Minox Rolleiflex AF 5.0 digicam takes you back -- way back

Uh, this is a Minox? It's not that we can't read labels, but considering the outfit's yawn-inducing offerings of late, we're a little stunned to see something so irresistible come out of its doors. The June-bound Rolleiflex AF 5.0 is a "fully functioning, high precision replica of the world famous Rolleiflex 6x6 camera (scale 1:2)," and just like its inspiration, it produces square photographs and boasts a functioning hand crank. Thanks to modern technology, this edition steps it up with a 5-megapixel sensor, LCD monitor and a miniSD slot. Word on the street puts the black version at €299 ($461), while the entirely more stylish red model will demand €30 ($46) more. Still cheaper than an antique, we'd wager.

[Via LetsGoDigital]

[phanbouy @ Jun 5th 2008 11:38PM]

that's great that they come in his and her colors so douchey couples can ride off into the sunset

[Ayman @ Jun 6th 2008 12:52AM]

Whats your color?

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 8:15AM]

Green... with envy.

[bot @ Jun 5th 2008 11:42PM]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=370035525303&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=024

I'm sorry but copying vintage style just for the aesthetic is lame.

[someguy7234 @ Jun 6th 2008 12:04AM]

Wow, what a downer- I thought that these things were cool, but now that someone said it was lame... I just don't know how to feel...

[Asha @ Jun 6th 2008 3:47AM]

Actually, I think it is kind of cute, but then, I'd want to see it in person before I gave it a yea or nay.

I used to shoot with one of the real deal and they were a pretty awesome camera.

[Scott @ Jun 6th 2008 11:01AM]

It looks liek you might want to pull your head out of your ass "vintage style" Hasselblad has been making bodies that look this way for as long as you have been alive ad are still considered to be the camera of choice if you want to shoot medium format. and the zycie optics are far and away cleaner and sharper then any other maker.

So maybe they are looking at a modern camera maker and copies there "classic" style.

[bot @ Jun 6th 2008 11:16AM]

It appears that I have hit a nerve. I wrote a response before but it wasn't added to the website, so I'll try again:

Sorry for having an opinion? I think it's sad how people will use electronic devices to express a certain fashion sense. I don't see anything wrong with having a gadget that looks aesthetically pleasing, but in this case they are feigning the style of an older film camera which was designed in a certain way in order to accomodate it's film type. Now they just copied the style and stuck digital components inside. Form over function. In other words, it's for someone who wants to shoot digital yet wants to appear to have a 120 film camera. There's no point other than appearance (and square digital photos?) that I can see. Or am I missing something here?

[Scott @ Jun 6th 2008 2:28PM]

square digital photos, I know it must sound shocking to think that so many people out there still find medium format to be a great aspect to shoot. (mostly for it composition traits).
So Go look learn....

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/

There is a grand world of non automatic digital cameras out there for people how know how the meter themselves and dont want to give that artistic control to a computer that dosn't know anything but contrast.

[bot @ Jun 6th 2008 3:26PM]

Guh.. I have no problem with wanting to shoot in medium format. I also think it's a neat format to shoot in! I'm just annoyed by taking the look of medium format cameras and applying it to digital cameras for the sake of aesthetic. Does this camera really have to look like that in order to shoot square photos? I doubt it, and I believe much of the reason they kept that look is to appeal to people that think that style of camera looks cool. I have nothing against medium format, film, digital, or any specific format. What annoys me is taking the look or style of one thing and applying it to another. I think film has this sort of romantic do-it-yourself image that many people who are nostalgic about it cling to, and this camera is playing on those feelings by keeping the LOOK of the older cameras yet using digital components.

[Scott @ Jun 6th 2008 3:51PM]

That I can understand : )

[Trixstar @ Jun 5th 2008 11:44PM]

i have one that is identical. It's from the 1900s.. Does anyone have any idea if this is valuable?

here's a picture:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4232/dsc00688lj1.jpg

[Nathan Gimpel @ Jun 15th 2008 11:31AM]

Sure, just rip out all the insides, replacing them with an LCD screen and a micro-SD slot among a couple of other upgrades and you should be able to unload it for at least $451.00.

[happy_penguin @ Jun 5th 2008 11:54PM]

I see it says "Yashinon" ... Yashica? Man I had totally forgotten about that brand of camera. I have seen their 35mm cameras from the 70s but this camera must be a lot older.

[happy_penguin @ Jun 6th 2008 12:11AM]

I see you're answering below this comment. I'm trying to stay on this one. That's an old Japanese camera. I'd be willing to bet that at the time it was a knockoff. People don't remember but Japanese wasn't always considered quality. I really doubt that camera is worth much but what you need is the opinion of an expert. Find one and good luck.

[Bogaty @ Jun 6th 2008 12:26AM]

That is a Yashica in horrible shape. I'd estimate worth maybe, $50. Not much more. Yashica's were a very good Twin Lens Reflex (a fairly popular camera in the 50 and 60's). They were somewhat less expensive than Rolli's, but were very good cameras. There's almost no collector market for Yashicas.

Rolliflex was always the gold standard.

And, no to the poster that said this is a "cheap" Japanese knock off. This camera was a solid camera with a fairly different design than the Rolli's. It was never a knock off.

[happy_penguin @ Jun 6th 2008 12:44AM]

"Bogaty @ Jun 6th 2008 12:26AM
And, no to the poster that said this is a "cheap" Japanese knock off. This camera was a solid camera with a fairly different design than the Rolli's. It was never a knock off."

Umm, I think you should read again. I made no such claim. I said "I bet" not "it is"...

There's a big difference between stating an opinion of belief and making a claim of fact. But you seem to be knowledgeable on the subject of Yashica cameras and I will yield to your assessment. Please, just don't misquote me.

[happy_penguin @ Jun 6th 2008 12:45AM]

@ Bogaty

I think perhaps you were talking about a commenter below me so I apologize for my last comment.

[Ayman @ Jun 6th 2008 12:50AM]

3 Things I would like to say

1 what camera did you use to take picture of the camera
2 The focus doesnt seem wow
3 There is some dirt on the finger nail (ewww)

:P

Okay I'm done
oh you should consider taking to professional cleaner/ fixer. see how much it cost to make it look good (to say the least)

[happy_penguin @ Jun 6th 2008 12:55AM]

Gee, you managed to

1) not help

2) not be funny

All in one post. Good work.

[Trixstar @ Jun 6th 2008 1:28AM]

by the way, the camera is in excellent shape. It is a bit dust on the outside and it was taken with flash on my 5mp KE-850 camera phone. The camera itself is in excellent shape. the strap however is a bit worn. The camera works great too. So yeah, to the poster that said it's worth about $50, maybe you should take how the picture was taken into account.

[kuppenbender1 @ Jun 6th 2008 3:06AM]

Trixstar, no, your camera isn't from 'the 1900's'. It looks like a Yashica Mat-124G, (1970 to 1986) but it's hard to tell from the photograph.

You should be able to make out the model number yourself though. And, being in possession of a computer and internet access, be able to search on ebay to price it yourself.

I'd say it might be worth $150 to $200 but get a better photo done before trying to sell it.

[TubeTop100.com @ Jun 6th 2008 10:38AM]

I don't know, how many megapixels does it have?

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 8:19AM]

@ kuppenbender1

Since when is 1970-1986 not in the 1900's?

[johnzilla @ Jun 6th 2008 9:49AM]

@gad get:

"1900's" means 1900-1909. Just like "the 1920s" means 1920-1929. If you mean "1900-1999" you say "the 20th century".

1900s = 1900-1909
1910s = 1910-1919
1920s = 1920-1929

...you get the picture. Pun intended.

[happy_penguin @ Jun 6th 2008 10:02AM]

Meh. Semantics. I'm pretty sure the guy meant 20th century. All he wanted was some help. I agree that "1900's" would probably mean like 1900-1909 but why get hung up on it?

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 10:58AM]

Whatever. :P

[bogaty @ Jun 6th 2008 5:35PM]

To clear this up, you have a Yashica Mat 124-G. It says it right on the viewfinder hood. 1970-1986.

Just put that in google and you will find out a lot more than you probably want to know.
http://www.williamsphotographic.com/yashica.html

Bottom line, this was the last one Yashica produced. It's a less valued camera than the others because it has a light meter in it that tends not to work anymore - batteries are hard to find.

Ebay had a mint, nearly perfect 124g that went for $150, from a well known camera dealer.

Your camera has a lot of scratches and nicks in the paint. That reduces the value very very quickly. You're also an unknown seller, so if it works or not is always in question for somebody buying. A known camera dealer could be trusted when they say it works perfectly. That equals higher price.

In the day, Yashica came on about the same time as Nikon and Canon as a Japanese camera manufacturer. They were second tier, but still high quality cameras.

[Cassini @ Jun 5th 2008 11:43PM]

Interesting, but I have a hard time believing there's any market for this.

[Marloon @ Jun 5th 2008 11:43PM]

THeSE Things are BOSS!

[TheTribune @ Jun 5th 2008 11:44PM]

With the working crank it should be battery-free.

"Crank for 60 seconds and get 5 minutes of picture taking fun!"

Still, it's pretty sweet...except the price.

[Marlon Perez @ Jun 5th 2008 11:54PM]

if its a rolleiflex, these things are worth thousands now. knock off TLRs are really worth nothing.

[Mike K. @ Jun 6th 2008 12:05AM]

I thought these were out a while ago... maybe they're just getting imported to the states now, wait, this is a 5.0MP while the previous was 3.1MP

[Mike K. @ Jun 6th 2008 12:06AM]

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_5033.html

[Trixstar @ Jun 6th 2008 12:07AM]

yeah, it's a pretty old camera.. but its in great shape. mint. I wonder how much its worth now.

[guy who owns a real rolleiflex @ Jun 6th 2008 12:19AM]

@ Trixstar: Your TLR is a Japanese knock off, so its not worth much (maybe $200 if its in stellar and functional condition), although it is one of the better brands.

Rolleiflexes are not worth thousands of dollars (well, most aren't). I paid just over $500 for mine, a Rolleiflex E, circa 1970s. They are great cameras, when they work....

[iczer2 @ Jun 6th 2008 8:25AM]

And don't forget the Rolleicords. They were the cheaper end of Rollei's line, but still very solid camera's. I have one that was made at the end of WWII and it still takes great pictures.

Nothing beats developing shots from 120 film. The resolution you get when you enlarge or even scan the film into your digital workflow is amazing.

[kojo87 @ Jun 6th 2008 12:14AM]

i thought they were just ridiculous looking speakers at first. oh well

[gad get @ Jun 6th 2008 12:20AM]

So did I! Although, I'm not sure why speakers would have hand cranks on the sides.... Maybe you crank it and it plays music, kinda like those funny little music boxes... but for audiophiles.
???

[Ricardo @ Jun 6th 2008 6:55AM]

Lol, I also just noticed they were cameras after reading the article.

[zorg @ Jun 6th 2008 12:23AM]

I read somewhere that Rolleiflex TLRs are the only pro camera from the 1950s still in daily use. Apparently they were built like tanks. What I remember from childhood was looking through the viewfinder and being blown away by the brightness of the image. I couldn't understand how you could get that without electronic enhancement. It was sort of a free lesson in the awesome power of high-end optics.

[Bogaty @ Jun 6th 2008 12:34AM]

Thanks to the poster that gave a link to the old 3Megapixel "TLR." Yeah, this is probably just as crummy as that original one, not worth the price at all.

You know if minox did a really good job at making this look and feel like a Rolleiflex, I'd say incredibly cool. As it stands, the image lens (the lower one) is tiny - meaning a cheap point and shoot sensor - I would expect a big solid lens and sensor. Turn the crank to advance to the next picture? Pretty lame idea. It just looks bad to me. The thing needs to be rugged and heavy.

It's also like those mini-Minox cameras sold in flight magazines. I think Lufthansa sells them. Way over priced.

[Justin Dennis @ Jun 6th 2008 12:34AM]

I have a real Rollei TLR, really, out of my collection of camera's its the least used, they arent the easiest to shoot with. They do give an amazing feel to fine art photos though. There are still a few very famous fine art photographers as well as some very high-end commercial (portrait) photographers that still use these upon occasion! So making a half-ass digital version isn't very flattering to the history of these cameras... But making a true digital version, with a true 6X6 cm imaging sensor would cost a mint... I mean like small home territory...

[Steven @ Jun 6th 2008 1:44AM]

Would be a lot more interesting if it were scale 1:1, and if they scaled resolution up to 2:1 I wouldn't even mind the price scaled as well.

And I hope you don't _have_ to turn the crack...

[Christian @ Jun 6th 2008 3:02AM]

I would be surprised, if this camera shoots any better than a decent mobile phone.

[kuppenbender1 @ Jun 6th 2008 3:07AM]

Nothing new here: http://www.engadget.com/2004/03/05/the-digital-rolleiflex/

[Rboyett @ Jun 6th 2008 11:44AM]

i knew I had seen that camera before. It was at Yodobashi Camera in Machida, Japan back in March 2007.

[Adam @ Jun 6th 2008 3:15AM]

Genuine Rolleiflexes are worth good money - I nearly bought one a couple of years back for $990 (Aust).

I want one of these. Bad.

[Xultar @ Jun 6th 2008 8:24AM]

I'll be picking one of these up.

[Wolfticket @ Jun 6th 2008 11:10AM]

If the scale was 1:1, and the sensor was 1:1, and the lens was 1:1 then I'd be all over this. But really, look at the state of the craptastic light-gathering-bit of the camera where the glass once would have been. It makes me sad.