Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: in my shoes, what would you do?
get a rolleiflex 14 26.42%
get a 500c/m and a 80 planar 16 30.19%
sell some stuff and get a 35/2 biogon 9 16.98%
get an OM 28/2 and pocket the difference 1 1.89%
get anohter gw690! 0 0%
save cash 13 24.53%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

what would you do?
Old 04-10-2012   #1
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
what would you do?

so, the Fuji gw690iii that I bought showed up with a broken aperture and a really off-centered barrel. so it's got to go back.

maybe I got lucky, the camera is very large (which I knew), very heavy and the RF patch kind of sucks. so I'm not so sure I will replace the camera with another gw, unless I am missing some sort of amazing, transformative experience from the lens.

from this list, what would you do? and if you could spare a few words, I would appreciate it. Im kind of lost right now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #2
dmc
Bessa Driver
 
dmc's Avatar
 
dmc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 222
I think that more info is required. If you think the GW is big and heavy, it is downright petite compared to the Rolei and the 'blad. What kind of shooting are you planing. Will 35 mm work? Are you stuck on medium format? What gear do you presently own?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #3
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,177
Why such disparate choices?
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #4
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,215
rd1 with a rollei 40 sonnar.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #5
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
I thought the f3.5 rolleis were fairly small cameras? I suppose I am mistaken.

I know the 'Blad is big, and heavy, but I feel like I get a lot of utility for that given the interchanging lenses, backs, prisms, etc.

Shooting is general stuff. I bought the GW690 because I was hoping to get some negatives I could more easily scan. My dad was going to buy a flatbed, and he was OK with getting one that could handle film like a v500. max size Im looking for is 1920x1080 but I want razor sharpness at that on a properly focused, 1/125 or faster shot, and the price of the gw690 was pretty appealing.

my gear:
M2 + ZM50
OM-1, OM-1, OM-2, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/3.5, Vivitar S1 90/2.5
SRT-101, 58/1.2
EOS 40D (I dont need lenses for this)
and I just traded for a Contax 50/1.7
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #6
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thardy View Post
Why such disparate choices?
because I have no idea what to do. that is why "save the cash" is on the list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
rd1 with a rollei 40 sonnar.
I want to stick with film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #7
Austerby
Registered User
 
Austerby's Avatar
 
Austerby is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Fircombe
Posts: 1,065
I love my Hasselblad but I have begun to discover that a combination such as a Zeiss lens, Acros 100 and R09 1:80 can produce similar results in 35mm if handled carefully.
__________________
Austerby
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #8
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
Everyone needs a Hasselblad.

And a Rolleiflex!
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #9
dmc
Bessa Driver
 
dmc's Avatar
 
dmc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 222
Well, if price is no object and you feel you need medium format, I'd go with the 'blad. I have a hunch, though, that you would do fine with 35mm, in which case I'd say none of the above and look for a good used Leica M and lens. Very much lighter and I think it might fit your needs better. I agree the Rollei is sweet, but you're complaining about the size and weight of the GW . . .
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #10
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc View Post
Well, if price is no object and you feel you need medium format, I'd go with the 'blad. I have a hunch, though, that you would do fine with 35mm, in which case I'd say none of the above and look for a good used Leica M and lens. Very much lighter and I think it might fit your needs better. I agree the Rollei is sweet, but you're complaining about the size and weight of the GW . . .
price is DEFINITELY an object, or I would have just bought a Mamiya 7 to start with. the blad or the biogon are probably at the limit of what I could spend.

I'm not stuck on MF, as I don't need the quality. But, the increased real estate makes flat bed scanning (for the web) realistic for me. I don't even know what to do with much of my 35mm film that I've shot. No one looks at my flickr and thinks to themselves, "boy if these had higher technical quality I would buy the **** out of these", or at least, that's my guess.

something interesting, I have a B22xl enlarger that is missing the condensor lenses, if I got a square camera I can use it, maybe that should factor into it?

the size of the GW isn't really the issue, it's the surprising weight and the suck-tastic RF patch.

I take pictures of my friends. And buildings. And sometimes random people. I haven't in a while because I had to leave all of that behind when I moved to Texas, but if you go hear you can see my work (of similar quality as GW patch)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmcmanis/page8/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #11
Steve Bellayr
Registered User
 
Steve Bellayr's Avatar
 
Steve Bellayr is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,947
Consider what you will be photographing. I looked at some of you photos. Will you be photographing flowers and landscapes? Having used both the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex (and prefer neither) I consider the Rolleiflex more for photographing on the street quickly as opposed to the Hasselblad which does not have a meter. My Rolleiflex has a meter. I always considered the twin lens reflex a 1930s, 40s camera for wandering about the landscape and taking street photos while the Hasselblad was more for tripod landscapes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #12
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
as a general rule, I don't shoot flowers OR landscapes. I tried the latter, and found that even I was unhappy with my shots because my heart just wasn't in it.

the flower thing, all the shots of my cats/dogs; I work from home and live in the middle of nowhere. Im bored, so I go out and try to make the most out of what I got. But, hopefully, I will be moving back to a city again soon.

I would say the vast majority of my intended use is between 5 and 15 feet, sometimes in less than ideal light. other than that, it is pictures of buildings, often with intentionally induced perspective distortion.

tbh, I was really impressed by Acros in 35mm, and I figured that big 6x9s on the stuff would really be swell. This is for my personal enjoyment, and I do want to give medium format another shot =/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #13
sreed2006
Registered User
 
sreed2006's Avatar
 
sreed2006 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 995
I voted "save cash." Of course, only for a little while. Give it some time, and you'll come up with a well-thought out decision.
__________________
Sid

My favorite question is "What does this button do?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #14
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 68
Posts: 9,579
i think you should use the snot out of your OM kit (maybe even stick to a single focal length for a couple of months at a time), learn to process your own black and white film, and learn to make good scans. THEN learn to edit yourself ...
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #15
wblynch
Registered User
 
wblynch is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 640
First of all, I have the Epson 4490 (previous version of the v500) and you won't easily get razor sharp scans of 120 film on that. (maybe with the Better Scanning holders...)

But, MF is fun and exciting and if you get into enlarger printing it would be more rewarding than 35mm.

My suggestion is to get a TLR. A Rolleicord, RolleiFlex or a Minolta Autocord are great.

But I think you re the guy that could rock a Mamiya C22 or C220. They have interchangeable lenses and you can focus real close. They are among the largest of TLRs but you will rule the street with that thing.

People get a kick when they see you with a TLR and it takes a lot of edge off. TLRs are very quiet and with the waist-level viewfinder you are not threatening to your subject.

Another good thing about MF is you can crop the crap out of the negative and still beat 35mm.

-Bill
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #16
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,165
Mamiya 6!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #17
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulfish4570 View Post
i think you should use the snot out of your OM kit (maybe even stick to a single focal length for a couple of months at a time), learn to process your own black and white film, and learn to make good scans. THEN learn to edit yourself ...
well, you see how many 50s I have, right? that's basically all I use. and I have shot a lot more, but it's sitting undeveloped because the cost of scanning is killing me. Over the year I spent in grad school, I shot nearly 100 rolls of film, only about 25-30 got developed.

I do develop my own b&w. And if my enlarger worked, I can print myself too.

I don't have ANY scanner, so not sure what I can do on that front.

Out of curiosity, what would I gain going back to my OM gear rather than using my M2, which I find easier to focus and more to my style of shotting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
First of all, I have the Epson 4490 (previous version of the v500) and you won't easily get razor sharp scans of 120 film on that. (maybe with the Better Scanning holders...)

But, MF is fun and exciting and if you get into enlarger printing it would be more rewarding than 35mm.

My suggestion is to get a TLR. A Rolleicord, RolleiFlex or a Minolta Autocord are great.

-Bill
Bill, thanks for the info on the scanning. I don't need grain level scans, I was hoping that the huge neg would make up for it.

Im leaning heavily towards a Rolleiflex 3.5 at this point.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #18
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 68
Posts: 9,579
well, a 4490 would cost only about $150. throw in some betterscanning glass and holders, and you're up to some good scanning for a total of $200 or so. i suggested the OM because of the variety you have in focal lengths. sticking to the m2/zm 50 would be a good choice, too. find your vision. simplifying your kit choices COULD help you do that, and it sure won't hurt.
i've used an m3, iiif, bessa r2m, etc. as much as i love rangefinders, i have to say a compact slr gives you a little more flexibility in a one cam/one lens kit because you can move in a good bit closer.
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #19
mdx
Registered User
 
mdx is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 43
From my point of view, the couple Rolleiflex 3.5f and Rolleiflex Standard is ideal. Rolleiflex Standard is not heavy, and both of them are quite discrete...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #20
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 76
Posts: 3,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by redisburning View Post
................... and I have shot a lot more, but it's sitting undeveloped because the cost of scanning is killing me. Over the year I spent in grad school, I shot nearly 100 rolls of film, only about 25-30 got developed.

.................. And if my enlarger worked, I can print myself too.

I don't have ANY scanner, so not sure what I can do on that front.
.........................
I think you have priorities much greater than the purchase of any new camera equipment. Not sure what those priorities are, but I think I know what they are not.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #21
menthel
Not very good...
 
menthel is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Raynes Park, London, UK
Age: 42
Posts: 316
I voted rolleiflex cos I have one! In fact I have a T. Its easy to use, portable and nowhere near as bulky as a gw690. I also like the square format- make sure you do before jumping!
__________________
Jim Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #22
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels View Post
I think you have priorities much greater than the purchase of any new camera equipment. Not sure what those priorities are, but I think I know what they are not.
Bob,

earlier in the thread I mentioned a scanner purchase was already going to happen, and that my Dad said it was ok to get one of the Epson's that can handle film. I have heard that these do a lot better with MF than 35mm.

really, the two options I am considering seriously at this point are the rolleiflex or to just bite the bullet and use the cash to buy an expensive, no longer made, potentially impossible to repair film scanner. I will not buy one without autofocus, however.

also, a set of condensor lenses for the enlarger have been hard to source. If I'm going to spend 200 dollars on a set, I might as well buy an entirely new enlarger. and then there is an issue of where I can put it, so I need to wait on that anyway.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #23
Noll
Registered User
 
Noll is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
First of all, I have the Epson 4490 (previous version of the v500) and you won't easily get razor sharp scans of 120 film on that. (maybe with the Better Scanning holders...)

-Bill
I think I've used my v500 enough to address your requirements for "razor-sharp" 1920x1080 scans. IMO, the v500 doesn't cut it on 35mm, maybe for 400+ speed BW if you like muddy grain.

It can work for 6x6, or even 645, as long as you're ok with leaving oodles of detail on the neg, scanning at 6400 dpi then resizing, and are using a scanner-friendly film like ektar.

Considering all the detail that is lost on this scanner, I don't think the camera lens will be the limiting factor in your scanned image quality.

First image is 35 mm, scanned on v500. Yashica T4 and Fuji 100, Probably scanned at 3600 or 4200 dpi.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6220/6...dca06384_b.jpg
This one was Zeiss Ikonta 523/16, Ektar 100, 6x6 negative scanned at 6400, then downsized.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7183/6...cdf5868d_b.jpg

Weird, for some reason I can't insert a photo in this thread.

Last edited by Noll : 04-11-2012 at 17:39. Reason: clarify the second image was 6x5
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #24
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by redisburning View Post
the flower thing, all the shots of my cats/dogs; I work from home and live in the middle of nowhere. Im bored, so I go out and try to make the most out of what I got. But, hopefully, I will be moving back to a city again soon.
Where is this middle of nowhere if I may ask?
Being able to work from home is a blessing if you ask me.

As others have alluded to, I think at this point you need to build a portfolio, and this does not depend on the equipment so much compared to developing a vision through mini-projects.
(If I'm telling you what you already realize/know, forgive me )

As for preference on M vs OM, I use both, I like both, sometimes I take both along when I'm shooting.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #25
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 76
Posts: 3,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by redisburning View Post
.................. or to just bite the bullet and use the cash to buy an expensive, no longer made, potentially impossible to repair film scanner. I will not buy one without autofocus, however. ........................
I would suggest spending $125-175 on an early model Minolta such as a ScanDual II, III or IV or an earlier Nikon. There has not been substantial improvements other than Digital Ice in scanner technology. They do very well for 35mm. I am still using files from 10 year old SD II scans. Then you could opt for a low cost flatbed for MF. I have never seen a scanner that was not autofocus.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #26
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
 
KoNickon is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Age: 61
Posts: 3,127
Rolleiflex. Smaller in dimension than the Fuji, for sure. It does seem that the prices on the 3.5E and 3.5F (as well as the 2.8s) are climbing, but I should think $600-$700 is feasible. Oh, and get a Rolleinar 1 (brings you from 1 meter down to roughly .5 meters) for extra versatility.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #27
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
 
ottluuk is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tartu, Estonia
Age: 34
Posts: 482
I thought along similar lines a while ago: get a 6x9 camera so I could use an affordable flatbed scanner and still get nice files. But then I caught the Leica fever and dropped the money on a worn-but-working M4.

While I still get bouts of medium format GAS, I'm pretty happy things went that way, for several reasons:

a) I don't really have that much time for photo-only excursions. But I have a loose schedule and lots of field work in interesting places so a camera that I can carry all the time will get to take lots more pictures. And extra lenses are easy to carry as well.
b) Film cost per shot is 3-4x less with 35mm.
c) The cheaper flatbed scanners get you an adequate file from MF but the full quality of the negative is still inaccessible until you have it drum scanned. The flatbeds don't get better with larger film, the sheer area (and thus smaller enlargement factor for similarly sized output) simply conceals the same crappy resolution that you see with 35mm scans from the same machine. Combined with the extra cost, it's a waste, IMO.

If you get money back for the broken GW, you should have enough money for a second hand dedicated 35mm scanner or way more than enough to fix/replace your enlarger. Either would also work with your existing 35mm negatives. And you already have some nice cameras.
__________________
Ott Luuk

------------------------------
GRD III | 40D | M4 | 3,5C

Tumblr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #28
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
A bit of self confidence maybe?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #29
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Where is this middle of nowhere if I may ask?
Being able to work from home is a blessing if you ask me.

As others have alluded to, I think at this point you need to build a portfolio, and this does not depend on the equipment so much compared to developing a vision through mini-projects.
I live "in" Fort Worth but the city itself is a good 45 minutes away.

I'm not trying to buy stuff because I think it will make my pictures better. I am not a photographer, I do this because I enjoy it. I don't mind spending some money on cameras because if I ever tire of a camera I can just sell it.

I bought the gw690iii for a reason. 3:2 and a big negative, plus I read all sorts of stuff on the interwebs about it being toy-like and tough despite being surprisingly light weight. I realize now that those people were smoking crack.

Something to consider is that the M2 was somewhat of a revelatory instrument for me. Here was a camera I could actually focus! I was just hoping to have that in a larger format.

I will consider carefully for the next week or so whether or not I can live with cropping down 6x6 shots from a Rollei. I don't want to sell anything which I think I would realistically have to do to fit a 'blad into my play money budget. I see KEH has some 3.5s in stock which I can fit in fairly easily.

35mm is fine, but what I see in 120 shots with a good lens on a nice traditional b&w film stock, I know that I can't get that in 35. It's true I don't have clients to deliver the goods too, and it's true that I don't print and I really should, but I'm 23; I want to look at these pictures on my computer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #30
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
If all you want to do is look at your pics on a computer, why not get a digital camera?

If you want to stick to film, then all you need is a flatbed scanner with film scanning capabilities like my Canon 8400f. Scanners of this type are a bit more than $100 and easily capable of producing computer monitor worthy scans/files.

It certainly doesn't sound like you need a medium format camera for your application, to me.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #31
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,813
Out of that lot, for me it's an easy Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. If you're shooting on a tripod, Hasselblad all the way. It's a great system camera with loads of options, and fairly affordable, unless you want very modern lenses.

For handheld, Rolleiflex, a lot lighter and smaller than a 'blad. I used to carry about mine in a man-bag, no dedicated bag required. If you can get on with a TLR, they are great, if not, they're a bit of a pain. I don't have my Rollei any more, but the lens was probably my favourite ever.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #32
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,843
Well - you may as well try the Bronica RF645 with the 66/4 lens - much cheaper than mamiya 7 and should be very nice to use. Or even a Fujica GS645 with 75/3.5 lens (just make sure it is in a good working order).

It seems like you prefer rectangular to square - in that case going for a Rolleiflex may not be optimal for you. Otherwise TLR has, in my opinion, the biggest 'fun' factor. I did have Rolleifelx T and have Mamiya 6 now. The Rollei was more fun - no question.

Flatbed scanner (when working properly) should give you OK 2400 spi scans and once scaled down (after scanning) to some 1200 - 1600 api it should give you sharp results. In other words even with 35mm film you should be able to get 'sharp' files with about 3 Mpix - more than you ask for - and give you decent 5x7" prints should you decide to print digitally.

While the 35mm cameras do not have the 'wow' factor when it comes to negs, their size, fast lenses , speed of operation, portability and economy (per frame) may be more important than the bigger ned the medium format can deliver.

But if you are really unsure - then either wait or get some cheaper (but reasonably working with decent lens - Hexar AF comes to my mind) 35mm camera and give it a try.
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #33
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS View Post
If all you want to do is look at your pics on a computer, why not get a digital camera?
I do have one. I have a 40D, which I use more frequently now than I would really like.

That being said, it's results are fine so I see no reason to buy another one when I still prefer film. A lot. And I wouldn't characterize it that strongly, I do still appreciate a good print (I've got a couple I did when I had access to the BU darkroom, I would not so quickly give up this capability).


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS View Post
If you want to stick to film, then all you need is a flatbed scanner with film scanning capabilities like my Canon 8400f. Scanners of this type are a bit more than $100 and easily capable of producing computer monitor worthy scans/files.

It certainly doesn't sound like you need a medium format camera for your application, to me.
Why are all of you being such good influences? I thought forums were supposed to be enablers.

I know I don't need a medium format camera, but the last time I did MF I didn't really give it the time or effort it deserved, and I'm still in the try everything until I figure out what fits me the very best phase.

Plus I will feel bad if I never shoot any 120 acros before Fuji takes that awy too =/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #34
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
First I should take a moment to thank everyone who has responded so far. Really, everyone, thank you so much.

I'll try and state this clearly, this is now more a question of do I buy a Rollei and use a flatbed or do I just bite the bullet on a dedicated 35mm film scanner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegman View Post
Out of that lot, for me it's an easy Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. If you're shooting on a tripod, Hasselblad all the way. It's a great system camera with loads of options, and fairly affordable, unless you want very modern lenses.

For handheld, Rolleiflex, a lot lighter and smaller than a 'blad. I used to carry about mine in a man-bag, no dedicated bag required. If you can get on with a TLR, they are great, if not, they're a bit of a pain. I don't have my Rollei any more, but the lens was probably my favourite ever.
Thanks, the size/weight/price consideration has pushed me towards the Rollei if I do buy another MF camera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matus View Post
It seems like you prefer rectangular to square - in that case going for a Rolleiflex may not be optimal for you. Otherwise TLR has, in my opinion, the biggest 'fun' factor. I did have Rolleifelx T and have Mamiya 6 now. The Rollei was more fun - no question.

While the 35mm cameras do not have the 'wow' factor when it comes to negs, their size, fast lenses , speed of operation, portability and economy (per frame) may be more important than the bigger ned the medium format can deliver.
Square is...

I don't know it's just much less dramatic to me than a wider format. Hard to describe. Maybe I have seen Lawrence of Arabia too many times.

I'm not going to sell any 35mm stuff, the Rollei would be used but it probably wouldn't displace my Leica as my main camera. I don't mind cropping a bit. I like the Zeiss and Schneider lenses a lot, I was willing to forgo that for the larger negative and RF system of the Fuji. I would be fine with 645 if I could spring the Contax but I think it would take many, many rolls of film chopping off the edges of pictures before I made up the price difference.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #35
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
First class performers, all of them.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg image-2591602019.jpg (46.3 KB, 9 views)
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #36
xhrl
Registered User
 
xhrl is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Age: 24
Posts: 13
I agree with thomasw. stick with the m2 and zm 50/2 and pick some theme to shoot and then shoot it and shoot it some more....of your listed options, just think about adding a 35/2. But picking the idea is more important....
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #37
celluloidprop
Registered User
 
celluloidprop is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 876
People: Save some more cash and pick up a GF670, Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7, IMO.
Buildings: Hasselblad

You could scratch the 6x6 MF itch for a good deal less with a Bronica SQ-A kit, pocket the difference and save for a MF rangefinder.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #38
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
Film scanner won out.

Will probably get an OM 28/2 anyway, what can I say lensitis is a serious sickness.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #39
seakayaker1
Registered User
 
seakayaker1's Avatar
 
seakayaker1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,913
Voted for the Rollieflex, then read through the thread.

Just a plug for the MF film experience, I am enjoying the Rollie 75/3.5 and the Mamiya 7II.

Good luck with your decision!
__________________
______________________

Life is Grand! ~~~ Dan
M Monochrom ~ M-P (240), M6 TTL & MP ~ Mamiya 7 II ~ GF1 ~ K5IIs
~ Rolleiflex f3.5 with Carl Zeiss 75mm Planar (type 4) ~
The hardest part of starting a new project is starting it ~ Keith Carter
Flickr Sets: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:15.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.