Rolleiflex T?

[z a n e]

Anyone own or has used one before? how does it compare to the more high end Rolleiflexes? or to the Rollei cords? I'm thinking of trading one of my cameras for the original Rolleiflex T (no light meter). Anyone have any examples from one?

 

[ToddB]

I own a black metered T model with Tesser lens. It's not as hardy as my 3.5f version. Shoot tack sharp images.

Todd

 

[summicron1]

the optics are as wonderful as on any other rollei. The T is a cheaper model, however, somewhere between a rolleicord and a rolleiflex. The chief difference is there's no "automat" feature, which is really cool and really useful.

All things being equal, go for a flex if you can, but if you want a T, by all means get one. The biggest limit on the quality of your images will be you.

 

[whlogan]

I have a couple and they are horses, so to speak. Good solid Rollei cameras. Neither of mine have ever given me any problems of any kind, look great, produce sharp images and are just "Rolleis" Not much else or needs be said about them.

Logan

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Mark Hansen repairs Rolleiflex and many other cameras. From his website:

Cameras I don't like to work On
Rolleiflex T is a reasonably good camera when compared to a Rolleicord, or Yashicamat, however, it is a solid step below the Automat, and not even comparable to a Letter model. These cameras were cheapened consumer products that were meant to be discarded when worn. Now they have the Rolleiflex name on them, and people pay well into the 400 dollar range, which is about four times what they are worth. So, when it comes to fixing them, I have to take several hours and charge 120-150 dollars for a camera that will have a useful life of maybe a few more years, and that I cannot warranty for more than a few months. In short the insides are not up to Rollei standards, they have plastic parts and you the photographer should get an Automat instead; save money, and have a lifetime camera.

http://www.zeissikonrolleirepair.com/page04.html

 

[ToddB]

Yhea.. saw that write from Hansen some time ago. I would agree that the mechanics of camera doesn't have same solid feel as the letter version, but that tessar lens in a lot of ways, are more sharp than my F. Oceanside Camera will get them going again.. I havem't had any issues with mine since I got back two year ago.

Todd

 

[zanxion72]

The T is of the best Rolleiflex cameras ever. Especially the grey ones have the best Tessar lens of any Rolleiflex. It may not be a prospec Rolleiflex TLR, but providing that it will be used in a sensible manner it will last as long as any other Rolleiflex TLR.
I have and use a T for 3 years with not a single problem (I had it CLAed though as soon as I bought it, I do this with any used camera I buy). My father has and uses his own since 1973 and it is still working perfectly (although it has a tinny amount of separation at the very edge of the taking lens). Use it carefully and it will last as long as any other Rolleiflex TLR.
It is also the best looking among the Rolleiflex TLRs.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

So Mark Hansen is lying about the T having certain plastic parts inside? Since he avidly repairs most any other Rolleiflex what would he benefit by posting this? He's obviously had issues with them. I'm sure many T's work and works fine. And when they do of course the lens is as good as any Tessar. Perhaps however the comparisons he makes are accurate and something to consider when choosing a Rolleiflex TLR.

(I see now zanzion edited his post to remove something he originally said about Mark Hansen so my post may not seem as relevant)

 

[Slixtiesix]

I´ve bought one 10 years ago, it was my first step into medium format. Unfortunately, it does not see much use anymore in favor of my SLRs, but it is a nice camera for several reasons:
1. it has the new style removable hood and screen. 2. it is comparably light, lighter than most other Rolleiflex models, 3. the lens is reasonably sharp. It is a redesiged Tessar type which is quite a step from the old pre-war Tessars the Automats did come with.
There are just some things to consider: 1. I would not pay too much. Overall, this was meant as a consumer model. Most T´s you can buy from dealers are way overpriced. I paid 150 Euro for mine back then, which was a very fair price to admit, but overall I would not pay more than 300 Eur/$ (for a camera in full working order of course). 2. you should allow for some budget to have a CLA. My shutter got slow after maybe 2 years, which is why I used the camera even less. I really should have it repaired!
By the way, the Rolleicord Vb is a good buy as well, however you need to cock the shutter separately with this one...

 

[gerafotografija]

I found a Rolleiflex T in essentially new condition this Summer, and am really happy with it so far.
Not the solid feel of a Leica M or Nikon F series (have had an M7 and an F3), but it is also light for a 120 film camera with outstanding optics and a leaf shutter that is nearly silent.

A few pics from the first roll I shot with it here: https://flic.kr/s/aHskiYpJb5

After getting used to setting exposure in terms of eV and not getting dizzy looking at a reversed L-R view on the ground glass screen, the look I'm getting out of it with FP4+ and 400TX is making me think I would really miss this camera if I lost it.

If you like film and feel the need to shoot medium format, want a relatively lightweight package, and are satisfied with a fixed high quality normal lens, why not? If it was designed by a decent engineer and the plastic is in the right places, there shouldn't be any more issues than other fully mechanical cameras in the same price range.

Cheers!

 

[zanxion72]

I´ve bought one 10 years ago, it was my first step into medium format. Unfortunately, it does not see much use anymore in favor of my SLRs, but it is a nice camera for several reasons:
1. it has the new style removable hood and screen. 2. it is comparably light, lighter than most other Rolleiflex models, 3. the lens is reasonably sharp. It is a redesiged Tessar type which is quite a step from the old pre-war Tessars the Automats did come with.
There are just some things to consider: 1. I would not pay too much. Overall, this was meant as a consumer model. Most T´s you can buy from dealers are way overpriced. I paid 150 Euro for mine back then, which was a very fair price to admit, but overall I would not pay more than 300 Eur/$ (for a camera in full working order of course). 2. you should allow for some budget to have a CLA. My shutter got slow after maybe 2 years, which is why I used the camera even less. I really should have it repaired!
By the way, the Rolleicord Vb is a good buy as well, however you need to cock the shutter separately with this one...

150 euros a reasonable price for a T! Wow, and how much would you expect to pay for say a Canon F-1, 50 euros? A T in very good condition goes well over 300 with the ones that seem to be working but look like there has been a truck over them being closer to the 300 mark. You may get lucky and find one at a "fair" price by someone not really knowing what he sells, or he pretends to so that he gets rid of a faulty one, but usually it is not like that.
Btw, the older the Rolleiflex you get, the more likely to have glass with separation. You may get something with 150 euros but it would cost you twice as much to have the separated elements fixed.
Also, any Rolleiflex camera left asside for years it will develop a sticky shutter. And this does not pertain to plastic or metal parts in the camera, but to the type of shutters they use (it has metal parts in all of them).
Fyi, the plastic parts in a T that are being reported over and over again are a couple of ones at the side of the crank. If you use it like a propeller it is most likely that you'll get it damaged. But the same will happen with any other rolleiflex sooner or later.

You could get of course a 3.5E, a 3.5F or a 2.8, but if you thing that 300 is too much for a T then...

 

[zanxion72]

So Mark Hansen is lying about the T having certain plastic parts inside? Since he avidly repairs most any other Rolleiflex what would he benefit by posting this? He's obviously had issues with them. I'm sure many T's work and works fine. And when they do of course the lens is as good as any Tessar. Perhaps however the comparisons he makes are accurate and something to consider when choosing a Rolleiflex TLR.

(I see now zanzion edited his post to remove something he originally said about Mark Hansen so my post may not seem as relevant)

Since you are going looking for it...
Nobody said that he is lying about plastic parts in Ts. Also, people tend to exaggerate the weight of that fact as if there is some plastic in something that would fail soon. Find me an A number of non working Ts and I will find you the same number and even more of automats, 2.8s and other Roleiflex cameras.
But he sells lots of crap on his web page. He may be good at repairing things, but I would never send my stuff for repair to somebody that says "I can be talked into working on the early TLR, such as the A, C, or D. But please ask me before sending the camera--I have to be in the mood to work on them." (look further down on Yashicas).
Plus, he is not the best, he is not the only one, and blahblahblah.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Zanxion, 150 Euro is what I actually paid for my T back then in full working order. It was not mint, but in nice condition with only minor superficial signs of use. However, as I stated, that was an exceptional bargain that does not happen very often. Around 300 Euro is what I recommended to pay nowadays, since I realized these camera have gone up in value. Nowhere I said that 300 Euro are overpriced! What I meant was that I regularly see these cameras for 500 Euro or more now, which IMO is way above the inherent value of this camera. The T has gained some kind of a "cult" status, but please remind that 500-600 Euro will already buy you a Rollei with a 3.5 Planar lens! These are fine cameras, but back in the heydays of Rollei they were placed somewhere between the Rolleicord and the Rolleiflex 3.5F, so their used value should be measured accordingly.

 

[Down Under]

The Rolleiflex is an entirely different mindset from today's hurdy gurdy, rush rush, immediate results attitude to quicky d-photography. Beware, tho, Rolleis can be very addictive.

If you buy a T and decide it isn't for you, nothing to stop you from selling it, very likely for what you paid for it. So no risk.


Rolleiflexes (and Contax Gs) are my favorite cameras. I bought my first (a 3.5E2) in 1966 and I still use it. My Rollei arsenal consists of two Ts, a 2.8E, and the 3.5E2, also a box of accessories. I acquired the black body Ts in the late 1970s in Australia, along with whatever Rollei bits I could afford at the time, two close ups, a few filters, a lens hood. Later added a prism. an ideal minimalist kit. Why two Ts? One for B&W, the other for color negatives.

The two Ts traveled to Asia in the 1980s, I shot heaps, sold a lot (stock). Used them for weddings in the 1990s. Put them away to play with d in 2001, but went back to them when I retired three years ago. Took them out of the bag, loaded them with film, went out and shot. Still worked perfectly.

In all the years I've owned them, one of my Ts needed a relatively minor repair to the lens setting adjustment, an inside tape broke, this was in the early 90s. A shop in Malaysia fixed it for me and did a CLA for A$50 (sigh, those were the days! quote/unquote). Otherwise I had the two cameras CLA'd in 1985 or so after several years of quite rough traveling in Asia, then checked again when I began to use them seriously for weddings, nothing was wrong with them at this later time. Since then, nyet repairs. By comparison, my Nikon DSLR, bought new in 2011, has had major servicing two times since, at hideous cost. Sure, film is more expensive than pixels, but what price reliability?

The T Tessars are not Planars, but just what does this mean? They are good lenses. Great lenses. Good contrast, fine mid tones. I have 16x20s on my walls from Rollei B&W and color negatives.

Ts are simpler cameras. No automat loading means film fewer stuff ups. Lens accessories are bayonet 1, still plentiful, not expensive. My Rolleipars (close up lenses) date to the 1940s and produce crisp images when used at f/11 or f/16. Sharp as anything.

A little known fact about the T is you can insert a 16 exposure kit, and get 16 4.5x6cm images on a 120 roll. With today's 120 film prices, this helps. Film-wise, I shoot HP5, Kodak Ektar and Ilford XP2, all ordered OL from a reliable seller in Australia. Not cheap, but affordable. Easily found in Singapore or Malaysia. there is even a photo shop in Brunei selling 120 roll film...

The prism is wonderful for ageing eyes. I paid A$200 for mine, eons ago, and have always considered it as an essential. Ebay has them, sometimes cheap.

Larger negatives mean more detail. Printing to 8x10 in the darkroom is a whiz. Even to 16x20, with a little care. Try 8x10s with 35mm negatives...

I nowadays regularly take a Rollei T kit (all in one bag) on field trips and mountain walks. Camera, prism, grip, small bits, five or ten rolls of 120 film (for 80 or 160 images). Not at all heavy. Used with care, I easily average 8/10 'keepers' with my Rollei images.

A home darkroom, or the bits and pieces to develop B&W films yourself, helps greatly and also reduces costs. Manual printing in the darkroom is somewhat slower than scanning, but much more satisfying to me, with good music and an occasional glass of beer to refresh the inner bod. In the enlarger, I can print 5x7s from sections of my Rollei negatives. Always pleased with the results.

 

[zanxion72]

Zanxion, 150 Euro is what I actually paid for my T back then in full working order. It was not mint, but in nice condition with only minor superficial signs of use. However, as I stated, that was an exceptional bargain that does not happen very often. Around 300 Euro is what I recommended to pay nowadays, since I realized these camera have gone up in value. Nowhere I said that 300 Euro are overpriced! What I meant was that I regularly see these cameras for 500 Euro or more now, which IMO is way above the inherent value of this camera. The T has gained some kind of a "cult" status, but please remind that 500-600 Euro will already buy you a Rollei with a 3.5 Planar lens! These are fine cameras, but back in the heydays of Rollei they were placed somewhere between the Rolleicord and the Rolleiflex 3.5F, so their used value should be measured accordingly.

Sorry, but for these cameras today it does not go like that. Today they are being priced proportionally to their availability, collectability and of course their state. This has nothing to do with their prices and their class back then. 500 euros is perhaps much for a T, but in the very near future that would be the most reasonable price for them when just for their CLA one should pay 250 or more.

 

[JPD]

The Rolleiflex T does have plastic tape for the shutter speed and aperture readout and that's it. They can break, but I've been on the internet for 20 years and still haven't seen a forum post fom a user who complains about broken tapes in a Rolleiflex T.

The shutter and film transport have the same quality as in any Rollei.