rolleistef
Well-known
Hello all,
Just wondering if any of you was fortunate enough (with the help of both monetary and destiny fortunes) to have used or tried the Rolleiflex SL2000 or 3000. This camera has always been a mystery to me....
Thanks!
Just wondering if any of you was fortunate enough (with the help of both monetary and destiny fortunes) to have used or tried the Rolleiflex SL2000 or 3000. This camera has always been a mystery to me....
Thanks!
julianphotoart
No likey digital-phooey
I purchased a cosmetically beautiful SL2000 about 10 years ago. I also have 5 lenses.
The camera is a heartbreaker. There's a guy in Toronto who has/had a repair shop. He used to work for Rollei. He tried 3 times to put the camera right and even he was stumped. So, though my experience is with only one SL2000, here's my take:
1. The film cartridge has a dial on the left that is supposed to communicate the film speed to the camera body so it can meter correctly. Mine has never worked. That's what stumped the camera repair guy. As a result, the camera has no metering capability.
2. The batteries get used up real quick.
3. The camera is awkward to operate without an auxiliary grip.
4. It is challenging to load film in the very compact confines of the film cartridge.
5. The camera's electronics are 1st generation and troublesome.
6. Rolleinar lenses aren't so great. Many of the available lenses must be used stopped-down on this camera.
7. Zeiss made Rollei-mount lenses and they are great, but expensive.
8. There is a Tamron Adaptall mount for Rollei so that can widen available lenses quite a bit.
9. The aperture and shutter speed read-outs in the viewfinder use a type of illumination that is quirky and unreliable.
In sum, I bought the camera with high hopes. I sank waaaaaayyyyy to much money into it to try to get it fixed. Having obstinately refused to allow itself to be fixed, I just don't trust it to work right. This fear is unfortunately buttressed by my experience with 4 other Rollei's that I happen to own. The SL35 is so basic that one can't go wrong -- though it requires stopped-down metering. The SL35E and SL35M that I bought have also seriously let me down with their electronics. Even my compact 35SE has defied attempts to fix its light-meter. Too bad.
Now, I have read that the SL3003 was made better than the SL2000. I sure hope so. Maybe someone who knows a lot more can comment on the internal quality of both camera types.
The camera is a heartbreaker. There's a guy in Toronto who has/had a repair shop. He used to work for Rollei. He tried 3 times to put the camera right and even he was stumped. So, though my experience is with only one SL2000, here's my take:
1. The film cartridge has a dial on the left that is supposed to communicate the film speed to the camera body so it can meter correctly. Mine has never worked. That's what stumped the camera repair guy. As a result, the camera has no metering capability.
2. The batteries get used up real quick.
3. The camera is awkward to operate without an auxiliary grip.
4. It is challenging to load film in the very compact confines of the film cartridge.
5. The camera's electronics are 1st generation and troublesome.
6. Rolleinar lenses aren't so great. Many of the available lenses must be used stopped-down on this camera.
7. Zeiss made Rollei-mount lenses and they are great, but expensive.
8. There is a Tamron Adaptall mount for Rollei so that can widen available lenses quite a bit.
9. The aperture and shutter speed read-outs in the viewfinder use a type of illumination that is quirky and unreliable.
In sum, I bought the camera with high hopes. I sank waaaaaayyyyy to much money into it to try to get it fixed. Having obstinately refused to allow itself to be fixed, I just don't trust it to work right. This fear is unfortunately buttressed by my experience with 4 other Rollei's that I happen to own. The SL35 is so basic that one can't go wrong -- though it requires stopped-down metering. The SL35E and SL35M that I bought have also seriously let me down with their electronics. Even my compact 35SE has defied attempts to fix its light-meter. Too bad.
Now, I have read that the SL3003 was made better than the SL2000. I sure hope so. Maybe someone who knows a lot more can comment on the internal quality of both camera types.
Philip Whiteman
Well-known
I've owned two SL2000Fs, one of the red-button 'demo' cameras and a standard one which came with a second film back as new old stock.
The 'demo' one worked fine, the second one went wrong after I ran it on non-rechargeable batteries (wrong voltage, can cook the electronics). This example also made odd rows of bright spots on the exposures, a known problem due to high points on the film transport rollers. This problem was fixed by AV under guarantee, although the SL2000F does tend to trap dust and scratch films by virtue of its design.
I did appreciate the waist-level finder (which also tended to fill up with dust) but found the sheer bulk of the thing made it a pain to carry around. Handling was improved by fitting the Rollei side grip, but the very fact this accessory existed is an admission of the SL2000's handling deficiencies (in this sense, the SL3000 was better thought out).
Had I really needed to regularly change film types and make series exposures, I might have appreciated the camera more. For most people, a conventional SLR, fitted with a winder/motor only when needed, is the better option.
I found the Rollei 50mm Planar to be very sharp and contrasty. The Rollei-made 35mm Distagon was equally good, and the 21mm Rolleinar was good enough for the limited use I made of such a wide angle objective.
However, I have been much happier with the Leica R4 and Nikon FE I have used since I sold the Rolleis.
The 'demo' one worked fine, the second one went wrong after I ran it on non-rechargeable batteries (wrong voltage, can cook the electronics). This example also made odd rows of bright spots on the exposures, a known problem due to high points on the film transport rollers. This problem was fixed by AV under guarantee, although the SL2000F does tend to trap dust and scratch films by virtue of its design.
I did appreciate the waist-level finder (which also tended to fill up with dust) but found the sheer bulk of the thing made it a pain to carry around. Handling was improved by fitting the Rollei side grip, but the very fact this accessory existed is an admission of the SL2000's handling deficiencies (in this sense, the SL3000 was better thought out).
Had I really needed to regularly change film types and make series exposures, I might have appreciated the camera more. For most people, a conventional SLR, fitted with a winder/motor only when needed, is the better option.
I found the Rollei 50mm Planar to be very sharp and contrasty. The Rollei-made 35mm Distagon was equally good, and the 21mm Rolleinar was good enough for the limited use I made of such a wide angle objective.
However, I have been much happier with the Leica R4 and Nikon FE I have used since I sold the Rolleis.
borrel
Børre Ludvigsen
I have an SL3003 with a couple of backs, a Distagon 25/2.8, Planar 50/1.8 and Rolleinar 200/3.5. The 3003 has releases on both sides and the top. It therefore handles much like a very light Hasselblad or Bronica SQ and the camcorder-style side handle really isn't necessary. As seen on these samples: http://abdallah.hiof.no/20070511-RFLX3003/, the results are very good provided the camera is held still. (Not all of these were held still and they were scanned on a lousy flatbed.) These cameras are compact, flexible and very light compared to their contemporaries WITH motordrives AND auto exposure. Anyone remember the F2 with motordrive, battery pack and motorized aperture drive? You had to carry a second Nikkormat ELW instead of just another Rollei back. Just the cameras were enough to make one wonder what the price of a pack mule was. These days a complete 3003 outfit can be had for a very reasonable price. A dream come true for those of us who drooled over the most expensive and most complete (if somewhat over-engineered) camera system that ever came out of Germany. Now - if there only were a mechanical advance that could be mounted instead of the battery pack, and I dream of the day some enterprising engineer will take a full frame sensor from a 5DII and prise it into a 3003 filmback! So if you like playing with 135 film SLRs, this is the ultimate SLR. (Oh - and NEVER put anything but rechargeable batteries into the battery pack. When normal AAs lose their charge, they are said to have a tendency to leave you with a jammed camera.)