to turn the inner portion of the Aperture dial 90 degrees to engage or disengage EVS lock? Would it just be a simple aperture dial knob part swap? Or more involved?

I noticed the below issues. Are they all likely caused by gummy, aged or evaporated lubrication? Or is it probable there are worse issues afoot?

When cranking for a test fire, the shutter blades open up and close during the crank.
The shutter seems gummy and doesn't fire.
The shutter release counts down 10 seconds and clicks, but shutter doesn't fire
'When rotating the shutter dial, the EV coupled shutter and aperture dial seems a bit stiff.

Laurent · Mar 16, 2024

Seems this camera needs a proper CLA for smooth operation.

The shutter opening when you wind is definitely NOT normal.

IIRC the EV coupling in the early models (I have the next one in the series, with a button in the center of the aperture wheel) is one rotates one of the wheels to change EV, and the other to change the time/aperture values.

I'd guess modifying this may be more than just swapping parts.

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 16, 2024

Hi Laurent,

Thank you. The shutter is intermittent. I found during testing that it will actually fire sometimes. Other times, it won't fire and the turn of the film advance crank opens the aperture blades instead. When I depress the shutter release button and let go, it retracts slowly. Definitely seems like lubricants have turned gummy...

Who is recommended for a CLA in the USA?

Alex Varas · Mar 16, 2024

The interlock for speed/aperture can be overridden. If you want the third version button it might be needed more than the button itself, I can't recall now.

ic-racer · Mar 16, 2024

Get that fixed! Looks like an awesome camera, great condition! Where did you find that?

JPD · Mar 16, 2024

It looks to be in good condition. It's an early version of that model, so you simply hold one of the wheels to rotate the other. I would personally keep it as it is, since it's supposed to work like that. With a good CLA you'll have a very good camera! The Tessar is the West German one from when they had just stopped marking them Zeiss-Opton.

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 16, 2024

Thanks for all the feedback and advice everyone!

Given that the original lubricants Rolleiflex used back in the 1950s turn gummy or evaporate, are the modern era lubricants used for a CLA longer lasting? Should synthetic lubricants be used in a CLA for longer service intervals? In general, how long does a modern day Rolleiflex CLA last before another CLA is needed?

JPD · Mar 16, 2024

rolleiflex1954 said:
In general, how long does a modern day Rolleiflex CLA last before another CLA is needed?

I sent some of the Rolleis I bought in the 1990s and early 2000s for CLA, and they still work fine.

Bruce Butterfield · Mar 16, 2024

I had an early MX-EVS like yours that I really liked; made brilliant photos and was wonderful to use EXCEPT for the damn EVS interlock. I had a CLA done on it and asked the tech if there was any way to defeat the interlock — he wasn’t able to do it. Sold the camera and replaced it with the earlier MX which I prefer other than you have to set the 1/500th speed before charging the shutter. Ah well, there’s always something.

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 16, 2024

RE: Potential 3.5B EVS Mod from "Version 1" to "Version 3"

I found some photos online of a 3.5B "Version 1" and "Version 3" to illustrate my question if a mod is possible by swapping the aperture dial assembly.

As background, here is an overview of the three different 3.5B K4B versions:

===============

By Capt. E: (on another forum)

"There is much confusion over the MX-EVS cameras since there were three different variations.

First variation: Turn the aperture dial and you will see the EV number change on the shutter dial. Turn the shutter dial and the aperture dial moves with it retaining the EV setting.
Second variation: The aperture and shutter dials are linked, move one and the other moves except when you depress the button in the center of the aperture dial allowing you to change the EV setting.
Third variation: Same as Second except the linkage can be disengaged completely by turning the button on the aperture dial 90 degrees where the indicators are no longer aligned (All the MX-EVS with serial numbers 17xxxxxx and some with serial numbers 14xxxxx)"

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

Picture below show the first variation aperture dial compared to the third variation aperture dial? A direct swap or not? (Ignore the fact that one unit below is a 3.5 and another is a 2.8. The question pertains to if a 3.5 version 3 aperture mechanism works properly in a 3.5 version 1 to allow engagement or disengagement of the EVS mechanism by turning the inner aperature dial 90 degrees.)

Rolleiflexible · Mar 16, 2024

Bruce Butterfield said:
I had an early MX-EVS like yours that I really liked; made brilliant photos and was wonderful to use EXCEPT for the damn EVS interlock. I had a CLA done on it and asked the tech if there was any way to defeat the interlock — he wasn’t able to do it. Sold the camera and replaced it with the earlier MX which I prefer other than you have to set the 1/500th speed before charging the shutter. Ah well, there’s always something.

My last Rollei purchase was an old Automat (MX) that a previous owner had retrofitted with a modern removable viewfinder. I bought it from Jimmy Koh up on Long Island, who said that F&H had done the swap at the factory. It's the best of both worlds: A simple light Rolleiflex with a bright modern finder.

To the OP: I've been around Rolleiflexes for decades. You have an Automat. Or an MX. Or even an early MX-EVS. But it's not a 3.5B. That nomenclature historically was reserved for the next generation of Rolleiflexes with Planar or Xenotar lenses.

You are right that the early EVS system was a PITA if you prefer simple shutter and aperture controls. Can you retrofit a later EVS control onto the earlier camera? The better question is: Why bother? The later MX-EVS models are easily located. Why not just sell yours and buy the model you want? That will surely be the simpler and cheaper alternative.

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 16, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
To the OP: I've been around Rolleiflexes for decades. You have an Automat. Or an MX. Or even an early MX-EVS. But it's not a 3.5B. That nomenclature historically was reserved for the next generation of Rolleiflexes with Planar or Xenotar lenses.

Please see: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rolleiflex_3.5_series

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 16, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
You are right that the early EVS system was a PITA if you prefer simple shutter and aperture controls. Can you retrofit a later EVS control onto the earlier camera? The better question is: Why bother? The later MX-EVS models are easily located. Why not just sell yours and buy the model you want? That will surely be the simpler and cheaper alternative.

I bought the 3.5B MX-EVS based on condition. This one was extra clean. If a simple aperture dial part swap during a CLA won't upgrade this 3.5B "version 1" to a 3.5B "version 3," I can live with it as is. The "version 1" does allow manual decoupling by holding one dial in position -- it's just not as elegant a solution as the always "on" or always "off" adjustable solution on the 3.5B "version 3."

Rolleiflexible · Mar 17, 2024

rolleiflex1954 said:
Please see: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rolleiflex_3.5_series

View attachment 365596

That’s the thing about a wiki: anyone can say anything in it. Find me a contemporaneous use of “3.5B” from Franke & Heidecke — from a manual or ads or whatever — or from any camera magazine from the day and I’ll eat my words.

My recollection FWIW is that some dealer in the UK marketed the 3.5 models with Tessar lenses using the F&H letter designations for the Planar/Xenotar models. (I could be wrong about that.) But the designation never entered general usage — at least, not until somebody threw it up on Wikipedia.

It’s your camera. You can call it what you want. But the old guys who still repair these cameras will get a good laugh out of it and consider you a noob.

Rolleiflexible · Mar 17, 2024

rolleiflex1954 said:
I bought the 3.5B MX-EVS based on condition. This one was extra clean.

Extra-clean Automats are easy to buy for $200. They are a common camera and most (PJs excepted) babied them as the prized possessions they were. Thousands were picked up in Germany by GIs, who bought them as souvenirs at the PX, brought them home at the end of their tour and put them up in their closet, essentially unused.

Your Automat might be "extra clean" cosmetically but the problems you are experiencing should tell you it is anything but clean inside. The shutter firing during wind is a tell that the camera has been used hard -- that is typically a function of wear and will likely require more than a cleaning to put back in order. Anyone can shine up a beater. That does not make it an exemplary specimen. I would sell it, or return it to the seller if possible, and buy the model you prefer.

BrianShaw · Mar 17, 2024

Bruce Butterfield said:
I had an early MX-EVS like yours that I really liked; made brilliant photos and was wonderful to use EXCEPT for the damn EVS interlock. I had a CLA done on it and asked the tech if there was any way to defeat the interlock — he wasn’t able to do it. Sold the camera and replaced it with the earlier MX which I prefer other than you have to set the 1/500th speed before charging the shutter. Ah well, there’s always something.

That is a polarizing feature! Personally, I’d pay extra for it.

BrianShaw · Mar 17, 2024

rolleiflex1954 said:
Thanks for all the feedback and advice everyone!

Given that the original lubricants Rolleiflex used back in the 1950s turn gummy or evaporate, are the modern era lubricants used for a CLA longer lasting? Should synthetic lubricants be used in a CLA for longer service intervals? In general, how long does a modern day Rolleiflex CLA last before another CLA is needed?

Difficult questions to answer because “it depends “. The “given”, though, might be incorrect. I’ve never seen convincing evidence that they were either low quality or short-lived. In fact, there was an oil back then that is not available now that was beyond excellent - sperm (whale) oil.

Modern lubricants, like the synthetic oils/greases, really are good and seem to lead to long service intervals. It depends on a lot of factors including selecting the correct lubricants and using them appropriately. Also depends on many other factors like the quality of the cleaning during the overhaul service and the residual effects of wear on the equipment. Too many incidental factors to be able to do a valid then versus now comparison.

My Rollei’s overhauls have varied considerably. First one lasted less than a year and seemed to fail because of a workmanship defect. They’re-repair lasted 15 years. The camera still worked when it was retired but sounded like it would enjoy a bit of a refresh.

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 17, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
Your Automat might be "extra clean" cosmetically but the problems you are experiencing should tell you it is anything but clean inside. The shutter firing during wind is a tell that the camera has been used hard -- that is typically a function of wear and will likely require more than a cleaning to put back in order. Anyone can shine up a beater. That does not make it an exemplary specimen. I would sell it, or return it to the seller if possible, and buy the model you prefer.

Please see condition photos below. This doesn't appear to be a "shined up beater" that "has been used hard."

It was purchased by a housewife in the USA in 1954 and looks like it spent most of its time in a closet.

Seems more probable the original lubrication has turned gummy.

JPD · Mar 17, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
That’s the thing about a wiki: anyone can say anything in it. Find me a contemporaneous use of “3.5B” from Franke & Heidecke — from a manual or ads or whatever — or from any camera magazine from the day and I’ll eat my words.

My recollection FWIW is that some dealer in the UK marketed the 3.5 models with Tessar lenses using the F&H letter designations for the Planar/Xenotar models. (I could be wrong about that.) But the designation never entered general usage — at least, not until somebody threw it up on Wikipedia.

It’s your camera. You can call it what you want. But the old guys who still repair these cameras will get a good laugh out of it and consider you a noob.

You often sound condescending in your posts. Not sure if you mean to, but you do.

I doubt that anyone would call him a "noob" since the collector and information books and sites publish information often have their own nomenclatures to differentiate different models and variations. You are probably right about the MX "A" and MX-EVS "B" letters, since I have looked and not found the letters in F&H publications and advertisement. Letters are often used for Rolleicords as well were they don't belong. "Automat" was less used after the 2,8 models came on the market, and the 3,5 versions were called "3,5", especially after they too got Planar and Xenotar lenses.

BrianShaw · Mar 17, 2024

@rolleiflex1954 That looks like an excellent camera in terms of condition. Back in the 1980's I was sold a Rolleicord Vb that needed overhaul, especially shutter. Othewise, it was in great shape and the technician commented ont eh lack of use by pointing out that the supply spool tension spring had no evidence of wear... like yours appears to not have. At that point it really wasn't that old but old enough that time may have taken some toll on it... used or not. I'd agree that yours just in need of a good overhaul by a competent Rollei technician and you will be richly rewarded with a really nice camera in reliably operating condition.

JPD · Mar 17, 2024

rolleiflex1954 said:
Please see condition photos below. This doesn't appear to be a "shined up beater" that "has been used hard."

It was purchased by a housewife in the USA in 1954 and looks like it spent most of its time in a closet.

Seems more probable the original lubrication has turned gummy.

You won the jackpot! There are no traces of hard use. Some cameras look good cosmetically because they have been used in the case, but here even the case looks excellent. I agree that the old lubrication is probably the culprit. When it's in this excellent condition I wouldn't do any modifications to it, but just have a CLA and use it as it was meant to.

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 17, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
That’s the thing about a wiki: anyone can say anything in it. Find me a contemporaneous use of “3.5B” from Franke & Heidecke — from a manual or ads or whatever — or from any camera magazine from the day and I’ll eat my words.

My recollection FWIW is that some dealer in the UK marketed the 3.5 models with Tessar lenses using the F&H letter designations for the Planar/Xenotar models. (I could be wrong about that.) But the designation never entered general usage — at least, not until somebody threw it up on Wikipedia.

It’s your camera. You can call it what you want. But the old guys who still repair these cameras will get a good laugh out of it and consider you a noob.

@Rolleiflexible

Are you saying I need to use contemporaneous 1950s marketing names when enquiring about a CLA to avoid being laughed at by camera repairmen?

Per attached, the OEM English language Rolleiflex user manual refers to it as "Automatic Rolleiflex." Contemporaneous 1954-1956 USA advertisements (see attached) show the camera was marketed by camera shops as "Rolleiflex f/3.5 Automat." And many of the vintage ads didn't even bother using an actual image of the updated camera, instead using a photo of the prior generation model.

The dust has long since settled, and the camera community now generally refers to this model as a 3.5B MX-EVS K4B Automat. There are three iterations of EVS on this model, and mine has the first iteration of EVS coupling.

Rolleiflexible · Mar 17, 2024

rolleiflex1954 said:
@Rolleiflexible

Are you saying I need to use contemporaneous 1950s marketing names when enquiring about a CLA to avoid being laughed at by camera repairmen?

Per attached, the OEM English language Rolleiflex user manual refers to it as "Automatic Rolleiflex." Contemporaneous 1954-1956 USA advertisements (see attached) show the camera was marketed by camera shops as "Rolleiflex f/3.5 Automat." And many of the vintage ads didn't even bother using an actual image of the updated camera, instead using a photo of the prior generation model.

The dust has long since settled, and the camera community now generally refers to this model as a 3.5B MX-EVS K4B Automat. There are three iterations of EVS on this model, and mine has the first iteration of EVS coupling.

I am glad you agree that historically these cameras were not known as 3.5Bs. We disagree that they are "generally" known now by that name. None of this matters much -- it just grates when people do not respect the history and make up names decades later to describe the camera.

And I DO agree with you that the camera looks great from the outside -- thanks for the added pictures. The shutter opening on wind is a problem -- a correctable problem, but not likely a simple matter of cleaning and oiling. In your case, the problem might be one of disuse, not overuse. It can be fixed. But you are going to spend several hundred dollars on a repair bill. I still ask whether it makes sense to put the money into this camera -- even as clean as it appears to be -- when you will be left with a model that feels awkward to you.

@JPD I can't help it. It's the lawyer in me. "Often in error, never in doubt." It's an avoidable error. I will sign off and let you all carry on.

rolleiflex1954 · Mar 17, 2024

Rolleiflexible said:
I am glad you agree that historically these cameras were not known as 3.5Bs. We disagree that they are "generally" known now by that name. None of this matters much -- it just grates when people do not respect the history and make up names decades later to describe the camera.

@JPD I can't help it. It's the lawyer in me. "Often in error, never in doubt." It's an avoidable error. I will sign off and let you all carry on.

Whether we disagree is irrelevant. The number of current search results (53) returned for "Rolleiflex 3.5B" on eBay shows the camera buying/selling community is using this descriptor. And how is this not respecting the history?

Rolleiflexible · Mar 17, 2024

rolleiflex1954 said:
Whether we disagree is irrelevant. The number of current search results (53) returned for "Rolleiflex 3.5B" on eBay shows the camera buying/selling community is using this descriptor. And how is this not respecting the history?

Seriously? You are citing eBay sellers as proof? Search "Eames chair" and be amazed at all of the ugly chairs that Eames supposedly designed. Sellers are selling. They are hardly knowledgeable sources.

I will post no more here. Have fun y'all.

Rolleiflex 3.5B MX-EVS problems

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency