Rollei 35 vs Oly xa2 ?

[lawnpotter]

Is the tessar lens on the rollei 35 far superior to the lens on the XA2 and XA . Also, is the XA2 and XA bigger than the Rollei 35. THanks

[tripod]

Metal, mechanical, full manual control Rollei 35 vs. polycarbonate, AE exposure Oly XA. I find the Rollei to be a serious camera while the XA is more a point and shoot. I could be satisfied with a Rollei as my only camera, not so with an XA (which is a fine camera.)

Just noticed, you mentioned the XA2. It is a full programed auto exposure camera, I think. This gives you even less control than the AE aperture priority XA. The XA has a rangefinder, but very short baselength and short throw focus, so I don't believe it's more accurate than scale focus. I've had a couple of XAs and did not have any luck with their reliability.

[rich815]

I like my XA well enough and it is slimmer, lighter and certainly cheaper (paid $25 USD for mine) but my 35T images are much sharper.

[lawnpotter]

Tommorrow I had arranged to buy an oly xa2 and a rollei 35. I think I will pass on the xa2,. The rollei sounds like a more complete camera just heavier and bigger. I already have 2 oly epics and they are so small and trix 400 looks great with them. Thanks for the help.

[richard_l]

The Tessar on the Rollei 35 is sharper than the Olympus Zuiko on the XA. Also, the Zuiko has a more serious light falloff problem (optical 'vignetting') at the corners of some images. Of course, most people would find the XA to be more user-friendly because of the AE. The Rollei is totally manual/mechanical (no automation whatsoever). If you've never used such a beast, you may not like it at all until you get used to it.

Richard

[wallace]

The question should be: Rollei 35 or Olympus 35RC !
No question who wins this competition.....

[DC1030]

the rollei images are much sharper .... if you choose the right distance - it has no range finder. so i'd say at f 2.8 the olympus is sharper because you can focus the lens exactly. i have both and i'm more confident with the xa when it comes to shooting wide open at low distance.

[wallace]

Look what Mr. Gandy has to say about the RC compared to the Rollei:

http://www.cameraquest.com/olyrc.htm

The lens has a fabulous reputation, I have never been disappointed.
If you can live without the slow speeds, the RC wins hands down.....
(but the RC has a hidden 3sec function!)
Will stop here to praise the RC (otherwise prices will rise soon....).

Wallace
(from Rollei-land)

[tripod]

The Rollei Tessar and Sonnar optics, and build quality are superior IMO, but there is no denying that the Oly RC is a fine camera.

But then, I am a Rollei fan, so I'm biased.

[caspert79]

The optics (Tessar / Sonnar) of the Rollei are excellent, but ergonomics make no sense, mechanical quality is not that great either. I also own 2 Petri Color 35's. I'm not sure whether the lens quality is on par with the Tessar, but it's not bad at all. Mechanical quality, ergomics and finish are truly excellent.

[tripod]

The Rollei 35 ergonomics do make sense on the models with the meter readout on the top deck. Meter reading, exposure control setting, and distance scale setting is all accomplished with the camera at belly level. Then the camera can be raised to the eye and the picure taken. What makes no sense is having the meter readout in the viewfinder as in the TE and SE models. Again, I am a fan. I realize that some people can't get used to the Rollei control layout.

(Hotshoe on the bottom was dictated by the meter guts in the top deck. It was not put there because anyone thought it would be a better place than on the top.)

[richard_l]

Originally Posted by caspert79

The optics (Tessar / Sonnar) of the Rollei are excellent, but ergonomics make no sense.....

I believe Mr. Gandy is also of this opinion. It must be a matter of personal taste, because I don't see how the ergonomics could be any more convenient than on my Rollei 35 and 35 S.

Richard

[micromontenegro]

Originally Posted by tripod

The Rollei 35 ergonomics do make sense on the models with the meter readout on the top deck. Meter reading, exposure control setting, and distance scale setting is all accomplished with the camera at belly level. Then the camera can be raised to the eye and the picure taken. What makes no sense is having the meter readout in the viewfinder as in the TE and SE models. Again, I am a fan. I realize that some people can't get used to the Rollei control layout.

(Hotshoe on the bottom was dictated by the meter guts in the top deck. It was not put there because anyone thought it would be a better place than on the top.)

I wholeheartly agree. Furthermore, once you get used to the Rollei 35 ergonomics, everthing else becomes "weird". And my perception of size must be different from most, 'cause I find the Oly RC (which I love) substantially bigger then the Rollei.

I'd also like to point out that IMHO, the Rollei 35s are the best made tiny 35mm cameras, maybe barring the Tessinas. They are not well-made: they are, as most Rollei cameras, simply outstanding. Of course, the low-ball models as the B35, 35B, C35 and 35 LED are in another category alltogether, very plasticky but nice anyway. But the real 35 is a jewel and a workhorse. The sad part is that most have been banged and dropped for years (see those corner dings?), and no camera can survive such treatment well, much less a tiny one.

Edit: (Clasping the ears of my Contax) If I could have only one camera, it would be a Rollei 35

[Spyderman]

You're comparing apples and oranges if you want to compare Rollei 35 and Oly XAsomething.

I've never handled a Rollei, but I own both XA and XA2. You probably know the features and specs, so I'll tell you about the cameras in use:
The XA has RF and shutter speed readout in the viewfinder - which is a big plus. The RF is not very contrasty, but after some hacking it's more than adequate. And at f2.8 and close up, I'd say the XA wins over any scale focus camera. In bright daylight you can use it as scale focus. You still have aperture priority, which is very handy for quick shooting instead of fiddling with aperture and shutter speed controls on the front of the camera.
XA2 is only 3-zone focus, and programmed exposure, but in daylight I find it much faster to focus than the XA. In low light XA2 is not so good (as it only lights a LED to tell you the speed is under 1/30), but that's what the XA is for.
And most important: both XA and XA2 are always spot-on with exposure. I haven't had a bad picture because of exposure - only some because of wrong focus

From what I've read the XA's can't compete with Rollei in build quality and durability, but in the category where they belong (P&S) they are on the top.

[ferider]

I find the XA lens just as sharp as the Tessar or Sonnar at equivalent apertures. XA Rangefinder and size/weight are a plus. XA Rectangular aperture is a minus.

Roland.

[shadowfox]

Nah, I had a 35 S. It is like operating a lab instrument rather than taking pictures. It sure make a fine subject for a product shot though



, but a long time camera for use it won't be, at least not for me. The Sonnar lens is different than other Sonnar lenses I have. But then again I was new to distance-guessing cameras at that time.

XA-2 is good, but XA has a rangefinder and faster and better-corrected lens, or XA-4 which has wider lens (more fun )

To collect and take a picture of, I'd take the Rollei, to take pictures *with*, I'll take the Oly 35 RC any day.

Just chiming in ...

[micromontenegro]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

The Sonnar lens is different than other Sonnar lenses I have. But then again I was new to distance-guessing cameras at that time.

That is because the 40mm Sonnar is the less "sonnarish" of them all... Rather simmetrical front and rear elements for a Sonnar.

In my book, the lens on the 35S is almost a Planar.

[tripod]

It's good that everyone has different taste buds.

[Gadge]

Hmmm...I have owned all three and if I could find my XA2 again I may well still do. even now!

The Rollei 35 gives good results but is fiddly to use with a flash and feels like a brick in your jacket pocket. The XA2 is ok for a three zone focus P+S. The XA was not as good as I had hoped when buying it, having yearned for one for years whilst using an XA2. I found the RF image very weak and the lens no better than the XA2. Bit more flexible in use, that is all really. The XA's though were a fabulous overall camera design though by a true genius, much like the Olymous M by the same guy.

http://www.geocities.com/maitani_fan/home.html

I also use a late Minox ML which is better IMHO to use than all the above and a Contax T2 which is the king of them all for lens quality and built in flash convenience. The ML though makes the best shirt pocket carry about due to its low weight/size.

As you can see I have had a bit of a thing for small film cameras with great optics for some years now.