#Rolleiflex 2.8 vs 3.5 how to#

The cord is lacking a lot of the chrome plating of its more expensive sister and displays black enamel instead, and many details are constructed far more simple. While the Flex gives you the feeling of weight, exceptional build quality and value, the Cord seems more flimsily built, lighter and cheaper вЂ“ which she actually was. And you can feel it when you lay your hands on them. I think it is quite obvious by now: The Rollei sisters are no identical twins but differ in a number of ways. The lever to move the mirror is operated with the little knurled knob on the right side of the finder. Note the missing front of the finder on the flex and the moved up auxiliary mirror on the Cord.

Two sports finders: Rolleiflex (left) und Rolleicord (right). The picture you get is not even horizontally mirrored like the one viewed directly on the ground glass at waist level, but it still has a serious flaw: You have to view it upside down. By moving a lever on the right side of the finder you bring up an auxiliary mirror that lets you view the entire ground glass. But even with the Cord you do not have to refrain from an eye level finder. The Rolleicord at first glance seems to lack this simple, yet effective solution as the front of its finder consists of one rigid piece. Here you look into the round window under the rectangular opening that enables you to see a part of the not totally covered ground glass via an auxiliary mirror that lets you adjust focus while you hold the camera at eye level. This solution for taking pictures of fast moving subjects you find on a lot of twin lens reflex cameras of the era, but with most of these Rolleiflex-copies you loose the ability to focus your picture because the ground glass is covered with the front wallr of the finder.

By folding in the middle of the front part towards the ground glass it leaves an open frame you can look through at eye level when peering through a smaller rectangular cutout in the back part of the waist level finder. The waist level finder of the Rolleiflex has a dual functionality. The picture on the ground glass of the Rolleiflex (left) and the Rolleicord is not too bright. But that is about the only similarity between the two. Not a bad thing to have on a camera without an exposure meter.Д®valuating the finders of both cameras at first glance showxs the same results: Compared with the exceptionally bright ground glass of my 3.5F both cameras show a rather dim picture in their waist level finders.

#Rolleiflex 2.8 vs 3.5 how to#

Other similarities between the two cameras are the port for a flash cable, a 1/4 inch tripod socket and a table on the back of the cameras on which you can see how to set your exposure according to weather conditions, lighting situations and film speed. While my 3.5F sports the bigger Bajonett II, the Automat and the Rolleicord IIe share Bajonett I with its smaller diameter, so i can use my Rolleinar closeup-lenses i have bought over the years for my Automat also on the Rolleicord.

You see them at the first glance: Both Rolleis are twin lens reflex cameras with a waist level finder, a leaf shutter and a nice bajonett surrounding both their lenses that can take accessories like filters, sunshades and other stuff. Between two birds of a feather that have a lot in common and are two very different beasts nevertheless. Okay, so may the contest begin between two Rollei-Sisters from the early fifties, the time of petticoats, rock вЂnвЂ™ roll and twin-lens reflex cameras. But luckily i own a second Rolleiflex, an Automat Model K4A from 1951 which timewise is much closer to the Rolleicord and has neither exposure meter nor a fresnel lens under the ground glass like the fancy 3.5F. Ten years more development and refinement are too much of a head start, even when dealing with timeless cameras from the stable of Franke and Heidecke that kept fathful to their basic construction for many decades. There is a fundamental question, though, you have to answer before you embark on such a quest: Which Rolleiflex should you take to compare with a self-repaired Rolleicord IIe from the year 1950? It would be really unfair to let her run up to my Rolleiflex 3.5F, ten years younger and one of my all-time camera favorites.