redisburning
Well-known
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.
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.
dmc
Bessa Driver
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?
Thardy
Veteran
Why such disparate choices?
back alley
IMAGES
rd1 with a rollei 40 sonnar.
redisburning
Well-known
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
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
redisburning
Well-known
because I have no idea what to do. that is why "save the cash" is on the list.
I want to stick with film.
Austerby
Well-known
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.
FrankS
Registered User
Everyone needs a Hasselblad.
And a Rolleiflex!
And a Rolleiflex!
dmc
Bessa Driver
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 . . .
redisburning
Well-known
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/
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
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.
redisburning
Well-known
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 =/
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 =/
sreed2006
Well-known
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.
paulfish4570
Veteran
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 ...
wblynch
Well-known
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
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
Mamiya 6!
redisburning
Well-known
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?
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.
paulfish4570
Veteran
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.
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.
mdx
Member
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...
Bob Michaels
nobody special
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.