tvih

Rollei manufactured their lenses on license from Zeiss. The quality is pretty much the same. I can't remember the exact details and have no reference as SL66.com went down, so not sure when Rollei started making them for themselves. But in any case quality is not an issue.

 

As for what I think about the SL66... well, it's a nifty system. Too bad I only have the 80mm lens for it. Of course it's no action camera, but for more thought-out photography it works nicely. The feel of the camera is nice and solid, and on a properly serviced unit the operation is very smooth. Viewfinder is of course big, but I'd suggest getting a non-standard focusing screen. I got a Rollei Ultra Bright with mine, and it really is very bright compared to the dim original.

If the SL66 only has the stock screen, I think it's worth it.

 

I haven't actually used a Beattie screen on an SL66 though. However, I'm pretty sure that the screen on a Rolleiflex 2.8 E2 I had previously was a Beattie (can't be 100% sure since I didn't buy the screen myself). It was nice enough, certainly, and way ahead of the regular screens.

 

Also, on my SL66, I have a Rollei Ultra Bright screen - it truly is ultra bright compared to the standard screen. Then again, the price for a new one is "shiny" too.

 

I haven't really heard anything bad about Beattie screens, so if you want a brighter screen, you shouldn't be disappointed. However, I guess I should point out that based on previous discussions many seem to think that Maxwell screens are even better. You can find info on them at http://www.mattclara.com/maxwell/index.html - haven't used them myself yet (mostly due to ordering difficulties due to living in Europe). Bill's been very courteus in responding to my inquiries in the past though.

 

Hope this helps!

Heck, at that price I would've just bought it and if I didn't end up using it, sold it for a higher price which one could most likely get :)

Bengt, yeah, I'm afraid you're right. We can but dream :)

I've been thinking about an adapter solution myself, but since I'm not really familiar with the dimensions etc of the backs, and since as far as I know usually MF systems don't have a part of the body that protrudes alongside the magazine (due to the focusing rack), that might cause problems with some solutions. However, making something workable probably isn't impossible, if not easy either. Like I've said before, there's hoping there'll be something more easily available in the future :)

Hi. Indeed, there aren't any digital backs for the SL66. It's a shame there aren't.

Ah, Nordfoto seems to have a nice selection of films at a nice price. Will have to take a close look, thanks.

Personally I didn't mean my reply as an attack against anyone particular, Laurie included. But I have to say, when one starts to think right away that the photographer could be some sort of psycho, it only shows how bad things are in the world. It really is quite sad, to say the least. Even psychos aside, why also by default assume the photographer has no permission from, say, relatives to take a photo of a dead person?

 

In any case, no photographing dead people for me in the foreseeable future, but another concert to shoot today :)

 

And as a side comment about the Katrina thing, from what I read in the media Canadian relief troops were in the Hurricane area long before official US relief troops. Kinda crazy.

Ah yes, these issues... usually when reading these, I can but shake my head when I remember examples of it being taken too far.

 

For example, there was this one shot of a few Finnish people, I think they were kids, in a family sauna, if I recall correctly taken by their father through a window, showing nothing "critical" - a perfectly normal, non-offensive family shot for any Finn. But of course, he put it on a photo site, I think it was PhotoSig, and of course immediately he got accused all the way from bad taste to child pornography, for crying out loud. How ridiculous.

 

Americans are perhaps not the only nation that tends to go borderline �berhypocritic more often than I even care to think about, but they are definitely the most known example. And by this I don't mean to say every american is like that, but it seems to be a sadly common trait.

 

Too many people really seem to have lost any sensible perspective to life, since basically EVERYTHING is offensive to them. A good example often encountered in photography sites is nude pictures, every picture or thread containing such material (even only implied or partial, "safe" nudity, such as the mentioned breastfeeding photos) has to be flagged with capital warnings and whatnot, while for example in Finland it wouldn't be any sort of big deal, nor do I see any reason it should be. How people that are so concerned about stuff like that can even procreate is beyond me. I guess they have to keep their eyes shut during the process, or use artificial fertilization.

 

When perfectly normal parts of life can't be photographed and shown, something is quite wrong, as long as the subjects of the photo aren't offended, and in the case of photojournalism, even that can't always be fully avoided, taking the "bigger picture" into account.

 

And about Jacques's photo - who's in the wrong, the people trying to make the person who has taken to look bad because he takes a photo of a less fortunate person, or the photographer? No contest. It's another thing to take shots that ridicule people, that applies to every person, but to NOT take photos of a person simply because he doesn't fit a norm is an insult to such people. In my opinion the same goes for, for example, taking pictures of homeless people and similar - hypocritics call those shots "social porn" and taking advantage of the less fortunate (and this seems to be quite common even in Finland and the rest of Europe). I guess it's again people wanting to sweep the truth and reality under a carpet. If the shot isn't about ridiculing in such a case, it is valuable photojournalism that should make people face the truth. Same goes for war photos and so on.

 

Well, this again ended up being a damn long reply. I'm not a very good writer, so I'm not sure how my points come up. I don't mean to insult anyone with this, and these are just my opinions, but the way I see it, my opinions really shouldn't even be insulting to anyone but those who are quilty of the mentioned forms of uncalled-for hypocrisy.

Well, there'd be a few types of film, like Tri-X, Velvia and Provia that I'm interested in, and also in 120-size since the prices there are quite a bit cheaper. Too bad I'm so darn far away from Turku though :/

The one I have is a new one, made since '96. It can be found from <a hre="http://www.sl66.com/sl66_accessories/screens.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sl66.com/sl66_accessories/screens.htm</a> - it's the top left screen. Really beats the Original Standard screen by miles, especially indoors.

I started photography with digital, but I've grown to really like old gear. And of course, with old gear you shoot film. Personally I think, as others have said, as long as there are people who shoot film, there will be film available. Of course not as many kinds as there are now or were in the past - after all, more and more films seem to be getting discontinued. But the most popular ones will most likely survive for quite a while.

 

I'm currently considering getting some traditional B&W film stock for my SL66, to get rid of the 5 euros per roll cost of getting my C41 B&W films developed. Maybe I'll have more luck with developing myself than I had in the past... too bad I sold all my Delta 100 film last year, since I wasn't using them. Gotta get me some Tri-X and maybe Agfapan etc, and something like Rodinal to develop with. Good times :)

 

As for chromes, I'll shoot them right along with the B&W stuff. Since I now can change film backs unlike with the Rolleiflex 2.8 E2 I had before, it's easier to use both types, and not always have the wrong kind of film in the camera!

Hmm... well, I guess Fimeko, and maybe other shops too can at least order it, if you specially ask for it. I'll have to ask around some, since their webpage doesn't give any specifics on what they have.

 

Thanks for all the answers!

I'm getting a 645 back for the SL66 soon - a nice option to have along with the regular 6x6 backs (which I still don't have a fully working one, only two more or less faulty ones, but I think the one coming along with the 645 back should be - I'm gonna explode if it isn't). Got it off eBay for 120 euros, not too bad.

 

A 645 rangefinder or compact prism SLR would certainly be interesting, but given the price and that those don't always have changeable backs (of course some do, but the more compact ones don't seem to), not going to happen, at least in the near future.

I have been wondering what's happened to 220 film. Seems like it can't

be found with any ease even from online stores that have a quite

complete 135- and 120-size film lineup. So, I'm wondering if anyone

knows any good places, online or in Finland, to get any film of that size?

 

The reason I'm asking is that I'd get more frames for the same

processing cost - as far as I know, they can be developed on the same

labs that can develop 120 too, and my SL66 backs should be able to

take 220 as well.

Although not much of a solution, the Rolleiflex SL66 has a sheet film adapter which, from what I've read, allows shooting 6x9 images on sheet film. As said, not very useful though, and expensive, considering most of the large negative is left unused, and getting the shots developed is a pain.

Such issues are always truly an unwelcome pain in the rear. Had my own troubles with the 20D for example. At least it wasn't a $20k purchase though. I hope you can get it working right soon!

Although I guess I should mention that I only paid 70e for the 2450 a bit over a year ago for a second-hand unit.

My scans of 6x6 film with an Epson 2450 aren't really satisfactory. Even at 50% the 2400dpi scans seem quite soft and lacking detail, among other things. A well-scanned 6x6 should be better than my 8mp Canon EOS 20D, but with my scanner I don't really get anything comparable.

sl66.com and rolleiclub.com (especially the TLR section) have been a very useful resource to me for the last few years, so in that sense I really hope there's a good explanation for all this and that it will all be resolved satisfactorily. The time which he has been unreachable for does seem to be getting quite long though, I really hope the worst hasn't come to pass. He doesn't seem the type to fraud, so it really is quite worrying. I do find it quite surprising that with all the complaints, no one has been able to verify from Beverly Hills what's going on.

Oh, and one more question - what's the best way to clean the focusing screen? That is, when there's non-brushable stains on it.

Hi.

 

My new (and properly working, thank goodness) SL66 has a Rollei type

#10772 ("Ultra Bright Screen with wedge and guide lines for 4,5x6cm

frames") focusing screen in it (at least it certainly looks like one,

frame lines and everything). Definitely nice and bright, especially

compared to the original screen on the defective SL66.

 

Since before this my plan was to get a Maxwell screen, I'm wondering

if anyone with experience can say if there's any real difference

between how good the Maxwells and this Rollei screen are, having heard

nothing but praise for the Maxwell screens? (I actually just noticed

that this Rollei screen costs $320 new even in the US! Holy crap,

that's approximately what I paid for the whole body-only! Looks like I

got an even better bargain than I thought!)

 

This screen also has the 6x4,5 framing lines, which is sort of nice

since I'll have a 6x4,5 back soon, but from what I can tell they're

only accurate with the 6000-system's magazines. I guess I can just

frame so that I leave twice the height of the line in the bottom out

of my framing area. Easier than going by guesstimation alone, and

still helps getting straight lines in the image really straight.

 

So, long story short, comments on the screens?

Some very nice shots. Great colors. I usually don't seem to get ultimately pleasing shots color-wise from my 20D, but I guess that's largely due to me sucking at post-processing.

 

A medium format digital certainly would be nice for some stuff, too bad they won't be even nearly within my price range for years. Oh well, at least I'm finally starting to get all the working parts of a SL66 system together :)

I've basically only shot medium format as 6x6. Well, one roll of 6x9 with a Kodak Brownie too. But many rolls with a Rolleicord and a Rolleiflex 2.8 E2. As I've said on other threads, my main gripe with those was the lack of close focus. Now that I have a SL66, I no longer have that problem. I would've loved to keep the 2.8 E2 too, but well, that didn't make sense financially at this time (and if I had kept it, couldn't have gotten the SL66 either), hopefully I can get another one at a better price later on.

 

As for 645, well, I'd like to have a 645 back for the SL66 in addition to the 6x6 back(s). Sometimes it'd come in handy and would enable shooting without wasting a part of the frame, for exampe for many landscapes. Too bad 645 backs for the SL66 are so damn expensive, since they're rather rare.

 

Waist level finder is really nice when shooting on a tripod or near ground level, and in general a nice change from in-your-face 35mm. Sure it'd be nice if the finder image wasn't mirrored horizontally, but obviously it can't be any other way.

 

So overall, I have really like both Rolleiflexes I have used, the 2.8 E2, and have, the SL66. The TLR was smaller and silent, while the SL66 enables close focus and has changeable film backs, and of course lenses, but I only have the 80mm lens for now.

Ah, yes, I've had such troubles too with ink prints, when getting prints from my digital concert photos that have colored spotlights hitting the smoke on the stage, producing a large variety of shades of the spots' colors. Often less than optimal results on print, which really is a bummer. And using the print shop's own profile to minimize this totally screws to colors of the shot :( Talk about lame.