Rollei 35SE review

Huss said:
For those who need help in estimating distances..
Grab a camera that does have a focusing mechanism. Pick an object and guess the distance, set that on the lens. Look through the VF, correct the focus, then see how close you were. Rinse and repeat with objects of varying distances.
In about 10 minutes you will become good at estimating distances!
Click to expand...

Yes, but now do it when you are reacting to a fleeting moment. :D
 
I used to own a few Rollei 35's. Just because they are so nice. But I hate unsharp pictures. Now I use a Contax T or an Olympus XA.
 
petronius said:
I think Huss´advice was to practice before the fleeting moments (remember the Carnegie Hall).
Click to expand...

if the moment is fleeting so much that i can't even set the distance, an unsharp picture might be just an adequate result.




(ps: i practised a lot while i adjusted the distance scale on my rollei 35 - at least 4 rolls of film went into that effort. man, that was fun!)
 
jsrockit said:
I could never get the hang of it wide open or near wide open, but it sure was fun to use. Maybe Stephen Shore had the right idea in "American Surfaces"... use flash when the light is low! ;)
Click to expand...
Personally I never got the hang of this camera and am amazed that SS managed to get such great results, I guess it made his later migration to eight-by-ten seem pretty easy :)
 
I've had virtually all models of the Rollei 35, from original to Classic. Wonderful cameras. My favorite, almost beloved, black Rollei 35S is a part of my permanent, never-sell camera kit. It's been with me around the world five times over the past quarter of a century and more.

The Rollei 35SE never worked for me with the LEDs in the viewfinder ... The Rollei 35 was conceived as a waist level camera by its designer, not an eye level camera. As you look down at the top of the camera held at your waist, all the settings are apparent and reachable: focus, shutter time, aperture, DoF scale, and meter. The notion is to always have the camera pre-set to the focus zone you want to be in, do all the settings at your waist level, and then when you see a photo it's a quick motion to bring the camera to your eye, frame, and release the shutter. The controls are not well situated for eye-level setting with the meter readout in the viewfinder and it becomes clumsy, IMO.

Also, it's important to realize that the camera with its original Tessar lens was designed to be used at f/11 most of the time. Tessars always deliver their best performance between f/8 and f/11. Focusing is very fast if you ride the DoF and use f/11: you only have to remember two focus settings for most subjects: 6' and 12'. This was obviously a camera designed before the modern obsession with ultra fast lenses used wide open ... The notion was to use 35mm's native deep DoF (compared to 6x6 format) and focus quickly by zone. You only up it up and spend time getting precise focus settings when light levels are very low.

I had my Rollei 35S cleaned, adjusted, and lubricated a few years ago. I should toss a roll of film in it and give it a walk. :D

G
 
same here. cool camera, but i don't want to bother with the missing rangefinder.

you can always stick an accessory rangefinder into the hot shoe, but then it's a real clunker.

00Xz5V-318351584.jpg
 
I beg a pardon, then Tessar was designed it was 1902. And it was no 135 film format.
Then decades ago Tessar optical formula was in use for 135 film format lenses, they were at optimum just as most of the lenses at f5.6-f8 and fine at f11. FSU 50mm Industars are Tessar formula and they are sharp at f5.6-f8.

Also, all of these assumptions in this thread about availability to scale focus, should be separated from anything else.
40mm lens at 5.6 and tree meters has 1.24 meters DOF.
40mm lens at 3.5 and five meters has 2.2 meters DoF.

Is it this difficult to scale focus at one, three or five meters, not precise, just approximately at f5.6? Not for me at least.
 
petronius said:
I think Huss´advice was to practice before the fleeting moments (remember the Carnegie Hall).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that... but saying it and doing it are two totally different things when using 35mm film and trying to guess focus at 2.8 on a 40mm. As with others, I prefer my subject to be in perfect focus. Of course there are times when a soft photo can work, but generally speaking it doesn't. The provoke guys put a lot of effort into making their photos look like that. It wasn't an accident.
 
Godfrey said:
...

Also, it's important to realize that the camera with its original Tessar lens was designed to be used at f/11 most of the time. Tessars always deliver their best performance between f/8 and f/11. Focusing is very fast if you ride the DoF and use f/11: you only have to remember two focus settings for most subjects: 6' and 12'. This was obviously a camera designed before the modern obsession with ultra fast lenses used wide open ... The notion was to use 35mm's native deep DoF (compared to 6x6 format) and focus quickly by zone. You only up it up and spend time getting precise focus settings when light levels are very low.

G
Click to expand...

Exactly, and how I use my Yashica 35MC and Leica MDA. Everything that can be preset is, and then it's just frame and shoot. 35mm film at f8 to 16 is much much more forgiving of minor focus errors than a 36 to 42Mp sensor at f1.4;)

Edited to add - I have a Sigma 35 that is on its way back to Sigma as it cannot consistently focus on my K1 and the combination of very high resolution and potentially limited dof doesn't work.
 
I love everything about it except the heartaches. The person who said "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler" had this camera in mind. Leaving out the rangefinder was a step too far, IMO. (BTW - there is no evidence Einstein said that.)
 
Two summers ago, I tested my (new to me) 35S and shot 4 rolls in a couple of weeks. Out of those, I got only 3 OOF photos; about a quarter of the photos were shot inside with max aperture. I had never used zone/scale focus before then but found it easy, I used my height (approx. 6 ft) as a rough benchmark and estimated distance that way.

@Godfrey: I never knew a black 35S existed! Would love to see a pic and hear it's history.
 
Godfrey said:
The Rollei 35SE never worked for me with the LEDs in the viewfinder ... The Rollei 35 was conceived as a waist level camera by its designer, not an eye level camera. As you look down at the top of the camera held at your waist, all the settings are apparent and reachable: focus, shutter time, aperture, DoF scale, and meter. The notion is to always have the camera pre-set to the focus zone you want to be in, do all the settings at your waist level, and then when you see a photo it's a quick motion to bring the camera to your eye, frame, and release the shutter. The controls are not well situated for eye-level setting with the meter readout in the viewfinder and it becomes clumsy, IMO.
Click to expand...

+1, non "E" versions are better for me too for the same reasons.

Michiel Fokkema said:
I used to own a few Rollei 35's. Just because they are so nice. But I hate unsharp pictures. Now I use a Contax T or an Olympus XA.
Click to expand...

Unsharp???

Street Photography @Castello Sforzesco_05 (Milan, Italy) by Alessandro Saponaro, su Flickr

Street Photography @Castello Sforzesco_08 (Milan, Italy) by Alessandro Saponaro, su Flickr

Street Photography @Castello Sforzesco_12 (Milan, Italy) by Alessandro Saponaro, su Flickr

Tessar lens, Shot @f/8, Trix in Xtol 1:1
 
Godfrey said:
The Rollei 35SE never worked for me with the LEDs in the viewfinder ... The Rollei 35 was conceived as a waist level camera by its designer, not an eye level camera.

G
Click to expand...

I agree. However, using LED to show information was a super cool thing at that time, and I understand why SE's designer jumped on that wagon. If they learned from Yashica Electro 35 and put some LEDs on the top plate...then it's another story.:rolleyes:
 
The problem with the SE models was the battery placement was now on the top plate, which made the design less elegant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom