negative size/sharpness, light weight, relative simplicity, nonautomatic controls forcing knowledge of photography, single lens forces concentration on essentials

not suitable for more extreme photography, i.e. macro, tele

I learned photography in the 60's in school on a Yashica-Mat 124, fell in love with the TLR then. I bought one of the last Rolleicords made (white face)in 1975 in college, still have and use it. I have every model of 'Cord and a 'Flex T'. I had a 2.8F but prefer the Rolleicord for its simplicity, lighter weight and smaller filter size (Bay I, like Yashica). These aren't fast-action cameras anyway! In my slides and prints I see no difference whatsoever between the Xenar on Rolleicords and the Tessar or Planar lenses on the Rolleiflexes. Maybe visible on a loupe in extreme settings, but not on the outdoor photography I do. I have also owned several Yashicas and Mamiyas, but my second favorite is the Minolta Autocord with its helical focusing lever under the taking lens, along with fine Rokkor lenses. Truly, any of these TLR's will give back far more in service and quality than they will ever ask in repairs and maintenance. Buy a good one and it'll be your companion for life!

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

Yashica, Mamiya, Minolta, Meopta, Ikoflex

The lens - sharp as a razorblade.

You are restricted to one lens. Or save up for a tele- or wide-angle-Rolleiflex.

After running my own b&w darkroom for a couple of years I wondered if I could gain better image quality by upgrading from 35 mm cameras to medium format. So I tried quite a number of models from Mamiya 645, Pentax 67, Mamiya C3, an old Zeiss Ikoflex TLR amongst others, buying some of them via ebay, borrowing others. None of them really suited me, some were too large and heavy, some too expensive. Then I came across this 1960 model of a Rolleiflex 2,8f, the version with the Schneider Xenotar lens. I think I made a bargain, as I had to pay some 700 Euro. I bought a Rolleinar, some filters and a lens hood for another 150 Euros. As soon as I had my first film developed, I was addicted to this wonderful piece of craftsmanship. The Rolleiflex is quite light, about 1200 g (I think just under 3 lbs) heavy, so I can easily carry it everywhere I go. The lightmeter surprised me, as it is wonderfully accurate. Handling the camera is easy, I can shoot hand-held at 1/15 second. You can hardly hear any sound from the shutter. The parallax is compensated for automatically. The Schneider Xenotar lens (2,8 / 80 mm) is the sharpest I have ever used. The coating is very good, you have to struggle to produce flare.

Similar Products Used:

Mamiya C3, Zeiss Ikoflex, Pentax 67, Mamiya 645

silent, sturdy, will probably still work when i am done - LENS-PERFORMANCE!!!!

built in meter quite useless - either ist dead by now or you dont know exactly what you are metering. get a good exposuremeter

at one day you will be arriving where i am now - at the rolleiflex-level. while working for a newspaper as sportsfotographer i owned various nikons and later as amateur a nikon d1 digital-camera, but when i found my rolleiflex 3,5f - one of the last 1000 made - and held it in my hand i was hooked. and the moment i saw the first prints (kodak cn400) i sold off my remaining gear. i now take mostly pictures of my kids - and the camera is perfect. silent unobtrusive - and on a 20x20 print you could count the eyelids of my daughter. i doubt if there is a 6x6 camera that can outperform the rolleiflex on lens performance. since you are restricted to one lens you have to look carefully before you shoot - not a bad thing. i got a pair of rolleinars for close-ups and i am looking for a chimney-finder. if you have one, PLEEEESE sell it to me. i also got a maxwell hi-luxscreen. the best available, screen looks brighter than the eye. for 125 dollars this will transform your camera

Customer Service

none - but can be repaired by specialists (find them on the web)

Perfect optics, quiet, shake free operation, light and portable (for medium format standards), reliable, TTL-flash, TTL light meter.

Basicaly no weaknesses, although I would love to have the feel of the older shutter release button, together with the latest (more quiet) FX-shutter. Standard focusing screen could be a little bit brighter, but that is just a detail (alternatives available from Beatti, Maxwell and of course Rollei). For the rest you have to get used to the handling of the camera and live with the fact that you can not change lenses and film magazines.

I bought my Rolleiflex 2.8 GX Expression 3 yrs ago. This is the latest of the GX models which has the same strap attachment as the 6000 SLR series. There is a lot to read on the net about the differences between this 2.8 GX and the former 2.8 F. I have owned a 2.8 F before and I must admit that the feeling is different. The F feels more solid and is more mechanicaly engineered than the GX. Examples of F features missing on the GX are the automatic film feeder, mechanical aperture coupled depth-of-field indicator at the focusing knob, self timer, sports finder with focus checker and a very smooth release button with a very quiet shutter. The shutter on my GX is a Seiko and it has a nasty 'twoing' sound following release. At this time you might think that the F is the better camera, but it isn't. All the extra's are for fast work. In those days that was essential because this was the camera for the photo-reporter. Nowadays there are much more better camera's for that purpose. If you are looking for a reliable camera, with the best optics, a good lightmeter and TTL-flash capability, this is the one. Sure it has a nasty sound in the shutter, but that doesn't show on the picture, does it. The same goes for the feeling. Last week I was comparing my GX to the very latest FX and I found out that they changed the shutter on that once again. It is more quiet now, but the release button is still not as smooth as on the old F. This is probably because of the lightmeter pressure point and the fact that it is brand new. To complement my basic camera I bought the leather soft case, a Rolleinar I (also still available new), the rubber lenshood, the 356 SCA adapter, a Metz 45CL4, Rolleifix tripod adapter and B&W filters. I am planning on buying another focusing screen and a heliopan polarizer filter. The Metz 45CL4 is not very easy to handle in this combination. If you attach it to the standard bracket it is out of balance. I use it now loose from the camera with a seperate strap around my shoulder and the TTL extension cord. I am looking for the Metz 54mz3 to connect directly on the SCA adapter, but I still have to try that combination out, especialy for ease of focusing. So, if you are looking for a brand new, traditional photomachine capable of making the best pictures: this might be your dream camera.

Customer Service

Actually I don't know, because I didn't have any complaints on the camera.

Similar Products Used:

Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex 2.8 F, Tele-Rolleiflex and since last week a Rolleiflex 6003 Professional. Besides this Medium format equipment I have used a hole lot of 35mm equipment, including Leica M, L

Easy to carry about. Great build quality Superb lens

Bay III accesories tend to be dear Collectors push up prices

I was using a Leica SL and bought a Rollelflex 2.8 D because it looked so good. The Leica does not get used much now. At Xmas I used Rillei indoors f2.8 30th sec 400 film uprated to 800 and 8X10 enlargements were sooooo!!! sharp. The Planar lens (1955) is as sharp as anything you get today and single coated - no flare.

Similar Products Used:

Richoflex, Agfa Isola

lenses, build quality

heavy

I have used Rolleicords, Rolleiflex C, Rollei Magic and there are all super ! Learn more about Rollei''s at http://members.aol.com/dcolucci

Similar Products Used:

Mamiya. Penatx 67, Yashicamats, Autocords

Sharp and Contrasty Lens; Fine Shutter; Compact and Light; Handsome; Traditional Mechanical Camera.

Lens is fixed.

My Rolleicord V is my first medium format camera, and I''''m still using it. It is great!

Similar Products Used:

Koni-Omega

Image and construction quality

None

I have traded all my 35mm Nikon stuff for newer AF Nikon & Canon....but when I go into the darkroom....nothing comes close to the images this camera produces. I have the Planar 2.8 with a prism finder. I used this camera for weddings but I now shoot only 35mm color weddings and use this camera for B&W (Tri-x)wedding portraits and candids. Customers always select almost all the B&W photos. This camera was a wedding photographers main camera for many years....the simplicity and dependability tell the story....

Customer Service

never had to use it

Similar Products Used:

Koni-omega, Bronica sq

Light weight (relatively) Quiet Terrific optics Reliability Holds its value Ease of use Wide range of accessories

Fixed focal length

I purchased this camera, a 3.5 E1, in 1958, with my first real paycheck after leaving university. It replaced my Yashicamat, the Rolleiflex wannabe with the crank handle. (a pretty good camera). The purchase price was about $185, new, which was down from what I think was a retail price of about $225. The camera was being unloaded due to the new F models coming in. The difference in price between this E1 (then just called E) and the F model was more than I could justify, so I went with ''last year''s model''. This camera has the Xenotar lens (the Planar model was $20 more). It saw extensive amateur usage for the first 13 years of its life and then slowly worked its way to the shelf, being taken out every now and then for a roll or two. I''ve got the bug again and sent it to Harry Fleenor for a CLA. He did some other work on it including installing a Maxwell screen and putting in a 220 mod. It''s like new again, maybe better than new. I am spending more money on it buying accessories on E-bay and other locations, accessories that I thought I could not afford way back then. I particularly noted one aspect about it a few days ago when I slung it on my shoulder and remarked that it seemed lighter than my 35 mm SLR with 28-80 mm zoom. It is truly a great camera. I could avoided the CLA if I was satisfied with speeds faster than 1/15. It is possible that with steady usage the shutter gearing might loosen and go back to normal but I decided to spring for the CLA and bring the old warhorse back to life. After all, with no costs in 43 years, it was worth spending money on her. The 220 modification is great, getting rid of the 12 exposure limit. The Maxwell screen is also great, bringing this camera up to the viewing ability of the newer models This new screen not only is brighter but also has the central zone with the split. Regrets? None. Well, maybe a few minor ones. I wish I had the built-in meter (could also have been user-fitted). I understand most of them have failed by now but with my periods of non-use, I think it might have survived. It would have been handy rather than fumbling with a hand-held meter. One of the e-bay purchases I made was to get a Rolleikin. This allows the camera to use 35 mm film. However, the format is 24 x 36, vertically, and the picture taking is wit

Customer Service

None (I use instead Harry Fleenor of Oceanside Camera Repair)

Similar Products Used:

Yashicamat Ciroflex

Classic styling
build quality
lens

single focal length

I bought a used Rollei 2.8F Planar with meter a few years ago in mint- condition and it has continued to go up in value. Can't say that about the polycarbonate stuff being manufactured today.

I find the best part of using the Rollei is that it forces you to be a photographer, not just a snap shooter. With one focal length lens and a square image, one must concentrate on the photograph. There are a number of web sites on the Rollei TLR which cover everything from history, to lookup of a serial number to estimating the value of the camera. A good value for a beginner in the medium format range that will last a long time. Side by side, you can see the difference between a Rollei and the Yashica 124. The Mamiya C series is good if you want interchangeable lenses, but the weight is a factor.

Similar Products Used:

None