Is the Singalore camera (SL35) substantially different internally from the German made one and not as well made? I've read conflicting statements on the Singapore camera with some saying that it is as good as German one and others saying it is not.
Camera #2 turns out to be a Singapore camera. Someone had misrepresented it with a made in Germany top. Good news is I have an extra "Singapore" top for it, so I put its black "Germany" top on the German camera with engravings.
So, this Singapore camera required quite a lot of work to get the speeds correct. Some pictures to follow.
Do you think that once bent the level will likely bend again?
I wonder why they had reliability issues if they were so well made?
If it's made of steel or brass it should be fine. If it's aluminum or some form of aluminum alloy, it would be more likely to break if it's bent a second time. It looks unlikely to break again though.
The SL35's simplicity, as the op mentioned, was an advantage. I wonder why they had reliability issues if they were so well made? The Leicaflex's complicated assembly and mechanisms was what finally killed them off.
Although they seldom if ever broke, they were really expensive, and the Japanese cameras were smaller, lighter and a lot less money.
Leicaflexes are reliable cameras. I've read a soviet study on camera reliability where the Leicaflex was included, as well as the Nikon F2, Canon F-1, and other western cameras. The Leicaflex fared perfectly, even better than the F2.
However, this was done with working cameras in the 70s. Such cameras would receive periodic maintenance.
In year 2022 any camera will need preventive maintenance before being used. A camera can't be called "unreliable" if it fails because its owner didn't send it to service.
As I remember looking at this camera in my favorite camera store, back when it was introduced, the camera failed at the market place because it was too expensive compared with more advanced, better built cameras at the time.
Nice looking camera, looks like the self-timer lever is in lockdown. I always thought the SL35 to be well-made and pretty trouble free. Unlike my experience with the SL35M and SL35ME. The SL35E was an excellent camera for me until I picked up a used old style Rollei potato masher handle-mount flash to use with it. I hooked everything up to try the flash out, and that was the last time that camera worked. The minute I hit the shutter button, it was like the camera exploded in my hand. Yup, that camera went up in a puff of smoke. I sold my lenses off at the next camera show I set up at. I haven't ventured into the Rollei 35 slr's since then. Still have a couple little Rollei 35's and several TLR's, but no SLR's.Just found another $30 Rolleiflex SL35 to un-jam and repair. Pictures to follow. This one looks very clean, just jammed.
Does not look like it has ever been taken apart or tampered !!
The same thing happened w/ the Leicaflex cameras. They were so complicated and the build quality was so high, I understand that Leica lost money on every one they sold. The M5 may have been a money loser too. Looking though a Leicaflex viewfinder (the original Standard model was the best made of all) is like looking through a big picture window in a home or apt.
Very interesting thread. I am captivated by the quality produced in this era and find the background business context fascinating, too (i.e., the challenges Rollei and Leica faced to evolve from their historic strengths - TLR and rangefinder, respectively- as SLRs took over, coupled with emerging production in Asia with its different cost position).
And now a good number of the cameras produced in that era live on. The lucky ones are cared for by people like ic-racer.
It makes me wonder what current products will lose in the commercial market place but will be treasured fifty years from now.
The same thing happened w/ the Leicaflex cameras. They were so complicated and the build quality was so high, I understand that Leica lost money on every one they sold. The M5 may have been a money loser too. Looking though a Leicaflex viewfinder (the original Standard model was the best made of all) is like looking through a big picture window in a home or apt.
They produced 33900 M5s simply because back when it was released, it sold poorly. There was a huge backlash from users simply because it was a step in different direction: different shape, slightly different ergonomics and a light meter (oh no, blasphemy!).The M5 had to have been a financial loser. I just think of the specific toolings costs....& they produced only 33,900 cameras. Compare that with 220,000 M3s.....and the parts & tooling costs that were subsequently shared with the M2, and all the various M4, M6 models.
They produced 33900 M5s simply because back when it was released, it sold poorly. There was a huge backlash from users simply because it was a step in different direction: different shape, slightly different ergonomics and a light meter (oh no, blasphemy!).
A great deal of technological advancement has been hindered by people preferring tradition over innovation.
Edit: of course increased number of mass produced SLRs from Japan also drove a few nails into M5s coffin. So in retrospect, ignore my sentence about tradition and innovation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?