Rollei Camera Related Postings

Rollei Camera Related Postings

Related Links:

Postings:

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:19:49 -0300 From: Mario Nagano To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Bay 1, 2 &3 Paul M. Anton wrote: > The bayonet sizing has to do with the lens. Bayonet I fits Rolleicord, and some of > the early Rolleiflexes, II fits the 3.5 Rolleiflex, and III fits the 2.8. > This is an oversimplification since there is some variance to this rule in the early > cameras. Yep, another way to relate the correct bayonet size with the camera model, is observing the lens type: Bay I was adopted on Rolleiflex with 75mm/f3,5 Tessar or Xenar lens. Bay II was adopted on Rolleiflex with 75mm/f3,5 Planar or Xenotar lens. Bay III was adopted on Rolleiflex with 80mm/f2.8 Planar or Xenotar lens. I'm not certain about wich bay was used on early Rolleifex 2.8 equiped with 80mm/f2,8 Tessar or 80mm/f2.8 Biometar(?). Regards,

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:29:56 -0500 From: Matthew Phillips To: [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] Re: Rollei Bay 1, 2 and 3 The 80mm f/2.8 Tessar (on the 2.8A) accepts a variant of the Bay II size. The 80mm 2.8 Biometar (2.8B), Bay III. Unlike other Xenar equipped Rolleis that take Bay I accessories, the 75mm f/3.5 Xenar found on the Rollei Magic and Rollei Magic II takes Bay II, due to its front cell focusing lenses. Regards, M.Phillips

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6000 series lenses, backs

>A couple questions regarding the 6000 series Rollei: > >Rollei's literature list the range of Zeiss lenses for this series as >manufactured by Rollei under license. Does Rollei have a similar >arrangement with Schneider? Are the Schneider lenses made by Rollei >license, or do they come from Schneider's own assembly lines? >

Rollei only has license to produce some lenses designed by Zeiss. So far as I know this is only the 50 mm f/4, 80 mm f/2.8 and 150 mm f/4. Someone once told me that there were some Rollei-built 250s, but I've never seen one. The rest of the Zeiss lenses in Rollei mount are made by Zeiss. Lenses made by Rollei are clearly marked as such.
Rollei does not have a license to build any Schneider lenses.

>The 6003 come with a simple back without a darkslide, but can be fitted >with backs from the 6006, 6008 and 6001 cameras. The back used by the 6003 >is quite a bit shallower front-to-back than the 6008 back; do these (6003) >backs fit the 6008 and 6001, for times when users of those cameras might >want to carry a more compact package? >

No, the 6003 back is a one-way design. Instructions for the 6008i and 6001 stress that they are not to be used. As I read from the manual it seems to be saying that they will fit, but will not hold the film flat.
Bob

Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998
From: Charles Babington [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleicord III f/stop adjustment/brighter screen

> Does anyone know if there is a brighter focusing screen I can get for my > Rolleicord?

I put a Maxwell screen in my Rolleiflex 2.8 and love it. It's BRIGHT and bright to the corners. Makes a tremendous difference in both focusing and composing (mine has the optional split image for help in focusing, and the optional grid for help in composing.) Give Bill Maxwell a call at 404-244-0095. He's delightful to talk to, and can give you an idea of prices and installation considerations.
Cheers,
Kip Babington

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Original (1928 - 1930?)
The Rolleiflex TLR prototypes were relased in 1928 and given to dealers and photographers whose feedback was used in the final design for serial production. This model used #117 roll film (a.k.a. B1 film in Germany) producing six 6 x 6cm exposures. This model was fitted with a Compur shutter built by Friedrich Deckel of Munich, capable of speeds from 1 to 1/300 sec and fitted with a 75mm F4.5 Zeiss Tessar taking lens, along with a faster F3.1 viewing lens made by O.A.S. (Optische Anstalt of Saalfeld).
The first Rolleiflex models produced in 1929 had reduced image viewfinders, 75mm F3.8 Tessar taking lens, and F3.1 viewing lens. These used B2 film, (aka 120) which provided for 12-exposures. The Rolleiflex Standard was a design introduced in 1932. This camera used a film advancing crank that was introduced on the 4 x 4cm Rolleiflex. In addition this 6x6cm TLR TLR offered a choice of taking lenses, a F4.5 or the faster F3.8 Zeiss Tessar. The camera also had a newly designed viewfinder and a shutter with B and T settings (bulb and time exposures). It was designed to use the very popular B2 film (120) and provided 12 exposures versus 6 with B1 (117) film.
Peter K

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998
From: George Hartzell [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Compare/contrast the 6008 Pro/SRC1000/Integral?
Hi,
I'm trying to understand the 600x line.
Here's what I understand:
The 6001 is a new no-meter entry level body w/ mid-roll interchangable backs.
The 6006 is an older no-meter body.
The 6003 is a metered body which comes with a detachable but not mid-roll interchangeable back. Can be upgraded w/ 6008 backs.
The 6008 Pro is two versions old, it has a max shutter speed of 1/500 and has occasional film advance/spacing problems.
The 6008SRC is one version old.
The 6008i is the current version. It has a top shutter speed (w/ PQS lenses) of 1/1000, has an improved film advance system, and can take the Master Control Unit.
I'd appreciate any other information the folks can offer about the 6008 and 6003 models, good/bad stories, gotcha's, etc....
I'm still trying to decide how I see myself using the body, so I'm not sure what features are important to me (aka I might grow into) but having the info at hand will be useful.
g.

Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] rollei List Digest V1 #875
As the strap fitting for the GX is different than the strap fitting for any earlier Rollei TLR the GX will only fit a case made for it.
But the GX has had 2 different strap attachment methods with the strap attachment points located in 2 different places.
The original GX used the SL66 strap and had the strap lugs located on the rear sides of the camera. The later GX models use the 6008 strap connector and have the strap lugs located toward the middle of the sides.
A case for the early GX models will not fit the later ones.
Which GX do you have?
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, GO Light, Heliopan, HP Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock,Sirostar 2000

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998
From: Evan J Dong [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re:[Rollei] Schneider Versus Zeiss: Element Breakdown
Brian, Jim, and others,
Thanks for the information regarding the Schneider lenses that are the equivalent of the Zeiss version.
The following information was obtained from a catalog that Schneider Optics sent to me on the Exakta 66 lenses. Judging from the response that I received, they are the same optical formula used in the Rollei 6000 series system. I'm not an optical engineer and I do not know if having one less or one more lense elements does for the optical performance of a lense. I will however post the information here, and hopefully someone out here can explain the optical performance just on the amount of lense elements used. I could not get a MTF chart for the either the Rollei nor the Schneider lenses, but do assume that it exist.
Regarding my Rollei system, I will probably get the 50mmF4.0 Zeiss, 60mmF3.5 Curtagon, 80mmF2.8 Xenotar, 120mmF4.0 Zeiss, 150mmF4.0 Tele-Xenar. As to the 180mmF2.8 Tele-Xenar, I will have to debate having that lense or the 150mmF4.0 Tele-Xenar. First thing I have to do is sell my existing Hasselblad system.
Here are the specs for the:
The Schneider Lenses Rollei Equivalent Lenses
1. 60mm 3.5 Curtagon 7 in 7 elements 60mm3.5 Distagon 7 in 7 elements
2. 80mm 2.8 Xenotar 7 in 6 elements 80mm2.8 Planar 7 in 5 elements
3. 150mm 4.0 Tele-Xenar 5 in 5 elements 150mm4.0 Sonnar 5 in 3 elements
4. 250mm 5.6 Tele-Xenar 5 in 4 elements 250mm5.6 Sonnar 4 in 3 elements
With the exception of the 250mm5.6 Tele-Xenar (made for the Exakta 66 only) the differences are by one element or two in some case. What does this do for the optical performance and image solution of theses lenses?
Thanks in advance,
Evan Dong

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re:[Rollei] Schneider Versus Zeiss: Element Breakdown
Evan,
The raw number of elements doesn't mean much.
Besides, I have found that the specifications supplied by Rollei and Hasselblad say different things about lenses that I know are absolutely identical optically. I ran into this when compiling the charts on MF lenses for the new Shutterbug buying guide. Sometimes the Hasselblad specs gave one more or one less element.
Bob

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Schneider Equivalent Versus Zeiss Version
...
During the time when Rollei was belonging to Schneider, i.e. before the sale of Rollei to Samsung, also the optics of the Zeiss lenses "Made by Rollei" were made by Schneider. Anyway, it was much cheaper at that time for Schneider to make own lenses without paying license fee at Zeiss. After the the Samsung deal, Rollei had to pay more to Schneider for the Schneider lenses. So now they decided to transfer the production also of the Zeiss lenses back to Rollei.
Greetings
Dirk

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998
From: Wilf / Katrina [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Weird 6008i problem
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Bob Shell wrote:

> I'm having my own weird 6008i probem at the moment. I was in the studio > yesterday shooting Christmas boxes for our December cover, and was planning > to shoot them on 645 vertical to better match the layout and get more > exposures per roll. I noticed when I got ready to shoot that the LCD > display on the 645 magazine was all zeros. I loaded film into it and fired > the damned thing still won't advance the film. After wasting a lot of time > futzing with it and getting nowhere, I just slapped a 6 X 6 magazine on the > camera and shot everything square.

Never used the 645 back before but had problems with the 6X6 back. The meter won't work properly. Turns out there was dirt/oil on the contacts between body and back. Some alcohol (rubbing type) and cotton swab cleared up the problem. Some say pencil eraser will do the same job.
regards,
WL

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999
From: "Lehman John A." [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Rolleiflex T for sale
For Sale, Black 'T' with case, cap, meter, manual, 16-exposure fitting. A late model 1 (with adjustable pressure plate). Camera is clean except slight brassing on takeup spool button, some wear on top of nameplate, and leather scuffed on takeup knob. Meter works in bright light but not in dim. Case has some scuffs -- one reason the camera is clean :-) and some bad thread. Scale is in meters. Shutter speeds test accurate with an electronic tester. $300 or best reasonable offer.
The following are my lens test results with an Edmond Scientific USAF chart, Ilford Pan F+ and PMK:

f stop Ctr Edge 3.5 66 42 5.6 84 42 8 94 42 11 75 59 16 75 59 22 66 59

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Prochnow Rollei Reports
To date, there are four of them:
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 1: Franke & Heidecke Die ersten 25 Jahre. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1993. ISBN: 3-89506-105-0.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 2: Rollei-Werke Rollfilmkameras 1946 bis 1981. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1995. ISBN: 3-89506-118-2.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 3: Rollei-Werke Rollei Fototechnic 1960 bis 1995. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1995. ISBN: 3-89506-141-7.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 4: Rollei-werke rollei Fototechnic 1958 bis 1998. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1997. ISBN: 3-89506-170-0.
Plus:
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Technical Report. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1996. ISBN: 3-89506-156-5.
Prochnow, Claus. Rollei 35, Eine Kamera-Geschichte. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemann's Verlag, 1998. ISBN: 3-930292-10-6
Marc
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999
From: "Thomas A. Frank" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: what's the "Club Rollei newsletter
Sorry I didn't respond sooner - I just noticed the subject!
Club Rollei is the real world (as opposed to the virtual world) organization for people who own, collect, and use Rollei's.
The club was founded and is still run by Ian Parker (the author of most of the nice books on Rollei's you see around).
Postal Address:

Club Rollei Jersey Photographic Museum Hotel De France St. Saviour Road Jersey JE1 7PX Channel Islands UK

email is:
[email protected]
There is a periodic newsletter; they run auctions that are pretty much members only (the list is in the newsletter :-)), which is a great way to acquire additional equipment; they do have available some new and used equipment from time to time; there is a special model TLR that was done just for Club Rollei; they have "spies" at the factory who regularly let slip news of new models (although since the Samsung deal things have been a little less positive in this area); a yearly photo contest; basically all the good things you would expect from a camera marquee club.
Overall, a nice organization to belong to. 26 GBP per year in the US. (don't forget the $1.70 conversion factor).
I predict that as Rollei goes down the path they presently upon, Club Rollei will become an even more important resource, because I hold out little hope that Rollei will survive as we know it (or should I say, like to think of it). If the last sentence gets me flamed, so be it, but based on what I see them doing with their new "D" series (a digital camera, for those of you who haven't read about it), they are doomed. The design is foolish, and they don't even realize what they've done wrong. I sent a lengthy letter to Mr. Parker about this, which was actually presented to Wolfgang Sass at one of the Club meetings for his comment. I gather he was less than pleased...but based on his response (which was in the magazine), I wasn't reassured...for those of you who aren't members, I basically suggested they had completely screwed up the design of the "D"; Mr. Sass replied that I was wrong because I based my opinion on a false premise - which would be nice, but I was quoting Rollei's ad in the latest issue of the newsletter!
Not a good sign...
Oh well, I wasn't planning on going beyond the TLR and 35S anyway...

Tom Frank Thomas A. Frank (KA2CDK) 40 Swan Drive Middletown, RI 02842 United States of America email: [email protected] tel: 1-401-849-3974 Club Rollei #11023

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
From: Jan Buttcher [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zeiss Vs Rolleinars
Rolleinars
- All made in Japan except for exceptions
- All are 3 pin except for the exceptions
- Some were available in Voigtl�nder livery as well there are at least:

3.5/14 fisheye 4/21 2.8/28 (two versions MC (Mamiya) and HFT (Tokina)) 2.8/35 ("Made in Japan" and "Made in Singapore") 2/50 3.5/50 Macro 1.4/55 ("Made in Japan" and "Made in Germany") 2.8/85 2.8/105 (MC and HFT Macro lens (Kiro/Vivitar klone)) 2.8/135 ("Made in Japan" and "Made in Singapore") 3.5/200 5.6/400 (2 pin) 8/500 mirror (second pin, but no first pin) The Zooms I'll have to correct some time later due top poor memory: 28-80 fat 28-80 (Signma lens) 28-105 (Kiron/Vivitar) 35-100 fat 35-100 slim 50-250 70-210 Apo (Sigma) 4/80-200 (MC (Mamiya) and HFT (Tokina)) 2.8/80-200 (Tokina) Zeiss 3.5/15 Distagon 2.8/16 F-Distagon fisheye 4/18 Distagon 2.8/25 Distagon 2.8/35 Distagon 1.4/35 Distagon 1.8/50 Planar 1.4/50 Planar 2.8/60 Macro Planar 1.4/85 Planar 2.8/85 Sonnar 4/135 Tele-Tessar 2.8/135 Sonnar 4/200 Tele Tessar 4.5/500 Mirotar 5.6/100 Mitrotar 8/1000 Tele Tessar some of the Zeiss lenses were made by Rollei as well. Schneider (all 1 pin except 4/35 and 2.8/28 no pin) 2.8/35 Curtagon 4/35 PA-lens 2.8/28 PA-lens 1.8/50 Xenon 3.5/135 Tele-Xenar

Jan

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
From: Jan Buttcher [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zeiss Vs Rolleinars
Sorry, I have to apologize!
The Schneider 2.8/35 is an SL-Angulon (not a Curtagon!), (maybe the Schneider 4/35 is a Curtagon?).
Oh, and I forgot: Yes, Javier, it does feel better using the Zeiss lenses than the Rolleinars or even third party lenses (like Sigma or Danubia or Makinon or ...). With some of the old Zeiss (1 pin and 2 pin with metal rings) lenses the grease will "freeze" in cold conditions, this is unlikely to happen with the Schneider lenses or newer lenses.
With some lenses you'll fight "stuck" diaphragm blades: 2.8/135 Rolleinar (oil seeping from the focusing helical into the iris) 2.8/60 Macro Planar and "slim" 35-100: lose ring in bearing You'll fight oil and the like on the inside of the lenses in 3.5/200 and 4/80-200MC and 2.8/80-200 some day as well.
Some day you'll discover fungus on the rear lenses in the 3.5/200, and some time you will find a 4/200 with lose lenses (in the front end) that are rather easy to fix for a guy like you).
Maybe you encounter a 1.4/85 with diaphragm permanently closed to approximately f16,
But in the end you'll love 'em all!
Jan
Javier Perez schrieb:

> Hi Again > Now that I'm getting more seriously into Rollei 35 stuff > I was wondering if the Zeiss lenses are worth the extra > money and trouble in finding them. Also are there any > preferred Rolleinars worth looking for? > Thanks > Javier

FRom Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
From: Jan Buttcher [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zeiss Vs Rolleinars
Um eh, I think I'll have to excuse again for omitting the 2.0/28mm Distagon in the list of the QBM-lenses ... must be the age or B�ttchersheimer creeping up on me.
Then there are the Rolleinar EL (enlarger lenses 3.5/50 an 4.something/75 I believe) with M39 thread that you could use on your bellows with an M39 adaptor...
And to answer your question "lenses / Rolleinars to go for":

3.5/50 Macro (nice an rare) 2.8/105 HFT Macro (really nice to use and rare) 2.8/80-200 (sexy and nice to look through!) 70-210 Apo (usefull and versatile) 28-80 the Sigma one (usefull!)

In general: the fixed focal length Rolleinars are all ok, with the zooms, one could do without the old "fat" versions, there is no use in getting the 50-250 (rather crummy), and the 4/80-200HFT outperforms the 4/80-200MC (and has closer focusing 1m HFT but 2m the MC!). The 28-105 will be easily outperformed by any fixed focal length lens, so the only reason to get it is to have your collection complete.
Zeiss lenses to go for: all. Except, that you could live without the 2.8/35 as long as you have the 1.4/35 and without the 4/135 as long as you have any 135 and there is no need to get the 4/200.
Jan
Javier Perez schrieb:

> Hi Again > Now that I'm getting more seriously into Rollei 35 stuff > I was wondering if the Zeiss lenses are worth the extra > money and trouble in finding them. Also are there any > preferred Rolleinars worth looking for? > Thanks > Javier

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] QBM LENSES: Yabe and All the Rest!

Per Prochnow: Manufactured by Zeiss: 3.5/15 Distagon 2.8/16 F-Distagon 4/18 Distagon 2.8/25 Distagon 2/28 Distagon 1.4/35 Distagon 2.8/35 Distagon 1.8/50 Planar (also under "Opton" brand) 1.4/50 Planar (also under "Opton" brand) 2.8/60 S-Planar 1.4/85 Planar 2.8/85 Sonnar 2.8/135 Sonnar 4/135 Tele-Tessar 4/200 Tele-Tessar 4.5/500 Mirotar 8/1000 Tele-Tessar 5.6/1000 Mirotar

Designed by Zeiss but built by Rollei either in Singapore or Braunschweig:
(note: some of these were also offered in M42 but I'll look that up some other time!)

2.8/25 Distagon 2.8/35 Distagon (also as Voigtlander Color-Skoparex and as 'Ifbagon') 1.8/50 Planar (also as Voigtlander Color-Ultron) 1.4/50 Planar 2.8/85 Sonnar (also as Voigtlander Color-Dynarex) 2.8/135 Sonnar (also as Voigtlander Color-Dynarex) 4/135 Tele-Tessar (also as Voigtlander Color-Skoparex) 4/200 Tele-Tessar (also as Voigtlander Color-Dynarex) Manufactured by Rollei: Night Observation Device RF 900 Modular Night Observation Device RF 100 Night Vision System SL 2000F Manufactured by Joseph Schneider Kreuznach: 2.8/28 PC-Super-Angulon 2.8/35 Angulon 4/35 PC-Curtagon 1.8/50 Xenon 3.5/135 Tele-Xenar Manufactured by Mamiya: 3.5/14 Fish-Eye Mamiya-Sekor (also as the Voigtlander Color F-Skoparex AR) 4/21 Super-Wide-Angle Mamiya-Sekor (also as the Voigtlander Color Skoparex AR) 2.8/28 Wide-Angle Mamiya-Sekor (two different versions) (also as the Voigtlander Color Skoparex AR) 2.8/35 Wide-Angle Mamiya-Sekor (also as the Voigtlander Color Skoparex AR) 3.5/50 Makro Mamiya-Sekor 2/50 Mamiya Sekor (also as the Voigtander Color Ultron AR) 1.4/55 Mamiya-Sekor (also as the Voigtlander Color Ultron AR) 2.8/85 Mamiya-Sekor (also as the Voigtlander Color Dynarex AR) 2.8/105 Mamiya-Sekor (also as the Voigtlander Color Dynarex AR) 2.8/135 Mamiya-Sekor (also as the Voigtlander Color Dynarex AR) 3.5/200 Mamiya-Sekor (also as the Voigtlander Color Dynarex AR) 4/80-200 Mamiya Zoom Manufactured by Kiron: 2.8/105 Kiron 3.2-4.5/28-105 Kiron Zoom Manufactured by Sigma: 3.5-4.5/28-80 Sigma Zoom 3.5-4.5/70-210 Sigma Apo Zoom Manufactured by Tokina: 5.6/400 Tokina (also as the Voigtlander Color Dynarex AR) 8/500 Tokina Mirror Lens (also as the Voigtlander Reflex Dynar AR) 4/28-85 Tokina Zoom Objective (also as the Voigtlander Vario-Skoparex AR) 3.5-4.3/35-105 Tokina SMZ Zoom (also as the Voigtlander Vario-Dynar-AR Macro) 4/80-200 Tokina Zoom (also as the Voigtlander Vario-Dynar AR) 4-5.6/50-250 Tokina Zoom AT-X 2.8/80-200 Tokina Zoom AT-X

Manufactured by Yabe:
2X Tele-Converter
Marc
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Fundamental WL Finder and magnifier question
A special tip for Rollei TLR use of the magnifier.
Normally, you raise the camera from the hip or stomach position to yor eye to watch the screen and the split image range finder with the magnifier.
But it - surprisingly - works also very well to keep the camera at stomach or hip position and watch the split image through the magnifier from distance. So you can focos easily without changing camera postion.
Dirk

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000
From: Jan A. Bottcher [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei literature
Shannon (and Siu),
the Rollei Report by Claus Prochnow is a set of (currently) 5 books (text in German, but lots of technical stuff easily translated and lots of B&W pics):
Rollei Report 1 (Heidoscopes, Rolleidoscopes and pre war Rolleiflexes and accessories)
Rollei Report 2 (Post war (WW II that is) TLRs and SL66)
Rollei Report 3 (Rollei 16, A26&SL26, 35 SL 35 to 3003)
Rollei Report 4 (Lenses for 35mm SLRs, 2.8GX series, flashes, binos and slide projectors) (Rollei Report 5 not yet available, will deal with the SLX to 6008 series)
Rollei technical Report (text in German and English) includes Rolleidoscope, TLR, Rollei 35, SL 26 and SL 35 repair manuals/advice
The mini Reports show one item per page (and Hr. Prochnow's price - guesstimate) and leave some room for your notes, so you can keep 'em in your pocket when hunting at camera trade shows.
And you could get "Rollei 35 eine Kamera Geschichte" (for Rollei 35 lovers including color pics).
I can't recommend a particular one, just get the Report(s) that covers "your" camera(s). I did not buy any of the mini-Reports. They are just subsets of the big ones plus price- estimates that do not match my experience.
I think just a few days ago a friend posted how to mail order the books via the internet.
Jan

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000
From: todd [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] New member - and a question
Here you are Roger,

The GX has full and half stop clicks. The GX requires a battery. The GX has minimal internal baffling in the lens chamber. The GX's film knobs will not lock in the "out" position. The GX's back will not remove-easily. The GX does not have the mirror or lens in the waist level finder to view focus for the sport finder. The GX has a different neck strap system The GX has numbers and letters that are painted on rather than etched into the metal. i.e. the distance scales on the focus knob. The GX does not have a flash sych cord lock. The GX's meter is centre weighted - a wide spot meter covering a bit over the central microprism area. The GX requires that filters be applied to the viewfinder bayonet to determine the compensation factor for the meter if the filter factor is not known. The GX has only X synch. The GX does not feel like an F. Although a very high precision camera, it does not have the same silky smoothness overall that characterizes the F and previous Rolleiflexes. Todd

A while back Todd, of this list made a feature by feature comparison of these 2 cameras which was enlightening. Unfortunately I now longer have it - perhaps Todd still has it. Hopefully he could review that again.
I guess the bottom line might be the personal preference of the individual
photographer.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000
From: "Roger M. Wiser" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] For Sale
22 inch by 32 inch - copy of exploded print view of Rolleiflex 35 F, with parts aand showing parts numbers..
$5 plus 3.20 priority mail.
Roger
contact me direct - [email protected]

[Ed. note Congrats to E. Bigler in creating this useful resource(s)!!!]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Newbie - help me select an old Rolleiflex or Rolliecord TLR
Please find attached
1) my personal summary about Rollei TLRs.
2)a RUG FAQ document recently released that will help you in your research.
Happy New Year
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected] Besancon France

I'd like to add a short summary to the different Rollei TLR grades, those regularly built in the '60s and '70s (last models except some crazy gold plated models made afterwards in the '80s).
Most affordable : Rolleicord, (last model VB). Taking lens Schneider Xenar 3.5, 4 elements/3 groups, tessar design. No crank, no display of speed/aperture on top but only on side of taking lens. Speed/aperture setting directly on the Compur shutter with a lever like for a view camera. Optional film masks for 16 4.5x6 frames. Filter bayonet size I.
Slightly more expensive : T model. Zeiss tessar 3.5. Folding crank but no double exposure, not automatic feeling of the beginning of film, optional non coupled meter. Speed/aperture setting directly on the Compur shutter with a lever like the 'cord. Speed and aperture visible from top trough a belt mechanism. Optional film masks for 16 4.5x6 frames. Filter bayonet size I.
3.5 E or 2.8 E optional non coupled meter like in T but otherwise settings with 2 wheels in front like F models. Display visible from top trough a gear mechanism like in Fs.
3.5 F coupled meter, all deluxe features. Zeiss planar 3.5 or Schneider Xenotar 3.5. Filter bayonet size II. Rock-solid but significantly heavier than a 'cord or a T. Planar or Xenotar (5 or 6 element lenses) are better than a tessar/xenar only a wide apertures f/3.5 to f/5.6. Beyond, at f/8 of f/11, a good tessar/xenar will perform as well as any planar or xenotar.
2.8 F same but with 2.8 Planar or Xenotar. Filter bayonet size III.
Some people tend to prefer the 3.5 supposed to by slightly sharper than the 2.8. The subject is *very controversial* among Ruggers. But this is part of the Rolleiflex myth : a subtle mixture of true, proven, technical facts and subjective user feelings and dreams.
2.8 GX : body basically like a T i.e. not automatic rollers-feeders for the beginning of film, but control wheels and speed/aperture mechanical display through a geared display visible from top like a F. Built-in TTL light and flash meter, but since the shutter is mechanical (like a Rollei 35) can operate without battery if yo have a hand-held meter. Filter bayonet size III. Some conservative people do not like it as being "decadent" with respect to the F from the "Golden Ages". A really hot topic among Ruggers. And also, supreme sacrilege, the last models are fitted with a Japanese shutter instead of the beloved German Synchro-Compur. So one the aperture wheel turns in the opposite direction with respect to an early 2.8GX of a classical E or F.
Cameras with Zeiss lenses are sold at a higher price than a Schneider. This is not at all justified to my humble opinion. So a Schneider-equipped R-TLR is a good user choice. The optional 120/220 option is for me useless. As an amateur I only use 120 rollfilm. Some F's were fitted with a glass plane to flatten the film. Useless also because the expected gain in film flatness is from a user point of view destroyed by the burden of keeping this glass spotless clean.
A R-TLR always kept in its original leather ever-ready case looks always prettier than one always kept without protection. Unfortunately most pros in the old times never used the ever ready case to save time on assignment.
As far as filters and accessories are concerned, original Rollei accessories are easy to find on the second hand market. Bayonet III accessories are still made by Rollei for the 2.8 GX. Moreover one may find adapter-rings fitting the 3 sizes of R-TLR bayonets to various standard metric threads. I myself have bought such adapters from SRB film service, (UK) and some made made by Heliopan (Germany) ; this company maintains a full line of bayonet filters, lens hoods, adapters etc all made of brass for Rolleiflexes, Hasselblads, Zeiss Ikon classic cameras. In Germany B&W also has a comprehensive range of Rollei bayonet filters and accessories. Several US companies offer similar products.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]
Besancon, FRANCE
Frequently Asked/Answered questions on the Rollei Users List.
Thanks to Ferdi Stutterheim this document is hosted on:
http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/faq.txt
To get a copy of the last version of this document by e-mail, please send a blank e-mail message to with the subject line:
send rug faq
---------------------------------------------------------------

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] What is the difference?
you wrote:

>I really appreciate all the input to date. In fact my head is spinning from >all the information. I am really looking forward to finding and buying a >Rollei TLR. What I still do not truly understand, however, is the >difference between the Rolleicord and the Rolleiflex. To me the only >difference appears to be that the 'flex has a handle winder on it while the >'cord has a knob winder. Am I being too simplistic here?

The Rolleiflex Automat (to distinguish it from very old models) has a much more elaborate mechanism for winding the film. It has a pair of "feeler" rollers which sense when the film starts and automatically stop the winder at the first frame. The crank also winds the shutter. There is an interlock which prevents a double exposure (with manual over-ride on later cameras) and film can not be wound until an exposure is made. Winding of a frame takes half to three-quarters of a turn of the crank, depending on where you are in the roll.
On Rolleicords, the first frame must be set manually and the winder does not wind the shutter.
On earlier Rolleicords the first frame is set by means of a red window on the bottom of the camera. The film is loaded and wound so that the Number 1 shows through the window, its than closed and the counter re-set button pushed, the camera will then wind to the first frame and stop. The winder is manually un-locked after shooting the frame by pushing a button on the side of the winding knob.
On later Rolleicords, beginning with the model IV, the first frame is set by lining up an arrow in the paper leader with red dots on either side of the film gate. The back is closed and the winder will then stop at the first frame. These cameras also have an interlock between shutter and winder which prevents double exposures and also unlocks the winder after an exposure without having to push anything. Even though the Rolleicord IV and later does not have a crank and automatic shutter winding it is just about as fast as a Rolleiflex and IMHO better ergonomically.
Rolleicord IV and later (and maybe some 'cord III) have Schneider Xenar lenses, where earlier 'cords had only Zeiss Triotar lenses. The Xenar is a Tessar type of excellent performance. Even though the Triotar is excellent for its type it is still a triplet and does not have as good corretions as the Xenar, especially as larger stops. The 'cord iv also has internal baffling in it, which reduces flare.
The choice between a Flex and a Cord depends somewhat on which feels best to you and price. the Rolleiflex MX, with either Tessar or Xenar is an excellent camera, so is the Rolleicord starting with the Model IV.
The Xenotar and Planar lenses available on later Rolleiflexes are superior to the Tessar/Xenotar at their larger stops, at f/8 or f/11 they are pretty much comparable
F/2.8 Rolleis are significantly heavier than the f/3.5 models.
There are not many limitations to the Rolleicord. My first "real" camera was a Rolleicord IV, that one was stolen but I have another, which I use quite frequently. For my fairly small hands its easier to handle than the flex although I have and use three flexes.
The main consideration for a used camera of any kind is condition, be very cold blooded when examining one. Never be anxious or in a hurry or you will accept something you may later regret.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001
From: John Lehman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Which camera for Heidi
Jim Hemenway [email protected] wrote ...

>> I have a New Standard with a uncoated Tessar that produces trannies >> that leap out at you. Not typical of an old Tessar, > >> but I for one am not complaining. > > I don't have any Rollies that old. But I have some Retinas, the oldest > being a working Type 126 with an Ektar, (I'd have preferred Tessar) > ens. I don't use it much. The pictures taken with it have a > old-fashioned, hand-colored, postcard color look to them.

For those who missed it a couple of years ago, here are the Tessar and Xenar lens test results from the series quoted a couple of days ago. Be aware of course that these are samples of one -- altho I am always willing to accept donations of Rolleiflexes to increase the sample size :-)

Ilford Pan-F developed in PMK 3.5 Tessar Old Standard Center Edge 3.5 59 21 5.6 59 30 8 59 33 11 66 47 16 66 47 22 66 47 3.5 Tessar Automat 1 (1939) Center Edge 3.5 42 17 5.6 75 37 8 75 47 11 75 47 16 66 59 22 59 53 3.5 Xenar MX-LVS SEE NOTE Center Edge 3.5 32 25 5.6 32 25 8 57 32 11 64 36 16 64 40 22 57 40 3.5 Tessar T Center Edge 3.5 66 42 5.6 84 42 8 94 42 11 75 59 16 75 59 22 66 59

Before drawing conclusions about Schneider lenses from the Xenar results, please be aware that this is a beater camera which I bought for under $100, have had repaired twice, and which has survived inter alia skiing accidents, a moose charge, and a drop partway down a Mexican pyramid.
I haven't run formal tests on it, but the Tessar on my Rolleiflex original is sufficiently sharp and contrasty that my wife refuses to let me take pictures of her with it (she prefers the 2.8A).
=====
John Lehman
College, Alaska USA

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Automat?
you wrote:

>I am going to have to pick your collective brains again. If, as several of >you have mentioned, the Rolleiflex differs from the Rolleicord insofar as it >has an automatic film sensor, then why do only some of the Rolleiflexes have >the addition of "Automat" in their name? >

Rolleiflexes have a long history. The early ones did not have the automatic film loading feature and are not "automats". Rollei introduced this feature about 1938. The new camera was called an Automat. The older type camera, called a Rolleiflex Standard, was continued for several years.
The standard and early Rolleis have levers for adjusting the stop and shutter speed, the little wheels were introduced on the first Automat cameras. For a time Rollei made the Rollei Standard, the Automat, and the Rolleicord, all in somewhat diffent price ranges. The 'cord was the cheapest because it had the simplest mechanism and came with a Triplet lens. Standard was next in line. I came with a Tessar and a crank film advance, but did not have the automatic loading feature. The Automat was the premium camera. Automat is used to distinguish the cameras with automatic loading especially those dating from the time when the Standard was also made.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

From hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001
From: Martin Taureg [email protected]
Subject: Re: Arc body discontinued?
The PCS Super Angulon 4,5/55mm was indeed available, at least a few years ago; don't know whether it still is. It was listed in a German pro dealer's 1996 catalogue @ DEM 11 200.
I wonder whether members of this group have been tempted, at one time or another, to switch over to the Rollei system, because of the wider variety of lenses offered - or am I opening a can of worms here?
Tropical regards,
Martin

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001
From: Siu Fai Au [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] RUG faq.html update notice

>Can anyone direct me to a web site that might show what kind of images a >Rollei Wide can produce?

http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~dmakos/square/gallery/alastair2/06_l.jpg
Siu Fai

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei-Wide
Arthur,
I have three Rollei wides. Here are the prices I paid (from memory, and I may be off 5%-10%)
Worn cosmetics, good lens - $1700
Great overall - $2600
Great cosmetics, cleaning marks on lens - 1900
Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)
...

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] E vs F models
you wrote:

>What ar eexactly the differences between the E & the F models of Rolleiflex >3.5? > >What is the minimal focusing distance, is it the same for both? > >thanks >Xosni

Not sure what all the differences are but there are many. The F has a different finder screen and hood arrangement although some late E's have he same hood. On the F the hood and focus screed are easily removable and interchangable. The moving mask for perspective control is also different in the two cameras.
The F has a different arrangement for mounting the moving lens board to the focus mechanism. In earlyier models the front plate is made parallel by using shims, the F has mounting posts with threaded adjustments.
The exposure meter in the F is coupled to the diaphragm and there is a means for compensating for filter factors, in the E setting is manual. There are some other differences but I doubt they affect the performance. Lenses used are essentially identical and excellent.
Unless you need the specific features of the F I would choose on the basis of the condition of the particular camera.
Getting a Rollei overhauled is not cheap. I don't know what Harry Fleenor's rates are now but a complete overhaul is probably at least a couple of hundred dollars provided no major parts need replacement. Try to find a camera which does not need a lot of work, or, if it does make sure the price is low enough so that its still economical when the repair cost is added.
The f/3.5 Rolleis of all models are limited to close focus of a little less then three feet, a bit farther for the f/2.8 models.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
From: "John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleiflex different models
Someone wrote:

> > SO what is exactly special about the F model?

The F combine the best mechanics with the best lens and an onboard meter that was quite something in it's day.
Personally, while I like the lens, this model is overpriced. The "sleeper" in the Rollei line has always been the 1955-ish MX-EVS models one and two.
If you don't plan on using a prism (the finder does not come off) it is a good performer. Unlike the later, cheaper "T" it has the auto load feature. Plus it has the mirrored sportsfinder, etc.
And you won't cry that your camera has lost 50% of it's collector value because you put one scratch in it.
John
[no email address?]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Using 12/24
You set the counter to 24, you load your film and shoot. After 12 shots you flip the counter to 12 and shoot the second half of the film.
if you have the second type of 12/24 mechanism (lever near the strap lug) you load up your film, shoot 12 and the camera stops cranking. You flip the lever and wind up to 1 then shoot the second half of the film. There will be a small gap between shots 12 and 13.
Andrei D. Calciu

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Using 12/24

> From: [email protected] > > I've not yet tried to use 220 film in my 2.8F, but I assumed that you simply > set the counter to 24, load the camera with 220, and fire away for 24 > exposures. I now gather this is not so. Can someone please explain the drill? > Arthur

the counter goes from 0-12 as before, but after 12 shots of 220 the exposure button locks and you need to reset the counter (using the lever.) it confused me too.
there was an insert into the rollei F manual, which is transcribed in the text below.
i use 220 all the time.
-rei
------------ cut -----------------
Film Transport Mechanism for No 120 and 220 film
The lever next to the film counter window switches the film transport to either 12 ex- posures (No 120 roll film) or 24 exposures (No 220 roll film).
12 Exposures (No 120 roll film)
Set the change-over lever to the stop so that the marking "12" on the knob is upright (1)
[(1) referes to picture 1 showing No 12 up]
24 Exposures (No 220 roll film)
1. Load the No 220 roll film in the usual way. Keep the film pressure plate in the posi- tion marked "6x6".
2. Close the camera back.
3. Now - and only now, with the film counter showing No 0 - set the change- over lever to the stop so that the marking "24" is upright (2)
[(2) referes to picture 2 showing 24 up]
4. Advance the film in the usual way for the first 12 exposures.
5. After the 12th exposure the crank blocks. Bring the crank back into the rest position.
Move the change-over lever to bring the "12" marking upright (1). This returns the film counter to 0. press the release button (the shutter does not operate). The crank is now free to continue advancing the film.
6. Advance the film in the usual way for the remaining 12 exposures. (The film counter runs through from No 1 to No 12 again).
To check the number of unexposed frames, subtract the number in the film counter window from from the upright marking of the change-over lever.
Resetting the film counter for the second series of exposures results in a blank frame in the middle of the film length. This provides a convenient point for cutting the film in two later on.

Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 To: [email protected] From: Marc James Small [email protected]> Subject: [Rollei] Prochnow Rei Shinozuka wrote: >which of the prochnows are the seminal works? i see report 1, 2, 3, &c., >plus the technical report. i have his rollei 75 years book. > >i also have the evans, which despite its garish dustjacket, is >informative. These are all necessary references: Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 1: Franke & Heidecke Die ersten 25 Jahre. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1993. ISBN: 3-89506-105-0. Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 2: Rollei-Werke Rollfilmkameras 1946 bis 1981. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1995. ISBN: 3-89506-118-2. Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 3: Rollei-Werke Rollei Fototechnic 1960 bis 1995. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1995. ISBN: 3-89506-141-7. Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 4: Rollei-werke rollei Fototechnic 1958 bis 1998. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1997. ISBN: 3-89506-170-0. Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Report 5: Rolleiflex SLX und 6000 Report. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 2000. ISBN: 3-89506-183-2. Prochnow, Claus. Rollei Technical Report. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemanns Verlag, 1996. ISBN: 3-89506-156-5. While this is a nice-to-have: Prochnow, Claus. Rollei 35, Eine Kamera-Geschichte. Stuttgart, Germany: Lindemann's Verlag, 1998. ISBN: 3-930292-10-6=20 Marc [email protected]
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 From: Siu Fai [email protected]> Subject: RE: [Rollei] entries for the FAQ To: [email protected] > So far I only had very few web pointers to > pre-WWII "historical" rollei cameras. Emmanuel, I have made an small update on this on my homepage: http://www.siufai.dds.nl/page58.htm Right now I'm only missing the "New Standard". Here are some two other pointers (by Alastair Firkin): Original: http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~dmakos/square/museum/original/index.html Sport Baby: http://www.linkclub.or.jp/~dmakos/square/museum/baby/babysports.html Siu Fai

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 From: Kevin Ramsey [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another One Gone Well, I just called Gasser in San Francisco to rent a 40mm lens for my 6008 and discovered that we have lost another rental outlet for our cameras. Now, as far as I know, having lost Samy's last year and now Gasser, only E.P. Levine is left...and they don't rent anything wider than a 50. What a frustrating (and sad) state of affairs. If Rollei hopes to compete in the professional market they must make an investment in rental equipment. At PhotoExpo someone at the Rollei booth told me that they planned to establish a rental relationship with Fotocare. A few months later I spoke to my contact at the rental department at Fotocare and he just laughed. "They wish they had a relationship with anyone," he said. Now I'll have to rent a complete Hasselbald outfit for this shoot and eat the cost. Does anyone know of any rental places that I do not? Kevin

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 From: Kevin Ramsey [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another One Gone Jerry: I agree that New York should be loaded (or, at least, lightly sprinkled) with Rollei equipment for rent, but alas reality is very different. Lens and Repro used to rent Rollei several years ago, but as far as I know, was the only rental house in New York to do so in recent memory. Wall Street will rent used Rollei equipment that they haven't been able to sell, but that's very much a hit and miss operation. If they have what you need when you need it...great. This works well for testing something that you're thinking of buying, but doesn't work at all if you need to schedule shoots and know that the equipment you need will be available. It is, by far, my greatest disappointment with the system (much to the glee of my colleagues who all advised against this choice). Currently I have to go back to renting Hasselblad whenever I need to shoot medium format with a 30mm, 40mm, or a 350mm lens. I can't/am not willing to make the $10,000-$15,000 investment to own these three lenses...the amortization cost across the few jobs where I need these lenses is too daunting. So, I rent a system that doesn't work as well for me as the camera I own and wonder if Rollei will ever get its financial and marketing house in order and support the professional photographer. Kevin you wrote: >Kevin > >I don't get it. I live in a small town, and I can rent >any piece of H'blad photographic equipment I want, >only 20 minutes away. You are in New York, yet >you want to rent from San Francisco (Gasser) or >Samy (Los Angeles). It seems that NY would be >loaded with Rollei equipment for rent. > >Jerry

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 From: Kevin Ramsey [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another One Gone Andrei: I hope your wife doesn't read your outgoing e-mails! ;^> The problems with renting Rollei 600x gear, as has been outlined to me by the three rental houses I use, are: -Too few professionals own Rollei's. -Professionals don't own Rollei's because they can't rent equipment. -Rental houses won't rent Rollei equipment because too few professional's own Rollei's. The other frequently sited issue is that Rollei has not been supportive of rental programs. I've been told that Contax is an example of how it "should" be done. Reportedly, when Contax released the 645 camera they offered rental houses financial incentives (low-interest financing, advertising buy-ins, and subsidized equipment sales) to entice dealers into stocking the cameras in the rental departments. The result? Lots of people got to use the camera, resulting in sales and the subsequent rental business has been relatively profitable. Since I have to believe that equipment rental is a loss leader business, it almost has to be supported by the manufacturer. For example, I'm renting the 400 f2.8 for my Canon during the next two weeks for about $900 total. If that lens is rented every week for eleven weeks straight, it pays for itself. But what if it needs service? What if it doesn't rent for four months out of the year? What if the company that rents me the lens wants to pay its employees? Without promotion and support from the manufacturer, I wonder if rental houses could stay in business. Is the cost of renting a Hasselblad fifteen or twenty times a year killing my business? No, it lowers my profits but I've been coping. However, I bought Rollei because of all the cameras I used over a two year period, Rollei worked best for me. I'd like to be able to use it every time I need to shoot medium format, but that's not going to happen without changes in the marketing and support of the Rollei line. Of course, if you decide to enlist your wife in this new business, please send me a credit application. Kevin you wrote: >Well, > >we have as member of this list Photovilla, who is as an authorized Rollei >Dealer. I wonder if they would be interested in becoming a Rollei rental >place. > >Otherwise, pray, tell me what is entailed in this endeavor, and I can have >my wife run a gear rental business out of the house. She has been out of >work (by her own design) since last November, and I need her to get busy >with something - for my own sanity. > >Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 From: Jan [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei FX/GX? = cosmetic diffs only > > I am thinking of buying a new Rollei GX. The factory web site shows > > a FX. Is there a difference between the models? > > Diffs are cosmetic only: different leather and decoration ; the main > difference in the re-introduction of the beloved scissor clips ; this > will allow you to use the FX with the good ol' scissor-clip-strap or > in a good ol' traditional ever-ready leather case with detachable > front panel, instead of the !~;<\?@ "modern" soft leather case sold as > an accessory with the GX. The GX appeared in two (major) versions, one with strap lugs at the rear (in SL 66 / SLX / SL 2000 F strap fastener style) and one later with strap lugs in the middle (using 6008 / QZ 35 style strap clips). The soft ERC will make your camera feel like you feel when wearing the pants reversed, when used on the later model. But there was a (black) hard ERC for the 2.8GX as well. It has a cut-out for the hot-shoe, not found on earlier model's cases. I dunno about the ERCs for the newish 2.8GXes Furthermore the FX will use the newish Copal-shutter (as the second series 2.8GX), instead of the Compur of the first series. Any resulting visible difference? Yes, the order of shutter speeds on the dial/display is reversed, including the fact that you have to turn the knob in the other direction .... make up your own mind, if this is cosmetic or not. Jan

From Rollei Mailing List: Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 From: toby [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #213 I made one out of an old bent F focusing hood (the base was good) and a newer 88 spot meter. It works like a charm. Some Dremel tool and file work, some Black epoxy plumbers putty, some black wrinkle finish paint and for less than $100 I have a removable metered prism that takes batteries I can get anywhere is dead on accurate (after calibration)and it even looks totally pro....no gaff job. I first made one from the non metered prism which I think looks better. I enjoy everyone's posts...thank you all. I have been reading for a few years and should probably be a little more frequent in contributing to the discussions. Toby Vermont USA ... >> It'd probably also be pretty spiffy for adapting a Hassie chimney, >> presuming the TLR adaptor can be obtained. >> >I've heard that Jack Taite in the UK has done that for David Hurn. I'm >looking into it and I'll report back. > >Julian

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 From: David Huffman [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Keiv Metered Viewfinder Adapter for Rollei I am interested in the Kiev metered viewfinder on my Rollei 3.5F (also for a Bronica SQ). Here is the reply to my inquiry to Baier photo in Germany: "Hello, thank you very much for your inquiry. For Bronica I do not offer adapted prisms. For Rollei TLR I had two, which are sold. If greater interest will be shown, I might make a series of them. You are the second to ask. If I would decide to make them, I would contact you again. Price would be Euro 198 for the integral metering and Euro 238 for the spot and integral metering version. (Prices in USDollars are about 10% less). Best regards Rolf-Dieter Baier www.baierfoto.de -------------------------------------------- Schillerstra�e 10 D-79312 Emmendingen Fon +49 7641 936-858 Fax -859"

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 From: Dan Kalish [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] Rollei view camera According to the Global Rollei Club, Rollei made a medium format view camera, the Rollei X-Act 2 Cat. No. 10 742 http://www.rollei.de/en/produkte/produkt_detail.cfm?id=1953&name=bellows Does anyone (Jerry L.?) know anything about this? When was it made? How long did manufacture continue? Price? Was it a good camera? Etc., etc. Dan Kalish

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 From: David Seifert [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei view camera Dan, The x-act is a current product. As a film camera it is somewhat compromised due to the limitation of using only the 4560 motorized back. The Rollei 6 megapixel (24x36mm) back will also work on it and should provide plenty of movement when using stadard PQ lenses. An interesting camera but way expensive and somewhat compromised by limiting it to Rollei electronic lenses (or even more expensive Rollei electronic shutters with standard view camera lenses). For the vast majority of users the SL66 with it's +/-15 degree Scheimpflug capability provides equal utility. David

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 From: Bob Shell [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei view camera .... The X-Act 2 is still in production. It is a sort of joint venture between Rollei and Horseman, as I understand it, with Horseman supplying the monorail and standards. It accepts a line of view camera lenses mounted in Rollei electronic shutters up front, and either a 645 film or digital back on the rear. It is highly automated from a control box and well suited for catalog and other production work which requires view camera movements. You probably don't want to know the price. Bob

From leica topica mailing list: Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected] Subject: Re: Frustrated Leica user The Zeiss Planar 80/2.8 is a very good lens. You're comparing light falloff at wide open aperture between what is effectively a 35mm lens field of view against the best 50mm and 90mm lenses in 35mm photography current today; that Planar is at 20-40 years old. The fact that it does as well as it does is a pretty good achievement... Generally speaking, medium format lenses are designed to perform better stopped down a bit because of the shallower DoF available. That lovely old Planar is not quite the equal of the Fujinon 60/4 lens on my GA645 but it can still turn a very fine photograph, with beautiful imaging characteristics. Godfrey

From rollei mailing list: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] [slight OFF-TOPIC] medium format view cameras >From M.Phillips: > Speaking of perspective controls in medium format cameras, is Linhof still > manufacturing the Technika 6x9 'press camera'? Yes they do, and they introduced the brand-new M679 to follow the "digital studio" trend. BTW speaking of View cameras, as RUGgers, we could also suggest to Javier to have a look at Rollei's view cameras X-ACT (6000-compatible for backs) equiped with a Schneider Super-Angulon or a Rodenstock Grandagon ; and mention that Rollei is offering his nice electronic shutter system in sizes 0 and 1 for most view camera lenses including Schneider and Rodenstock. Or suggest to have a look at various conventional 6x9 view cameras, Cambo, Horseman, or of course the Arca-Swiss, being made here in Besancon, France in the new "European Union" office and workshop opened by this renowned Swiss view camera manufacturer. -- Emmanuel BIGLER [email protected]

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Rolleiflex 2.8FX It's been available for awhile, at least from Hong Kong dealers on ebay. They are selling it for $2095. It is the same as the GX, except for two thing (I think): it takes the regular Rollei scissors strap (same as the 2.8F), and it has the old-fashioned Rollei logo nameplate, c. 1929. >Friends > >This might have been discussed before. I read that this new camera will be >launched soon and I wonder how it might differ from the 2.8GX? > >Dan K.

From: [email protected] (Don James) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Rolleiflex model Date: 23 Jul 2002 [email protected] (Jani Heikkinen) wrote > I have been trying to find out the exact model of my rolleiflex ... > > Serial number is 1482927 > > Taking lens is Carl Zeiss Tessar 75mm f3.5 and viewing lens is > Heidosmat 75mm f2.8 Try this resource, which lists model by serial # from three different sources: http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm Serial #'s 1.428.000 - 1.499.999 correspond with: - Rolleiflex 3,5 B - Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS - 3.5 Rolleiflex MX-EVS (type 1)

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 From: Richard Knoppow [email protected] Subject: Re: [Rollei] Introduction you wrote: >Hello Everybody, > Snipping >I just wanted to introduce myself. I've been lurking for a week or so >preparing to embark on my initial TLR adventures. >>I have an early 'cord with a Triotar, it sits on the shelf as it has a broken >aperture mechanism and a VERY dark screen. Of all the cameras I have to play >with, I really like the feel of the 'cord and really like composing on the >glass at chest level. (I wear glasses.) >Chris Lillja Depending on what model it is the aperture setting could be inoperative because the front panel is not mounted correctly. The levers operate rotating collars which have notches for the levers on the shutter. If the front was removed and not correctly replaced the collar will not operate the lever. Its a fairly simple fix. The viewing lens on the 'cord is slower than that on the Flex, typically f/3.2 on cameras with f/3.5 taking lenses. So, the finder image can be a bit dim. The mirror and ground glass may also be dirty. Oil accumulated on the ground side of the GG will make it dim and result in an exagerated hot spot. Both mirror and glass are easy to get to for cleaning. A simple fresnel type field lens placed over the ground glass will brighten it up considerably. Rollei made these under the name Rolleigrid but you can get a similar lens from Edmund Scientific for not a whole lot. The Triotar is a good Triplet type lens. It must be stopped down to maybe f/11 or smaller to be sharp all over but its slight soft focus effect at large stops is not unpleasant, a lot of people like it for portrait work. Camera serial numbers will help identify the particular model and date it. Marc Small collects serial numbers of zeiss lenses and will be glad to have the numbers from both lenses. ---- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA [email protected]

from rollei mailing list: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 From: Jorje Trevino [email protected] Subject: [Rollei] 1/500" with pre-F Rollei TLR? Hi Ruggers! I have a Rollei 2.8E (type 1) from 1956 and the manual states that if you want to use the 1/500 shutter speed, you must select it before tensioning the shutter (eg. advancing the film). What I haven't been able to find out is what happens if you do not heed this advice. Do you damage the shutter or will it simply not access the 1/500 speed, therefore -I should think- shooting at 1/250? Thanks for any insight you might provide. --Jorge.

From: Martin Jangowski [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: An eye-level TLR? Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 David J. Littleboy [email protected] wrote: > "John" [email protected] wrote: >> Mamiya made prism finders. Any chance this is what you were seeing ? >> >> Actually maybe they were using the "sports finder". A flip-down cut out of >> the standard finder that one could use if you had the camera ore-focused and >> depended on DOF. > The Rollei 3.5MX (and presumably most others) has a mirror on the under side > of the flap that you push in to form the sportsfinder, allowing you to focus > (on only part of the image, though) by moving your eye to the magnifier in > the back of the WLF structure: a true class act, Rollei. While every Rollei (at least those built after WW-II) has the sportsfinder, only the "better" models had the additional mirror and second finder under it. The Rolleicord models and the Rolleiflex T didn't have it. Martin

From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 29 Nov 2002 Subject: Re: An eye-level TLR? Eye Level prisms were made by original manufacturers for IKOFLEX, ROLLEIFLEX, MAMIYAFLEX and generic prisms (mirror finders) were made to fit any TLR. - Sam Sherman

From: Martin Jangowski [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Yaschimat 124G vs Rolleiflex-T ??? Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected] wrote: > I don't want to start a debate, but having had both of these cameras in > good condition at the same time, the Rollei's Zeiss Tessar or Schneider > Xenar lenses are much better performers than the Yashinon in the 124G. > The differences are immediately noticeable in the negatives. > If condition is equivalent, or even if the Rollei needs a CLA, I'd pick > the Rolleiflex. _I_ certainly wouldn't debate this, owning six Rollei TLRs at this time (and no other brand...). It is absolutely astonishing how even the lowly Rolleicord (with Tessar/Xenar lens) blows each and every 35mm camera out of the water... a few days ago, my wife and I went for a little stroll through a small village a few km from our home with a very nice reconstructed "old town", several buildings build in 16xx and 17xx. She had a Rolleicord with a Tessar and Delta 400, I used my new Leica M6 with the last model 2/35 Summicron and APX100. Sorry, no comparison. I routinely enlarge my pictures to 20x30cm, 24x30 and 30x30 (depending on negative format and subject), and a comparison between a 20x30 from the Leica and a 30x30 from the Rollei just showed, what I expected... the Leica is good for available light, but shows no real advantage when using in good light conditions. Yes, the pictures are extremly sharp, but so are the ones from the Rollei, worth about 5% of the Leica outfit. A Leica with one lens is smaller then a Rollei, but not very much smaller, and you need a bag to carry it. So, it's back to MF (and Rollei) for sunday afternoon shooting... Martin

From: "Reuben Quezada" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Rollei ressource page Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/rollei/jdlinks.html http://www.sl66.com/welcome.htm http://home.attbi.com/~wymanburke/Rollei_Links.html I have a few more if you're interested.... Reuben Calif

From: Laurent Wirmer [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Rollei ressource page Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 > I'm searching the web for a big page full of various links about the > Rollei 6000 Serie, > and I must say that I'm a bit tired... > > If any body has it ! :) Maybe my homepage can be interesting for you... http://www.photo-square.com -- Laurent Wirmer

From: Lassi [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Lens characteristics of 135mm lens for tele-rolleiflex, 135mm for Mamiyaflex 330 etc.., and 135mm hexanon for Koni-Omegaflex Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 Robert Monaghan wrote: ... > the tele-rollei TLR lenses are probably very good, and should be given the > cost of such a kit, see rollei page links at > http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/cameras.html - but I haven't seen any reviews on > them, nor used them nor the rollei-wides ;-( but these fetch collector's > prices, so are hardly in the same range as the cheaper TLR or RF listed > ;-) There are at least two problems with the Tele-Rollei. The viewfinder is dark, because the viewing lens is only f:4, and the close focusing distance is too far. AFAIK, the cameras were delivered from factory with additional close-up lenses - for portraits... Both problems follow from the decision to use the same mechanics as with the ordinary Rollei. There isn't room for bigger lens elements, and the focusing movement is too short for tele. I haven't seen any complaints about optical quality, though. -- Lassi
End of Page
Broken Links:
Rollei Pages at http://people.we.mediaone.net/wymanburke/The_Rollei_Page.html
(broken link as of 2/2003)