Talk:Rolleiflex SL35

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Photography

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mount?

The most important piece of information is missing: The mount type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blades (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mount was called "Rollei QBM", what means "quick bayonett mount". There are several versions sold from the 70's up to the 90's (for the last SL3003/3001/2000).--84.63.40.159 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

Random quote:

"Run, don't walk away from that camera. I had an SL35 back in the '80's and its defect was that it kept winding and winding until kingdom come w/o stopping for anything but the end of the cartridge/roll. A friend of mine had about five of them and he needed that many because three or so were always in repair."[1]--John Bessa (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quality of the SL35e Electronic is very worse. I owned SLRs from Rollei from the late 70's, the lenses are very nice (not only the Zeiss lenses, the Rolleinar lenses are superb too), but the bodies are bad. The SL35e has a construction deficite so you can't "fix" it. The SL2000 is mechanical not strong, and the SL3003 is very good - and very expensive.--84.63.40.159 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]