Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by ToddB, Sep 11, 2012.
This is the Rollei I'm after. Can anyone date this camera for me?
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.
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?
difficult to be sure from the pic, but check the rollei club at http://rolleiclub.comwere they have a lot of dating information, you can date any rollei from their site
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.
I think it's an MX from 1951. I have one for sale in the RFF classifieds. You migtht compare pictures.
do you have a link to RFF classified?
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.
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.
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.
"He didn't have time to look in the box?". Statements like that from sellers put me in buyer-beware mode.
Price guide here:
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.
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.
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.
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.
...and does he know when the last CLA was done.
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.
Don't mind at all. I have Sekonic 408 I use currently with my Mamiya C220.
What does EVS mean?
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
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.
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.
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.
Great tips on questions. Already fired an email to 'email@example.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.
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.