what would you do?

[menthel]

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!

 

[redisburning]

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.

 

[Noll]

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/6220/6330172969_75dca06384_b.jpg
This one was Zeiss Ikonta 523/16, Ektar 100, 6x6 negative scanned at 6400, then downsized.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7183/6811227590_f4cdf5868d_b.jpg

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

 

[shadowfox]

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.

 

[Bob Michaels]

.................. 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.

 

[KoNickon]

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.

 

[ottluuk]

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.

 

[Spanik]

A bit of self confidence maybe?

 

[redisburning]

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.

 

[FrankS]

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.

 

[thegman]

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.

 

[Matus]

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.

 

[redisburning]

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).

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 =/

 

[redisburning]

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.

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.

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.

 

[FrankS]

First class performers, all of them.

 

[xhrl]

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....

 

[celluloidprop]

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.

 

[redisburning]

Film scanner won out.

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

 

[seakayaker1]

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!