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.
Rolleiflex SL35 -- Rollei TLR Quality in a 35mm Camera
-
A
- Thread starter ic-racer
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
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.
The parts inside are the same shape, but different coatings or treatment, maybe different metal sometimes. Screws are different in places. The CDS cells are said to be different but I did not check this.
I'm not drawing any conclusion the Singapore cameras are inferior functionally from what I have seen. I suspect my Singapore camera will have the same long life as the two Germany cameras.
At the price point I got these cameras (cheapest I could find) there was not much difference between the German and Singapore cameras in terms of acquisition cost. So I just choose German.
I'm not drawing any conclusion the Singapore cameras are inferior functionally from what I have seen. I suspect my Singapore camera will have the same long life as the two Germany cameras.
At the price point I got these cameras (cheapest I could find) there was not much difference between the German and Singapore cameras in terms of acquisition cost. So I just choose German.
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.
Only experienced technicians who have handled several of these cameras can say for sure, but what I have heard is that reliability issues plagued primarily the subsequent models in SL35 series such as SL35M and SL35E and not the original SL35. I took a chance and bought a Singapore made SL35 recently and it is in good condition. It can't compare favourable to Nikon FM/FM2/FE but it is a nice vehicle for using QBM mount lenses that I accumulated over time.
One of these cameras listed as 'parts camera' came without the battery cover on the bottom. Finding an original one would involve getting yet another parts camera.
I did find this list of cameras that take the 625 battery, thinking the battery cap for one of them would also fit the Rollei.
I found a Minolta SRT cap on ebay and it was a perfect fit!
I did find this list of cameras that take the 625 battery, thinking the battery cap for one of them would also fit the Rollei.
I found a Minolta SRT cap on ebay and it was a perfect fit!
Last edited:
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.
Any good piece of equipment including cameras can be damaged or destroyed by ignoring proper handling and-or maintenance.
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.
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.
I guess I just like the leicaflex cameras better. I just sold my Leicaflex SL, but kept my original Leicaflex Standard, since it has a better/brighter viewfinder. Still, the picture of your SL35 looks very tempting, but no thanks.
Wow! I was typing while you posted your comment, but you and I think alike about the Leicaflex Standard.
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.
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.
I think somethings will, but cameras might not be one of them. Remember the first Kodak digital DSLR's? Not many folks do. Lenses are a different story, since some hold a certain character that can't be matched. Some firearms are the same way, but most everything else now is disposable.
I wonder what useful lifespan the Rollie and Leica (and other top companies) engineers planned for. Would they have expected many of their cameras to still be in use decades after their design and manufacture? Or was the uber-quality what they thought was needed for discerning photographers out and about in an often bumpy world, if even only for a few years (or whatever lifetime they planned for)?
I agree that there is clearly a different mindset today that tends towards disposability, although environmental concerns seem to be bringing a reconsideration (or at least I hope so). It certainly isn't that companies have forgotten how to make durable products. For instance, I suspect an iPhone would often fare better than an M3 in repeated drop tests. The always-around-the-corner Tesla Cybertruck could be another product that challenges the disposability orthodoxy.
I suppose the software and microchip compatibility/interconnectivity issues drive much of the need for "upgrades".
I agree that there is clearly a different mindset today that tends towards disposability, although environmental concerns seem to be bringing a reconsideration (or at least I hope so). It certainly isn't that companies have forgotten how to make durable products. For instance, I suspect an iPhone would often fare better than an M3 in repeated drop tests. The always-around-the-corner Tesla Cybertruck could be another product that challenges the disposability orthodoxy.
I suppose the software and microchip compatibility/interconnectivity issues drive much of the need for "upgrades".
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.
Well at 33900 my point was to underly the great financial cost, not to question the quality. I know some people like them. I had one in 75 or so and quickly sold it. I had become so closely accustomed to the classic M shape in my hand. I also didn't care for the side lugs
The Edsel was a great design too.....but quiet statement of people not buying into 'advancement' says something. You can continue to prefer it.....there are many out there for you to buy up.....that's an upside
A little disassembly showed the mirror was stuck up because the closing curtain was getting held-up. It wasn't very hard to un-jam it. Then I set to cleaning it.
Other things done to the camera:
Remove and clean viewfinder lens.
Adjust ASA dial to align with dots.
Un-stick corroded battery cover and clean. Replace with new battery.
Lube opening and closing curtain shafts.
Grease a few contact points.
Adjust opening and closing curtain tension.
Clean top, bottom and leather covering.
Other things done to the camera:
Remove and clean viewfinder lens.
Adjust ASA dial to align with dots.
Un-stick corroded battery cover and clean. Replace with new battery.
Lube opening and closing curtain shafts.
Grease a few contact points.
Adjust opening and closing curtain tension.
Clean top, bottom and leather covering.
Last edited:
I just missed out on someone parting our an SL35 and the wind lever was already gone. So I used epoxy putty to make a new end piece.
The epoxy putty comes un-mixed and after kneading the putty, the two components get activated. It sets up pretty quick and sticks to fingers. After it set, it was easy to craft into shape.
The first picture shows the initial blob and the last picture shows the finished shape. I'll use it like this for a while just to make sure it does not fall off before I go to the trouble of painting it.
I don't think it will fall off, I tried the putty on metal before and it sticks like glue (which it in fact is).
The epoxy putty comes un-mixed and after kneading the putty, the two components get activated. It sets up pretty quick and sticks to fingers. After it set, it was easy to craft into shape.
The first picture shows the initial blob and the last picture shows the finished shape. I'll use it like this for a while just to make sure it does not fall off before I go to the trouble of painting it.
I don't think it will fall off, I tried the putty on metal before and it sticks like glue (which it in fact is).
Last edited:
Underside of the speed setting cams showing the three levers that need to be in position when re-attaching the assembly.
This needs to be removed to get to the eccentric screw on the first-curtain cam which sets the slit width for shutter speeds 1/125 to 1/1000.
This needs to be removed to get to the eccentric screw on the first-curtain cam which sets the slit width for shutter speeds 1/125 to 1/1000.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |