Rollei 35AF camera

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any forum member have experience or opinion on the new Rollei35AF camera? I am mildly tempted to try one, despite having too many Leica M's. The compactness and autofocus tempts me, (I don't have any Autofocus camera) but am a bit wary of just one fixed focal length. I could approach it as a toy but keep telling myself my M6's will do better, although the Rollei is not intended to compete in that field.

Dispel my dreams if you will.

[StS]

On the upside, this could be a "competent back-up camera" if the performance of the lens is up to the price point. I still have the Olympus XA (a true rangefinder) for this application but use it very seldom.

On the downside, I'm always a bit sceptical about contraptions which look like something else, it is sort of a skeuomorph. I found the focusing solution of the original Rollei (simply guessing) unconvincing. Pentax came up with a more original concept but I find their focusing solution similarly unconvincing. The new Rollei might have an advantage if they implemented the AF properly.

Stefan

[StS]

...to add, what I haven't seen yet but might convince me for such a retro solution is a manual focus, which is using an AF module to indicate whether the centre of the viewfinder is in focus or show by arrows which direction to turn to focus.

Stefan

[LocalHero1953]

You could do a search here. I recall someone gave useful feedback: essentially it gave surprisingly acceptable images in good lighting and common conditions, but IQ was not great outside that envelope. My memory may be faulty though!

Edited September 13 by LocalHero1953

[Matlock]

I have one and have used it quite a bit. Nice little camera (with reservations) and the results are more than acceptable (but not up to the standard of the "real" Rollei 35). The auto focus is very accurate but noisy. Loading the film is a nightmare. Rewinding is painful. A Rollei 35 it is not and it is quite expensive. Try to get one to use to see if it suits your needs.

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

You could do a search here. I recall someone gave useful feedback: essentially it gave surprisingly acceptable images in good lighting and common conditions, but IQ was not great outside that envelope. My memory may be faulty though!

Ignore my post - I was thinking of the Chuzhao digital TLR!

Brain fade.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with Matlock - I got one to evaluate for my son, and film handling makes it unacceptable to me - like the designers had never used a film camera. Once you get the film properly loaded the film advance is very ratchety - like the gearing has too few teeth and you feel each engage. Rewinding is even worse, and is indeed painful - takes too much effort on the poorly designed crank that keeps disengaging as you try to shift your grip to get more torque for the next 1/4 turn. Makes me think the take-up spool never freewheels but leaves you fighting a friction clutch - but with the back open the spool seems to turn freely. I loved the original (real) Rollei 35 - we marveled at it when it first came out. This re-creation has good optics and electronic features, but the mechanical design for film missed the mark.

In contrast the new Pentax 17 has fewer "features" (scale or zone focus), but is a delight to use. I got 3 for my grandkids, and ended up giving my son my DS 1955 M3 instead of the Rollei. (Reminds me - need to process a roll of C41 for him...)

[TomB_tx]

Just trying my Rollei again to see if I was too severe - and added one more complaint: The shutter button has a nice light feel when it activates the autofocus, then hits a solid "wall" that has to be overcome with increasing force until it trips the shutter. Makes it hard to hold steady at low shutter speeds...

[Bliz]

It seems very expensive for what it is. My inexpensive small film camera is a Canonet QL17, the lens rendering isn't anything to write home about but it's sharp, small and very fast to shoot if one's already accustomed to RFs. It's at least 30% smaller than a M.

Edited September 13 by Bliz

[Einst_Stein]

The photo IQ does not matter. A long as it looks cute. I still have my real Rollei 35 S, haven't put in any film for a long time.  I just look at it and hand it for fun.

If you really want a nice cute little film camera, get one with decent focusing at least. Canon QL works fine if you have the right battery. My really usable  and reliable film camera that looks classical is Kodak Retina iiic. 

[erl]

Very helpful responses. Thank you all. I have just got all my film M's out and fondled them lovingly. No, I am not a collector, but a frequent and avid user. I was seduced by the 'sexy look' of the Rollei, but must admit that my M6's ans M7 really are hard to 'better' for what I use my cameras for.

Money saved, well, actually redirected to framing my M6, & 7 images. 🙂

[Matlock]

7 hours ago, erl said:

Very helpful responses. Thank you all. I have just got all my film M's out and fondled them lovingly. No, I am not a collector, but a frequent and avid user. I was seduced by the 'sexy look' of the Rollei, but must admit that my M6's ans M7 really are hard to 'better' for what I use my cameras for.

Money saved, well, actually redirected to framing my M6, & 7 images. 🙂

If you really need a compact 35mm camera then I would recommend a Rollei 35S or Classic. The lack of autofocus is not a problem and the lens quality is superb. My first 35mm compact was a Rollei 35 back in 1977 and I still use it regularly.

[Einst_Stein]

On 9/13/2025 at 11:45 PM, Matlock said:

If you really need a compact 35mm camera then I would recommend a Rollei 35S or Classic. The lack of autofocus is not a problem and the lens quality is superb. My first 35mm compact was a Rollei 35 back in 1977 and I still use it regularly.

Somehow Rollei 35SE is not as popular as 35S. In the old day I would recommend SE over S for the battery access. With S, it's hard to change battery in the middle of the film while SE is easy.

Today this does not matter much anymore. Even for people really shooting film with it frequently, the exposure is not quite accurate due to the alternative battery voltage. I use a digital P&S for metering. Well, right, it defeats the purpose of this tiny camera. The worse problem is focusing. I almost always use either hyper focal gestimation with small aperture or infinite in landscape. Either way, the usefulness of the camera is limited. 

Any camera with good focusing works better as long as the lens is good enough, even the plastic body. Look for something with 2.8 prime lens, good brand, second tier is OK. There are many old Nikon, Konica, Minolta, etc. film P&S fit into this category. A lot are within $100. Yes, make sure the right battery is available. 

Edited September 15 by Einst_Stein

[Matlock]

14 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

 

Today this does not matter much anymore. Even for people really shooting film with it frequently, the exposure is not quite accurate due to the alternative battery voltage.

With the correct battery adaptor this is not a problem and modern film tolerance (aside from positive film) more than compensates for any error. Unless you consistently take pictures at fairly close distances, the need for auto focus or rangefinder is limited. If I need to take such shots I use my Leica M7 or MP3.

[Einst_Stein]

Blah blah blah, “unless” blah blah blah! …

Yes, 

[TomB_tx]

Out of curiosity - since we liked the original Rollei 35 when it came out - I picked up a "Bargain" German 35 from KEH. Except for a few small dents in the chrome covers it is in very good shape. In contrast to the new AF model all the controls and such move easily and precisely which are what you notice when using a camera - you don't want to be fighting it, Scale focusing doesn't bother me - even at f 3.5 there is some DOF. I've compared a pre-war Tessar to the equivalent Elmar and was impressed with the Tessar, so I'm looking forward to seeing the results. It's enough smaller than the new AF model that with the lens collapsed it it really pocketable. The CdS meter has limited low light capability - but I'm used to estimating such exposures. I'm loading up a 20 exp roll to give it a try - having just finished a roll in the 35AF. Just in handling comparison it's hard to consider the 35AF as a real Rollei.

Of course I sill have the Leica CL I've used as a carry around camera on bike trips and such since the 1980s, and while larger it checks all the right boxes!