Rolleiflex? Rolleicord?

[Duceman]

Serial number on this is 1,131,842, which according >>Rolleiclub<< clearly falls within the range of a Rolleicord. But it clearly says "Rolleiflex" on the nameplate.

What am I missing here?

 

[BrianShaw]

Not sure about that serial number facility… but that’s a RolleiFLEX.

 

[Ian Grant]

Those Roleiclub numbers are based on what's been seen rather than factory records, so no big deal.

Anyway be glad you have a Rollieflex, Rolliecords are slower and harder to use intuitively :

Ian

 

[Duceman]

Not sure about that serial number facility… but that’s a RolleiFLEX.

Well, that's what I was thinking too... and was wondering.... are my eyes deceiving me?

Granted, I'm by no means a Rolleiflex expert, and being that they never put any model numbers on their bodies (which they weren't the only ones) makes identifying them all that much more difficult.

Anyway be glad you have a Rollieflex,

Not mine, but am considering purchasing it.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Early post-war with a Xenar? Great lenses.

 

[Laurent]

That's weird, according to the "Classic Rolleiflex " book, this number should belong to a 2.8A, and it looks like a 3,5 automat mx...

 

[shutterfinger]

From http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/automat.shtml

 

[Duceman]

Ahh... now I see where I got confused. RolleiClub site has overlapping serial number ranges for different models.

 

[gone]

That's happened to me there, but generally they're very accurate, and I never could have identified my cameras w/o them.

I think the giveaway on yours is the shutter and aperture controls being on the front of the camera. To my knowledge, none of the Rolleicords had that.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

just looked in Prochnow's Rollei Report 2...
There is this Rolleiflex model pictured and decripted as:
Rolleiflex 3,5 (K4; Prochnow PR 154/3, Xenar 3.5), made Oktober 1949 to May 1951, 35660 cameras.
From camera 1117000 prepared for Rolleikin,
from camera 1160000 new pressure plate, adjustable for 24x36.

So your camera is in this time range... sure no Rolleicord.

Great camera, btw.
Best
Jens

 

[Down Under]

Yep, it's a 'flex. An early Automat. Looks like a real veteran - from the losing side of a war.

I had one similar to this, serial number a tad lower, given to me by a friend in the 1990s. The lens wasn't color-corrected, so likely a very early postwar model. It did well with B&W film but the two rolls of Ektachrome cI shot with it were washed out (= pale colors). In due time I donated the thing to a charity shop in Melbourne and it was sold for, as I remember, about A$125. Abut 20 years later I came across the slides and scanned them, they took a bit of post processing work but the images were okay. Sharp enough, good mid tones, but then every Rollei ever made could easily produce those.

I've also always wondered why bits of the black paint finish fall or peel off the WLFs. Inferior metal available in postwar Germany?? Mine had this same 'problem' and it had also been dropped at some time in its past life, those TLRs always seemed to land on their tops and ended up with dented WLF corners.

More valuable to me was the kit of accessories that came with it. Filters, hoods, close-up lenses, a tripod mounting plate (called "the Rollei mating device" in some early photo books, an odd name?!?), even a panorama device with click stops and a spirit level, super neat if not so useful. Also a very early (ca 1950) Rolleikin with the complete back and even a built-in cutter/knife to slice the film, which I never used and couldn't figure out why it was included in the back in the first place. I still have this kit - it gets used now and then on one of my Ts and my Rolleicord Vb and it works well for something that is 70+ years old.

To go back to your Rolleiflex, from the photo you posted, unless it's entirely functional mechanically, don't pay a lot for it...

 

[BrianShaw]

Rolleifix

“the Rollei mating device”

 

[250swb]

Yes it's an Automat, a very usable camera, easy to get serviced, a dream to use, but the example from the OP looks very rough. Best avoided and get a cleaner version at least, and get that serviced if it needs it. Mostly the shutter sticks on slow speeds and the winding mechanism can get rough, no problem for a techie, but a clean camera should also come with a clean lenses and mirror. Replace the focus screen for one by Rick Oleson and you have a a great camera.

 

[JPD]

Replace the focus screen for one by Rick Oleson and you have a a great camera.

I would only do that if I had problems using the original groundglass. I would be less interested in buying a Rollei that didn't have the original screen.

 

[NB23]

I would only do that if I had problems using the original groundglass. I would be less interested in buying a Rollei that didn't have the original screen.

The original Screens are pathetical. they get so much in the way. They started to be acceptable with the removable top models, only.

I despised my 2.8E so much, just the thought if using it was tiring, and once I changed the screen for a Mamiya screen, my 2.8E suddenly became a workhorse.

Same for rolleicords.

 

[NB23]

When I used a Rolleicord in my early 20s, I had no problem with the original ground glass. I even tried cleaning the mirror which led to it becoming even more tarnished and mottled. Just used what I had and had a great time.

Now I can barely look through an original ground glass Rollei screen. I don't know how much is age and how much is expectations. Reminds me of upgrading a computer, being amazed at the speed for about a week, then it becomes the new normal and going back to the old machine is a painful slog.

Even in my 20s, jumping from a super brilliant Mamiya c220 screen to a rolleicord was a pain. Such a shame, if the rolleicords came with proper screens we’d be carrying one everywhere. Those cords are truly compact and efficient. (With a proper screen)

 

[250swb]

Even in my 20s, jumping from a super brilliant Mamiya c220 screen to a rolleicord was a pain. Such a shame, if the rolleicords came with proper screens we’d be carrying one everywhere. Those cords are truly compact and efficient. (With a proper screen)

Exactly so, it's an easy swap for a replacement screen and as if by magic the viewing screen is a stop brighter! For anybody worried ideally you don't throw away your original screen, and it's literally five minutes to put it back in when you sell the camera. As well as my Rolleiflex Automat I have a brighter Oleson screen in my Rolleicord and Minolta Autocord as well.

 

[NB23]

It's amazing that people like Robert Doisineau or Gordon Parks or Walker Evans or Imogen Cunningham could ever get a shot in focus with those unusable ground glass screens in their Rolleis (Flex or Cord, same glass just different line pattern). Yet somehow they know what I was getting at before I was even born- you make it work with what you have. And as my computer analogy said, once you get used to something better, the old seems unusable yet it is actually perfectly fine. You go to photograph with the camera you have, not the camera you wish you had.

Perfectly fine? Name dropping?

No matter the psychology behind, a shitty screen is a shitty screen. Hasselblad made its name over rolleiflex and one of the main reasons was the much better screen.

 

[NB23]

Exactly so, it's an easy swap for a replacement screen and as if by magic the viewing screen is a stop brighter! For anybody worried ideally you don't throw away your original screen, and it's literally five minutes to put it back in when you sell the camera. As well as my Rolleiflex Automat I have a brighter Oleson screen in my Rolleicord and Minolta Autocord as well.

DEFINITELY 2.5 to 3 stops difference.

 

[MattKing]

I don't know how much is age

Yours or the screen's?
I expect that if all of us had our 20 year old eyes again, we would have less trouble with older screens.
The mirrors also can age and get dirty, so one of the advantages of the newer screens may be that they offset some of the other age related issues.

 

[FotoD]

I have a brighter Oleson screen in my Rolleicord

Have been looking at those. Are they the same thickness as the org. glass, or would I have to adjust focus on the viewing lens on the Rolleicord?

It's amazing that people like Robert Doisineau or Gordon Parks or Walker Evans or Imogen Cunningham could ever get a shot in focus with those unusable ground glass screens in their Rolleis (Flex or Cord, same glass just different line pattern).

Maybe it helped a bit that they weren't using 85 year old cameras? And I thought the viewing lens on the -flex was faster than on the -cord?

 

[JPD]

When I used a Rolleicord in my early 20s, I had no problem with the original ground glass. I even tried cleaning the mirror which led to it becoming even more tarnished and mottled. Just used what I had and had a great time.

Now I can barely look through an original ground glass Rollei screen. I don't know how much is age and how much is expectations. Reminds me of upgrading a computer, being amazed at the speed for about a week, then it becomes the new normal and going back to the old machine is a painful slog.

I have difficulties using the Rolleiflex Standard cameras due to their dark screens and low-geared focusing, and it got worse with age. I replaced the screen in one of them with a fresnel one for the GX but it felt wrong since I was also a collector, so I removed and sold the GX screen. I prefer my Rolleis to be as original as possible, but I can certainly understand why a lot of people want brighter screens. My advice would be that if you replace the screen with a non-original one, keep the old one and let it go with the camera if you sell it.

 

[250swb]

Have been looking at those. Are they the same thickness as the org. glass, or would I have to adjust focus on the viewing lens on the Rolleicord?
?

They are the same thickness although the original screen may itself have been shimmed at the factory (can't remember which models this applies to). Although there are instructions where appropriate on how to test and shim a new screen I haven't needed to on any of my three cameras. You definitely don't need to adjust the viewing lens.

 

[FotoD]

In real life, once you get a single screen on its own and in the field, you will figure out how to work with it. A functioning human sensory system is amazingly adaptable.

If all you are going to shoot is pictures of the sofa in your livingroom, like in that test, that may be true. But "real life" means different things to different photographers.

When the light from the sky above reflects in your TLR ground glass, it doesn't matter how much your eyes adapt. It's the absolute light levels on the ground glass that matters.

 

[NB23]

I sent my Rolleiflex 2.8F to Fleenor shortly after acquiring it here on Photrio. But not before I exposed two rolls of Delta 100 with it. The camera has the original screen, whatever 2.8Fs came with from the factory. I compared it side by side with the Oleson screen on my Bronica GS-1 and it was a tiny bit darker in the corners, only noticeable with two side-by-side. I do not remember any difficulties focusing with both, and they all feel in the "same league" - 2.8F, Oleson and Mamiya C330s factory screen. The Hasselblad's Acute mate D is a different league brightness-wise, but also a step down in terms of depth - it requires more concentration to nail focus.

Do 2.8F cameras have a better factory screen, or it's just me and I haven't spent enough time with the 2.8F's screen?

Reading you all make me feel a bit worried, perhaps I should order a Maxwell screen and ship it to Fleenor so he'll adjust the focus while he has my camera...

The screens from the “removable Top Rolleiflexes” are very good. The “removable top” rolleiflexes are the F line and later, and the latest Rolleicord.

All the cameras below that (think 2.8E, 3.5E, rolleicords...) have the shittiest screen in mankind. Your 2.8F is fine.