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).
Shel > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault > > 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. > > 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>). > > It's also nice to have the option of switching lenses on the CL. > > They certainly are fine (maybe great) cameras, and produce sharp > images, and are well worth the price, but I'm pretty happy with the CL > - it's advantages are well worth the extra money, at least for me.
