tortellini_man
Established
i just got a 35S and have been liking it so far
not sure i would want to pay >3x the price just for autofocus though
not sure i would want to pay >3x the price just for autofocus though
trix4ever
Well-known
Be careful what you wish for...
shawn
Veteran
Anyone have a picture with the 35AF side by side with the original Rollei 35? The relative proportions seem about the same but the shot with the camera in hand makes it look like it is quite a bit larger.
das
Well-known
Wonder why folks don't consider using an infrared focusing system from something like the Hexar AF instead of Lidar. The biggest achilles heel of every AF P&S is missed focus. That's why I generally don't use them. Too many "focused behind somehow" the centered subject photos to count. if the Rollei can't be 95% accurate in real world situations, then it would never be for me.
shawn
Veteran
pyeh
Member of good standing
Shawn, one of the videos hat Archiver linked shows a good comparison between the original 35 and the 35AF. When I read the dimensions on the pre-order page I compared them to my Rollei 35, but it was hard to tell whether they took protuberances into the measurements.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
It seems strange for the lens to be just a "Rollei Lens.". I'd like it to be a Zeiss Sonnar or Zeiss Tessar like the original Rollei 35. So that there could be more of a feeling of continuity with the original ones, some idea of the imaging. I'm sure it's good, perhaps a Cosina; but "Rollei Lens" seems unsatisfying.
TenEleven
Well-known
Zeiss is absolutely not going to give the license for the name of one of their most famous/impactful lenses they have ever made to some tiny Hong Kong upstart. Not a snowballs chance in hell. They didn't even do that for the revival Rolleiflexes (FX/GX) which again share the same Planar lens structure but could not have not the name. And that Brand has been long associated with Zeiss and Zeiss lenses.... so yeah.
Also, without having seen a diagram (5 elements is claimed) I doubt that the 35mm f/2.8 is a "Sonnar" type lens and thus the label would be misleading anyway. The Sonnar structure is not very well suited for wide angle designs. The namesake Rollei 35 40mm "Sonnar" is also really an Ernostar, but hey who's checking these days ...
While we're nit-picking - yes - the Contax T3 35/2.8 was also labelled "Sonnar" as well despite the inside being very clearly a Biogon type. I guess it's not a lie to call that lens a "Sonnar" in the loosest possible sense since the Biogon started out as the "Bio-Sonnar" and both were invented by Bertele.... same with the Ernostar, which after all is the prototype to the aformentioned lens
Last edited:
TenEleven
Well-known
Agreed. I find myself liking the concept of a compact camera more than the reality of shooting them. It sounds so nice on paper, though!
The only auto-focus camera that I feel I can somewhat trust is the Minolta TC-1. In fact, I had mine serviced by Kenko-Minolta in 2022 before they stopped offering that service.
This is most likely not even because the AF system is very good, no - it's a quite typical late 80ies compact type AF.
It's the simple fact that lens, while optically amazing, is a fairly unambitious 28mm f/3.5 job - the depth of field is quite large and even moderate misses are usually fully usable. And of course for slow moving subjects I can carefully check the finder distance readout and consider whether it makes any sense or not.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Dogman
Veteran
I dunno about this. Seems a bit like a brick in handling. The original Rollei 35 felt and handled great.
I still like my X100S. I know--not a film camera. But it's really good.
I still like my X100S. I know--not a film camera. But it's really good.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Same here. I'll keep shooting with my Olympus Stylus P&S. If it fails, I'll consider a Rollei 35 SE.
Just a slightly larger brick.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Actually, Rollei sold many Rollei 35S and 35T cameras with the lens brand marked as simply "Rollei HFT" ... It was part of a cost cutting deal with Zeiss to not use the Zeiss branding on the lens bezel which they dropped in later years when the Rollei 35 Classic was introduced. ALL the Rollei 35 lenses were supplied by Zeiss (and Schneider) in the day.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
One of the review videos showed them side by side, but I can't seem to find the clip. The 35AF body is 3-5mm larger in all three dimensions ... not a lot, but quite noticeable. I see it particularly in the top view ... it just looks a bit fatter than the 35S body.
Considering how much more stuff the 35AF has in it (Lidar, flash, big battery, AF mechanism), I think they've done a good job of keeping the growth in check, but it is a larger camera ... In this size camera, a few mm here and there mean a lot!
G
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
The film wind crank on the new 35AF seems less than ergonomic, it has to be wound >180 degrees … with the left hand! Meanwhile the shutter has to be operated with the right (because of where the button is located), meaning this is a two-hand-operated camera!
Meanwhile some reviewers are saying the original 35 was also like this (I have never used one).
Meanwhile some reviewers are saying the original 35 was also like this (I have never used one).
Jonathan R
Well-known
Do you mean the lenses were NOT actually 'Made in Singapore'?
Jonathan R
Well-known
Yes, you have to use both hands to operate the old Rollei 35 (...35S, 35T, etc), because the shutter control and wind lever are on the left, aperture and shutter release on the right. The wind lever does have a long travel. You get used to all this quickly enough.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Absolutely not. Rollei 35 production began in Germany in 1966. When the assembly plant in Singapore was opened (about 1970, IIRC), they received assembled lens/shutter/chassis from Germany onto which they assembled the other components and body claddings.
The complete history of the Rollei 35 Family of cameras is articulated very nicely in Klaus Prochnow's 1994 book published for Rollei's 75th Anniversary ...
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The film wind is very very much like the original Rollei 35. And while you might think it "unergonomic" from the context of other cameras that you are familiar with, in use it proves not to be so very difficult as it might seem.
You see, the Rollei 35 was not designed to be a camera held at the eye on which you make all the settings at eye level, like later SLRs and most cameras designed in the post-1960s idiom which arose from SLRs. (Just like a Leica M was really not designed to be held at the eye for making settings, etc, until later changes and the incorporation of a meter ...) The Rollei 35 was designed to be wound and have all its focus and metering setup done while held at waist level, much like a Rolleiflex TLR, allowing you to then just raise the camera to the eye, frame, and release the shutter. You wind the shutter on as you lower the camera from your eye with your left hand, and stabilizing the camera with your right (and the wrist strap looped around your right wrist). It was not designed for rapid sequence shooting, as one reviewer seemed to take exception about in his ravings; it was designed for a thoughtful pace in photography, not a sports blaster or modeling session's 10000 frames making a bazillion exposures; designed for a photographer to set up and then await just the right moment to make an exposure.
It can be a very quick camera in use, but is not intended or capable of being a "fast" camera addressing the needs of fast paced sequence shooting in varying conditions, much like a lot of other 1950-1960s 35mm cameras were similarly quick but not fast. The Rollei 35AF continues to operate in the same way, with the same design meme at work.
G
Last edited: