Nikon F2 is a chunky old workhorse...

Though even chunkier is the Zenit-B, Soviet approach to an SLR camera.
Whole body made out of one piece of metal (pig iron presumably), built with the same philosophy that spawned the AK47 and the T-34 ;-)

...or useful as a door stop in a camera shop! (tho ours is a Zenit E)



truely dreadful cameras

Sounds like I'm going to have to frisk you before you leave Jim. :D :D :D

Don

Hehe... that made me giggle Don ;)

Re Rollei 35
 

Hi

OK great lens, but in reality a useless camera the focus is guesswork using a scale only and you estimate the distance, defeats the good lens. There are far better cameras out there for less, besides isn't film too limiting now.

Just my thoughts, i bought one and could not find a use for it. Better of with a Leica rangefinder!!!!

regards

John

You are being too harsh. A lot of good cameras are scale focus, and guessing distances is a skill that isn't hard to acquire (even I can do it). You are obviously a little too lazy and you are used to AF far too much. Cameras like the Rollei require discipline!

Saying you'd be better off with a Leica RF is a little silly considering the massive difference in price between the two. I have a Minox 35, which is scale focus and compact like the Rollei, with a great lens as well. It's my take-everywhere camera when I can't be arsed to lug an SLR around. Very unintrusive and it has never let me down. It took me a roll of film to perfect the scale focus but like I say once you get the hang of it it feels totally natural.

Alex

Hi
 

I fully understand your view about the Rol, but after using one it is now past its sell by date too many things can go wrong with it and at wide open the focus guess is not too cool especially on a moving subject slow or otherwise.

it is a great camera to hold and is very small, but if you want a small camera with great lens thens there are others. i used the Leica as an example yes there is a price difference. it is als more reliable and metering / focus is spot on.

i have also used the Hexar a little bigger, but very sharp. Don't forget that if you pop the lens in at the wrong time or dust/sand gets onto the lens shaft, you will indeed be shafted!!!

This is only my opinion, i sold mine before it gave up.

Yes you are perfectly correct i am lazy about focussing, i was one of the first to use auto focus, even had an auto focus contax (heap of crap it was) the film plane moved to focus. the way i see things is that the camera can focus quicker in most light that anybody can.

there is no point in having an exceptional photo that is soft!


regards

from lazy John

Maybe you got a dodgy one. A lot of cameras do go wrong at that age but personally I have never had an old camera with a dodgy lightmeter. I'm sure that if you had a good working example you'd perhaps think differently, I've never previously heard about dodgy exposure from a Rollei. With colour print film the exposure latitude is nice and wide so I don't think a fully working example would ever give you a bad exposure.

As regards focus you know it's not the camera's fault but the squidgy organic bit behind it that is to blame :P

Again you can't compare the Leica or a Hexar to the likes of the Rollei 35, which was intended more as a casual snapshooter than gives great results, or as as a camera to complement a Leica M/Hexar/SLR system. As a stand-alone camera small ones like the Rollei aren't great, but as an auxiliary to a bigger, higher-quality system they are brilliant. That said, my little Minox has never let me down. I usually use slightly too-fast film so I can stop it down to f 8 -16, that way the focus is a lot more forgiving and the lens is at optimum sharpness.

If you can find an Olympus 35SP with a working lightmeter, can you please let me know. It would allow me to fix mine. Hens teeth are common in comparison.