What year is this Rollei?

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
Hey guys,

This is the Rollei I'm after. Can anyone date this camera for me?

Regards, Todd
 

Attachments

  • Rollei.jpg
    58.2 KB · Views: 215

dpurdy

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
2,673
Location
Portland OR
Format
8x10 Format
Looks like a B from about 1955. I think that was the year they stopped rubber banding a box to the side.

No really it does look like a B from 1955.
 
OP
OP

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
Thanks..

The guy that is selling it is asking 325.00. It's in really good condition and everything works. Got any guesses what in the box? it's a Rollei box but he didn't time to look. Maybe lens filters?

Todd
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
You can look it up online - take the serial number and go to http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/serial_numbers.shtml . There's a pretty comprehensive chart there of which model a given camera is based on serial #. To figure out the year, this is as good a starting point as any: http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm .

That looks like a Rolleiflex 3.5, with no meter. That puts it somewhere between 1950-54. If that's not what it is, then it could be later than that, but your best starting point is the serial #. If you don't know where to find it, it should be on top of the body in front of the focusing hood, between the GBP and DBGM inscriptions.
 

vics

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
18
Format
35mm RF
I think it's an MX from 1951. I have one for sale in the RFF classifieds. You migtht compare pictures.
Vic
 
OP
OP

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
RFF Classified?

Hi there,

do you have a link to RFF classified?

Todd
 

jeffbennett

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
285
Location
SF Bay Area,
Format
Medium Format
Based on the larger focusing knob, it looks like a K4B, made from 1954-1956. If it is in first rate condition, $325 sounds like a decent deal. You could put in a brighter focus screen and have a very nice setup.

Jeff Bennett
 

JPD

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
2,155
Location
Sweden
Format
Medium Format
Yes it is a Rolleiflex 3,5 B (also called 3.5 MX-EVS in America) from 1954-55. It's the Type 1 which doesn't let you uncouple the EVS system. On the Type 2 from 1955-56 you could uncouple the EVS system.

I have one, 3,5 B, Type 1, with Tessar. Excellent camera.
 

Richard S. (rich815)

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
4,924
Location
San Francisco
Format
Multi Format
Are you certain the lens is clean and clear? Any idea when or if it's had a CLA? $325 is good assuming all is well or not if the lens has any issues and if the speeds or if the film advance has issues or needs adjustment. I've bought a few of these babies that seem fine but the film roller that starts the counter would be wonky causing some films to not start right resulting in wasted film until I got a good CLA done ($150-300 typically). If seller cannot say when a CLA was done assume it needs one.
 

Richard S. (rich815)

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
4,924
Location
San Francisco
Format
Multi Format
"He didn't have time to look in the box?". Statements like that from sellers put me in buyer-beware mode.

Price guide here:

Dead Link Removed

Unless he can tell you the serial number and answer questions as to when last servicing was this is not a screaming deal and actually could be a little pricey. But I'm one who has patiently bought Rolleiflexes for over 15 years and have found them as cheap as $150 for 2.8 Planar versions, and I've heard and seen it all (I have at least 8 Rolleiflex TLRs). Unless you can examine it closely or be certain of last service from a reputable seller, be patient.
 

Dan Daniel

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,883
Location
upstate New York
Format
Medium Format

Agreed. I love the sellers with 38,000 sales, obviously do this for a living, have sold hundreds of cameras, but 'don't know how to check if it works' or some other line. It's their living- they know exactly what they have.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
If they can't tell you if it works, then it probably doesn't. And even if they say it does, it may not work nearly as well as they claim. I had that happen to me with my 240mm Heliar. The seller said the shutter worked fine and the flash sync fired. A trip to SK Grimes and $300 later, the shutter speeds are consistent but the flash sync is still dicey.
 
OP
OP

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
Thanks guys.. He suppose to call today and I have a battery of questions ready. I dont won't a 300.00 brick. I'll diffently be ask the three question that are typical with cameras, Haze, Fungas and scatches. I'll keep you posted.

Todd
 

Frank C

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
24
Location
Oklahoma
Format
Medium Format

I have a '55 MX-EVS, on the type 1 you can uncouple by continuously holding down on the detent button in the center of the aperture wheel. Very nice camera if like me you prefer using a hand held light meter.
 
OP
OP

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
Don't mind at all. I have Sekonic 408 I use currently with my Mamiya C220.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,950
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
ToddB said:
What does EVS mean?

Todd
Click to expand...

This refers to a system where you read the exposure value ("EV") from your meter and then set that EV on the camera. Then, the aperture and shutter speed pairs that correspond to that EV remain locked together until the EV is changed.

This article is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
 
OP
OP

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
Absolutly.. If it's been setting in a junk drawer, I'll let it go like bad habit. But from the photo.. it look pretty decent.

Todd
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,970
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
I would personally not buy this camera as a serious picture taking instrument or any camera of that age unless I was prepared to spend the cost of a C.L.A. on it.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
ToddB said:
Thanks guys.. He suppose to call today and I have a battery of questions ready. I dont won't a 300.00 brick. I'll diffently be ask the three question that are typical with cameras, Haze, Fungas and scatches. I'll keep you posted.

Todd
Click to expand...

Don't stop at haze fungus and scratches. Does it focus smoothly? does the shutter fire on all settings? do the speeds at least SOUND different when fired? Is it easy or hard to change the shutter or aperture settings? Does the film advance work smoothly? Has he run a test roll through the camera to know if the frame spacing is accurate and consistent? All of those things are important. As Benjiboy just said, plan on a CLA at a minimum, and possibly some repairs as well, above and beyond what you paid for the camera when budgeting. The upside is that once done, the investment will pay for itself in the many years of enjoyment and use you'll get out of the camera.
 
OP
OP

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
Great tips on questions. Already fired an email to 'harry@rolleirepairs.com' for rough estiment for CLA. Just saw on "For Sale" a beautiful Planar version with extras on board, but a little rich for me.

Todd
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
Plan to spend $300-450 on a thorough top-to-bottom CLA/overhaul. I had my 2.8E overhauled recently at a local shop and it was $450, which included re-aligning the front lens panel because at some point in the past my camera had taken a knock to the head and the front lens bearing standard was out of whack, and you couldn't reliably focus it wide open. Once you got past f5.6 the depth of field covered you, but at f2.8, nothing was ever really as sharp as it should have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…