the NEW Rollei 35AF -- Lens test (blog link in the description)

[@chadwadsworth413]

Looks like the cam was heavily backfocusing on your sample image at f2.8 - can see in the hat detail that focus was behind his face.

[@ribsy]

i just pointed the lidar and it did its thing

[@husshardan3511]

Could be because after the focus locked, ribsy by mistake leaned in a bit. This is why if you are going to do a lens sharpness test you need to use a tripod so you can control the environment. Right now we don’t know if the camera misses focus, or if it is user error so to speak.

[@Zetaphotography]

lol every at home expert is going to jump on this to criticize. Bunch of clowns. Thanks for the camera review. Some will either buy it or they won’t. Glad to you got to play with it. I’d like to see an SLR680/690 review.

[@mvonwalter6927]

Focus point parallax.

[@husshardan3511]

@@Zetaphotography wanting to know why it missed focus wide open does not make one a clown. In fact, criticizing that does.

[@SweetLouPhotography]

The bokeh looks really nice! Great shots on Naeem!!

[@ribsy]

Yea the bokeh is pleasing!

[@OrangeBrick8]

Thanks for this. Been watching lots of your videos lately. Keep it up!

[@ribsy]

thanks for watching!

[@vekofoto]

Thanks for the comparison! It looks like MiNT did a good job here. Looking forward to your final review!

[@ribsy]

Thanks for watching!

[@empiricusdremomys7210]

Thanks for the review. For evaluating sharpness the flaring is a big issue as this also affects contrast overall. Difficult to impossible to evaluate sharpness under these conditions.

[@ribsy]

Yea the flaring caught me by surprise. was not expecting that

[@empiricusdremomys7210]

@@ribsy With that much flaring the lens needs a sunshade for sure. Reminds me of early 50s lenses.

[@krizzlec]

It’s crazy if you can’t get a hold for it

[@krizzlec]

It’s crazy if you can’t get a hold for it

[@cameronwheatley7065]

On the 2.8 shot to me it looks like the focus was actually slightly behind his face - you can see the plane of focus on the underside of his hat and on the shirt. I also think this is also a classic example of why 'sharpness' isn't always so important. To me the most interesting thing about these examples is that the overall rendering of the image looks outstanding esp at f4 - it just looks quite dynamic with a lovely '3D' pop.

[@ribsy]

Finding the exact minimum focusing distance was tough because there is through the lens view / there is no manual focus. This is exacerbated by the f2.8

[@thebitterfig9903]

I gotta say: Not including filter threads feels kind of like an insane decision from MiNT. Add some proprietary bayonet and sell your own NDs, or an adapter to standard threads. MiNT did that with the TL70, and while the implementation was strange (the NDs didn't cover the light sensors, so exposures were dicey), it was an option. That's a minor thing all told, but it's just such a strange design decision. Sometimes the 35AF seems like it was designed for the specs sheet, rather than to be practical in use. Other than what looks like backfocusing, the pictures seem decent. If folks buy it, enjoy the user experience and results, good for them. I'm happy for anyone who loves this camera. For myself, I'm glad I went with the 17.

[@ribsy]

I think the camera will deliver the point and shoot experience. This is not intended to be a pro camera, regardless of the price

[@the.jonfernandez]

Sweet lens test. I think overall the images are close to what I expect for a point and shoot like this and even wide open, it still looks very usable for me. Can’t wait to watch the full review!

[@ribsy]

Oh yea it’s def super usable. for such a tiny lens I wasn’t expecting something incredibly sharp wide open

[@vangstr]

Seems like the Pentax 17 has a sharper lens and better image quality compared to this Rollei 35.

[@ribsy]

The Pentax 17 lens is def very sharp but it’s also a smaller format so depth of field will be greater

[@declandebarra]

Thanks for the work, this was what i wanted to know most. Really helpful.

[@ribsy]

Thanks. Its a pretty simple test but I think it was useful

[@mike216514]

6:21 also, by these comparisons you can realise the f2.8 isn’t really focus nail on the face, thus you see “increase in sharpness” because the depth of field start to cover the face more. I’ll say it’s 50% user error, 50% camera’s fault as it was around its minimum focus distance.

[@ribsy]

Finding the minimum distance was def a slight challenge but I’m pretty sure the images are in focus. Depth of field increase further sharpens things along with higher stops being sharper nonetheless. If you look at the non portrait shots you see the same thing

[@samuel3471]

At f2.8 looks perfectly sharp to me… except the focus point is further back, check the hat, my guess is you moved slightly after focusing.

[@ribsy]

Yea it was tough to nail the minimum focusing distance since the lens is autofocus. You have to keep moving and refocusing until you get it

[@5amtoday]

Appreciate the review fam. Thanks for your effort.

[@ribsy]

thanks for watching! full review coming next week!

[@Lawman212]

I'm somewhat underwhelmed, but I guess we need to see some Ektachrome tests on a tripod. I appreciate you sharing this video. I've been waiting to see the quality of the lens for a long time.

[@ribsy]

There are lots of sample images out there already. You can see in the blog link from mint. All My images will be in the future full review

[@fourcornerseducation8828]

I rarely post comments on youtube - but I rarely have the possibility of a new “Rollei”. I have bee using Voigtlander, Rollei and Zeiss since the early 1980s - Vitomatic, Icarex, Rollei 35/B35/ SL35, 2000/3003, Contax 167 / G2, Rollei 6x6 of various varieties etc etc - so I am not coming to the table as a retro-photographer - rather as a lover of Kameras. There are some very practical reasons for a 35mm f2.8 than trying to emulate the 40mm Sonnar - ps it wasn’t strictly a sonnar rather a ernostar - which Dr Tronnier originally designed and which the real sonnar is based on. the main reason being that Sonnar type lenses are difficult at 50mm or less - the only Sonnar standard for an SLR was made by Pentax not Zeiss, its why most Sonnar type designs are 85mm and greater. I suspect that the 6 element lens that mint use owes more to the Olympus XA than it does the ernostar or even tessar of the Rollei35- thats not a bad thing given parallax problems with a non coupled view finder and an AF system - those extra 5mm are important. Do I care if this is a chinese lenses - badged Rollei based box - not really. The 35B with its triotar takes beautiful pictures and I guess many of the poster here would ridicule a triotar but buy a optically weak East German Zeiss Jena pancolar or worse a helios - In terms of flare - both the sonnar and the tessar on early Rollei 35 cameras can flare for all over the place - its a reason the 35 lens hood is now so expensive. As far as filters - I wonder how many people complaining have a full set of filters for a Rollei35 - I have a UV, an orange and a yellow - even in the late 80s those were like rocking horse dung. But I have a full set of beautiful voigtlander push on filters and a few tiffen - I guess its a generational thing but no filter thread is not the end of the world. As an avid Rollei 35mm user of both the 35 and SL35 ranges do I like the idea of this - yes entirely but I have gone through I forget how many bankruptcies and buy outs and closures that perhaps i have more invested emotionally in the name than many. Do I care its not made in Braunschweig? No - as in 45 years of using Rollei and Zeiss I have been buying Rollei and Zeiss made in Germany Singapore and Japan - Hong Kong is just another destination. For those who would rather an XA or something else - well follow your ontological ground - get an XA - but Rollei has always been about being a little different and not always perfect - especially in 35mm PS my camera of choice is an SL2000f.

[@ribsy]

Thanks for the POV

[@syntanjey]

why not 3003 ? ;-)

[@fourcornerseducation8828]

@@syntanjey 3003 is ergonomically the better of the two - but the SL2000f was just so different. I tend to rarely use the eye level viewfinder and use the waist level much mire so the extra button and hand strap become less important.

[@TheDarkroomLab]

Does it meter through the lens? I didn’t think it did and if it doesn’t that’s probably why it doesn’t provide a filter thread right? Also, that grip on the lens is the exact same grip that’s on the original Rollei 35 which had the zone focus distance in feet on top and beaters on the bottom, which is why there’s a break on the top and bottom with that grip.

[@ribsy]

Yea looks like it’s mimicking the original design. Hopefully that can be used for some custom attachments too

[@TheDarkroomLab]

Does it meter through the lens tho? Also, does it have exposure compensation?

[@TheDarkroomLab]

The only reason why I ask is because if I can’t do one of those things, then you can’t use a filter on it anyways.

[@cesarhidalgo2123]

Hey, Rib! Incredible content as always! Live in Bushwick and was wondering if you have any personal favorite film lab recommendations in the city. Always appreciate the work that you do! Thank you.

[@ribsy]

NYC film lab

[@cesarhidalgo2123]

@@ribsy That's my local spot. Thank you!

[@quite1enough]

First Olympus XA was a rangefinder cam ^^

[@ribsy]

👍

[@lelandfitz1762]

Thank You for this deep dive into the lens. The lens was actually the part that interested me the most. Because we only had specs but specs can mean anything, LOL. I really think this is a great camera and the price seems more understandable to me than Pentax 17's.

[@ribsy]

its very full featured and def worth the price

[@krizzlec]

The camera doesn’t show the ss in the viewfinder when shooting auto?

[@ribsy]

Nope. It’s a big issue imo

[@krizzlec]

@@ribsy yeah I would have to agree with you there

[@赵亮-i2l]

Hi Ribsy, your video is excellent, the most detailed comparison of camera effects I have ever seen. May I transfer your video to the Chinese website to share with others? There are also many people looking forward to more information about rollei35 af this time, so I want to let more people see your video. I guarantee that it will not be used for commercial purposes and that your name and video link will be used to guarantee your ownership of the video.

[@ribsy]

sure feel free. just make sure to show my name "Ribsy"

[@TomFindahl]

Thanks a lot for this review! I had my doubts about this camera, it’s a unfinished and rushed product, maybe Mint will make improvements of later batches. The more reviews I have watched, the more certain I am of not buying that camera…

[@ribsy]

I don’t think it’s unfinished. It’s just a very specific design choice (copy). And that will present certain quirks that will make or break the experience. The lens and automation make it a very capable camera

[@Anihalas]

Wow that looks good! Very reminiscent of my old 35s! Is this a little wider?

[@ribsy]

It’s pretty similar in size, but I don’t have the old one to compare to

[@Anihalas]

@@ribsy I just scrolled back original is 40mm this 35.

[@SystemParanoia]

I've checked the pages of all those miserable posters.. I can't see any videos of them doing a better or even competent job. Kept up the good work dude 👍🏾

[@ribsy]

Haha appreciate it!

[@AlexOnStreets]

Looks great

[@ribsy]

yea the lens can handle most things

[@rodgercarey3480]

Hey thanks for the review. I know this is 35af but does the option exist to shoot in manual also?

[@ribsy]

You can control exposure settings in manual. But focus is always via lidar (no manual focus)

[@rodgercarey3480]

@@ribsyso ZONE FOCUSING is not an option?

[@andyvan5692]

Ribsy, perhaps the lack of a filter would endear this camera to Ilford HP5+ film, as it can be pushed to 3200 ASA so 4/5 or even 6 stops over-exposed isn't an issue, and for such an 'auto' camera, and this lack of filter, the films dynamic range could keep things 'safe' and give great images.

[@ribsy]

yea def. using a versatile film is key here

[@davidjenkins8009]

The old cameras had 40mm lens, so clearly not the same. Without a direct comparison with the 35S hard to be definite but I suspect the 35S lens is sharper. That is disappointing as generally lens design has improved over the 50 years between the two models. However, just to put it all into perspective the Rollei 35 which has the mid range lens ( 4 element Tessarf3.5) (later renamed the Rollei 35T) retailed at £88 in August 1973, that is £ 1,0192.62 in todays money. The original camera was all mechanical (except the light meter) and was guess focus. So all in all the Mint Rollei isn't that bad value for money. I hope they sell lots of them. Thank you for the video, it was worth watching.

[@ribsy]

Agreed. It’s good value for the money

[@costagf]

For a definitive test Id suggest tripod, static subject, constant light etc

[@ribsy]

yea that would def better. but im not a super technical camera reviewer so i wont' be doing that haha

[@AnthonyJGianotti]

Overall looks like great real life performance and I can’t wait to get my hands on one of these. How is there no filter thread though, makes literally no sense with a 1:500th shutter.

[@ribsy]

Yea 1/500th is very limiting. surprising choice for a modern camera

[@MrMartinsla]

I assume most point and shoots have issues with lens flare seeing as they don't for the most part have hoods. Its a bit of a shame they didn't include a way to attach a hood or threads...

[@ribsy]

Yea most def do have flaring

[@christopherward5065]

I wonder how good the lens is in reality. The colours were pleasant but the lack of dynamic range and quality of rendering were less good than they could be. Imagining a Tessar or a Sonnar in place, you’d be getting Zeiss quality results. The results seemed to not reach those levels. We could also think about the small Japanese manufacturers’ lenses on Yashica, Canon, Nikon, Ricoh, Olympus, Minolta and so on, they too would have been superb at image making. The results from those older pocketable cameras would tend to be good on Kodachrome and Agfa reversal films. I think the Pentax 17 lens appears to be a more serious proposition even at half-frame. Rollei were showcasing their expertise at getting professional quality out of miniaturised bodies. Mint styling their Rollei to resemble the Rollei 35S but not getting close enough, is the main problem for me it doesn’t scale the heights that Rollei implies. I’m not convinced so far.

[@fourcornerseducation8828]

A couple of things to consider - dynamic range is affected much more by film stock than it ever is by a lens - but back in the early 80s when I started using both Rollei and Zeiss no-one would have considered using colour negative. So for me a more interesting comparison against a Rollei with a tessar which remember is only an f3.5 and the lens on the 35AF on velvia as sadly agfachrome and Kodachrome no longer exist. Personally I would have preferred a f3.5 lens. The ability to produce a 2.8 Sonnar for a camera like this today is almost impossible- Rollei had to take the sonnar back to zeiss for an entire year to recalculate it as it originally gave very “fuzzy” edges - zeiss answer was to use the ernostar design instead and just call it a sonnar - the only successful slr sonnar smaller than 85mm was made by Pentax not Zeiss! A tessar may have been achievable but in the Rollei 35 only the front elements move - with autofocus I am not sure how practical that would have been? Whilst the Sonnar at f2.8 is a very useful tool in the evening most of the photographers of my generation that used or still use the 35 whether tessar or so Sonnar that I know tend to use the f8 1.5-3m or 3-infinity rule. Yes with an AF you would expect it to focus accurately at f2.8 - parallax excepted for. But nailing focus was never a reason to have a Rollei35 - certainly not in the bokeh chasing paradigm of today. Will the lens be good enough for most of the film stock people will use it with - yes probably - will it compare to a bench focused 2.8 sonnar on reversal - probably not, but that was never the reason to have a Rollei35. Yes after 82 they became almot bits of jewelry rather than cameras that people just threw in a rucksac or handbag or briefcase. Thats where the joy of a Rollei35 is - the tessar was sharp but only because we used f8 most of the time - the sonnar is a legend but generally un-necessary and I have quite few different sonnar. But - I think the problem with this homage to the Rollei35, is just that - its a homage to something that I am not sure young - anyone under 50 - photographers understand. But it might be interesting to shoot with something that has some benefits over scale focus but really is a camera to just throw in a bag. If it does that well it could be a success - but Rollei success is not the same as success by almost any other standard- if it was the company would still exist (I mean DHW)

[@christopherward5065]

@@fourcornerseducation8828 yes! I had the Tessar version of the Rollei. The Tessar could be relied on to make images that stood up to pictorial veracity. The Tessar on Rollei twin lens or a Super Ikonta would melt some photographers’ minds. I didn’t enjoy my 35T and gave it to my friend it was pretty but frustrated my sensibilities about critical focus. The Tessar lenses were tonal and in black and white their wide tonal range translated into 3D plasticity and compelling rendering. Everyone and their dog discovered the concept of Bokeh about ten years ago and lens design went down a rabbit hole. Those big apertures weren’t meant to be used except for focussing and extremely poor light. New lenses now look so lifeless because they have to be super sharp from corner to corner at full aperture. I started using M42 equipment about 30 years ago. I was using my Pentax MX with very few lenses (28, 50 and 100mm) and then I got my first Pentax Spotmatic and subsequently my first Pentax SV. M42 purchasing was such a broad church and lenses could be as cheap as £5 and as fantastic as you like. With that situation it was possible to learn what was worth having and what I liked. The Takumars are mostly really excellent and balance their properties well. East German Zeiss were characterful with rich colours. Fujis were intense ad so on. I nearly always had lenses set on f5.6 with yellow filters for mono and or polarisers or nothing. Hoods were a must. The 35T and zone focussing was a mental challenge - I was into critical focus at f5.6 and I guess I wasn’t doing what the 35T needed or did best. This new Rollei tribute should be better than it is. It has modernity on its side but underachieves just where it should be brilliant. It was all empty highlights and blocked up shadows. It reached its resolution ceiling quite quickly. Interesting that the Sonnar that Rollei commissioned isn’t a Sonnar. Sonnar is associated with Hasselblad and Zeiss Contax and has that cachet. This new camera and its lens haven’t got into that orbit. The Pentax 17 seems to have its lens rather well sorted and people are making superb images with it.

[@ribsy]

Dynamic range is about the film, not the lens. Any scene with bright sun and shadows will hit a limit

[@theblackandwhitefilmproject]

I have a Rollei 35S. The lens has a lot of vintage character and completely manual. The 35AF lens seems very sharp but personally I do not shoot film for iPhone sharpness. Being automatic and not having a filter thread would be a deal breaker for me. I use a 30.5mm to 37mm step up adaptor and have a whole set of cheap 37mm ND filters so the camera is completely creative for ICM or wide open in bright light. The step up adaptor also acts as a lens hood and I don't experience the flaring you got here. IMO the 35AF would be most suitable for beginners which is what it was designed for anyway.

[@ribsy]

Yea it’s def more tailored to beginners

[@jorgemtrevino]

So no Zeiss lens either? Hmmm! Who designed this lens?

[@ribsy]

that wasn't made public, i dunno

[@jasonabrahamsmith]

Photos look rad to me! Looking forward to see what you make with this camera. Personally I like using a camera with limitations, then figuring out how to work within them. Cameras that can do everything are kinda boring IMO.

[@ribsy]

It def has limitations

[@Super8france]

I wonder what kind of customers might buy this camera? If it's to use it from time to time given the price, I don't really see the point. If it's for discovering film photography, you might as well go for a cheaper second-hand camera. But it looks great, they've added new features to it. It might be more efficient.

[@ribsy]

Yea it’s a bit of a tough sell in some ways. But it’s also a really functional tool and is good at what it does

[@pd1jdw630]

For what it does. I’m sticking to my old Eos camera. And maybe get the Pentax or wait for Pentax to build a full frame film camera.

[@ribsy]

You will never go wrong with an old eos camera. No matter what

[@thebitterfig9903]

@@pd1jdw630 Old autofocus SLRs are low key some of the best cameras out there. My Pentax PZ-20 isn’t going to be an heirloom of my house for generations, but it takes a dang good picture, and I’m sure Canon and Nikon equivalents do as well. With the Pentax 17, I love mine. I feel it really nails the user experience for a casual camera: enough going on that you feel hands on, that you’re actually taking film pictures, but auto enough to stay rather light and breezy. A little big for a small camera, but the grip is fantastic for one this small. My favorite small detail is the viewfinder being directly over the centerline of the lens, which seems to minimize parallax errors, even when focusing rather close. IQ is good enough, and half frame lets you shoot more pictures (again, helps with the casual experience). The Rollei (like the old versions) just looks fiddly to me and I’m not into it despite the better spec sheet. But $500 isn’t cheap, and if you already have a good camera, the first thing you should ask yourself: where can $500 take your Eos?

[@thomashilmersen711]

The bokeh looks similar to the original Rollei with the 40mm 3.5 lens.

[@ribsy]

Gotcha. Good to know

[@naeemdouglas_]

That model with the hat tho!

[@ribsy]

hahaha this guy

[@mike216514]

I’m one of the beta testers of the 35AF, and I can ensure all of you, that with proper skill and handling, the results are plenty sharp, handheld or not.

[@ribsy]

The results are def plenty sharp. I said that many times

[@loboptlu]

Could you tell me what batteries it uses , asked it once and got promised i would get the answer from ribsy.

[@doozledumbler5393]

@@loboptlu D.

[@okyeabuddyguy]

Does it have aperture priority or is it full auto?

[@mike216514]

@@okyeabuddyguy From what I remember, it has aperture priority but no full auto.

[@photoholic6369]

Interesting review and thank you for that. But, if I rely on the readable setting of your digitalization shots, you shoot with a 1/13 of a second. This is way too slow in my opinion with a 70mm lens. And it can lead to blurry scans, even with a heavy copy stand ?!

[@ribsy]

i shoot at f8, use a copy stand, 2 secs of timer before shutter, and in body + lens IS --- there is no blur from my camera scan i promise

[@Huginn87OG]

Dont know why they didnt add filter threads to it, looks like it could fit 40.5mm filters on it, especially since most users would want to put on a polarizer on it.

[@ribsy]

Yea it will present challenges for some people

[@PanchromaticNoise]

​@ribsy I think I read that the lens hood will have threads for filters or maybe I imagined it

[@thebitterfig9903]

Something awkward I realized: even if there’s a way to add a filter with an adapter of some kind, it can get awkward since the light meter won’t be behind it. The meter is off to the side. For a polarizer it probably doesn’t matter, but for ND or a color filter for B&W, it’d require some tricks to get proper exposure. Having to go through hoops to trick an autoexposure camera is pretty awkward, once folks figure out how to use filters.

[@thetravelogues]

Really can’t tell if I love or hate it tbh

[@ribsy]

this is just a lens quality test. there is so much more to this camera (final review coming in 2 weeks)

[@thetravelogues]

@@ribsy looking forward to it 😎

[@Willdmo]

The Basketball court shot, the net isn't sharp because the camera focused on the brick wall

[@ribsy]

That shot is focused at infinity. All of that is in focus. It’s just soft cuz it’s f2.8 in the first shot

[@Willdmo]

@@ribsy the brick wall looked considerably sharper than the net. So it is out of the hyperfocal distance. Even wide open you should compare the focusing point, not the whole image.

[@MES1808NYC]

As someone who has shot with a Rollei 35 S for many years, I am not overly impressed with this new version at first blush. The lens is sure to disappoint when compared with the old German made version and the autofocus is sure to be too slow to good street work. My opinion, an original model is the better way to go. Here, essentially, you are getting a Chinese point and shoot inside a Rollei branded body that is reminiscent of the original but really a different animal altogether. Shoot a Rollei 35S and then shoot this and compare for yourself if you don't believe me.

[@ribsy]

i can see lovers of the vintage camera not liking this modern one. totally valid. this new camera is def a different animal

[@cstpa1]

im on the pre pre-order list that opens a day before the preorder lol anyone else?

[@ribsy]

Hahaha

[@chriscard6544]

Bokeh looks pretty nice

[@ribsy]

yea! its not too shabby

[@40mmSummarit]

The flare performance is disappointing.

[@ribsy]

Yea I need to investigate that further

[@karellen00]

Both the portrait and the landscape seems to be a bit out of focus, or better, the camera focused some 5-10 cm behind the face and on the wall behind the basket. If you look in the plane of focus the lens seems to be plenty sharp straight from wide open, and better when stopped down. In any case not being able to preview your focus is something that I consider scary, especially for film where every picture with wrong focus is a waste of money. I really prefer the zone focus approach to be honest. Also the lack of a filter thread makes it even worse... But if you can live with that it should be a great camera!

[@ribsy]

i was trying really hard to get the minimum focusing distance on the portrait so that's why its not too precise

[@adrianemikko]

Can’t believe people are saying that the lens isn’t sharp. Look at those beard details on f2.8. I can almost make out the single strands

[@ribsy]

like all lenses, it is the least sharp at 2.8 (wide open). but it is def generally sharp lol

[@cstpa1]

i think ive just somehow gone 20 years without hearing someone pronounce bokeh

[@ribsy]

Lol

[@timothyplatt6053]

I think we have a replacement for my Olympus 35RC. When it finally dies. IF that ever happens.

[@ribsy]

Perhaps

[@timothyplatt6053]

@@ribsy well.. I'll probably be able to get 7 35RC's for the same price.... so there is that.

[@okyeabuddyguy]

Does it have aperture priority or is it full auto?

[@ribsy]

The only/default mode is aperture priority. No full auto. Only other thing is full manual

[@okyeabuddyguy]

@@ribsy thanks!

[@nwmi23]

It would've been nice if Mint created an entirely new film camera from scratch instead of trying to recreate a classic.

[@ribsy]

I wonder about that too

[@cwantuch]

As the owner of 3 vintage Rollei 35, I love this new take on it. The autofocus is a huge uplift to an otherwise super fun camera to use, which I miss focus 50% of the time because shooting in lower light requires too much guesstimatation of the distance.

[@TungstenOvergaard]

Big fail not having a filter ring. Big big fail that was easy to solve/design from the beginning.

[@ribsy]

🤷‍♂️

[@fourcornerseducation8828]

The filter ring is actually quite a new Idea on”German” Kameras - some of us that have been using Voigtlander and Zeiss cameras since the dawn of time have a full set of push on filters - Yellow two oranges three reds and a green - all the filters you ever need. Would be lovely if someone started making push on filters again - especially if they were in chrome mounta ;)

[@Moonrakerd]

not sure if true but looks like a fake rollei camera :DD

[@ribsy]

lol

[@WhoIsSerafin]

Not interested in anything in film except instant and digital since 2004. But this is fantastic for the people who do love film photography and I hope it sells like gang busters! Die cell phone photography, die!😂

[@ribsy]

Yea this thing is def gonna sell. It’s imperfect but that’s the point!

[@gamebuster800]

Im not impressed. I rather have it manual focus if the autofocus is "bad" anyway

[@ribsy]

The autofocus isn’t bad. I’d say it’s better than the majority of point and shoot cameras

[@randallstewart1224]

Admittedly, this review is incomplete and not particularly in-depth, so it might be unfair to condemn the camera based on it. However, the lens flare is substantial, and it appears about the same at all apertures sampled. In a word, unacceptable. That would be unacceptable on a technical piece of crap like an Oly Mju. On an $800 priced point-n-shoot, it's laughable. That it is "all glass" means nothing at all. Molded plastic lens components are used in the highest quality, most expensive, aspheric lenses, which could not be manufactured without them. That it is "5 element" lens also means nothing. A 3-element lens cannot correct for lens aberrations at apertures fast than f 8.0. However, the 6-element lens used in the Oly XA is one of the biggest piece of optical crap anyone ever tried to sell on a camera, yet it is often praised by the ignorant solely because of the element count. If a more rigorous exam of the Rollei 35AF parallels these results, The success of this camera is doomed, as it should be at the offered price. Note that the poor lens sharpness shown here is taken from the center of the images. That's the best part of the image. I suspect that if the image edges or corners were similarly examined, they would appear just gross. The lack of mounting threads on the lens also means that you're not going to be mounting any lens hood, which might had controlled that flare. Maybe the lens is so bad that it wouldn't make a difference. Originally, I posted my opinion that this camera would not live up to its hype because Mint's history and production of a new, high quality camera were totally incompatible, yet would love to been proven wrong. When the camera was first shown in public, I admitted that I'd have been wrong if the lens proved to be of the quality implied in the hype. Now, I think I was right from the beginning.

[@ribsy]

Damn Randall, that’s a cold blooded take

[@lensman5762]

First, with this sort of camera you have to be very careful when close focusing as parallax plays a major role. What you think you ate focusing on in the lovely viewfinder, may not and will not be where sensor focuses on. Secondly these cameras were built as very high quality point and shoot. I don't think they are suitable for the type of portraiture that you have in mind. The lens puzzels me. On my SE it clearly says Sonnar- HFT made by Rollei. HFT is the special multi coating, High Fidelity Transfer developed by Zeiss for Rollei, its a carbon copy of Zeiss T* coatings. Why it doesn't mention that on yours is anyone's guess. Still it produced lovely photpgraphs. BTW, that lens flare bothers me and needs investigating. Take care.

[@thebitterfig9903]

It doesn't mention it because it's not quite the same Rollei. Old Rollei worked in partnership with Zeiss. This designed by MiNT (a Hong Kong camera company best known for refurbishing Polaroid SLRs and developing some premium Instax cameras) who licensed the name from Rollei. I believe there was some back-and-forth between what remains of the old Rollei, but not a tonne. When the "Rolleiflex Instant Kamera" came out, it was the MiNT TL70 2.0, with a licensed name and the only contribution Rollei made to it was slight improvements in the viewfinder to make it brighter. It's kind of like how the Impossible Project became literally Polaroid--it's not the same company it was, the cameras aren't exactly the same lineage. There are lines of inspiration from the past, but it's functionally a new camera by a new camera company, with a lot of differences. For example, the old Rollei 35 lenses used to be 40mm lenses, either f/3.5 Tessar and f/2.8 Sonnar designs. This is a 35mm, with 5 elements, but not necessarily a Sonnar, and certainly not a Zeiss design with the Zeiss coatings. The elements are coated, but they're not Zeiss. Again, none of it means that this is necessarily a bad camera. The Polaroid I-2 has nothing to do with the old Polaroid company, and folks find that to be a typically really nice camear. But it's certainly true that this Rollei is just not *the same* camera as the old ones--it's a new camera from a newish company inspired by an old camera in style.

[@lensman5762]

@@thebitterfig9903 Most interesting. Thank you for the information.

[@ribsy]

The lens flaring was def surprising. I wasn’t expecting that given that the subject wasn’t aggressively backlit

[@randallstewart1224]

The Mint copy does not say "HFT" on the lens because it isn't a Rollei or Zeiss lens. From this (for me) first semi-review, the lens on this camera is probably some Chinese 35mm P-n-S lens from who knows who or where. From the unacceptable amount of flare in the images at all apertures, it is fair to conclude that whatever was used for lens coating, it sucks. Mint has done everything it can to confuse this camera with the technical expertise and quality of a Rollei camera. The only connection this camera has with a Rollei 35 is (1) the use of trademark license Mint purchased, and (2) whatever Mint paid to legally mimic the external touch and feel of a Rollei 35. Inside, the cameras have nothing in common. Rollei has been gone for almost 40 years. It's input on the design, features or quality of this Mint camera: absolutely nothing.

[@ribsy]

Totally fair. I wanted to test the close focusing here intentionally to see what kinda image can be produced. There is no option to dial in the shortest focus manually so you have to move closer and closer to your subject until you “get it”

[@betod63]

why you want to shoot wide open on a sunny day?.....ahh, bokeh, that stupid massive alienation thing

[@ribsy]

You really don’t like bokeh?

[@Ham-yj1od]

It's not about sharpness, it's about having some characters which new boring Rollei 35AF is lacking. People are shifting from digital to film only because film can give them some unpredictable results with some arts into it. Again Rollei 35AF is just a piece of rubbish priced at $799.

[@ribsy]

its not rubbish. but i do agree that there is no specific character

[@MH-zd6si]

To be honest, I am quite disappointed with both of your "reviews" on the camera so far. In the first one you did not even know the function of the DX pins and now you are doing this quite useless "sharpness" comparison without using a tripod leading to motion blur or all photos being full in focus. Come on Ribsy ...

[@lensman5762]

To be fair to Mr Ribsy, he is testing the camera as it will most probably be used handheld. I can't remember the last time I put any of my DSLRs on the tripod, nevermind a tiny point and shoot half the size of the palm of my hand. The issue is that unfortunately far too much importance is given to sharpness. A lens could optically be a dog but if it is sharp in the center all is forgiven. This is a side effect of the digital era, I am sad to say.

[@ribsy]

Some of you know it alls are really entitled. I’m using the camera handheld as I would for my type of photography. I’m not carrying a tripod for a point and shoot camera

[@martinohesse]

We don't need lab test, we need the review from the real use point of view.

[@justinkingery2489]

What a troll! Get off your keyboard and take a photo sometime.

[@ZOMBIELUIS666]

If you didn't like the first and still clicked on this it was probably with the express purpose to bitch and moan. Buy it and test it yourself, get off the Internet.

[@thinkpadx60]

camera looks cheap

[@ribsy]

It will def feel different from the original

[@olio_benzina]

Not what I'd call sharp.

[@ribsy]

Not at 2.8 but that’s expected

[@martinohesse]

I can't believe that both new film cameras don't have any real advantage of new technology. No lithium batteries, no different light metering methods, no 1/4000 shutter speed, Pentax 17 doesn't not even has autofocus. They're almost only cloning the cameras of 1960 but selling them at prices of digital cameras. My pergear 35mm F1.2 lens has better sharpness and flare control than this lens... I know it's subjective, but, sadly for me, i won't definitely buy any of these two cameras. I was very enthusiastic on them but I will better get another mju cameras.

[@ribsy]

It’s def subjective but I think you have a point. There are some key limitations that are puzzling

[@Nijensikkens]

The is made by Pentax :)

[@ribsy]

Just might be but I dunno

[@Zetaphotography]

Where is your information from?

[@acmhc8]

designed by a retired Pentax engineer. nowhere have i seen anyone claim it was made/built by Pentax