Rollei has a 35mm kit called a Rolleikin. Both Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords are not toys.
Pretty much every post-WWII Rollei model allows for double exposure, 'Flex or 'Cord.
The 635 Yashikor lens is a triplet while the YashicaMat Yashinon is a 4-element Tessar-type design. The 635 is a side knob wind, and you need to manually cock the shutter for each shot. No double exposure protection, but just a little attention and practice in winding handles that issue. Realize that the 635 is basically a Yashica-D with 35mm ability, so you can learn a lot about it by reading about the D, also.
Personally I'd go for a Rolleicord- budget and low weight (manual lens cocking, btw)- or Rolleiflex- lens options but cost and weight- over the Yashica. But I like the Xenar, Planar, and Xenotar lenses while lots of people get great results with the 635 and its Yashikor triplet.
The most important factor in buying a TLR is condition. I'd take a clean smooth functioning 635 over a beat up hiccuping Rolleiflex 2.8F any day. The last thing you need when traveling is the constant nag of a recalcitrant camera.
My second TLR was a Yashica 635, replacing a badly worn Minolta Autocord. I used it for weddings and portraits, but only used the 35mm adapter sparingly. The down side to 35mm was a slightly telephoto 75mm lens that wasn't what I always needed for 35. The Yashikor lens wasn't as sharp as I liked, but was adequate for the larger 120 negative. It took just a bit of practice to keep from double exposing in either format. When I made a bit of money, I traded it for a new Yashica Mat-124G.
In the last couple of years I've looked at them from a nostalgic perspective, but never had the desire to have another.
Just a personal opinion - and I know many will disagree:
If the Yashica 635 is equipped with the triplet Yashicor lens, I'd suggest you educate yourself on the implications of that type of lens before purchase.
I had a Yashica D (with that lens) and was not impressed. There was a distinct softness until stopped down to 11 or so. I think that will be even more pronounced in the greater enlargements of a 35mm frame.
I'd say the same about a Rolleicord with a triotar as well - which I have also owned.
IMO. The 4 element Tessar type lens (yashinon, xenar etc) is much more versatile - they can have a pleasant softness wide open but will sharpen up already at 5.6 or so.
A rolleiflex/rolleicord with Rolleikin will probably be the most convenient 6x6/35mm solution, although I have no idea how to do double exposure with my Rolleiflexes.
My second TLR was a Yashica 635, replacing a badly worn Minolta Autocord. I used it for weddings and portraits, but only used the 35mm adapter sparingly. The down side to 35mm was a slightly telephoto 75mm lens that wasn't what I always needed for 35. The Yashikor lens wasn't as sharp as I liked, but was adequate for the larger 120 negative. It took just a bit of practice to keep from double exposing in either format. When I made a bit of money, I traded it for a new Yashica Mat-124G.
In the last couple of years I've looked at them from a nostalgic perspective, but never had the desire to have another.
This is one of those times where the expression, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" is appropriate. I, also, really like the Rolleicord, especially the later ones like the Vb. These later Rolleicords are quite a bit better constructed than many of the cameras previously mentioned in this thread and, while defeatured in comparison to the Rolleiflex, are quite capable of doing everything you desire with quality results and reliability (if/when properly overhauled).You don’t think the Rolleicord is too weak? Have read people say it’s just a crap version of the flex. I did really enjoy using the flex so I’ll look into it.
This is one of those times where the expression, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" is appropriate. I, also, really like the Rolleicord, especially the later ones like the Vb. These later Rolleicords are quite a bit better constructed than many of the cameras previously mentioned in this thread and, while defeatured in comparison to the Rolleiflex, are quite capable of doing everything you desire with quality results and reliability (if/when properly overhauled).
+1. Recently snagged a 'Cord Vb(ii) in mint condition, and it's a wonderful camera. A little more work than the equivalent Flex, but I like that. But its optics are still tops and it's much lighter. Can't go wrong with either Cord or Flex, such brilliantly designed cameras. This from the Cord shows the sharpness of the Schneider lens. Red filter. Tri-X in Pyrocat HDView attachment 307083
On Rolleiflexes, you need to look for the serrated section at the bottom of the ring around the wind knob, with an arrow engraving. Pretty much every post-WWII Rolleiflex has this feature, but maybe the K4A is missing it? Not certain. Reading this page, it says that double exposure is not possible with the Rolleikin 35mm adapter system.
All in all, if double exposures are your thing, a Rolleicord is the best bang for the buck. Double exposures are simple, lens is great, 35mm using Rolleikin is possible (with double exposure, I am almost certain). The Rolleicord IV (4) is the first with double exposure prevention (with lever to allow double exposures). Rolleicords are not crap versions of Rolleiflexes. They are 'simpler' versions! It's the Yashicas which are the crap versions of Rolleis... oh oops, I didn't say that! (condition, condition, condition!)
('tensioning without film advance' means recocking the shutter without moving film, making double exposures possible)
View attachment 307084
Beautiful shot. And your cord can do double exposures?
This is one of those times where the expression, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" is appropriate.
Completely understand. Yes some cameras just get a bad rep. Not sure why but some people seem pretty adamant that they weren't great. Good to know others feel differently and have actually shot with them.
Personally, unless I wanted to use a film that is unavailable in 120, I would leave 35mm for 35mm cameras.
That was more likely to occur when Kodachrome was still around.
Take out that requirement, and the world of 120 TLRs expands greatly - most have double exposure capabilities built in.
I've gone the Mamiya route. At the cost of greater weight and size, I have the option of changing lenses. My two lens kit - 65mm and 135mm - fits quite nicely in a small bag. And there is room for a small OM body and lens in there too.
I think people who don’t know should keep saying the ‘cord is a crap version of a ‘flex. That way people who do know can get their hands on a great Rollei for much lower cost!You don’t think the Rolleicord is too weak? Have read people say it’s just a crap version of the flex. I did really enjoy using the flex so I’ll look into it.
Why do you want the ability to use 35 mm film for travel? You'll be stuck with a very narrow field of view when you have that loaded. I'd hate that. Whereas you can always crop 120 negatives. I'd suggest a 35 mm camera if you can carry it, that way you also have a backup.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?