On Aug 6, 2005, at 6:54 AM, frank theriault wrote:
It certainly isn't as sturdy as M-series Leicas, and it certainly
doesn't ~feel~ as sturdy, but I've put mine through a fair bit, and
other than a cracked viewfinder front window that was repaired, it's
come through just fine.
The meter arm and shutter are known points of fragility, as is the
meter readout in the viewfinder. Mine had a worn coupler on the take
up spool which made it such a pain to load, and was too expensive to
fix.
M4 and up models are much easier to load. Just stuff the film and
cartridge in, put the baseplate on, and wind.
I've had a lot of Leicas (IIc, IIf, IIIf, IIIg, M3, M4, M4-P and
M6TTL). The M4-P is by far and away my favorite Leica rangefinder body.
The CL and 40/2 is a very good camera, but not a substantially better
picture taker than the Rollei 35S and its Sonnar 40/2.8. And the
latter is about 1/3 the size. You can buy a mint- Rollei 35S for
around $300.
While I was in NYC, I bumped into another courier who had a Rollei 35.
We held our cameras next to each other to compare. It is certainly
not 1/3 the size of the CL. Even if you meant 2/3 the size, I'd say
that's not accurate. It's slightly smaller on all dimensions, but not
that much, from what I recall. The collapsible lens makes the Rollei
more pocketable to be sure, but with the lens out, the difference in
size is maybe a few millimetres in each dimension.
I meant 2/3, sorry. Dimensions and weight:
Rollei 35 - 97 x 60 x 44 ; 325g.
The lens extends about 15mm in use, but you never carry it in your
pocket with the lens extended.
Leica CL Body - 121 x 76 x 32 ; 365g
Leica CL + Summicron C 40/2 - 121 x 76 x 47 ; 510g
The Rollei 35 is substantially more pocketable.
The problem I see with the 35 is it's lack of a rangefinder. Scale
focusing wide open can't be that accurate. Yes, I'm hyperfocusing
with the CL a lot of the time, but it sure is nice to have the option
to focus with a rangefinder when I need to (please, no comments WRT my
focusing ability or desire! <LOL>).
LOL ... In many ways it comes down to usage. I've been shooting with
Rollei 35s since 1982 or so: I'm a pretty good estimator of distance
for a 40mm lens through long long practice and can usually get good,
consistent focus even wide open. However, when shooting with the
Rollei 35, I tend to set it at f/11 and leave it there. Then you only
have to remember two distance settings, 2m and 6m ... 2m gets you
"portrait-people" from 1.3-3.3m', 6m gives you hyperfocal from 3m to
infinity.
It's also nice to have the option of switching lenses on the CL.
The CL is an interchangeable lens system camera, the Rollei is not.
No contest there.
Shel said:
Having used and handled a few of the little Rolleis, I'd pretty
much agree
with all you have to say, Frank. I don't think a mint version can
be had
as inexpensively as Godfrey mentioned. Neat cameras, a bit quirky,
and
certainly not as flexible as the CL(E).
KEH has a few between $260 and $370. Ebay lists completed auctions on
35S models between $100 and $400 in recent months.
I never said anything about focal length flexibility. The Rollei 35
is a one-lens camera. That said, I find a 40mm lens on 35mm format to
be about the most flexible lens around, and the Rollei 35S lens is
every bit the performer of a Summicron-C 40/2, albeit 1 stop slower,
in a smaller package.
When i wanted better focal length flexibility, I went to the Leica RF
or any SLR. But when I wanted a one-lens, available light people
shooter that could also be used for landscape and other things, the
Rollei 35S sufficed beautifully and fit nicely in my jacket pocket. I
still have two of them, and one of them will likely be my last 35mm
film camera in due time.
Godfrey
