Ruvy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 69
- Format
- Multi Format
Hi all
I own a Rolleiflex E2 f3.5 and like it a lot but want to add a camera that will have the conveniences of faster/easier operation without a major sacrifice in quality. Originally I thought of getting a 6X7 (nice proportion and most are superb) or 6X9 (wider) but they are expensive and some are heavy so I am checking now into 6X4.5s. A merchant here lent me a Fuji ga645 which I like to a point. When compared with my Rollei I am missing the intimacy of a longer (yet normal) lens and its rollinars to get even closer. Also, not sure yet but it seems like framing is more accurate on the rollei + I never miss a shot due to forgetting the lens cover on it. (needless to say I am biased to the way the xenotar on the Rollei renders images).
Considering i like to shoot portraits, kids, landscape, architectural and travel shots, I wonder if anyone here has or had both cameras and which one is more frequently used for better and faster shooting?
I own a Rolleiflex E2 f3.5 and like it a lot but want to add a camera that will have the conveniences of faster/easier operation without a major sacrifice in quality. Originally I thought of getting a 6X7 (nice proportion and most are superb) or 6X9 (wider) but they are expensive and some are heavy so I am checking now into 6X4.5s. A merchant here lent me a Fuji ga645 which I like to a point. When compared with my Rollei I am missing the intimacy of a longer (yet normal) lens and its rollinars to get even closer. Also, not sure yet but it seems like framing is more accurate on the rollei + I never miss a shot due to forgetting the lens cover on it. (needless to say I am biased to the way the xenotar on the Rollei renders images).
Considering i like to shoot portraits, kids, landscape, architectural and travel shots, I wonder if anyone here has or had both cameras and which one is more frequently used for better and faster shooting?

I have witnessed this so many times: people doing just fine with one format, then encountering a slightly larger one and thinking it will transform their results. And then they hop to the next larger and the next larger. This way of thinking just boggles me. Been there done that. I find plenty of unique uses for all the formats. How big you can [theoretically!] enlarge before seeing grain is, to me, just about the silliest argument in all of photography. At the end of the day, with good film choice and development technique, the differences are far less important than how the different formats enable completely different ways of seeing. End of rant 
