Shopping for first TLR, a few questions

Since you plan on taking it hiking, suggest you get one that is in "user" condition. I once owned a Rolleiflex 3.5F that was so perfect that taking into the wild was stressful. I eventually sold it and bought a rough looking, but perfectly operating, Hasselblad 500C kit. I enjoy using a camera that is a bit scruffy so I don't worry about minor scuffs and scrapes.

Hawkeye said:

Since you plan on taking it hiking, suggest you get one that is in "user" condition. I once owned a Rolleiflex 3.5F that was so perfect that taking into the wild was stressful. I eventually sold it and bought a rough looking, but perfectly operating, Hasselblad 500C kit. I enjoy using a camera that is a bit scruffy so I don't worry about minor scuffs and scrapes.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but I'd only be taking it on fairly light duty day hikes, nothing rough or overnight. I'd probably use my slr in its regular holster for occasional snaps, and keep the tlr in a padded sleeve in my pack, to be dug out for special shots. If I find myself wanting to use it more aggressively I'll get a beater, but honestly hiking will be maybe 5% of its use, I think I'd rather have a clean one for everyday use.

I have an old Rollieflex Automat and an Autocord, and I've also used Rolleicords. The Rolleicords seem to be lighter than the Flexes so that would help your back a little when hiking. The lenses are more or less the same good quality Xenars and Tessars. I use the Autocord more than the Rollei because the screen is way brighter because of the fresnel. The older Rolleis have somewhat dimmer screens. In actual results, they are similar.

On another note, if a light TLR is what you really want, I would suggest you buy a beater Ricohflex or plastic bodied Argoflex first (they go for around 30-40$) before you buy a Rolleiflex so you can see if a TLR is really for you. Those two cameras are way lighter than any Rollei, Yashica or Minolta and the lenses aren't bad. In the event you realize a TLR isn't for you, you can always resell them for close to what you paid for them.

Dan Daniel said:

I'm going to disagree with this. And at the same time, for all practical purposes I have to agree with this

....

Then again, how many people are running fifteen rolls of film a day through their camera? Shooting day after day for years on end? "Flexes were built to stand up to sustained use, the kind of use a professional photographer in 1955 would give it. The odds of any one here using a TLR to that level is pretty minimal. So, for all practical purposes, the 'Cord will hold up as well as a 'Flex. Sure, the parts aren't as thick, for example, but still, it's stainless steel and you will NOT wear it out.

...

Click to expand...

A good and detailed assessment, especially the part about professional usage of Rollei/TLR cameras in todays world. I couldn't agree more with all that you wrote.

I have Yashicas (Modell D and Mat 124G), Rolleiflexes (K4X, K4A) and Rolleicords (III and Va) They all are great shooters, if they had a proper CLA. I would suggest a Rolleiflex K4A (aka Rolleiflex 3.5A aka Rolleiflex MX) with a bright screen. The Rolleicords are quite good but I have difficulties to read the scales - that`s why I prefer the Yashica D over any Rolleicord. If someone would offer me a Rolleiflex MX-EVS, I would prefer the type 2 ore 3 because the have the opportunity to switch off the EVS-system.

Karl

pagonzales said:

I have an old Rollieflex Automat and an Autocord, and I've also used Rolleicords. The Rolleicords seem to be lighter than the Flexes so that would help your back a little when hiking. The lenses are more or less the same good quality Xenars and Tessars. I use the Autocord more than the Rollei because the screen is way brighter because of the fresnel. The older Rolleis have somewhat dimmer screens. In actual results, they are similar.

On another note, if a light TLR is what you really want, I would suggest you buy a beater Ricohflex or plastic bodied Argoflex first (they go for around 30-40$) before you buy a Rolleiflex so you can see if a TLR is really for you. Those two cameras are way lighter than any Rollei, Yashica or Minolta and the lenses aren't bad. In the event you realize a TLR isn't for you, you can always resell them for close to what you paid for them.

Click to expand...

But what you don't mention about the Argoflex is it was designed for 620 film, not available today. Yes, one can fiddle around with a 120 film and re-spool onto a 620 spool, but do you think the original poster really wants to keep doing this? And from what I've read about image quality, the Argoflex isn't a patch on a pukka TLR such as a 'flex, 'Cord or any models from Yashica or Minolta.

I understand what might be a brand oriented GAS attack (been there) , please don't dismiss a YashicaMat,
simple, tough and a fine lens . ( I'm less a fan of the 124G model , Plastic lens board and lens retaining nuts ,etc),I liked them so much , I had 4 at the same time ! (I warned you about gas attacks).
Peter

As you have gathered by now, depending upon who you ask you will get differing recommendations as to which TLR to go for.

Your heart seems set on a Rollei of whichever type, but if image quality concerned you, then there would be little to differentiate a 'cord from a 'flex using the same lens, be it a Xenar or Tessar. However, a later 'flex with the Planar or Xenotar would yield superior image quality, but inevitably a 3.5E or 3.5f model will cost more.

To touch upon comments already made, the lever wind of a Rolleiflex is easier in use, and film loading is automatic. The film backing paper is fed through two rollers and attached to the take up spool, and then the back is closed. One then simply winds the lever wind until it automatically stops, at which point the film is at frame 1. In the Rolleicords, and possibly other non-Flex models, after attaching the film leader to the take up spool the film needs to be manually wound to line up a marker on the backing paper with a marker on the camera film gate, then the back is closed. From thereon, winding to the first frame is the same as on a 'Flex.

If you find one within your price range, and you've no wish to consider anything other than a Rollei, I would definitely go for a late 'Cord or any 'Flex that has interchangeable viewfinders and screens. I believe you will be somewhat disappointed in the lack of brilliance with the standard viewing screen and fitting something like a Beattie Intense screen will transform what you see.

One consideration is that a 'Cord is unlikely to have been subjected to professional use, as is more likely with a 'Flex. Also, you should try and get to handle one of each before you buy. You may find this will sway you one way or the other. A simple test, and one you should not ignore, is the lens focusing panel should move smoothly. If it feels rough, or "notchy" in any way, give the camera a miss as this is likely a good sign that the camera has suffered a substantial knock.

Mention, has already been made of Yashica and Minolta. A good YashicaMat, the original plain model without meter, and especially one fitted with a Yashinon lens, is every bit the equal of a Tessar/Xenar equipped Rollei as regards image quality. This was my introduction in 1963 to quality imaging when I purchased it new, and I still have it. Unfortunately, my comment about the professional use of a 'Flex can also apply to the YashicaMat as it was often a back up camera to the Rollei, or indeed the main camera favoured by wedding photographers. The Minolta Autocord with its Rokkor lens is equally good as regards image quality. Both of these should cost you a lot less than a Rollei.

A small note about the Mamiyaflex. The C330 is indeed a far more versatile camera than any Rollei TLR, and the 5 element Sekor f2.8/80mm is every bit as good as the equivalent Planar or Xenotar (5 element versions) but its weight mitigates its use for hiking. I've just weighed my 3.5f with waist level finder at 1220gms. My Mamiya C330S tips the scales at 1700gms.

Terry B said:

The C330 is indeed a far more versatile camera than any Rollei TLR, and the 5 element Sekor f2.8/80mm is every bit as good as the equivalent Planar or Xenotar (5 element versions) but its weight mitigates its use for hiking. I've just weighed my 3.5f with waist level finder at 1220gms. My Mamiya C330S tips the scales at 1700gms.

Click to expand...

I own a bunch of Mamiya medium format equipment - C330, 645 Pro, RB67. The C330 ends up being relatively small and light if the comparison is made between cameras when the size and weight of a couple of extra lenses is factored in.
My C330 plus two lenses (65mm and 135mm) makes for a very compact kit - just not as compact as a Rollieflex or Rolliecord.
The C220 is a slight bit smaller and lighter than the C330.

I recently purchased an MX-EVS (Tessar) in excellent condition showing very little use but the slow shutter speeds were very slow. I paid a premium price of $300 because of its wonderful condition and pristine optics. I spent another $225 on service for a total of $525, I have no regrets as the camera is both appealing to look at and a pleasure to use.

I'm not necessarily dead set on only Rollei, I just like their style, and if it's the same price... I'm definitely susceptible to GAS and when researching for purchases like this I have a tendency to go more than a little over budget (well for $50 more I can get this, but then only $100 more I can get that, etc.) I'm already catching myself doing that lol. I can't afford what I REALLY want right now (stupid vehicle repairs...) and knowing me I'll have 5 of these by this time next year if I like the first one, so I think I'm going to kill the escalation and focus on getting a budget option that I won't cry if it gets dropped while hiking or spilled on at a party. I still want decent picture quality, of course.

Looking at the Yashicas, I know everyone loves the Yashinon lenses, but how are the others? Seems like quite the price difference between a Yashinon and a Yashicor or Lumaxar. Would you consider any of the budget lenses or are they a pretty significant downgrade?

That is a very good price on the MX-EVS that you linked to, and it is a very fine camera. But, as your first foray into TLR cameras, I would recommend any of the Rolleicords with the coated Xenar lenses (III, IV, V). And invest in some bay 1 filters, and a lens hood. That way, if you do decide to move up to a Rolleiflex in the future, you will already have the accessories. There is no difference in lenses between the three models, the IV and V add flash sync and double exposure correction. Expect a brighter viewfinder with the later models, but all are certainly usable.

The Rolleiflex is certainly a more robust camera than the Cord, but this comes with added weight and complexity. As far as image quality goes, unless you choose a later Rolleiflex with a Planar or Xenotar lens, you will see no difference between the Cord and the Flex.

So many Rollei details! Pick one you think you will like and buy it. You can always sell it and buy another model, the TLR values are very stable.

I love my Rolleicord V, lightweight, great Xenar lens. The dim screen has never bothered me. I picked up an Automat K4a for a little over $100 on eBay a few years ago. It looks a little beat but it takes great pics and is a little more convenient than the 'cord. It worked fine when I bought it, after a few years the shutter got slow and it got a CLA. One feature I really like on the 'flex is the sports finder feature in the WL hood. It brings the camera to eye level without a dim, bulky prism when you want that angle. But the really cool thing is the little mirror that falls down. With a small shift of eye position you get a view of the center of the focusing screen- so you can also focus at eye level. My 'cord doesn't have this feature though it does have the sports finder. I have a 2.8D with a Planar and I used to have a C330, but I prefer to use that little lightweight Automat and 'cord. BTW, when you get one get the Rollei case as well, they do a great job of protecting the camera and the drop front makes it fast to open and shoot.

I may recommend Rolleicord V(only V) which have the focus and winde knobs on right-hand side. Xenar is very sharp.

If you are wide-open shooter get Rolleicord with triotar lens. Soft and beautiful background rendering.

* Keep the remaining money for film/paper/chemicals. Warning, prints from MF negative may stun you.

Christophoto said:

I'm not necessarily dead set on only Rollei, I just like their style, and if it's the same price... I'm definitely susceptible to GAS and when researching for purchases like this I have a tendency to go more than a little over budget (well for $50 more I can get this, but then only $100 more I can get that, etc.) I'm already catching myself doing that lol. I can't afford what I REALLY want right now (stupid vehicle repairs...) and knowing me I'll have 5 of these by this time next year if I like the first one, so I think I'm going to kill the escalation and focus on getting a budget option that I won't cry if it gets dropped while hiking or spilled on at a party. I still want decent picture quality, of course.

Looking at the Yashicas, I know everyone loves the Yashinon lenses, but how are the others? Seems like quite the price difference between a Yashinon and a Yashicor or Lumaxar. Would you consider any of the budget lenses or are they a pretty significant downgrade?

Click to expand...

Regarding the other lenses found on Yashica TLR's you will, I am sure find this link very enlightening.

http://www.yashicatlr.com/LensesShutters.html#yashinon

The comments about 3 element lenses versus 4 element is generally true of all lenses, other things being equal. The best quality 3 element lens will never beat the best quality 4 element versions. However, one needs to stipulate the circumstances under which they are used, and what will certainly be more critical with a 35mm negative, will be less so with the much larger 6x6. The best 4 element lenses will be sharper across the whole filed and will be better corrected, especially for chromatic aberration, although shooting in b/w with a 3 element lens this won't be noticeable as colour, but more a very slight softening of the image wide open but improving very well upon stopping down.

To give you two examples from my own collection of cameras where I can cite direct comparisons, and using two 16-on Super Ikonta's, one with the Novar lens, the other with the Tessar (both uncoated) and a Novar equipped Ikoflex 1c v my Yashicamat with Yashinon, both coated. All tests were carried out some years ago when I did my own d&p and when I would always test every camera I bought, either for use or to add to my collection. Film was always FP4 developed in Aculux and cameras were supported by a Benbow Mk II. As the subject matter was in my lounge and illuminated by an 11.5 ft x 6 ft window I could always replicate the shooting conditions, very useful for inter-camera comparisons.

Wide open, the Tessar and Yashinon win hands down regarding sharpness, contrast, and overall frame coverage. But stop the Novar down to f8 and the improvement in its performance is very noticeable indeed, in both the uncoated and coated versions. In a blind test now, I would be hard pressed to always pick a difference in the Novar at f8, especially the later coated version.



Interesting, I've read reports that a good 3 element lens may exhibit higher contrast, although nothing I have proved to myself.

I paid €84 for Rolleicord Va and another €225 for CLA.

I have both a Rolleicord I and III and a Rolleiflex K4A (MX) with Opton Tessar but with the added benefit of having the newer style hood and the bright fresnell screen.
A previous owner had it upgraded in the sixties.
I learned to service my cameras myself, apart from the winding mechanism in a 'flex, and I can only add to the previous statements, that these things are really built to last.
My cord I was bought by my grandfather in 1938 and it still has the old screen in it, it is really dark in the corners but useable outside in medium to bright light.
I fitted my cord III (with Xenar) with a Rick Oleson screen and I'm somewhat not dissappointed but it lacks something. I am a big fan of glass focusing screens for the way they render the picture.
It just has more texture, more life in it and the old glass screens really pop into focus. The new fresnell screen is really bright and it has a range finder wedge in the middle but it is not very flare resistant.
The glass one fares way better in this regard. But these are essentially dark in the corners. Not very good for composition.

As a user I like them both, the cords are way lighter but the Automat feature in the Automats is really nice and the crank is also very convenient.
As for the releasing mechanism in the cord, the cocking lever, which also releases the shutter is being pulled and pushed to the side while the shutter button in a flex is pushed in while the camera rests in your hand. When I first started shooting with cord I had to learn to hold the camera steady, otherwise one might risk to get blurred pictures at slower shutter speeds.
This of course is minimised on a flex.

The Xenar in my cord III is a wonderful lens, coated, and very sharp and contrasty, just the way I like it. Come to think of it, it is more contrasty than sharp.
The Triotar in my cord I has its own character, sharp when stopped down and it gives very nice pictures when opened a bit more.
The Opton Tessar in my flex has luckily not yet fallen apart (some lens elements supposedly are glued in instead of the usual manner with retaining rings and such) and it is just dead sharp.
I have a spare broken cord with Xenars in my cupboard for if and when the Opton Tessar decides to go. I'll just swap the lenses. Automats also came with Xenars.

I also have a Meopta Flexaret Automat, this also is a very nice machine but finding one that does not have to be worked on is quite difficult.
It is very well built, slightly heavier than a flex (which is heavier than a cord) and feels really solid.
Working on it though really is a bitch.
The lens quality is really good and the Belar gives you nice, sharp pictures. The screen also is quite useable but it is very tricky to clean, unlike the cords and flexes.
These cameras on the other side are very cheap. A working one really is a very good machine and can only cost you roughly 50 Euros.
These seldomly tend to pop up outside of Europe though.

So, to sum it up, yes, Rolleis are extremely well made tools, but tools that were made a long time ago. In principle perfect to work with if they are working perfectly.
Someone earlier said, just get a cord and see if you like shooting with it, if yes all is well, if not you can sell it with no loss and try and Automat or other flex.
TLRs are perfect tools, really, they are light, have the best finder system of them all (and the most impressive) and they in most parts offer very good lenses.
Have fun deciding!

That's a nice summary indeed.

Very good info indeed, thanks!

You're very welcome, that's what forums are for

guangong said:

Bite the bullet and get a working rollei e or f. These cameras are rugged and will last beyond your lifetime, even if you are now in your teens. All of the other tlr mentioned have inherent weaknesses. In 1960 I had a Minolta autocord...wonderful pics but focusing lever has a fatale flaw. Save your pennies up and get the best rollei you can afford. You will never regret it. By the way, I have dropped mine numerous times with no tragic results. In earlier days some people kept thei Rolleis in the trunk of their cars as an always ready camera...but not recommended!

Click to expand...

Well......rugged smugged

I just got my 2.8F back from Harry Fleenor, after a $400 repair, after mine took at tumble onto a wooden floor from 2 feet.
Maybe it was a "perfect storm" of various properties working together (camera set at closest focusing distance, hood was up), but the camera landed half way on the hood, then on it's back. This caused the whole lens board to be slammed into the camera so it jammed. Focus-lever didn't work any more, hood was crooked, basically it was ready for the garbage-bin.
Harry fixed it though.

But rugged? Nah....can't say that it is (I make sure that it is always in its new bag, always set at infinity-focus when not in use and so on).

I would recommend the OP to get the Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS if he can get it fairly cheap (below $400), as the optics are great and operation is smooth (if it has been serviced).

It really is a lot of Rolleiflex for very little money.
I've upgraded the focus-screen on mine, and I made a new mirror for it ^^ ( http://helino-photo.blogspot.no/2016/04/making-new-mirror-for-rolleiflex.html ) .

I also have a Yashicaflex C (early 50's I think), and even if it is cool, it is no way near as nice as the Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS and no way near as easy to use. (the optics are also pretty far behind)

Nevertheless, we are still extremely lucky to have great old mechanical cameras at an affordable price.

Terry B said:

But what you don't mention about the Argoflex is it was designed for 620 film, not available today. Yes, one can fiddle around with a 120 film and re-spool onto a 620 spool, but do you think the original poster really wants to keep doing this? And from what I've read about image quality, the Argoflex isn't a patch on a pukka TLR such as a 'flex, 'Cord or any models from Yashica or Minolta.

Click to expand...

The Argoflexes can be easily converted to use 120. Just remove the 620 cradle and glue a coin or similar thing as a spacer and you're good to shoot 120. You're right about the lens, though, the 4 element lenses from Rollei or even the triplet from a Ricohflex will beat it. I prefer to think of it as a lens with "vintage character"

I hope the OP's gotten a few leads on which camera to get. You can't go wrong with a Rollei for a TLR. Hope you find one in really good condition without need for a CLA. With patience you can get a good deal. I got my Automat and Autocord as part of a 70$ lot.

pagonzales said:

The Argoflexes can be easily converted to use 120. Just remove the 620 cradle and glue a coin or similar thing as a spacer and you're good to shoot 120. You're right about the lens, though, the 4 element lenses from Rollei or even the triplet from a Ricohflex will beat it. I prefer to think of it as a lens with "vintage character"

I hope the OP's gotten a few leads on which camera to get. You can't go wrong with a Rollei for a TLR. Hope you find one in really good condition without need for a CLA. With patience you can get a good deal. I got my Automat and Autocord as part of a 70$ lot.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the information about the DIY fix for the Argoflex. It isn't a camera with which I am familiar, but if one is happy with the "vintage character" (and nothing wrong with that) it's a neat way to keep shooting with it, and with modern film, too. Mark one up to the Argoflex!

A valid point about CLA'ing. Good cameras are out there that don't need it straight away, or one can forego a CLA sometimes. Usually, but not always, I've found that the most common mechanical issue with a TLR, or any camera using a leaf shutter, is that the slow speed train escapement is slow, or is not working. If the rest of the camera is fine, I'd still buy it as a user especially if one doesn't really have a need to use the 1 sec to 1/10th sec speeds, and assuming if it has not otherwise been abused or neglected.

I take good care of my Rolleis (a pair of 2.8E's and a Tele), but they do travel with me, regularly. I carry them with me to and from work oftentimes two or three days a week, and put at least a roll a day through them when I do. I also bring them on major trips where I'm putting 80-ish rolls through them in the span of 10 days (or less). They've been to Paris and Chalon-sur-Saone and Rome and Florence and Michigan and New York City. I've had all three of them serviced and post-servicing I've not experienced a mechanical failure. The Tele is the newest of the three, having been made around 1960. The E's were both made in 1956. Just some food for thought about durability and reliability. Regardless of which model you get, absolutely without fail you MUST get a lens hood for it. The lens coatings on them are still early designs and are not as resistant to flare as you might be used to. I use hoods on all of mine and they live on the camera - they only come off when I need to use a filter or when I have to clean the lens.