I think part of my problem is I sometimes suffer from delusions of grandeur. I'm not a working pro, and not really shooting with the intent of selling photos. I just like taking pictures. And a lot of the time its just having a camera I can use quickly and confidently, and the Hexar is perfect for me.....
A few thoughts:
Rolleiflexes are not for everyone. Ask
Roger Hicks what he thinks about them.
HCB preferred Leicas. Doisneau shot
Rolleiflexes.
Rolleiflexes can be confusing for those
used to 35mm cameras in a number of
respects. BUT the Rolleiflexes are intuitive
and ingenious in design. Once you figure
them out, they will astound you with their
economy of design and function, and all
other cameras will pale by comparison.
I hear you about not being a pro, and just
wanting to shoot pictures -- I'm right there
with you. But a Rolleiflex will make you
look like a pro, if you bring a discerning
eye to it. There is a long tradition of
amateurs shooting Rolleiflexes, from the
likes of Eudora Welty (known for her pen,
not her Rolleiflex) down through the decades
to today -- an unknown Chicago woman,
Vivian Maier, died earlier this year. The
buyer of her storage locker contents found
a trove of 40,000 negatives, and thousands
of undeveloped rolls, of street photography
she shot as a young Jewish emigré in Chicago
in the 1950s -- all shot with a Rolleiflex:
http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/
Here's a link to my favorite that the buyer
has scanned and posted online so far:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YUrw6ooCZj4/Sias55SapUI/AAAAAAAAAOg/7wSlLLIwb0g/s1600-h/A36.jpg
Somehow, it would not have carried the same
impact if it had been a Nikon or a Pentax.
Sanders