Rolleiflex or RB67?

[Buche]

I'm in the market for a MF camera and am torn between a couple of choices. I'm considering an RB67 vs. a Rolleiflex Automat with a Tessar (K4A). I know that on the surface these seem like--and are--very different cameras, but as I have mainly been a 135 shooter I don't know exactly which style would be the best choice. In 135, I rarely use anything other than a 50mm lens, so the Rollei does not feel limiting to me. The Rollei is also much lighter and smaller which is nice, but not essential as most of the intended use is on a tripod, and I'm plenty capable of hauling the RB. Most of my shooting will be "intimate landscapes," i.e. not grand, sweeping vistas, but rather close subjects in fields and on dirt roads. I also intend to do some natural light portraits. I like all mechanical cameras, too. I have no interest in 645. I like both 6x6 and 6x7 equally, so that is not an issue.

I have been using an RB on loan from a friend and really like it. My only experience with TLRs has been a day out with a Yashica 124G. I thought it felt cheap and toy-like, so it is probably not a great comparison with a Rolleiflex, which I assume is much nicer mechanically. Also, is one camera better in colder weather (25-35F)?

RB67 pluses: well built, versatile, good optics, larger negs.
RB67 minuses: heavy, difficult to hand hold, more components to potentially fail, need to buy a new neg carrier and lens for enlarger.

Rolleiflex pluses: hand holdable, light, small, Tessar is sharp stopped down and nice and soft for portraits opened up a bit, I already have a 6x6 carrier and lens.
Rolleiflex minuses: not as versatile in terms of lenses, no ability to change film backs (not sure I care).

Anyone have any thoughts that might sway me?

 

[Ektagraphic]

Well, If you are doing lanscapes and don't plan to go out on daytrips carrying the camera around your neck, I would go with the RB because of the larger neg size and the RB is more versitile if you decide to do other things because you can changes lenes and even change between a waist level finder and a prism finder.....

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have both cameras, and I love them both for different reasons. Of course with the RB you can have several lens and several backs. The Rollei is great for street photography. I wish I can tell you which one you ought go with, but I can't. I won't give either one up! BTW a warm welcome to APUG.

Jeff

 

[2F/2F]

For what you describe, I say RB/RZ hands down.

I would say to use the Rollei if your primary use was different than what you said. I would recommend it for on-the-go hand held work in which close focusing and system accessories would not be an advantage.

The obvious compromise between the two would be a Mamiya C series camera. They have a good deal of the size and handling advantage of the Rollei while also having some major advantages that the RB/RZ has over the Rollei. Basically like using a Rollei, but seven focal lengths available, and bellows focusing like the RB/RZ. No interchangeable magazines, however (though a backup body would be dirt cheap), and they are heavier and bulkier than a Rollei.

 

[Laurent]

I had a Yashica mat 124 and I still own a Rolleiflex (K4B, very close to the K4A, I guess). They feel very similar to me. I finally sold the Yashica because it hadn't the same feeling as the the Rollei, but it took the same pictures, and felt almost the same (except for the ratchetty noise when winding) so if the Yashica felt like a toy to you, you might be better with a RB67.

 

[Steve Smith]

RB67 minuses: heavy, difficult to hand hold

This is a very personal thing. Some can hand hold it, some can't. I like using it hand held with the left hand grip and the waist level finder.


Steve.

 

[Ian Grant]

Buche, you make a point that you tend to use just one lens, in which case why not go for the TLR approach and then maybe add an RB67 later. I've gone back to using a couple of TLR's - a Yashicamat and a Rolleiflex, in the past 18 months and really enjoy the freedom of an easily portable MF camera (as opposed to the heavier C series Mamiya's I had late 70's/early 80's).

Ian

 

[Katier]

As Laurent said if you felt the Yashica was 'toy like' then the Rollei won't feel much different. I'm guessing the light weight of TLR's and the lack of sound when firing them (no secondary shutter or mirror movement) felt strange. FWIW the advice given above it probably right, to go for the RB, however don't discount a TLR at some point. Personally mine ( a Yashicamat LM ) is my favourite street camera as the lightness and quick shooting is ideal for this kind of work.

 

[luvcameras]

Rolleiflex Price & Info Guide to help in your decision. Buy both - they are relatively cheap ! And Rollei's by no means feel like toys !

Dead Link Removed

Dan

 

[Steve Smith]

Don't forget option 3: Both.


Steve.

 

[Toffle]

Don't forget option 3: Both.


Steve.

First rule of goverment spending... Why buy one when you can have two at twice the price?

I've never handled an RB, but I love, love, love my Rollei. Oddly enough, I don't find the square format limiting in the least. Composing square might seem odd at first, but it is really very liberating in its way. I don't think I've ever cropped an image from it...

 

[Buche]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I may give the Rolleiflex a try. I can most likely continue to use the RB on loan, and if I decide I want it, I can purchase it from my friend for $150. Anyone know if the Rolleifix is necessary or overkill, and if it fits the Automats (K4A)?

 

[jmcd]

I think the Rolleifix is important if you wind your camera while it is on a tripod, as it keeps the back from flexing and twisting. If the round base on the Rollei has a stepped notch, it will accept the Rolleifix.

Others have noted on this forum that the process of slipping the Rollei into the Rolleifix while it is attached to a tripod can lack a feeling of certainty, and you can accidentally drop your camera if you do not make certain that it is properly seated. I attach my Rolleifix to a Bogen quick release plate—I attach this pair to my Rollei, and then attach the whole rig to the tripod, and this seems like a positive method.

 

[stradibarrius]

One other MAJOR consideration, IMO, for the RB67 is the inter-changable backs. You can swap in mid roll form B&W to color, 120 to 220. I had a 124G and I know it would shoot both 120 & 220 both I could not swap in mid roll.
Tri-x is still available in 220 as is some of the good color films.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I may give the Rolleiflex a try. I can most likely continue to use the RB on loan, and if I decide I want it, I can purchase it from my friend for $150. Anyone know if the Rolleifix is necessary or overkill, and if it fits the Automats (K4A)?

If you consider the K4A you should know three things.
- It has the old speed progression (1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100,250, 500) and the 1/500 can only be dialed in or out if the shutter is unwound
- It can not be mounted on a Rolleifix provided the back hasn't been changed for an newer one
- It has a rather dim groundglass and mostly a degraded mirror
I have a K4A. It was my first Rolleiflex and I had it serviced: New back, new groundglass and new mirror. All in all I could have had a fine 2.8E for the money I had spent. So beware. Besides that it's a fine camera, giving excellent results.

Ulrich

 

[jmcd]

"One other MAJOR consideration, IMO, for the RB67 is the inter-changable backs."

An important consideration, though a pair of Rolleis will allow one to shoot more than one film type, and still makes for a relatively compact package weighing less than five pounds.

 

[jmcd]

"It can not be mounted on a Rolleifix provided the back hasn't been changed for an newer one."

I think the K4B was the first Rollei with the notched base to accept the Rolleifix.

 

[Buche]

Good info. Thanks.

 

[DanielStone]

since you are coming from shooting 35mm primarily, I'd recommend a camera that can shoot 220(if you shoot color, I don't believe any b/w emulsions are still available in 220 unfortunately, MAYBE 320TXP(TRI-X)?)

the RB is a tank, through and through. a great camera, and personally, I like the 6x7 format. if you want to hand-hold it for longish periods, I'd say HANDS DOWN, go with the Rollei. I'm 6'4", and NOT A SMALL GUY, but my RZ gets me weighted down after 20-30mins or so.

Rollei's are terrific as well, though, and are tanks themselves. Not as cheap to repair IMO as the RB's, and if you THINK you might want to change lenses from time to time, RB lenses are CCCCCCCHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!

your other option, as 2F/2F suggested, would be to look at the Mamiya C330's, they're very nice too, lighter than an rb, 6x6, but with interchangeable lenses, and closer focusing than a Rollei.

you move though. A nice, used Rollei, with a fixed lens, or a RB67/C330 with 2-3 lenses.

-Dan

 

[fotch]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I may give the Rolleiflex a try. I can most likely continue to use the RB on loan, and if I decide I want it, I can purchase it from my friend for $150. Anyone know if the Rolleifix is necessary or overkill, and if it fits the Automats (K4A)?

Wow, $150. Buy both. One to show (studio), one to go (lightweight, quick).

 

[Andy38]

Hello ; earlier MX Rolleiflex , or K4A , don't accept the Rolleifix (no notch on base) ; but later MX (K4A) , and MX-EVS , or K4B , accept it...

 

[Buche]

Well, since there have been a couple of nods toward the C220/330, how do their lenses compare to the RB or Rollei? I have seen great results with them on flickr, but sometimes there is a difference between selected shots on the internet and real life results. I have to admit that the c series tlrs bother me from an aesthetic point of view, though that should not matter at all. There is a shop in town that has a few on the shelf. Perhaps I'll give one a test run; they let me borrow cameras for a few days fairly often.

 

[2F/2F]

Their lenses are great. I have no idea how they compare to an RB or a Rollei, except to say that the lenses I have used in all three systems leave me wanting for nothing.

I absolutely love the 105 and the 180. The 55 and the 80 are great as well, but the teles really blow me away. I love their optical qualities........razor sharp, yet also smooth and delicate, and quite "3D". Hard to describe...but they have a lot of character, IMO. I have been told that the lenses for the system are Zeiss knockoffs (I don't know if this is true, however), and it makes sense looking at the images. They are perfectly technically sound, yet quite the opposite of "clinical".

...and just so you get it straight, they are great lookin' cameras!

 

[Buche]

2F/2F--How does the 105 compare to a normal 50 in 35mm? One thing I realized shooting 35mm is that longer than normal focal lengths look great, but they are not something I found useful. I always had to back up, and often did not have enough room. I think I had a nikkor 105 that was beautiful, but useless for the distances I was shooting at the time. Also, how does the brightness of the screen compare with others (RB, Blad, Rollei, etc.)? I guess I'll check at the local shop, though their cameras are always dirty and not necessarily the best examples.

"...and just so you get it straight, they are great lookin' cameras!"

You're just saying that because she's your baby!

 

[MattKing]

I'm with 2F/2F on the "great lookin' part .

I've got a 4 lens kit - 55mm, 65mm, 80mm and 135mm.

The 80mm is closest to the normal 50 in 35mm.

The 55mm is good, but a bit dim when focussing in low light.

My favourite kit is a 65mm, 135mm tandem. It is remarkably compact as well.

The viewing is different - you probably need to decide for yourself.

I've had my C330 and 80mm lens for about a 1/3 of a century . The other lenses and the C220 were acquired over the years. I've had them serviced exactly once, and that was a CLA, just in case.

Matt