Rollei 35 Repair Recommendations

[BryceEsquerre]

Hello, I have a Rollei 35 (Original Version with Zeiss Tessar f/3.5 40mm). I believe the shutter speeds are a bit off. I would like to have the camera overhauled. Who would you folks recommend sending the camera to?

 

[Sanug]

In Germany, FFS + Tritec in Braunschweig can be recommended.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

Last year I had my Rollei 35 TE CLA'd at Classic Fototechnik in Germany. Mr Bruer is a retired Rollei engineer.
He just uses to take a summer vacation break from June to October.

 

[bernard_L]

I believe the shutter speeds are a bit off.

"Believe". Is that enough to decide to pay for a CLA? Before you spend $$ you should be sure the shutter is off. With an actual measurement (google...). And...

• I would bet that if some speeds are off, they are on the slow side. How much? 25%? That is 1/3 EV. Hardly noticeable (unless you shoot slide film in 2024) and actually good for shadow detail;
• I've seen shutters that were a bit slow and just could not be adjusted. Then I found reputable (industrial) sources documenting metal fatigue. Accept it's an old camera and be grateful for its optical quality and compactness.

 

[Axelwik]

Here in the US KEH serviced and repaired my Rolleiflex and Leica M2. Reasonable rates and turnaround times for those cameras, but their rates might be as much as your camera is worth.

 

[BryceEsquerre]

In Germany, FFS + Tritec in Braunschweig can be recommended.

Last year I had my Rollei 35 TE CLA'd at Classic Fototechnik in Germany. Mr Bruer is a retired Rollei engineer.
He just uses to take a summer vacation break from June to October.

Thanks for the recommendations folks! It probably isn't worth sending my camera overseas, I should have specified i'm in the United States.

"Believe". Is that enough to decide to pay for a CLA? Before you spend $$ you should be sure the shutter is off. With an actual measurement (google...). And...

• I would bet that if some speeds are off, they are on the slow side. How much? 25%? That is 1/3 EV. Hardly noticeable (unless you shoot slide film in 2024) and actually good for shadow detail;
• I've seen shutters that were a bit slow and just could not be adjusted. Then I found reputable (industrial) sources documenting metal fatigue. Accept it's an old camera and be grateful for its optical quality and compactness.

Good points. I never even considered measuring myself. I will look into this. I'll try another roll through it while doing this.

Here in the US KEH serviced and repaired my Rolleiflex and Leica M2. Reasonable rates and turnaround times for those cameras, but their rates might be as much as your camera is worth.

Awesome thanks for the tip. You have a point, I paid very little for this camera though (like $15)... a very long time ago.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

Congratulations!
I think it will be a good idea to get the camera CLA'd. The Rollei 35 is a wonderful tool to take good pictures .

My 35TE had similar problems when I bought it two years ago (I paid about fifteen times as much as you've paid ), I got it overhauled (expenses in the value of 65 US$) and I'm happy each time I pick it up.
I often think: Sometime in future those "old" technicians might disappear who know how to repair those old cameras. Then it will be too late to get a CLA .

By the way - I'm not sure but maybe such an engineer can also do a modification inside the camera to make the classic Rollei 35 (up to 1979, pre-TE and pre-SE) work with today's batteries.

Sorry I hadn't noticed that you are in the U.S.

 

[Martin Frank]

I had my Rollei 35 CLA'd and its meter repaired by "Film Furbish" in GB and was quite satisfied.

 

[snusmumriken]

Try spending a couple of hours exercising all the speeds with no film in the camera. That can be all it needs.

 

[Thwyllo]

I lusted over one of these for some time before paying a not insignificant amount of money for a minter from a shop in Germany. I have to say that I was more than disappointed when I actually got my hands on it... I swear it's one of the most horrible 35mm film cameras I've ever picked up and it would probably have ended up quickly consigned to a drawer.

But fortune was on my side that day in that below a certain shutter speed (I forget what) everything sounded exactly the same. It turns out that there are two separate mechanical systems on this camera, one for the upper speed range and one for the lower speed range and it's relatively common for one of them to stick and only deliver the same single shutter speed regardless of setting.
Fortunately the place I bought it from was extremely kind and understanding and I returned it for full credit. I cannot tell you what a relief that was

If your camera is exhibiting similar symptoms then that is what it will be.... I believe it's potentially DIY but given the size of the body and the stuff that is packed into it I don't think I would want to try. But good luck and I hope you get her working.

 

[snusmumriken]

There's an admirably clear video on YT about how to repair the Rollei 35 shutter. Thankfully, I've not had to attempt this with mine (yet). It isn't for the faint-hearted or clumsy.

 

[blee1996]

Even though I have been doing simple repairs myself, I wouldn't touch my Rollei 35 TE even though the slow speeds are off. It is better to have a 90% working camera (sans slow speeds) than an 100% non-working camera.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

I swear it's one of the most horrible 35mm film cameras I've ever picked up

Sorry to hear...
May I ask (just curious) what bothered you?

 

[Thwyllo]

Sorry to hear...
May I ask (just curious) what bothered you?

Just the tiny size and general fiddliness of the controls. My large hands might not have helped but I sadly took an immediate dislike to it.

A bit contradictory when I have half a dozen Pentax Q's but then there's a lesson in how to design controls on a tiny camera.

 

[snusmumriken]

Just the tiny size and general fiddliness of the controls. My large hands might not have helped but I sadly took an immediate dislike to it.

A bit contradictory when I have half a dozen Pentax Q's but then there's a lesson in how to design controls on a tiny camera.

Ergonomically, it isn’t great. But I think of it as the Sony Walkman of cameras: as compact as it could be in those days, but still capable of first class results.

 

[Thwyllo]

Ergonomically, it isn’t great. But I think of it as the Sony Walkman of cameras: as compact as it could be in those days, but still capable of first class results.

I think it's the extent of the controls needed...after all the Walkman made do with a row of 5-6 buttons didn't it..it's just a lot to squeeze into a small apparatus. I've got an XF 35 that I keep meaning to run some film through..much more civilised!

 

[MFstooges]

Just the tiny size and general fiddliness of the controls. My large hands might not have helped but I sadly took an immediate dislike to it.

A bit contradictory when I have half a dozen Pentax Q's but then there's a lesson in how to design controls on a tiny camera.

I had the same experience. I picked it up for $40 thought it will be a good walk around camera as it's always been said it will fit easily in the pocket. Turned out I disliked it very much. It's cumbersome and gave horrible shooting experience. The image didn't impress me, prolly caused by the horrible user experience. So I sold it for $50 and still don't understand some people actually 3D print the parts just to keep it clicking

 

[Thwyllo]

I had the same experience. I picked it up for $40 thought it will be a good walk around camera as it's always been said it will fit easily in the pocket. Turned out I disliked it very much. It's cumbersome and gave horrible shooting experience. The image didn't impress me, prolly caused by the horrible user experience. So I sold it for $50 and still don't understand some people actually 3D print the parts just to keep it clicking

Well when you compare it to contemporaries like the Olympus Trip there's just no contest. But none of those cameras were designed to produce too drawer results...I kept a Trip for years as a snapper and later replaced it with a Yashica T3....great little cameras but just not a lot of glass...

 

[snusmumriken]

thought it will be a good walk around camera as it's always been said it will fit easily in the pocket.

And it does. Unfortunately any camera made largely of metal needs unusually strong pockets, and will probably make you walk funny too.

I take mine on occasions with risk, such as canoe trips, or the salty seaside, or just hiking. Also whenever I might have to leave the camera in the car.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I always liked the idea of a Rollei 35 but never its execution.
Having said that, they could have made a great camera out if that idea - as the world's smallest RF. But that great lens, combined with zone focussing ("guessing")....

 

[snusmumriken]

But that great lens, combined with zone focussing ("guessing")....

I’ll defend the original concept, though not its evolution.

The original design is an exquisite compromise. If you recognise the physical limitations of such a camera, you can get first class results from it. The f/3.5 Tessar lens is at its best around f/8. Anybody can estimate distances in terms of their own arm length (short distances) or body length (up to about 30ft, or 5 body lengths in my case). At f/8, with a 40mm lens, DOF ensures that’s plenty accurate enough. A rangefinder would scarcely improve anything, especially as its base would be so short. Naturally, other apertures are available if you need them, recognising that performance falls off a little.

The later f/2 Sonnar is better wide open than the Tessar is at f/3.5, but because of the shallow DOF at such apertures you can only exploit its superiority if you can focus accurately. That’s outside the original scope. It’s why rangefinder cameras are bigger. If you don’t have time to use the rangefinder of a Leica, you stop down and scale focus, putting your faith in DOF rather than $$$$. At that point you could as well use the Rollei 35, which has a better viewfinder anyway.

For all its dinkiness and ergonomic problems, the 35 is a serious camera. Unlike later, lighter competitors (which had the advantage of later electronics, but haven’t survived so well), it takes a lens hood and filters, has a tripod bush and takes a cable release. The meter is simple but good enough for negative film. Its principle weak area is shooting at large apertures. You just have to accept that.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I’ll defend the original concept, though not its evolution.

The original design is an exquisite compromise. If you recognise the physical limitations of such a camera, you can get first class results from it. The f/3.5 Tessar lens is at its best around f/8. Anybody can estimate distances in terms of their own arm length (short distances) or body length (up to about 30ft, or 5 body lengths in my case). At f/8, with a 40mm lens, DOF ensures that’s plenty accurate enough. A rangefinder would scarcely improve anything, especially as its base would be so short. Naturally, other apertures are available if you need them, recognising that performance falls off a little.

The later f/2 Sonnar is better wide open than the Tessar is at f/3.5, but because of the shallow DOF at such apertures you can only exploit its superiority if you can focus accurately. That’s outside the original scope. It’s why rangefinder cameras are bigger. If you don’t have time to use the rangefinder of a Leica, you stop down and scale focus, putting your faith in DOF rather than $$$$. At that point you could as well use the Rollei 35, which has a better viewfinder anyway.

For all its dinkiness and ergonomic problems, the 35 is a serious camera. Unlike later, lighter competitors (which had the advantage of later electronics, but haven’t survived so well), it takes a lens hood and filters, has a tripod bush and takes a cable release. The meter is simple but good enough for negative film. Its principle weak area is shooting at large apertures. You just have to accept that.

If a lens is great "wide open" but that "wide open" required exact focussing, which a zone focussing/guesstimate approach does not cater for, I would not call it an "exquisite compromise". The XF35 has a (dinky) rangefinder, but is fully automatic otherwise. Maybe the Rollei guys should have let the XF35 and the 35S spend a dirty weekend together, and the result would have been an exquisite non-comprise.

Both CZ lenses are great, 3.5 and 2.8, but due to the concept of the camera it is not very easy to utilize their strength. Stopped down to f8, many lenses look great.

Tripod bushes and cable releases are nice, but probably best used for mindful picture composition and all, which many cameras are ideal for, but not a pocket sized travel camera?

I love the 35's idea, but in reality, for me, it combines many downsides of various concepts.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

I admit that the Rollei 35 will never be able to replace (for example) my Contax IIa/IIIa. Let alone Canon New F-1 or Contax RTS II. But it's a handy tool in situations when I'm under way with persons who have absolutely no understanding for a fool who dwells on taking photographs and is carrying around all that old gear .

It's cumbersome and gave horrible shooting experience. The image didn't impress me

Sure, its body does have its own aestetic programme . But under those circumstances I mentioned, the Rollei 35 works well for me, even with its wide open Tessar:



I noticed that I could even use shutter speeds like 1/8 sec. (like on the pic) if you know how to handle the shutter release button.

My last idea is to try a Medis rangefinder from late 50s or so that I found in my crafty box - have not yet tried because it's "a bit" unwieldy, I admit :

 

[RezaLoghme]

I really wish it could be a M3 competitor. Let it cost the same as an M3, but smaller, with a RF, some good TTL meter, etc.

 

[snusmumriken]

If a lens is great "wide open" but that "wide open" required exact focussing, which a zone focussing/guesstimate approach does not cater for, I would not call it an "exquisite compromise".

Exactly. At f/3.5, the Tessar is already stretching one's ability to guesstimate, and its corner performance is not great - though it can serve at a pinch. Offering the Sonnar option with half a stop larger maximum aperture suggested to buyers an advantage that lay even further outside the compromise, and was scarcely realisable in practice. (OK, the Sonnar is probably better at all apertures, but the Tessar is no slouch.)

Anyway, you don't like it, that's fair enough, and I understand why. I like it chiefly because I think - at the time - Heinz Waaske made some shrewd choices. Remember that when this camera was launched, TTL metering was only just being implemented on a few cameras, and auto-focussing was not even a dream. As it happens, I went to a big photography fair in London (the only one I have ever been to) soon after the Rollei 35 was launched, and it made an impression on my teenage brain. Totally beyond my reach financially until decades later when people began to discard them and I acquired one for nostalgia's sake.