Rolleiflex quality question

[TheFlyingCamera]

But it is linked to the exposure settings, right? In my mind that's the definition of a "coupled" meter. I'm just going on specs, though---my 'flex is well before the built-in meters came in.

-NT

After doing a little research, you are correct. Changing aperture or shutter speed will move the second pointer on the meter dial. On the E, you set the ASA, turn a dial until the meter indicator arms line up, then read an EV number of sorts (not sure if they're a Rollei invention or if they match standard EV numbers), then transfer that to the shutter/aperture settings. And you have to select the high or low range for the meter. The F's meter is far more sophisticated. I got confused because the meter housing on the focusing knob looks the same on the E and the F. On the GX and later models, they moved the meter reading inside the viewing hood and off of the focusing knob.

 

[ToddB]

Love talking about Rollei's.. I know what you mean about gorgous depth of field attributes. It's awesome when you can shoot something ordinary and make look like piece of art work. agian .. I'm privilaged to own two Rollei's the Tesser 3.5f and the 3.5f. Got them both worked over by Harry last year. They are the most perfect camera IMHO. Super hight quality, compact design and just a little dynmo of camera. Love it!! A year or so ago, I was looking on line at images, and every single time one I saw an awesome image it was shot with a Rolleiflex TLR. I was hooked.

ToddB

 

[ntenny]

I still have the 'cord that was my first real camera (I had a 110 p&s as a little kid), and it still measures up. I shoot the 'flex more, but every so often there are subjects or lighting conditions that are just *right* for that lens, where a Planar would be too clinical. In some respects I actually like its "user interface" better than the Rolleiflex---levers for the shutter controls, instead of the fiddly little push-to-unlock dials, for instance.

All the meters before the FX/GX are selenium, right? I'd be nervous about trusting a selenium meter of that age; I have a couple that work, but they're the exceptions by all accounts.

-NT

 

[Ian Grant]

The Rollei Magics were automatic, so coupled meters atking to the logical conclusion.

Like others I enjoy using my Rollei's and have a 3.5E Xenotar in mint condition, & I picked up a good Automat (Opton Tessar) at a flea market a few months ago - cheap because it was missing it's focus dioptre, two arrived from Japan 3 days ago (postage was 6x more than they cost ).

I don't know what is is that makes TLR's such fun to use I thought I'd grown out of them after having my Mamiyas stolen in the early 1980.s now I find I'm using them quite differently and love the square format which I'm using alongside 5x4/10x8 and 617 in my current exhibition sets.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

About the only thing magical about the RolleiMagic these days is their ability to become non-functional bricks. Because of the way they coupled the meter, and the nature of the meter itself, now, if the meter goes kaput (which happens far too frequently) you have an unusable (and unrepairable) camera. About the only thing they might be good for is cannibalizing parts to fix other non-metered Rolleis, and even then that's a crap shoot.

 

[elekm]

I have a Rollei Magic. Doesn't work (of course). And I also find it to be a bit ugly compared with the classic look of the Rolleiflex and Rolleicord.

 

[ToddB]

I saw one of those Magic model at a local antique store. They wanted 350.00 bucks!! it was in aweful condition and read later that the Magic was consumer for masses cameram all kinds of problems accociated with it. I could tell first off when I looked at it , it was cheaply constructed. I guess every company has produced a mistake.

ToddB

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Love talking about Rollei's.. I know what you mean about gorgous depth of field attributes. It's awesome when you can shoot something ordinary and make look like piece of art work. agian ..

ToddB

I agree!


Around Albany Rolleiflex3-5E3 Xenotar Plus-X Rodinal by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[TheToadMen]

Love talking about Rollei's.. I know what you mean about gorgous depth of field attributes. It's awesome when you can shoot something ordinary and make look like piece of art work. agian .. I'm privilaged to own two Rollei's the Tesser 3.5f and the 3.5f. Got them both worked over by Harry last year. They are the most perfect camera IMHO. Super hight quality, compact design and just a little dynmo of camera. Love it!! A year or so ago, I was looking on line at images, and every single time one I saw an awesome image it was shot with a Rolleiflex TLR. I was hooked.

ToddB

I know what you mean. I bought a Rolleiflex T2 in 2004. It was like new, meter working fine and came with a lot of extras: nice round model prism finder, special back for sheet film holders, 4 or 5 of these holders, inserts for 6x6 and 6x4.5 cm negatives, brown leather carrying case for WLF finder and the prism finder.
I couldn't resist, so I bought it.
However, I moved later that year and didn't have the time to use it yet. I finally laded a film recently, made some test shots to see how it opperates and if the light meter was still reliable.
It was a pleasure to use the camera and I was amazed by the quality of the images.

Reading this post today, made me wanna find out how old my camera really is.
I checked some sites and had an other surprise. It seems my camera isn't a T2 model but a T1. It has grey leather and serial number 2106651. So the guy who sold it to me was in error. It seems this one is of the first production year 1958, so almost 55 years old now.
Go figure.
I don't know if the T2 model is supposed to be the better one, but I just love my TLR all the same!

My lens is a Carl Zeiss Tessar 1:3.5 f=75 mm. The serial number is 1670170. Can anyone tell me if this could be the original lens?

 

[ToddB]

I own a T version.. It has the Fantastic Tessar lens on it. It's not Grey version which is a beautiful camera , but it's black leather version. After I got it back from Fleenor, it works like fine swiss watch. Boy does it turn heads when I'm shooting with it. It's very exciting to load it up with fim and knowing that it will perform and exeeds my expectation on image quality. I will say that light meter is kind of wonkie.

ToddB

 

[ntenny]

My lens is a Carl Zeiss Tessar 1:3.5 f=75 mm. The serial number is 1670170. Can anyone tell me if this could be the original lens?

I'm sure it is---no one ever changes the lens on a TLR, do they? It seems fantastically difficult to do the calibration properly without the original factory tooling.

The Vade Mecum says the CZJ range of serial numbers from 1953-59 was 1,100,000-2,600,000, so yours would be somewhere in the mid-1950s, quite consistent with a 1958 body. I've read that Zeiss are happy to look up the exact date in response to email.

-NT