Jonathan R
Well-known
Thank you. So much for those who maintain that the 'Made in Germany' Zeiss-branded versions were superior, then!
Archlich
Well-known
Rollei today is nothing but an empty husk, personally I couldn't care less about the branding they're spamming about. The late-1990s repackaged Samsung "Rollei Pregos" all had fancy marks like "Apogon", "HFT" and "Germany", which didn't seem to have made any meaningful difference optically.
Back to th Rollei 35AF. This "5 element glass" description does leave much to be desired. I have yet to see an influencer/early adopter presenting a non-crappy, non-batch scanned shot to demonstrate what the lens is truly capable of. No further information from Mint either - no diagram, no MTF, nothing...their sample images too look like they may as well be from a mid-1990s P&S with a triplet (which is decent) that costs $20.
In short, no idea at all at this stage if the lens is a good performer - or not, like Mint's previous endeavor, the RF70.
Last edited:
It doesn't take much effort to design and build a reasonably good quality 35/2.8 for 135 format, I would bet money it offers quite acceptable performance.
People aren't going to buy this camera for the lens. If they want a performance 35mm lens (whatever their criteria may be), they are going elsewhere.
People aren't going to buy this camera for the lens. If they want a performance 35mm lens (whatever their criteria may be), they are going elsewhere.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
There is no argument to be made that Zeiss-branded lenses on the Rolleis weren't the same. However, it is well known that the quality control and assembly standards in Singapore were not up to the traditional German level. The Rollei SLX is a prime example; the model was almost sunk by the reputation for unreliability which the Singapore-made original model had. Rollei's unofficial "version 2", virtually identical but made in Germany, proved a solid performer and saved Rollei's reputation (at least in the 120 SLR department). Many examples of the second version are still out there going strong. It's a great camera!
I had a Rollei 35B, made in Singapore, when they were current. It essentially fell apart after a little use.
agentlossing
Well-known
This was a blast from the past. I have fond memories of watching the old DigitalRev street videos with Kai in and around 2012-2013, those were good times.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well it does take some effort: the original Tessar 40mm and Sonnar 40mm lenses in the Rollei 35, 35T, and 35S models were definitely superior to many other lenses in this class, including the Triotar 40mm on the lower-end Rollei 35 models (Rollei 35B and 35C, Rollei 35LED, etc). The Sonnar in particular gave more even illumination when wide open and more balanced resolution (sharp from about f/4 on to the diffraction limit between f/11 and f/16). I bought my Rollei 35s (I have had six to nine of them, in toto) because it was a nearly miraculous thing to have a 35mm camera as compact as this in the late 1960s—early 1970s that produced resuts as sharp as my Nikon and Leica cameras of that same era.It doesn't take much effort to design and build a reasonably good quality 35/2.8 for 135 format, I would bet money it offers quite acceptable performance.
People aren't going to buy this camera for the lens. If they want a performance 35mm lens (whatever their criteria may be), they are going elsewhere.
But the Rollei 35 was never designed to address the modern memes of "always wide-open" bokeh and casual, one-handed, instant snappy use. It was, like many cameras of that era, a camera that you used with a certain amount of intent and thoughtfulness. You didn't just bring it to your eye and hammer on the shutter and film wind willy nilly. You thought about what you were intending to photograph, made focus and exposure decisions, and then took a few exposures as things developed in front of your eyes.
I've been shooting with Rollei 35 cameras since somewhere around 1979, and have made many many satisfying photos with them. Here's a little set I made in 2009 and posted to Flickr: MOMA 2009
They are terrific photo makers. I hope the incorporation of AF in this new MiNT camera, along with the lens and everything else, continues in the tradition.
And who cares that the corporation that is now named Rollei is not the same as Francke & Heidige in Braunschweig of 50 years ago? Let's evaluate the cameras and other products produced with the name on their objective merits and not worry about what marketing weenies have to say about it.
G
Archlich
Well-known
It doesn't take much effort to design and build a reasonably good quality 35/2.8 for 135 format, I would bet money it offers quite acceptable performance.
People aren't going to buy this camera for the lens. If they want a performance 35mm lens (whatever their criteria may be), they are going elsewhere.
It's relatively easy to design a proper lens today doesn't mean it's the case with Mint as, well, their track record with the RF70 hadn't been stellar.
This, plus that this is a $800 camera (only reasonable when you compare it to other "premium" P&S that came with premium lenses), plus that it's associating itself with the Rollei 35, means there at least will be some people that would like to see matching optical quality from such a pricey device. Myself included, of course, as I'd really like to pull the trigger.
This camera also has other culprits, as I had mentioned previously in this thread, like the lack of means to tell where the camera has focused on. A big no back in the active IR AF days (already a headache with the 1988 Contax T2, downright nightmarish with its mid-1980s predecessors), and could still be a no today. Really need to see more real life examples for a fuller picture on what the camera really is about.
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Having had a few of each of Braunschweig made and Singapore made Rollei 35s (Rollei 35S and Rollei 35T models were made in both places, over time). They were all pretty similar ... Whether the German-made ones were actually superior in fit and finish would be hard to say without having a much larger sample to examine.
The Rollei 35B was a very much cost-reduced, plastic chassis camera with a low-end Triotar lens in the line. I would not put it on par with either Rollei 35T or Rollei 35S in any respect, if it had had better build quality it wouldn't have made much difference since it was, in essence, a minimalistic plastic camera.
The SLX, on the other hand, was a super-exotic design for its day and I can well believe that the Singapore plant was not up to the level of producing it in volume production consistently. Also, take into mind the time factor: The SLX was a very sophisticated device full of electronics being manufactured in the last days when Rollei's finances were failing shortly before they closed the Singapore plant. Many opportunities for problems, particularly early in the run. The closure of the Singapore plant and relocation of production to Germany meant that the "version 2" units were being made in much lower volume by a smaller ground of dedicated technicians trying to revive the old firm... And still they had problems with what were very complex electronics for the day.
So much history in these things... !
G
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Well said! And as for the Rollei name? I have a 50mm f/4 Rolleigon for my Rollei 6000 series. It beats the pants off the equivalent Zeiss Distagon, for which it was the "budget" alternative. It was made for Rollei by Tokina.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hmm. My RF70 makes lovely sharp photos, as does my TL70-Plus. What I find, however, is that I don't tend to use them much as they are somewhat bulky in hand and not entirely "smooth and seamless" in use ... They can't really compete with the Polaroid SX-70 (and its Mint derivatives) when it comes to being compact to carry and delightful in use.
With respect to the Rollei 35AF again:
Absolutely, cannot disagree with that at all.
G
Last edited:
JSteed#2
Established
This is a forum of knowledgeable enthusiasts. We know that the F&H Rollei is gone forever, and that the real question is whether this new camera is worth buying regardless of label. Kyocera did a fine job with Contax, ditto Cosina with Voigtlander. Just tell me: does this camera have a lens that justifies its price? Seems hard to be enthusiastic without that info (since those of us who had them all scale focused our Rollei 35's in the first place).
kram
Well-known
In a past Mint post ,I seem to remember that the lens has been designed to give a classical look to the images. I take that to mean not a modern pin sharp high contrast lens with low distortion, but I could be wrong. Personally I think they could have put a 6 element lens in the camera to be on top of the compact lens pile e.g . Nikon 35Ti, Contax T3, etc.
As an aside, my late father had the Rollei 35T and I had a 35S. For my needs the meter was limiting, I needed a meter to read at lower EV.
As an aside, my late father had the Rollei 35T and I had a 35S. For my needs the meter was limiting, I needed a meter to read at lower EV.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Compact 35s are my most often used cameras.
Neither the Rollei 35AF nor the Pentax 17 "do it" for me.
However two new film 35s this year is a very good sign...
Chris
Neither the Rollei 35AF nor the Pentax 17 "do it" for me.
However two new film 35s this year is a very good sign...
Chris
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't know really know what "designing the lens to give a classical look to the images" means.
The Rollei 35S Sonnar 40mm f/2.8 lens is a five element design, and is an outstanding performer.
There's no reason that the Mint Rollei35AF's 35mm 5 element lens cannot be as well. It all depends on how well the specific design and implementation has worked out. To evaluate that, you must do formal lens testing, and that's complicated by the fact that this implementation has no manual focus capability—you must rely upon the AF to do the focusing precisely.
Whether it is "good enough to justify the price' will be a question mark until someone obtains a camera and puts it through its paces both in formal lens testing and in making some photographs that are not just 'snapshots of friends and buildings'...
G
The Rollei 35S Sonnar 40mm f/2.8 lens is a five element design, and is an outstanding performer.
There's no reason that the Mint Rollei35AF's 35mm 5 element lens cannot be as well. It all depends on how well the specific design and implementation has worked out. To evaluate that, you must do formal lens testing, and that's complicated by the fact that this implementation has no manual focus capability—you must rely upon the AF to do the focusing precisely.
Whether it is "good enough to justify the price' will be a question mark until someone obtains a camera and puts it through its paces both in formal lens testing and in making some photographs that are not just 'snapshots of friends and buildings'...
G
das
Well-known
Scale focus, lidar, etc. I think what someone should tackle next is better tech autofocus or better yet an actual rangefinder. I mean, in 1973, I would have chosen a Konica Auto S3 or Canon QL-17 over any version of the Rollei 35 all day. Better and faster lenses and guaranteed focus. I hope that the new 35 has at least exceptionally accurate autofocus but I guess time will tell.
Having been 'in the industry' for many years I find it interesting how commenters always seem to complain about sample images when new cameras are released, as if anything at all can be gleaned from small web images.
Some may find this useful:
www.analogforevermagazine.com
MB: How does the new camera address the challenge of creating a compact film camera without compromising image quality?
GH: Advancements in optics manufacturing and optical design have come a long way since the introduction of the Rollei35 in the 1960s. Nowadays, computers play a significant role in aiding lens design. I would like to highlight a unique approach that was employed in the design of the Rollei 35AF lens.
Film possesses distinct characteristics that differ from digital sensors, and the Rollei 35AF lens was specifically designed for film. It has a special analog film flavor to it and is definitely not cheap. We approached a very old lens designer who designed lenses for many film cameras during their prime. According to him, the requirements for lens design were quite different than today. Rather than chasing for the "best" lens with computer-aided design, we wanted the lens to have a distinct nostalgic flavor to it, so that people would remember that this photo was taken with the Rollei 35AF.
Also if you're looking for the "best" lens, the size constraint of a compact film camera does pose challenges. That being said, the Rollei 35AF lens is not bad at all and meets all the standards of what a decent film lens should be.
The lens itself is composed of a 5-element, all-glass construction.
Some may find this useful:
Interview: Gary Ho of MINT Camera - The Rollei 35 AF Story
The Mint Rollei 35 AF - Exclusive Interview with Gary Ho of Mint Camera | Analog Forever Magazine
In an exclusive and inaugural discussion with Gary Ho of Mint Camera, we uncover the passion and ingenuity fueling their latest creation, the Rollei 35AF.
www.analogforevermagazine.com
MB: How does the new camera address the challenge of creating a compact film camera without compromising image quality?
GH: Advancements in optics manufacturing and optical design have come a long way since the introduction of the Rollei35 in the 1960s. Nowadays, computers play a significant role in aiding lens design. I would like to highlight a unique approach that was employed in the design of the Rollei 35AF lens.
Film possesses distinct characteristics that differ from digital sensors, and the Rollei 35AF lens was specifically designed for film. It has a special analog film flavor to it and is definitely not cheap. We approached a very old lens designer who designed lenses for many film cameras during their prime. According to him, the requirements for lens design were quite different than today. Rather than chasing for the "best" lens with computer-aided design, we wanted the lens to have a distinct nostalgic flavor to it, so that people would remember that this photo was taken with the Rollei 35AF.
Also if you're looking for the "best" lens, the size constraint of a compact film camera does pose challenges. That being said, the Rollei 35AF lens is not bad at all and meets all the standards of what a decent film lens should be.
The lens itself is composed of a 5-element, all-glass construction.
TenEleven
Well-known
I have to say that the scale focus issue on the Rollei 35 is way overblown in my personal view. I have gotten good enough to hit even at f/2.8 and f/4.0 most of the time, and I am not someone with terrific depth perception.
In fact to be completely honest, this (non) issue has held me off these cameras for a bunch of years, which I now regret because it caused me to miss out on the terrific images these make possible by virtue of their design quirks.
The way you shoot and handle any camera informs the way the picture looks in some ways more than even most lenses do.
I think most people (looking at Reddit and YouTube commenters especially) would balk at a hit rate of ‘most of the time’, one stop down, considering how often they complain about AF systems that hit 95% wide-open.
Seriously though, film costs are not cheap. This is why when I’m shooting film I want an accurate exposure and accurate focus.
Seriously though, film costs are not cheap. This is why when I’m shooting film I want an accurate exposure and accurate focus.
TenEleven
Well-known
The camera missed on several occasions in these YouTube reviews, as I pointed out in a previous message. It absolutely is not immune to flubbing focus. In fact I would have been utterly shocked if it was. I guess we have to see what the real world hit rate works out to be, when more "serious" people get them into their hands.
And that is what makes me hesitate and also generally reluctant to use any AF camera. Basically, if there is a mistake in exposure or focus I'd rather it be on me - I can learn something from it, perhaps. With an autofocus miss or screwy exposure you can do nothing but grumble ..
And that is what makes me hesitate and also generally reluctant to use any AF camera. Basically, if there is a mistake in exposure or focus I'd rather it be on me - I can learn something from it, perhaps. With an autofocus miss or screwy exposure you can do nothing but grumble ..
Well, not necessarily. Speaking of the Contax G series specifically, many users complained about the AF, but with knowledge of how the system actually works and what it is looking for, in addition to the feedback available in the viewfinder, these cameras could provide quite accurate AF, and the knowledgeable user has direct impact on the hit rate. The casual/uninformed user also has impact.
We shall soon see if the Mint hits or misses!
We shall soon see if the Mint hits or misses!