Why am I shooting on paper backing with my Rollei SL66E

I love the idea of the SL66, but unfortunately they seem to present one problem after another.

john_s said:

There's a 220 version for sale on e*ay at the moment, but I understand that 220 film is now unavailable.

Click to expand...

Shanghai Gp3 100asa 220 format !

RalphLambrecht said:

Could it be as simple as: the film spool is inserted the wrong way around so when you pull the leader to the take-up-spool, you are exposing the back paper rather than the film? This happened to me with a Hasselblad back. plain user error, but happens when the muscle memory is not working.

Click to expand...

same here but with a C330 !

Arthurwg said:

I love the idea of the SL66, but unfortunately they seem to present one problem after another.

Click to expand...

I looked into it, bought into it, because at the end of the day I did not find evidence to support SL66 problems any more than Hasselblad.

I can also say SL66 mostly feels great, works smoothly, but it's not that perfect and as any camera needs time to adjust to it.

Today after loading film in the magazine, attaching it to camera, removing dark slide (so technically back was locked onto the body, I managed to disconnect the back from body, which is not suppose to happen. All I can think of is I must not have had it fully attached, but enough for dark slide to come out. Engagement of back to body on SL66 is on shallow side, so I think there is a point where dark slide will move, but back can still come off. So I need to be careful from now on to ensure back is solidly on body before pulling dark slide. What happened does not bother me, but it does show it has its flaws too.

Second little nugget is the focusing knob. It sticks out so far out, putting in a bag is not what any other system MF camera. The knob makes the whole body much wider and the only flat side is bottom. Compare to Bronica or Hass, it's very noticeably different.

Still, SL66, in my book, feels much better than Hass. Mirror action is also smoother than in Bronica EC, otherwise I would have picked EC over SL66b for handling.

There need to be matching numbers on the back and the insert for the back to work properly. Did you check that?

Ulrich Drolshagen said:

There need to be matching numbers on the back and the insert for the back to work properly. Did you check that?

Click to expand...

Which post RU referring to ? Mine are.

Hassasin said:

Which post RU referring to ? Mine are.

Click to expand...

To the OP/TO

k.hendrik said:

Shanghai Gp3 100asa 220 format !

Click to expand...

I've used this -- seems like nice film, but there have been reports of quality control problems, both with the emulsion and with the confectioning.

Still, as the only new 220 to be had short of cutting down 65 mm or 70mm and rolling your own, it might be worth trying. When it's good, it's pretty good (IMO).

RalphLambrecht said:

Could it be as simple as: the film spool is inserted the wrong way around so when you pull the leader to the take-up-spool, you are exposing the back paper rather than the film? This happened to me with a Hasselblad back. plain user error, but happens when the muscle memory is not working.

Click to expand...

That would give completely blank film, not exposures offset toward the film tail.

Hassasin said:

I looked into it, bought into it, because at the end of the day I did not find evidence to support SL66 problems any more than Hasselblad.

Click to expand...

I have several Hasselblads and have had no faults or problems other than the ones I've caused by operator error. Also, you can still get them fixed, get parts and lenses are not too expensive.

Oh yes; I did have the expensive Hasselblad PME45 metered prism finder fail, which could not be repaired.

Arthurwg said:

I have several Hasselblads and have had no faults or problems other than the ones I've caused by operator error. Also, you can still get them fixed, get parts and lenses are not too expensive.

Click to expand...

Whenever I do some Hass bitchin' it's mostly because it has design flaws, just like any camera, but many paint it as perfect, and that rubs my nerves the wrong way. It's a great camera, but it would not be my first pick in MF SLRs. And now trying out SL66 in the field, it only proves me (for me) right.

Arthurwg said:

Oh yes; I did have the expensive Hasselblad PME45 metered prism finder fail, which could not be repaired.

Click to expand...

I have PME90 and as all of these PMEs display started to bleed. It's still working and the bleed makes me guess just one area. I hope it won't spill over, but once it starts, there is only worse after that.

Ulrich Drolshagen said:

There need to be matching numbers on the back and the insert for the back to work properly. Did you check that?

Click to expand...

That is Rollei's advice, but often it is reported that non-matching setups work properly too, as has been my experience. It's all about the adjustment, and it reveals how critical it can be. Hence the last version with simple match-the-arrow loading.

Have my SL66SE since 2013 and no problem whatsoever; metering perfect / no hassle with 120 back(use 35 and 127 too in this back) / 50-80&150mm working like a charm & now looking for a 220 back but what if......
happy shooting !

I admit I want one.

I admit I want one in my cupboard.

I wonder if OP is still alive. Would be nice to hear back about any progress as we try to help with hope to learn ourselves too.

BTW, as per Rollei, there is NO need to load film with magazine removed, it is stated explicitly in the manual.

Hi All, Apologies for not responding sooner. I thought I would get notices of posts here in my email and have not gotten them.

Thanks to all who sent in suggestions.

I UNCOVERED THE PROBLEM per MattKing's suggestion. I had been loading the film with the magazines attached. (Rollei's manual and the definitive book on this camera both say it doesn't matter if you load the magazines attached or unattached....) I loaded my last roll with the magazine separated from the body and, Bingo, it worked perfectly. Looks like there is something wrong with the magazine/body interface when loading film, but since everything else works on this massively over-engineered camera, I will not try and fix it. Kudos to Matt.

Now my issue is Fedex, who wants me to pay $350 in tariffs for my CLA in The Netherlands. I marked the box appropriately, but they are claiming that the repair guy needs a license of some sort to avoid the charges. Frankly, I suspect that if he had returned the camera and lenses to me via Fedex instead of the Post Office, I would not be having this entanglement, now in its sixth month of negotiations.

RJSPHD55 said:

Hi All, Apologies for not responding sooner. I thought I would get notices of posts here in my email and have not gotten them.

Thanks to all who sent in suggestions.

I UNCOVERED THE PROBLEM per MattKing's suggestion. I had been loading the film with the magazines attached. (Rollei's manual and the definitive book on this camera both say it doesn't matter if you load the magazines attached or unattached....) I loaded my last roll with the magazine separated from the body and, Bingo, it worked perfectly. Looks like there is something wrong with the magazine/body interface when loading film, but since everything else works on this massively over-engineered camera, I will not try and fix it. Kudos to Matt.

Now my issue is Fedex, who wants me to pay $350 in tariffs for my CLA in The Netherlands. I marked the box appropriately, but they are claiming that the repair guy needs a license of some sort to avoid the charges. Frankly, I suspect that if he had returned the camera and lenses to me via Fedex instead of the Post Office, I would not be having this entanglement, now in its sixth month of negotiations.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that there a lot of inconsistencies in processing international shipments EU to USA and back and that is possible why you are having a problem. I have no advice though on whether there is a way to argue out of it.

On your magazine, I just went through few rolls on my SL66, some loaded with magazine off, some with magazine on, no difference, so there is something going on that is not supposed to.

I'm glad the suggestion helped isolate the issue.
I can't advise you on the USA tariff issue, other than the more general advice that applied even way back when I was working as a Canadian Customs officer - pay very close attention to the exact wording in the relevant regulatory language, and see where you might find wording that will assist your cause. That might involve obtaining further documentation from the repairer.
You might even find out that the tariff language actually makes the camera and repair dutiable - there are provisions like that in lots of legislation.
I used to do that sort of advising and assisting thing for clients for a living, but it cost them more than $350 for my services! Otherwise I would suggest you seek professional assistance.

RJSPHD55 said:

Hi All, Apologies for not responding sooner. I thought I would get notices of posts here in my email and have not gotten them.

Thanks to all who sent in suggestions.

I UNCOVERED THE PROBLEM per MattKing's suggestion. I had been loading the film with the magazines attached. (Rollei's manual and the definitive book on this camera both say it doesn't matter if you load the magazines attached or unattached....) I loaded my last roll with the magazine separated from the body and, Bingo, it worked perfectly. Looks like there is something wrong with the magazine/body interface when loading film, but since everything else works on this massively over-engineered camera, I will not try and fix it. Kudos to Matt.

Now my issue is Fedex, who wants me to pay $350 in tariffs for my CLA in The Netherlands. I marked the box appropriately, but they are claiming that the repair guy needs a license of some sort to avoid the charges. Frankly, I suspect that if he had returned the camera and lenses to me via Fedex instead of the Post Office, I would not be having this entanglement, now in its sixth month of negotiations.

Click to expand...

Just curious, when you put film in with magazine on camera, did you have dark slide in the back storage slot or in front ? It's supposed to be in the back when magazine is on camera.

It's not been mentioned (or perhaps I missed it) but the film auto-sensing mechanism depends on an ISO film and paper thickness standard that was established F&H when they used the system in the TLRs. This system requires a tight tolerance (you are mechanically sensing the increase thickness when the film and tape passes by), and this worked very well in the TLR days. It was fast and convenient, stick the film in, wind until it stops, and you are ready. Sometime in the '70's or 80's, film manufactures stopped following the standard, and the auto-load film sensor system started having issues with films that used a thinner base material. There was a service from Rollei where they would adjust your sensor to more reliably detect those films.

The SL66 used the same system, and was very reliable during it's time. The latter cameras made after F&H dropped this system primarily because the variation in films made this system less reliable.

Hasselblad has similar issues with their backs, as the film spacing was determined by the rotation of the take-up spool, which would rotate less as the film wound on. With the thinner base material, the film did not build up as fast on the spool, and the film spacing got tight - with frames starting to touch. They also provided a service to mitigate this issue.

If you are having issues with the Rollei auto loading film sensor, it probably just needs a CLA, who know when and how someone in the past has tried to adjust it.

itsdoable said:

the film spacing was determined by the rotation of the take-up spool, which would rotate less as the film wound on. With the thinner base material, the film did not build up as fast on the spool, and the film spacing got tight - with frames starting to touch. They also provided a service to mitigate this issue.

Click to expand...

This was the case with many 120 cameras that had frame counting mechanisms. The Super Ikonta B 532/16 would have required replacing the stop cam wheel to change the cam spacing; I'm not sure what was/would be needed for Graflex roll backs (22, 23, RH-something), but all of those were turns-counters. The RB67 is a length counter, as is the Kodak Reflex II (and the 828 film Bantam RF, even though it didn't actually count the frames). It's always seemed to me the choice was more about where there was room for gears than one being easier or cheaper to make.

Donald Qualls said:

This was the case with many 120 cameras that had frame counting mechanisms. The Super Ikonta B 532/16 would have required replacing the stop cam wheel to change the cam spacing; I'm not sure what was/would be needed for Graflex roll backs (22, 23, RH-something), but all of those were turns-counters. The RB67 is a length counter, as is the Kodak Reflex II (and the 828 film Bantam RF, even though it didn't actually count the frames). It's always seemed to me the choice was more about where there was room for gears than one being easier or cheaper to make.

Click to expand...

Re: length vs turn counters.

Turn counters are robust, and as long as the film is consistent, the turn counters always crank a frame. Of course there has to be some precision in the turn meter mechanism, but it was easily achievable. As with any mechanism, if the grease gums up enough, it stops working. The other issues is that if you start early, the build up on the roll is thinner, and thus all the film spacing is close. If you start late, then the film spacing is larger, and on some rolls (ie: Fuji was always on the short side), you lose your last frame partly off the end of the roll.

Length counters require a wheel that rolls with the film to measure length, and works with any variation of the film. But if the wheel is rubber (Bronica), and it hardens with age, it slips. The mechanism is also more sensitive to thickening oil, so CLA are more ofthen. Toothed wheels (Rollei) can mitigate film-wheel slippage, but leave marks on the film. And the mechanism can still slip when the oil gets thick (but I find the Rollei's rarely slip).

In recent times, there was an issue with our film lab, which used a daylight loading system for all films. The result is the 1st inch of film is fogged. As 120 always starts right at the start of the roll, you lose the 1st frame. With Hasselblad/Bronica, you can start the roll a little later, but on a Hasselblad, that means you can lose the last frame (if you shoot Fujifilm). So i switched to a Kiev NT Hasselblad back which uses a length sensor, you can start late, avoid the start fog, and get regularly spaced frames that fit on the roll - you just have to keep the back well lubed. With the Rolleiflex auto-start film sensor, you were fcked. So I only shoot B&W (which I process at home) on the Rollei's these days.