Rollei SLR's: Unloved in the States?

[Alan Gales]

You do not see me lugging around a motor driven Hasselblad around, do you? My parents raised smart children.

I think those motorized Hasselblads were designed to mount on a tripod for studio portraiture. They would work well for that!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There is a bit of misinformation regarding interchangable backs in this thread. The 6000 series cameras all took interchangable backs with built in darkslides. Some cheaper models like the 6001/2/3 were sold with a back that did not have a darkslide. You could however just replace the back with one that had a darkslide.

Another thing to mention is that besides Zeiss glass, Schneider also provided lenses to Rollei and those were not available for Hassys. Some of them were pretty sweet too.

 

[JWMster]

One thing that puzzles is that from what I think I've read here and there, the lenses have bayonet push-ons so that screw-in filters need some sort of adaptor. Is that right? and if so, is that the same for all the Rollei lenses? As might be said, "Eeez puzzlement!"

 

[Patrick Robert James]

They had bayonet mounts instead of screw mounts. Adapters are available however. Easy solution.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think those motorized Hasselblads were designed to mount on a tripod for studio portraiture. They would work well for that!

They were also used for fashion and wedding photographs. But that is not justification for carrying the extra weight when I am strong enough to advance the film and cock the lens by winding a crank.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One thing that puzzles is that from what I think I've read here and there, the lenses have bayonet push-ons so that screw-in filters need some sort of adaptor. Is that right? and if so, is that the same for all the Rollei lenses? As might be said, "Eeez puzzlement!"

Bayonet filters are easier and faster to put on and take off than screw-in filters. Screw-in filters require taking the time to line up the threads.

 

[JWMster]

SG: Yep. And a bayonet fit could come in handy, too.
PRJ: Sooooo... I guess unlike your recent days, I'm shooting more and more MF and thought why not pull the trigger on an SLX 2 body with a rebuilt battery. What the heck? Stuff is cheap, and if it works, it might lead to a newer model. But it's a small start. Have to look into a lens. Yeah... doesn't make sense for a Bronica man, but then again, I've always had a soft spot for Zeiss. And I'm off beat... so we'll give it a whirl. Thanks for the nudge.... even it was meant for yourself.

 

[Tony-S]

I repacked my SLX's battery with NiMH cells (local Batteries Plus) and bought a US$25 Tenergy smart charger. Works great.

 

[locutus]

Plus easier to get service, parts, lenses and accessories.

Except its not a complete comparison, i would like a instant return mirror and i definitely want in body metering (when using the WLF) oh and open aperture metering would be nice too.

For a Hasselblad that would bring me to a 200 series body, so yes, prices, parts and service is out of the window then too.

And lastly, the weight really isn't a big concern, my Leica R8 + 35/1.4 weighs about the same and i have no problems at all using it as my all day camera.

 

[lantau]

Photos are helpful. SLX seems configured to work conceptually similar to the Mamiya RF's (6 and 7). Not sure how much benefit is derived from the inserts, but would assume there's some or you wouldn't bother with them. But the concept is essentially shoot one roll until you're done, and then load the next.
[...]
But they seem to be scarce. Scarcity of the Rollei SLR's (SLX and 6000's) seems to be a problem, too. Good to hear that there are happy users out there.

The advantage of an insert is that you don't have to handle the entire camera when loading a roll. You only have the insert in your hand, and it weighs only a few grams.

In its homeland there are always a few 6000 series on the bay. According to the blog of a local camera shop they made 8000 of the first revision and another 5000 of the second revision SLX. In the embedded Youtube video he claims just under 10000 units total. Whichever is closer to the truth.

Here is a nice 6006 set, for example:

https://www.ebay.de/itm/ROLLEIFLEX-...448818?hash=item33dad0cbb2:g:CcsAAOSwqhBZoycf

 

[Sirius Glass]

Except its not a complete comparison, i would like a instant return mirror and i definitely want in body metering (when using the WLF) oh and open aperture metering would be nice too.

For a Hasselblad that would bring me to a 200 series body, so yes, prices, parts and service is out of the window then too.

And lastly, the weight really isn't a big concern, my Leica R8 + 35/1.4 weighs about the same and i have no problems at all using it as my all day camera.

An instant return mirror would be nice, but heck that reminds me to advance the film and cock the lens.

 

[NJH]

To get at the 'truth' around the lenses and these camera systems you have to search around for all the old posts by Kornelius J. Fleischer of Zeiss.

Some examples:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/read-my-review-on-rollei-6008-professional.5733/
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/film-flatness-in-mf-cameras.94687/#post-1217708
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/newer-cfi-cfe-lenses-vs-cf-comparison.80434/#post-1023055
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/most-ovepriced-mf-camera.77153/
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threa...rse-curl-sharpness-problems.8902/#post-563297
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/90mm-100mm-120mm-rollei-vs-hasselblad.8831/#post-556978
....that last post in particular from his visit to Rollei back in 2001 with reference to the flare reduction updates made in the Makro Planar lenses.

Please can we not spread falsehoods on this forum about Rollei lenses.

 

[lantau]

To get at the 'truth' around the lenses and these camera systems you have to search around for all the old posts by Kornelius J. Fleischer of Zeiss.

Some examples:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/read-my-review-on-rollei-6008-professional.5733/
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/film-flatness-in-mf-cameras.94687/#post-1217708
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/newer-cfi-cfe-lenses-vs-cf-comparison.80434/#post-1023055
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/most-ovepriced-mf-camera.77153/
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threa...rse-curl-sharpness-problems.8902/#post-563297
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/90mm-100mm-120mm-rollei-vs-hasselblad.8831/#post-556978
....that last post in particular from his visit to Rollei back in 2001 with reference to the flare reduction updates made in the Makro Planar lenses.

Please can we not spread falsehoods on this forum about Rollei lenses.

I see, they were not only using their old licenses. I'm sorry about that! Otherwise I'm not sure what you're implying that I claimed. So I best won't comment further, to be safe. But thanks for the links, they are interesting. For me this was the most interesting quote from Mr. Fleischer (Zeiss Employee):

<<Alongside the lenses for Hasselblad we make the ones for Rolleiflex (Distagon 4/40 FLE, Distagon 4/50 FLE, Planar 2/110, Makro-Planar 4/120), and they make the old Distagon 4/50, Planar 2,8/80, Sonnar 4/150, and Sonnar 5,6/250 under license.>>

 

[NJH]

Not implying anything lantau, you claimed they didn't update their optics but this isn't true as evidenced by postings from 2001 from the boss of lens R&D himself at Zeiss. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Rollei/Zeiss equivalents to Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses were optically different apart from rare exceptions (very last version of Hasselblad 40mm with floating elements (IF FLE) didn't seem to ever get a Rollei equivalent from what I could find, as in 4/40 FLE seems to be directly equivalent to 4/40 CF (FLE)). Flare reduction modifications to the Makro Planar a well known case in particular where there were complaints about this lens in some circumstances.

For sure though it is a very complicated picture, Mr Fleischer for example claiming that the HFT coating on the in house built Zeiss for Rollei lenses is just a T* coating anyway such that the HFT markings on the lens rehaut is little more than marketing. Looking at my own lenses only complicates things again, my Sonnar 250 for example has a coating that looks identical to me the coatings on other Zeiss lenses I have owned for Leica M mount, on the other hand the 50 distagon I have has a reddish tint to the glass which looks like a totally different coating, both he claims were made by Rollei under license. Who did what, how much and when seems a bit of a mystery.

A minor annoyance with this system. If you acquire a lens like the Schneider 60mm Curtagon its hard not to fall for its charms but then you notice the colour rendered is slightly warmer than the Zeiss lenses, it renders detail slightly differently as well (this is probably my favourite lens ever on any camera). However it would firstly cost a fortune to go all Schneider but secondly creates gaps and issues in certain places, to get an equivalent to the 250 Sonnar for example would require the monster 180 f2.8 + 1.4 TC.

Then there are properly rare lenses. I forgot earlier that there is in fact a Zeiss for Rollei Planar 2/110 but you need to be sitting down when you see the price:
Dead Link Removed

 

[NJH]

i would like a instant return mirror and i definitely want in body metering (when using the WLF) oh and open aperture metering would be nice too.

For a Hasselblad that would bring me to a 200 series body, so yes, prices, parts and service is out of the window then too.

I went through exactly the same but couldn't find a 200 series body here for less than a couple of grand. They seem to be seriously sought after. I have to be honest though, despite the Rollei having the film back design to keep the film flat(ter) the Hasselblad 200 makes for a much more complete system. One could find a 2/110 for less than obscene money for starters, or if one just wants something in that focal length range there are other reasonable price options (that aren't macro lenses). Then of course there is the potential for building a system that includes an SWC, in Rollei land were stuck with the 4/40 FLE and pain with filters for it, that is enough for me to forget about going wider than my 60 Curtagon and keeping everything Bay 6, nice and neat.

 

[john_s]

.............................Then there are properly rare lenses. I forgot earlier that there is in fact a Zeiss for Rollei Planar 2/110 but you need to be sitting down when you see the price:
Dead Link Removed

There was one of these on ebay with SL66 mount for $18,000 (yes that's three zeros) two or three years back. I didn't buy it and nobody else did either.

 

[locutus]

Just a 80mm will do for me, i already have extensive 35mm and large format systems.....

 

[film_man]

The only light weight 120/220 slr camera is the Hasselblad. All the others, Bronica, Mamiya, Rollei, replace needing to workout in the gym.

I know you like being pedantic so here's some pedantic facts

The Pentax 67 is a tiny bit heavier but is more comfortable to hold and use and if you factor in the 6x7 factor then there is no weight penalty. The Mamiya 6 is 6x6, lighter and better handling but is not an SLR. Then again, there is always the Bronica SQB which in a like-for-like config like a Hasselblad weighs a tiny bit less.

Like for like if you are talking about a Rollei 6000 series then it should be compared to a Hasselblad EL, so for example a 6008i (like the one I have) compared to a 500ELX (like the one I had) is a bit lighter.

So, if we are being pedantic, which I'm sure we all appreciate here, the Hasselblad is not the lightest whichever way you look at it.

 

[film_man]

I've owned and shot extensively with the following: 501CM (two of them actually), 500ELX and lenses from 50mm to 250mm. I have also owned a Rollei 6003SRC1000 (what a mouthful) and now own a 6008i. When looking at the 6000 cameras the only valid comparison is with a motorised Hassy (500EL/ELX/etc). Otherwise you're looking at a 0.5-1kg difference which is the end of it. There is also the perception of better reliability that mechanical cameras have but my experience so far is I have yet to have an electronic camera fail on me yet the mechanical ones have let me down more than once (from various brands). But I digress.

So, between two of the cameras I have owned, Rollei 6008i vs 500ELX...a Rollei gets you;

• instant return mirror vs what can only be described as a leisurely experience on the ELX
• a choice of not just the same Zeiss glass but Schneider too
• 1/1000 shutter speeds (though that is with some bodies and some lenses). This doesn't sound much but shooting at f/2.8 in bright sun this is invaluable
• a proper grip, I mean a proper ergonomic grip and two shutter releases that make an ELX feel like it came from a Flintstones episode
• accurate auto exposure even with a WLF, I don't know about you but I really do like to not having to faff with an external meter. You even get spot, multi-spot and AE lock
• cheaper bodies and kits but...
• equally expensive pricing for lenses and accessories
• equally crappy screens (unless you have a Hassy with an Acute Matte D but good luck finding one of those)
• equally loud cameras though the Hassy is probably a bit more civilised given the leisurely pace everything happens
• no stupid lens jams vs a lens that will jam on if you knock it just right when out and about and then you have to go and stick a screwdriver round the back to try and twist that little screw under the rear element hoping it won't slip and scratch the lens
• accurate shutter speeds vs mechanical shutter lottery
• a self timer vs carrying a very long cable which you then photoshop out of the photo
• a crappy charger vs AA batteries, though a reconditioned Rollei battery lasts quite a bit
• hassle for servicing vs servicing down the road, though that depends on where you live
• an invention of the 70s called a hotshoe vs an attachment that gets you as far as a cold shoe and a wire sticking out of the lens
• I'm on the fence on back loading. I like the Rollei built in slide, I also like the insert, it loads a bit faster but they are flimsy things that break and removing/inserting them seems a bit slower. I'd probably give the Hassy the edge on this though with the Rollei I don't have to worry about light seals.

Basically, if you're after a motorised body I really don't know why anyone would pick a Hassy over a 6000.

 

[film_man]

PS...forgot final bullet point:
you get a camera that looks like it is 80s retro vs a really pretty camera

 

[NJH]

Just to be fair though film_man (just a bit!) the design of the film back on the Rollei can produce uneven film spacing if you swap backs mid roll. I haven't yet had a case where 2 frames overlap but I have had a few cases where the gap has been really tiny.

 

[JWMster]

FWIW, I drool over the Mamiya 6 in terms of weight, I just can't seem to pull the trigger. Part of that is the "limited" lens line up... and they're great, but not Zeiss. And I'm not so sure a MF RF makes as much sense as a 35mm RF for travel... especially a film Leica M. For me, the Rollei SLX puts a toe back into a Zeiss-based MF camera to see whether there's really something I'd prefer (not going to claim "better" so much as simple preference) there to my Bronica or not. I'm tending to think there is... but one thing's for sure, as the TV used to say, "To be continued....."

As to film back change issues, the Bronica SQ-A suffers changes in spacing and even some slipped "frames" when I do this. Thought it was me (and that's still a possibility), but I guess it's a hazard of the process. Might be that exhange-able backs aren't the cat's meow, and having ONLY inserts to speed the process is a better idea.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know you like being pedantic so here's some pedantic facts

The Pentax 67 is a tiny bit heavier but is more comfortable to hold and use and if you factor in the 6x7 factor then there is no weight penalty. The Mamiya 6 is 6x6, lighter and better handling but is not an SLR. Then again, there is always the Bronica SQB which in a like-for-like config like a Hasselblad weighs a tiny bit less.

Like for like if you are talking about a Rollei 6000 series then it should be compared to a Hasselblad EL, so for example a 6008i (like the one I have) compared to a 500ELX (like the one I had) is a bit lighter.

So, if we are being pedantic, which I'm sure we all appreciate here, the Hasselblad is not the lightest whichever way you look at it.

I am not being pedantic. The Hasselblads without motor drive are lighter than the other cameras.

 

[film_man]

I am not being pedantic. The Hasselblads without motor drive are lighter than the other cameras.

The Bronica SQB is a bit lighter, 1460g vs 1565g according to the spec sheets.

 

[AgX]

But who uses a body without lens? Any practical comparison should be with a lens, best a standard lens.