Rolleiflex SL66 Photobooks and Guides?

[Certain Exposures]

I don't think so - classic Zeiss designs do have quite strong optical signatures - i.e. very high contrast transfer response at low frequencies, which makes them seem quite visibly 'sharp' to the viewer at normal distances. I know what an 80mm Planar should deliver, and it should visibly outperform a much older Yashica triplet, especially at wider apertures.

If you are basing your assessment on an Epson flatbed scan, you are effectively assessing the scanner optics rather than the camera.

Alright, I am planning to hop in the darkroom around the end of the month so we'll see around then. I suppose anyone reading will have to take my word for it since it wouldn't be obvious in the scan of a print either.

 

[Pieter12]

Maybe I had unrealistic expectations based on things I've read?

From Barry Thornton's examples, and the SL66's reputation I don't think your expectations were unrealistic at all. I suspect a problem with the camera or lens.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I suspect a problem with the camera or lens

I'm not convinced it's anything more than a non-high-end flatbed scanner making everything equally bad even at alarmingly low cyc/mm. It's something I see on a pretty routine basis.

If the focus screen installation in the SL66 is anything like a Hasselblad, I can see where errors could happen, but generally speaking all you'd see is misplaced focus (and as you know, you'd really see that with the sharpness of the 80 planar design). That being said, the focus rack design of the SL66 does make me wonder just how sturdy it really is with heavier lenses (given the known issues with Rolleiflex 2.8s) - the fact that Rollei jumped to regular helicoids with the SLX only a few years after the SL66 was launched also raises a few questions in my mind.

 

[Pieter12]

I'm not convinced it's anything more than a non-high-end flatbed scanner making everything equally bad even at alarmingly low cyc/mm. It's something I see on a pretty routine basis.

If the focus screen installation in the SL66 is anything like a Hasselblad, I can see where errors could happen, but generally speaking all you'd see is misplaced focus (and as you know, you'd really see that with the sharpness of the 80 planar design). That being said, the focus rack design of the SL66 does make me wonder just how sturdy it really is with heavier lenses (given the known issues with Rolleiflex 2.8s) - the fact that Rollei jumped to regular helicoids with the SLX only a few years after the SL66 was launched also raises a few questions in my mind.

How about looking with a loupe. You know, analog.

 

[Lachlan Young]

How about looking with a loupe. You know, analog.

Up to a point, yes - if it's a very high quality, relatively low magnification loupe (rather like the one that Rollei used to fit into a finder for the 600x series in fact) - 10x will probably give less useful information than 3-4x in this context. The differences should be pretty obvious between the Planar and an old 3-element Yashikor. It's also quite ok for people not to like the Zeiss Planar look, and I think that's an important caveat to add.

Personally I like the quirks of the non-retrofocus Planar lenses and their derivatives (from Nikon and Konica) rather more than the SLR versions, but that's a different story - as is the question of Planar vs Tessar on the basis of perceptual rendering character rather than questionable pseudo-testing.

 

[Certain Exposures]

How about looking with a loupe. You know, analog.

I'm not convinced it's anything more than a non-high-end flatbed scanner making everything equally bad even at alarmingly low cyc/mm. It's something I see on a pretty routine basis.

If the focus screen installation in the SL66 is anything like a Hasselblad, I can see where errors could happen, but generally speaking all you'd see is misplaced focus (and as you know, you'd really see that with the sharpness of the 80 planar design). That being said, the focus rack design of the SL66 does make me wonder just how sturdy it really is with heavier lenses (given the known issues with Rolleiflex 2.8s) - the fact that Rollei jumped to regular helicoids with the SLX only a few years after the SL66 was launched also raises a few questions in my mind.

I so far I have just reviewed the negatives on a light table with my 5x loupe. I haven’t scanned them yet. I’ll comment more once I do (probably a week or so).

Do any of you have the transparency sheet and index card that comes with the camera? The ones that help you determine how much to tilt. A visual would be nice.

 

[Certain Exposures]

From Barry Thornton's examples, and the SL66's reputation I don't think your expectations were unrealistic at all. I suspect a problem with the camera or lens.

I picked up a copy by the way. Mine was signed at some point! There's some damage inside, unfortunately. Nice photographs.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I so far I have just reviewed the negatives on a light table with my 5x loupe

I would reiterate my comments as for the scanner, and my scepticism towards Pieter's comments above - some loupes are dramatically better than others - and many are good for checking focus etc, but many aren't great for comparative sharpness analysis overall.

 

[Certain Exposures]

I would reiterate my comments as for the scanner, and my scepticism towards Pieter's comments above - some loupes are dramatically better than others - and many are good for checking focus etc, but many aren't great for comparative sharpness analysis overall.

Yep, I understand. I will print a few frames (eventually) and continue learning about the how use the SL66E and its quirks in the meantime.

I still have to test mirror lockup mode.

What loupe do you recommend @Lachlan Young ?

 

[john_s]

...................... That being said, the focus rack design of the SL66 does make me wonder just how sturdy it really is with heavier lenses (given the known issues with Rolleiflex 2.8s) - the fact that Rollei jumped to regular helicoids with the SLX only a few years after the SL66 was launched also raises a few questions in my mind.

The rigidity of the SL66 could be a problem with heavy or long lenses. I noticed that there is some small but possibly significant movement using the Rollei camera mount, the one that slots into the wedge shaped cutouts on the base. Instead of that, I use a hand filed larger plate that supports part of the base as well as the fitting. On a tripod it is a bit more stable. The wedge shaped cut at the front was filed delicately so that it's a tight fit as the plate is slid back to position.

 

[Certain Exposures]

If you live in the USA and you had your SL66E serviced in 2024 where did you have it done?

I created a separate thread:

Where did you get your SL66E serviced in 2024?

Where did you get your SL66E serviced in 2024? How did it go? I'd like to chat with you if you had this camera serviced 2024 or this year.

www.photrio.com

 

[Certain Exposures]

Although the tilt is often called lens tilt, it is actually a rear tilt in view camera terminology. The advantage is that the lenses don't need wider coverage than normal, whereas a front ("lens") tilt does. Look at any basic guide to view camera movements. I find the SL66 tilt quite useful for landscape (near-far composition) and thinking of trying it for portraiture soon.

How do you generally make your decision about how many degrees to tilt? Is it easy to see when everything is in focus from near to far on your screen or do you rely on the indicator table as a guide?

 

[Certain Exposures]

Here's another image with the 80mm HFT. It's a cropped urban scape I took to test infinity focus and flare.

I've exposed three rolls now. I am not impressed with this lens. However, the caveats we discussed in this thread apply.

I decided to return the camera so my SL66E journey ends here.

 

[Certain Exposures]

Here are some helpful Photrio threads if you find yourself questioning the sharpness of the camera or lens. It's a good sign that at least one person solved their problem. The fix could require a pro:

- 1
- 2
- 3

 

[Certain Exposures]

What's the coldest temperature any of you have used the SL66E in for longer than a hour?

I have a few observations.

 

[Lachlan Young]

From the looks of things, the focus screen seems to sit on 4 screws (pretty much like Hasselblad did) - which will define the accuracy of focus - and which are adjustable. If the camera was dismantled enough to require the outer shell being taken off, there is a risk that those screws had not been replaced to the right height. Alternatively, someone changed the focusing screen and decided to fully tighten the screws for whatever reason. There are videos going into detail on this that are readily available.

 

[Certain Exposures]

From the looks of things, the focus screen seems to sit on 4 screws (pretty much like Hasselblad did) - which will define the accuracy of focus - and which are adjustable. If the camera was dismantled enough to require the outer shell being taken off, there is a risk that those screws had not been replaced to the right height. Alternatively, someone changed the focusing screen and decided to fully tighten the screws for whatever reason. There are videos going into detail on this that are readily available.

Thanks, I decided to take a look at the screen based on your comment. The screen looked properly seated to me (not very scientific, I know). It's worth a check if anyone runs into this issue.

I returned the camera.

 

[Arthurwg]

I decided to return the camera so my SL66E journey ends here.

Wise decision. Unless you absolutely have to have th front movements, the Hasselblad is a better bet. And there is also a great Hasselblad solution for that: The Hasselblad Arc Body or Flex Body.