[rollei_list] Re: The Rolleicord, with Xenar Schneider lens

  • From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:56:19 -0300

Yes Richard,  I agree with you beyond a few differences about details
Roleiflex vs Rolleicord handling. I also appreciate the Rolleicord IV
simplicity and effectiveness. I never looked for a Vb really, I
already had 'flexes...The Xenar 3,5/75 is a very good lens indeed, I
found that even the Rolleimagic Xenar 3,5/75, in spite of the focusing
through the first element, was an excellent lens too.

Carlos

2014-10-13 15:15 GMT-03:00 Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 9:41 AM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: The Rolleicord, with Xenar Schneider lens
>
>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/15340496717/
>>
>> Carlos
>
>
>    My first "real" camera was a Rolleicord IV bought new just after they had
> been discontinued. Before that I had a Ciroflex in rather poor condition. I
> had that Rollei for many years until a burglar got it. I got another used
> one later. I have 'flexs but find the 'cord better ergonomically. Its nearly
> as fast as a Rolleiflex. One can speed up rapid shooting by making a plastic
> push-on crank for the film winder but I don't usually need that. The
> Rolleicord fits in the palm of the left hand and does not need to be
> "tossed" as does the Rolleiflex. The Flex of course has some added features
> such as a faster finder lens and eye level focus arrangement. It also has a
> self-timer which is sometimes useful but I think the IV version of the
> Rolleicord is a perfect "simple" camera, it has everything you need for
> general shooting and nothing extra to get in the way. Also, both of my
> cameras had exceptionally sharp lenses. I think the Xenar used on the cord
> must be at least as good as the Tessar found on the Rolleiflex. Its also
> light which can make a difference if you are carrying it for any length of
> time. Unfortunately, F&H saw fit to make the camera fancier in later models
> until there was not so much difference between it and the Rolleiflex. The
> trouble is that in making is "better" they actually made it worse, at least
> IMO.
>
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles
> WB6KBL
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. rollei_list
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2014