Rolleiflex SL66: how are these things?

[msbarnes]

I'm wanting one of these things.

Honestly, it is mostly because I have a romantic attachment to the brand Rolleiflex.

But I think that the tilt feature will be cool too but maybe unnecessary for my needs. Is this camera fairly reliabile/robust? The alternaative is ofcourse the tried and true Hasselblad 500cm.

All I want is one camera with one, maybe two lenses. A tele for sure, and then maybe a normal. I'm thinking 80 + 150/180 + 1 back + WLF. I plan on using this on a tripod.

for those that have had Rolleiflex SLR's, how do you like them?

 

[Vince Lupo]

They are beautiful, and image quality is superior. That said, they are heavy monsters.

 

[JMQ]

I had one 30+ years ago. Beautiful camera, well made, and a pleasure to use. If I recall correctly, it had a focal plane shutter. However, it is big (or bigger than the Hasselblad). The tilt feature is nice, but you need to put it on a tripod. I sold it after a short while. So the usefulness of the tilt function depends on what kind of photography you'll plan to use.

I still yearn for one these days, but I have not looked back since moving to digital. If I do eventually buy one, it'll be to enjoy the mechanical aspects, what people call the "tactile" feel. My heart pounds when I see the SL66 ads or the Leica IIIG.

 

[hausen]

They are superb. Borrowed a friend of mines for a month or so and should have bought it. He has since sold it and I regret not grabbing it. Lenses are to die for and tilt is great because a camera like this should be on a tripod.

 

[Vickko]

I agree, beautiful camera, but BIG BIG BIG.

I have a fine Hasselblad system and am always amazed at how sleek and smooth it is.

But I lusted after Rolleiflexes too, and now only have a few TLR's.

I had a mint SL66SE, and a couple lenses. A Canadian store had a kit that was hardly used, at a pretty decent price, so I bought it to try.

The stories on the 'net speak to relatively good reliability but greater complexity if service is needed. The ergonomics are fine, with things that you have to remember like keeping the magazine in sync with the body, but, no different than a Hasselblad. I was a bit concerned with how well the focal plane shutter kept accuracy, but, no more so than my 203FE, which also has a focal plane shutter.

Ultimately I sold my SL66SE kit, to consolidate my MF kit to Hasselblad. My biggest dislike with the SL66SE was its size.

 

[msbarnes]

oh and to update: I want to use this on a tripod. The reason why I want another camera is for a longer lens for head / head shoulder shots. I had thought of a tele rolleiflex but I think that the focal length is just too short and the advantages negated at this focal length/shooting style (it's a collector piece too). I had a Pentacon six + 180mm but the focal length is just too long for indoor shooting (atleast for my room) and that is the setting where I want to use it the most. It also doesn't hurt that I dislike that camera, hahaha (the P6).

So since I'm so used to square the most logical choice is a Hasselblad but as I have suggested I have a Rollei lust.

 

[Vickko]

I've never owned a tele Rolleiflex, but from what I've read, the focal length and closest focal distance just doesn't work for portraiture work.

I think if you shop wisely for an SL66, you should be able to find one, and satisfy that Rollei lust. And if the lust wanes, you should be able to recover your expenditure. Treat it like a rental cost.

Also, something to consider, will you be using a flash? The SL66 has a slow flash sync speed. The Hasselblad will sync to all speeds. It is worth considering if you are doing lots of flash work.

 

[JMQ]

oh and to update: I want to use this on a tripod.

I'd say go for it!

 

[JMQ]

And Vick, I still have your black IIIG.....

 

[msbarnes]

Flash: nope!

But that is definately something to consider as my style can change. It seems that all three of these cameras have something unique about them.

Tele-Rolleiflex: TLR
Rolleiflex SL66: Tilt + Bellows
Hasselblad: widest assortment of accessories/lenses

But these cameras are mostly depreciated (maybe not the tele rollei...) and so selling them back might not be too hard.

 

[blackwave]

Your point regarding portraiture may be correct for some people, but I thought it was a good chance to point out some nice portraits shot with a tele Rolleiflex (if my memory serves me, that is.. it's been a while and I'm not going to dig around the web for it right now 🙂) It's not the end-all, be-all tool for portraits, but it did alright for him!

Sanders McNew's book

I've never owned a tele Rolleiflex, but from what I've read, the focal length and closest focal distance just doesn't work for portraiture work.

I think if you shop wisely for an SL66, you should be able to find one, and satisfy that Rollei lust. And if the lust wanes, you should be able to recover your expenditure. Treat it like a rental cost.

Also, something to consider, will you be using a flash? The SL66 has a slow flash sync speed. The Hasselblad will sync to all speeds. It is worth considering if you are doing lots of flash work.

 

[x-ray]

I had 3 SL66's that I used in my commercial work for nearly 30 years. I think I figured I had shot around 25,000 or so rolls through them in that period. I shot retail fashion in studio and location with them and would shoot 75 rolls a day through a body. On average I probably shot 500 rolls + a month. I also used them as my workhorse system for much if the advertising I shot which was considerable. Two of the bodies I purchased used and bought one from a friend that had two rolls through it. I had 8 backs and 2 Polaroids plus prism. Also has the 30, 40, 50, 80, 80 distagon leaf shutter lens, 120, 150 and 250.

Sync at 1/30 was never a problem. All my work was very controlled. Backs take both 120 and 220 through the same back, tilt front, rotating prism 360 degrees, lenses from 120 down to 50 reverse using only the front lens bayonets and directly fit the body without adapters to shoot macro. Also all Zeiss lenses that are the same as Hasselblas. Also almost forgot the 66 has instant return mirror with. Virtually no vibration. The mirror is oversize and there's no cutoff with lenses from 150 up. Lenses are available from 30-1000mm.

With as much film as I shot I had the backs rebuilt about e dry two years. I had very few. Ody repairs which were after 25 or so years. One body locked up and took a while to get repaired. One had one side if the curtain come loose but was No big deal. That's about the extent of it.

I would say extremely well made and reliable.

I sold them due to their age. I hated to because of all of the above reasons. I switched to Hasselblad at that time to go digital. I like the Hasselblads but loved the Rolleis. Sad they never had digital capabilities. I guess I could have gone with the High 6 but it's a bit of an obscure system unfortunately.

No connection but there's a guy on the Large Format Forum that has a like new 250 sonnar DIRT cheap. Do a search under for sale.

Ps

Forgot the close focus without extension tubes.

 

[Sanders McNew]

One really cool aspect of the SL66 is it makes a great platform for
shooting oddball lenses onto 120 film. Usually only LF shooters get
to play around with Petzvals and Rapid Rectilinears and homemade
lenses but the SL66 makes it easy. It does not depend on a leaf
shutter, and with some ingenuity most any lens can be mounted
onto it. I've mounted an old Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus lens in
the narrow end of a funnel and taped the funnel onto the front of
an SL66 and gotten fantastic results:


Hiking Coleman Boundary. by sandersnyc, on Flickr

You can also buy lens boards and have them drilled for most any
size lens or shutter you might want to mount on the camera. Here's
a link to a guy who makes and sells them -- I've bought his boards
and they work well:

http://www.rangefolder.com/home/sl66-lens-adapter/how-to-mount-a-sl66-lens-adapter

It's an incredibly versatile camera, if you invest the time to learn
how to make it work for you.

Sanders

 

[Godfrey]

My uncle had an SL66 way back in the day, and I could occasionally borrow it from him. I loved that camera. He had a very complete kit, at ungodly cost, including a few of the lenses that included a leaf shutter for better flash use.

I was crestfallen when he sold it without telling me. :-(

I'd still love an SL66, but I chose the Hasselblad because it's smaller, lighter, and there is a tremendous lot of good Hasselblad equipment out there at absurdly low prices. The Rolleiflex gear is still pretty pricey, and a lot rarer in the USA.

G

 

[culturesponge]

SL66SE manual

SL66SE manual

reviving this thread

been busy parting ways with neglected cameras to almost/nearly afford an SL66, looking at the E or SE because they can apparently cope with polyester base film better than the original model without overlap - is that true?

also does anyone have a link to the SL66SE manual or a scanned copy to share?

thanks/best
alex

 

[Vickko]

Here's the manual: http://mjaatvedt.no/1-SL66_SE_Manual.pdf

I had an SL66 and "upgraded" to the SL66SE, but sold both, preferring to stay with the Hasselblad 203FE and 501CM. Smaller, sleeker, and one less system to juggle.

 

[Vickko]

the Rolleiclub tended to have a lot of enthusiasm and information on the series:

www.rolleiclub.com

 

[culturesponge]

thank you Vick

terrific resource of information @ SL66 dot com: http://www.sl66.com

but no manuals

best
alex

 

[Koolzakukumba]

I second the use of old lenses on the SL66. Here's a shot of my SL66E sporting a 1920s lens. It gives images a nice vintage feel.

 

[msbarnes]

Oh this is a bit old but I actually bought an SL66 from keh.com ~1 month ago and returned it because I had some overlap issues.

Well, to be honest, I didn't like it too much because it was bulky, loud, and heavy. I only use a Rolleiflex TLR and so every SLR is a bit more clumsy in comparison. It wasn't so much of a bad camera, but it is one of those cameras that some people just have to try.