Takkun
Ian M.
My (free to me, years ago) Bronica SQ is a bit worse for wear; the finder is taped on, and spent a little time browsing online what orphaned MF systems are out there. Years ago when I worked in a camera shop I passed on the opportunity to pick up a Mamiya 645J, but my heart was in 6x6. found myself looking at Rollei's system cameras.
I had no idea that Rollei seemingly shrank their 6006 to 35mm, but so it was done. Here's a sales brochure.
What a fascinating setup, all the more so since 35mm system cameras seemingly died out with the Nikon F4. I've never been one for needing different focusing screens, or data backs, or all sorts of different motor drives, but interchangeable film backs? That's my favorite part of shooting MF.
And that lens lineup. I don't want to think about how heavy or pricey that 1000/5.5 was.
Did anyone have one of these? I'm curious on how it is to use, and how it fared in the market back when it was new. I can imagine that, back then, Canon/Nikon/Contax had a lot of these features in a more compact box, or one might just jump straight to MF for all the hassle.
I had no idea that Rollei seemingly shrank their 6006 to 35mm, but so it was done. Here's a sales brochure.
What a fascinating setup, all the more so since 35mm system cameras seemingly died out with the Nikon F4. I've never been one for needing different focusing screens, or data backs, or all sorts of different motor drives, but interchangeable film backs? That's my favorite part of shooting MF.
And that lens lineup. I don't want to think about how heavy or pricey that 1000/5.5 was.
Did anyone have one of these? I'm curious on how it is to use, and how it fared in the market back when it was new. I can imagine that, back then, Canon/Nikon/Contax had a lot of these features in a more compact box, or one might just jump straight to MF for all the hassle.
raid
Dad Photographer
I had a Rolleiflex 2000. It always breaks down. The 3003 is maybe more reliable. The best part about this system are the lenses. I have the Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon and the 85/1.4 Planar. I also have the 50/1.4 Planar and a few other lenses, including a 35/2.8 and 85/2.8, I think.
Basically, Rolleiflex was about to go bankrupt, and quality control may have slipped to a low then. The SL2000 and SL3003 cost a small fortune, and so did the (many) accessories for these two cameras.
Basically, Rolleiflex was about to go bankrupt, and quality control may have slipped to a low then. The SL2000 and SL3003 cost a small fortune, and so did the (many) accessories for these two cameras.
HHPhoto
Well-known
The first model - SL 2000F - had indeed some issues.
But the later - and improved - model 3003 was mostly fine. If you are generally interested in this camera type, the model 3003 is certainly the best choice.
But be realistic:
You cannot get these cameras cheap. Because it is very rare: Only 2.800 normal 3003 were build, and 500 units of the "Edition de Luxe" (different color).
The 3003 was produced from 1984 to 1994.
Cheers, Jan
But the later - and improved - model 3003 was mostly fine. If you are generally interested in this camera type, the model 3003 is certainly the best choice.
But be realistic:
You cannot get these cameras cheap. Because it is very rare: Only 2.800 normal 3003 were build, and 500 units of the "Edition de Luxe" (different color).
The 3003 was produced from 1984 to 1994.
Cheers, Jan
Gregm61
Well-known
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
If you search in the forum's, there is a RFF member who had very bad experience with it. Definitely not for pro use in his opinion (but stunning optics). Never had one, so I don't know.