I didn’t know there were so many versions and that they made that camera for so long. Thanks for the video.

That Prototype looks COOL!

Very good enjoyable video with some good details on the different models but the Rollei 35 was never a rangefnder camera : you had to estimate the distance from your viewpoint. Once you get the hang of this it becomes easier. You could use a separate range finder but the accessory shoe position makes it awkward.

The Rollei 35 series are note rangefinder cameras. They're just zone focus cameras.

Very nice video. Thanks ....

wow thank you for this video! theres so much info here

I just picked up a 35 LED (seemingly a less poplar model) at a goodwill for $8.95. Works perfectly and is in great condition. I’m very excited to use it.

@randallstewart1224

11 ай бұрын

It's lack of popularity, then and now, follows from its use of a Rollei made version of a Zeiss Triotar lens. This is a 3-element lens which lacks the optical corrections of the more popular lenses used, being the Tessar (4-element) and Sonnar (5-element). However, used careful with consideration for the optical limits of the lens, the 35 LED can yield high quality negatives. $8.95 for a 35 LED in good, working condition is a very sweet deal.

Thank You for that time trip. Really interesting story. Im gonna buy my Rollei today propobly. I have really good deal.

Very good information. Thank you.

I got the 35s model from Rollei and I paid £27.00 for it few years ago at a charity shop in London and it for original camera case and lens cap and strap and it works well as long as you understand how to use it

@cameractive9316

2 жыл бұрын

£27 for a 35S was a steal. It costs about 300 usd now.

It's ironic that Leica turned down Heinz Waaske's design for a smaller 35mm camera only to later produce the CL in a partnership with Minolta. Then after only a few years they discontinued production of the CL because it cannibalized the sales of the flagship model the M5.

@randallstewart1224

11 ай бұрын

Right. And even so, the CL was a compromise with limited features and functions. When Leitz cancelled the CL, Minolta was left with partnership rights which allowed it to produce the CLE, which was the camera Leitz/Minolta should have originally produced. Of course, the CLE would have, and did later, eat into the Leica M sales. For years, I wanted a full CLE kit, with all the lenses, shades, filters, etc., all tied up in that neat leather attaché case MInolta designed to hold it all. At the time, it was financially out of my reach. By the time I could afford to collect the whole kit, I'd lost all interest in acquiring a 35mm rangefinder system. Now, neither the CLE body nor lenses have aged well, showing problems not really repairable. Too bad.

@user-xw7ie6jv2x

6 ай бұрын

@@randallstewart1224 Yes I agree . I bought a secondhand leica CL but should have bought a CLE as I managed to lose both lenshood and filter on my first outing. I soon found out that although the lenses on both cameras are almost identical Leica decided to use the peculiar Series system for filters ,lens caps and lens hoods thereby making them extremely difficult to track down.Why? Probably to attract the "haves" rather than the "have nots"? With the CLE ,however, Minolta chose to use the ubiquitous 40.5mm system as did most of the Soviet era rangefinders thus making it far easier to find them.On reflection I would probably have been better off with the CLE. Ah well " c'est la vie !

@randallstewart1224

6 ай бұрын

@@user-xw7ie6jv2x Showing my age, up until the early 1960s, filters were almost all sold in the Series sizing system. Until Nikon made an advertising point of selling all the early lenses for the Nikon F with a standard 52mm filter size did the switch from Series to MM-sizing catch on. I suppose Leitz got into the Series system and just stuck with it. Kodak dominated filter sales (Kodak Watten) in the US when I bought my first filters in 1958. They sold only in Series sizes.