Hi Stefan,
Generally speaking, I’d consider whether interchangeable lenses are really a must. If so, there’s no getting round the Mamiyas. Unlike the 220, the 330 has a shutter wind mechanism linked to the film advance; on the 220, the shutter has to be wound separately (as with the Rolleicords). Furthermore, the 220 lacks parallax correction and the option to swap the viewfinder. I don’t consider these last two criteria to be irrelevant – for my part, I like to use a magnifying viewfinder, for example. The lenses all fit the 330 and the 220; there are no restrictions there. The difference in weight isn’t all that great – I reckon about 300g, which isn’t a deal-breaker. The Mamiyas are, on the whole, very solid, high-quality cameras with great lenses.
The Rolleis are significantly smaller, more compact and easier to handle than the Mamiyas. The latter feel very at home on a tripod, whereas the Rollei is also excellent for handheld use. Shutter speeds down to 1/15 are easily achievable if the camera is dangling at waist height and the user has a steady hand.
The Rolleicord is somewhat simpler in design than the ‘Flex’, but no less valuable! The later models are generally considered particularly user-friendly (from Series IV onwards, the reflection behaviour within the body was apparently improved), but especially the Vb, as it is the only Rolleicord to feature a bright focusing screen via the interchangeable lens bay (though older models can be retrofitted with a bright screen). The very early Cords still have the Triotar fitted, a three-element lens. The Triotar is often praised for its ‘ dreamy ’ performance at wide apertures; when stopped down, it is said to have quite good sharpness too. The later models feature the Schneider Xenar, a Tessar-type lens.
Of the Rolleiflex models, the F, E2 and E3 have an interchangeable viewfinder with a bright screen; the 2.8F in particular is highly sought-after. The older Rolleiflex models with the Tessar are generally cheaper. The Zeiss and Schneider five- and (later) six-element lenses are usually more expensive. The Zeiss Planar is probably slightly more popular than the Schneider Xenotar – whether there are any truly measurable differences, I cannot say. Both the Planar and the Xenotar were fitted in all Rolleiflex cameras from the ‘C’ model onwards, in 2.8 and 3.5 versions respectively (with the 2.8 versions consistently being more expensive). As a ‘mid-range model’, there was also the ‘Rolleiflex T’ with the Zeiss Tessar or the Xenar.
The light meters, if present, have a selenium cell and very often no longer work; selenium cells eventually ‘die’.
As a user, I would make sure to get a bright focusing screen. As I said, you don’t necessarily have to go for a more modern version with an interchangeable folding light well; the old cameras with a dip light well can also be converted. The “T” is particularly good value for money among the Flex models; you can sometimes find it on eBay for under 200 euros, and the Tessar is flawless. An older “C”, “D” or “E” with a 3.5 Planar/Xenotar usually goes for over 200. An “A” or “B” with a Tessar should be available for under 200. Prices fluctuate wildly, however, depending on the season, the phase of the moon and the condition of the cameras. Cameras without scratches and with their original boxes sometimes reach unexpected price levels, with the shop window dealers bidding on them.
This link may help you identify the serial numbers of the Rolleiflexes:
http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm
Perhaps the Yashica Mat 124 might also be something for you; the Yashinon is a very decent Tessar-type lens. In my opinion, however, these cameras are overrated, as they are very often touted in forums as entry-level cameras, and in terms of feel, there’s a world of difference between the Rollei and the Yashica. A more affordable alternative would be the Flexaret with the 3.5 Belar (also a Tessar).
Regards,
Andreas
