I was just wondering what the general consensus among MR users is of medium format, specifically Rolleiflex TLRs. I've had my eye on a Rollei TLR for a while, just because of the quirky looks, a love for classic cameras in general and a longing to get back to film with a new objective in mind.
However, due to the high prices on eBay I haven't managed to get my hands on one yet although I'm looking at a 3.5 jobbie as they're slightly cheaper than the 2.8's. Anyone have experience with either of these cameras?
I would go as far to say that if you go back to using film there is no point in 35mm. The only reason for 35mm was that the equipment was small and portable and now we have digital for that. I shot a Mamyia RB67 for years. I even backpacked it up some trails.
The Rolleiflex TLR is a classic wedding photographer's camera. good for those group shots and such. The quality beats anything Nikon or Canon can do but you can't change the lens. If I were going back to MF I'd pick up a Haselblad. For the money its more versatile You can change out lenses, finders and backs. Changing backs allows you to match the film to the light and subject. They are very small and light weight and there is an endless supply of used equipment out there.
About the f/2.8 lens. I doubt you would shoot wide open all that much. The DOF on a medium format camera means you spend more time at 5.6, 8 and 11. but you do compose and focus wide open. If you can't afford a Roli look for a YashikaMat
Not the same thing at all if yu are a camera collector but for shooting, much the same resuilt.
That said, when I go back to film it will be 4x5. I'll scan the film. I have some projects in mind where I want to make huge prints.
One bit of warnning. I tried scanning some of my old 6x7 film and some 4x5 too. You will need a very powerful Mac to handle the huge scans. The file can be 100 megabytes or even more. The old Roli takes 100 megapixel images Of course you can scan at low res but then why not use a Nikon D80?
