rollei 35 issues

[phthenry]

I was given a rollei 35 camera (made in Singapore) for my birthday and I just shot a roll of color film with it.

Though I like the feel of the camera, I don't like the focusing mechanism. There is no parallelex focusing mechanism; you have to guess the distance to your object. This makes the camera impractical for my use, since I like to shoot people, not nature.

Also, I did not think my pictures came out particularly sharp. The camera has a zeiss lens. I took my pictures with a variety of lens openings, from wide open to completely shut down.

Has anyone else had success using this camera?

[zeitoun]

It is a love-it or hate-it camera. I happen to love it. It forces you to go to the basics of the basics of image taking. Previsualizing not only speed and aperture but also distance. I happen not to have had too much problems with distance evaluation and have gotten more than a few nicely focussed close-up shots. In terms of sharpness, I have to say that at my levels of darkroom skills (I shoot nearly exclusively B&W negatives), I have a very hard time distincuishing the prints from my Rollei 35S from those of my Leica M2 + Summilux 50 or Summicron 40. Proper exposure makes the major difference, not the camera or lens, for me at least.
I do use a Abrahamsson mini-soft release with the Rollei and that helps considerably in steadying the camera.
I should also add that the top meter and aperture and speed settings allow for very discrete setting up of the camera, which in many ways makes it a beautiful camera for candid portraits.
As I said, some love it, some hate it. It does take a short while to find out which side of the equation one falls under. I hope you end up loving it, I know I do!
Best of luck.
Paul
PS: and yes, it is a lot of fun to handle (and fondle!)

[iamzip]

One of the things that I have found is that you have to learn how to use the DOF scale, which I believe is only set at f8 and f16 on the 35. It is much quicker and easier to guess what range your subject will be in, rather than to try and guess the exact distance. Also, be aware that the markings on top of the lens are in meters, and the bottom is in feet.

[ZeissFan]

I've used various versions of this camera since 1979. It was the first camera that I bought upon my arrival in Germany. Ironically, it was the Singapore-made 35T (Tessar).

Its ergonomics require some adjustments by the photographer. Once you get used to it, it's really a terrific little camera.

I've shot Ilford, Kodak, Agfa, print, color, transparency (but not infrared) with this camera. It's a reliable camera, and as long as you get a camera that hasn't been abused, you can be assured of getting some very good photos.

Here's my mini-review of the Rollei 35 (http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/rollei35.htm), which includes one photo that I took many years ago.

[MaxElmar]

It's a wonderful camera with great lenses. Perhaps the ultimate in quality manual 35mm portability. But scale focusing can lead to heartbreak.

Still, it's a fun camera. Sometimes I carry it in my bag with two big rolleis, the 35 loaded with alternate film - the meter comes in handy. On a sunny day at F8 - F16 it will rock your world. But up close and wide open - it can break your heart, because most folks just aren't that great at distinguishing the difference between 36" and 56." And it at f3.5 or 2.8 it really matters.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2132/2452853373_23763994f4.jpg

Use it, practice with it, grasp its limitations and you'll love it.

Have Fun,

Chris L.

[michaelbialecki]

Hello everybody,

I used to use my Rollei 35 (made in Germany) exclusively for 3 years and it taught me alot about photography. The scale focus issue can be a problem in certain situations and I can understand why some people are not fans of the camera. Personally, I liked it when I was using it, but after having a Leica m in my hands for the last 8 years, I don't think I could ever go back to using it. That said, it is an excellent camera and you are lucky, because it 's a cool birthday gift.......here is a photo from my Rollie 35.......back in the days when I used to take it everywhere...........cheers, Michael

Dublin, Ireland

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2416/2232329250_cdf22b1748_b.jpg

[popobsd]

Don't give up, it is faster than Leica if you are familiar with this cool camera.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2401/2460009821_9f6c04bdbe_b.jpg

[hugivza]

I bought an FSU rangefinder for about $10 which sits at the bottom on the accesory shoe and takes the heart ache out of focussing. It is a great camera for stuffing in the pocket and taking anywhere, despite its obvious quirks.

[tomtodeath]

One of the things that I have found is that you have to learn how to use the DOF scale, which I believe is only set at f8 and f16 on the 35. It is much quicker and easier to guess what range your subject will be in, rather than to try and guess the exact distance. Also, be aware that the markings on top of the lens are in meters, and the bottom is in feet.

The Rollei 35 [Germany] i have has the feet marked on top and meters on the bottom. I think that they made them different for different markets. Ive also seen some 35s models that have both meters and feet on top. Also my 35 has a larger viewfinder than my friends 35s.

[richard_l]

Use the DOF scale. For f/8 and smaller apertures, I usually just set the focus at hyperfocal distance (move the infinity symbol to 8 or whatever the aperture is). For larger apertures and/or fairly close distances, I guess the distance and then check the DOF, from which I can usually tell if I'm in the ballpark. For nearby objects, there's nothing wrong with pacing off the distance. (It's akin to taking a reflective meter reading from a subject's face.) The farther away an object is, the less critical focus becomes (because of increased DOF).

You can make a thingie out of a 3x5 card to help you estimate distance using the horizontal disparity of images as viewed by your left and right eyeballs. I don't have the URL handy.

[John Robertson]

Terrific cameras, but VERY easy to get camera shake with them!!! So little to hold on to!!! Had to give mine up, writing to small for ageing eyes!!!

[phthenry]

Thanks for the replies. I will shoot another roll, this time of black and white. The pictures the first time really seem to come out fuzzier than my Minolta SLR, which surprised me.

I guess it's not possible to get an accessory to tell me how far away my subject is? The flash shoe is on the *bottom* of the camera.

Interestingly, I don't need the light meter at all, since I use the black cat metering guide. I would rather a focusing mechanism rather than a light meter. Oh well.

Hey! Someone mentioned that the bottom of the lens was marked with feet--and sure enough, that turns out to be the case! Since I am an American, that will greatly help me out.

[micromontenegro]

If I could have only one camera, I'd pick a Rollei 35. Its sharpness is amazing- even with the lowly Triotar models- if you get the focus right. I'll give you a very unpopular advice: practice! Guess focus can be easily (but not hastedly) mastered with lots and lots of practice.

[mh2000]

I've had a couple Rollei's... beautiful cameras. I personally prefer the Minox 35's since they are so much smaller and also have a great lens (not to mention aperture priority metering).

The way I've found to be most effective using these cameras is to get really good at guesstimating 4' and 6' because that is how I shoot most people at the FL's. Then, have the camera preset to a distance and step in to take the shot. Shot like this these cameras will be faster than almost anything and the FL's are short enough that you'll rarely mess up your focus.

hope that helps... these cameras can be lots of fun!

[zeitoun]

I believe you can get the lens mounted so that the scale appears either in feet or meters. A qualified technician should be able to do that easily for you. As mentioned above, this type of camera is principally used using the hyperfocal distance setting. If you do that and preset the speed and aperture then it becomes an incredibly quick camera. I would strongly recommend the soft release (do not store the camera with it on, as the shutter release should not be pressed when the lens is retracted) and to make sure you place the camera firmly on your nose/eyebrows to steady it.
Paul

[tomtodeath]

Use the DOF scale. For f/8 and smaller apertures, I usually just set the focus at hyperfocal distance (move the infinity symbol to 8 or whatever the aperture is). For larger apertures and/or fairly close distances, I guess the distance and then check the DOF, from which I can usually tell if I'm in the ballpark. For nearby objects, there's nothing wrong with pacing off the distance. (It's akin to taking a reflective meter reading from a subject's face.) The farther away an object is, the less critical focus becomes (because of increased DOF).

You can make a thingie out of a 3x5 card to help you estimate distance using the horizontal disparity of images as viewed by your left and right eyeballs. I don't have the URL handy.

I just found this link:
http://www.daniel.mitchell.name/cameras/index.php?page=cardboardrf&WEBMGR=01a13287313589e6c0ecf2180b3f8a09
gonna try to make one right now

[phthenry]

I just found this link:
http://www.daniel.mitchell.name/cameras/index.php?page=cardboardrf&WEBMGR=01a13287313589e6c0ecf2180b3f8a09
gonna try to make one right now

I just make one, and it didn't work. I followed the directions and measured and calculated very carefully. What I found was that the card allows me to very accurately judge distances up to 2 meters. But beyond 2 meters, the card simply did not work.

[photovdz]

wonderful camera... but take care to lock you lens extended as it must... so that it's sharp... ;-)

Stupid I know but I've seen great photographers forgetting to lock their collapsible lenses...

[arkrite]

Purchased my Rollie35T (Singapore build) in about 1975 and it cost about £100. Expensive in those days. I still have it and use it. People still remark about. Its so small they think it is digital until they feel the weight of it. As Zetoune states it is a love or hate case. Me I just love it ( Our relationship has outlasted my marriage). I hope you get the hang of things it is so easy to go digital.

[photovdz]

other rollei 35 S ... "laurel" version... Summer in Sardinia

[amoebahydra]

I was given a rollei 35 camera (made in Singapore) for my birthday and I just shot a roll of color film with it.

Though I like the feel of the camera, I don't like the focusing mechanism. There is no parallelex focusing mechanism; you have to guess the distance to your object. This makes the camera impractical for my use, since I like to shoot people, not nature.

Also, I did not think my pictures came out particularly sharp. The camera has a zeiss lens. I took my pictures with a variety of lens openings, from wide open to completely shut down.

Has anyone else had success using this camera?

With cameras without rangefinder, I usually use hyperfocal method. However, I would also attach rangefinder accessory to the accessory shoe making distance measurement and transfer to the focusing ring for exposure.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Rollei35wZeissRF.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/Rollei35wZeissRFback-3.jpg

[Chyn]

amoebahydra,

Is that a Voigtländer rangefinder? I'm interested in where one can acquire one of these, as I have a Rollei 35s. I've been scale-focusing with great success, but looking for more accuracy.

[amoebahydra]

amoebahydra,

Is that a Voigtländer rangefinder? I'm interested in where one can acquire one of these, as I have a Rollei 35s. I've been scale-focusing with great success, but looking for more accuracy.

No, the one attached is the Zeiss Ikon 426 viewfinder/rangefinder.

I also have the Voigtlander Proximeter rangefinder and Leitz FOKUS rangefinder. The most accurate one is the Leitz rangefinder as it got longest measuring base, but it is more expensive. The accuracy of the other two beyond 20 feet is vulnerable, which however will be covered by depth of field.

I attached a photo of them, from left to right, Leitz, Voigtlander and Zeiss Ikon

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm100/amoebahydra/Photo%20Equipment/rangefinder3.jpg

[Chyn]

amoebahydra,

Thanks for posting the image, it makes for a very nice reference.

[John Lawrence]

I've owned a few Rollei 35s and when first using the camera I found that I was having trouble getting sharp pictures due to my inexperience in estimating the distance. Until I became proficient, I carried and used an accessory rangefinder meter which resulted in sharp pictures.

[FallisPhoto]

you have to guess the distance to your object.

Uh... That's why it is called (improperly) scale focusing (real scale focusing cameras have a scale -- three ranges usually marked portrait, group and landscape). Actually, that is a "ranging" camera (not to be confused with a rangefinder, which it also isn't). Long ago, all cameras used to be like that. You can make your best guess about the distance and use depth of field to compensate for error, or you can measure the distance to the subject, or you can buy an accessory rangefinder (to measure the distance to the subject for you), or you can adjust the lens to the hyperfocal distance (with a small aperture, so pretty much everything is in focus). All four approaches work, and which one you use is up to you.

[Jonathan R]

There is nothing whatever wrong with the Singapore-made Tessar, except its performance wide open and its lack of contrast (which in old Leica lenses would be turned into a virtue!). Stopped down, it can deliver excellent sharpness.

See these examples, full-frame and detail, hand-held on Delta 100, scanned on a mediochre Epson.
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/8752436-lg.jpg
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/8752435-lg.jpg
I can read this board easily, though admittedly I know what kind of words to expect.

Like others who have replied here, I've had some very nice images made with the Rollei 35 and that lens. I feel it's the smallest amount of decent film camera one can reasonably get away with, but I prefer a Leica for its simple ergonomics, lens performance wide open, and the on-board rangefinder.

See also:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4281642-lg.jpg
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4506776-lg.jpg

The second of these was wide open at 1/15, hand-held. I guessed the focus wrong by about 6 inches. That's what made me buy a Leica!