Looking for recommendations for my next camera

I appreciate all the replies so far!

Re: sharpness of the FD50mm, it could very well be that I'm the problem and initially I definitely looked inward. But even when making sure that I'm not shaking or moving, and using a higher shutter speed (I try to not even go under 1/250 if possible), I still don't get pictures that aren't as sharp as I'd like them to be. The lens is sharper at shorter distances, but as the distance of the subject grow so does the sharpness go down. I avoid shooting with the lens fully open, and similarly at its smallest aperture. Even at short distances with the aperture at 5.6 - 8, I get parts of the subject that are pretty sharp, but then others that don't have the same sharpness. I just got it back this week from getting it cleaned and calibrated, so I'm going to see soon what the photos I shot with it in the past few days look like. Sometimes I just see photos that look almost otherworldly sharp and that's kind of what I'm after. I know that there's a lot more at play here like the object (is it static or not), use of a tripod, etc.

Also the A-1 was CLAd a few months ago, so I would assume the foam for the mirror would have been replaced.

It was pointed out that only I know what I'm looking for and that's very true. I would say my #1 priority is optics/resolution. I don't mind buying a camera with a fixed lens, but if I do that I'd rather it be medium format (tho I won't rule out 35mm), and the lens should be incredible. That's why I've been interested in the Makina 67 or the Fujis. If I go with an interchangeable system, I'd prefer one that has a variety of lenses available, possibly from different manufacturers.

The Leica CL might be what I'm looking for, especially since its framelines fit what the focal lengths I prefer. The Konica Hexar RF also looks great but I'm a bit hesitant about the frame counter being digital. I assume it needs batteries to operate which I'd rather avoid if possible. The Bessa R3M would be pretty ideal but it's more than I'm willing to spend on a body alone.

I'm also intrigued by the Perkeo II. I love folder cameras. Some of the SLRs mentioned like the Leica Rs and Minolta Maxxum 5 are interesting also..

eliya said:

My main requirements are these:
1) Have a wide range of lenses available. I'm not looking to collect, nor am I going to get a lens in every focal length. But I would like to, for instance, try different types of 50mm lenses and stick with the one I like the most.
2) Be somewhat compact. I don't mind something bigger and heavier than the A-1, but I take my camera with me in all types of situations. I ride my bike with it strapped to my shoulder, ride the train, etc. I've seen some medium format SLRs that are just way too big to lug around and want to avoid those.
3) under $1000 for the body, preferably the body + a lens.
4) built-in meter, but I wouldn't mind getting one of those attachment meters for the right camera.

Click to expand...

An SLR I would recommend is the Pentax MX. It is relatively quiet and definitely checks all the boxes. However, it is the smallest SLR with the largest magnification viewfinder of all. I prefer the larger magnification because it allows me to more critically focus which in turn provides sharper results. Below shows the MX next to your A1 and the F3 for size comparison. I also added their weights.

Selection 001 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Fitted with the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens, it is practically pocketable.

105R_MXB by Les DMess, on Flickr

eliya said:

I appreciate all the replies so far!

Re: sharpness of the FD50mm, it could very well be that I'm the problem and initially I definitely looked inward. But even when making sure that I'm not shaking or moving, and using a higher shutter speed (I try to not even go under 1/250 if possible), I still don't get pictures that aren't as sharp as I'd like them to be. The lens is sharper at shorter distances, but as the distance of the subject grow so does the sharpness go down. I avoid shooting with the lens fully open, and similarly at its smallest aperture. Even at short distances with the aperture at 5.6 - 8, I get parts of the subject that are pretty sharp, but then others that don't have the same sharpness. I just got it back this week from getting it cleaned and calibrated, so I'm going to see soon what the photos I shot with it in the past few days look like. Sometimes I just see photos that look almost otherworldly sharp and that's kind of what I'm after. I know that there's a lot more at play here like the object (is it static or not), use of a tripod, etc.

Also the A-1 was CLAd a few months ago, so I would assume the foam for the mirror would have been replaced.

It was pointed out that only I know what I'm looking for and that's very true. I would say my #1 priority is optics/resolution. I don't mind buying a camera with a fixed lens, but if I do that I'd rather it be medium format (tho I won't rule out 35mm), and the lens should be incredible. That's why I've been interested in the Makina 67 or the Fujis. If I go with an interchangeable system, I'd prefer one that has a variety of lenses available, possibly from different manufacturers.

The Leica CL might be what I'm looking for, especially since its framelines fit what the focal lengths I prefer. The Konica Hexar RF also looks great but I'm a bit hesitant about the frame counter being digital. I assume it needs batteries to operate which I'd rather avoid if possible. The Bessa R3M would be pretty ideal but it's more than I'm willing to spend on a body alone.

I'm also intrigued by the Perkeo II. I love folder cameras. Some of the SLRs mentioned like the Leica Rs and Minolta Maxxum 5 are interesting also..

Click to expand...

On the subject of resolution, the Fuji 670/80/90 series were a bargain. Up until Covid you could pick up a nice one for $500. No meter, but the combination of lens quality and medium format negative size was a winner. They're a little bulky but not that heavy. BTW...you say "sometimes i see photos that look almost otherwordly sharp"...... Are you looking at photos online, prints, or images in books....& what medium are you working with?

GregY said:

BTW...you say "sometimes i see photos that look almost otherwordly sharp"...... Are you looking at photos online, prints, or images in books....& what medium are you working with?

Click to expand...

Prints and books mostly. It's hard to avoid digital scans, whether on forums, blogs, or even my own scans. But the real deal is a print imo.

eliya said:

Prints and books mostly. It's hard to avoid digital scans, whether on forums, blogs, or even my own scans. But the real deal is a print imo.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Good luck with the search & choices

GregY said:

You won't find a Plaubel Makina 67/670 for under $1k. A Leica CL would be a fine option as it's relatively low cost, Don Goldberg has repair parts, & you have access to a variety of both screw mount and M lenses.....even fine modern ones from Voigtlander and other manufacturers. & it the meter is approximately a spotmeter.

View attachment 349114
As far as small size, I also use a Rolleiflex or a Perkeo ll folder.....both have great lenses. While Tgrain films are sharp, medium format films advantage is in the negative size. Once you start talking interchangeable lenses.....medium format cameras are either expensive (e.g. Mamiya 6) or bulky (Pentax & Mamiya 645). You can't have it all.

Click to expand...

Leica CL has framelines for 28/40/90 mm lenses, not 35 or 50. Therefore this might limit your options to use 35 and 50 with it - however 40mm is a very fine "one size fits all" lens. Due to its small footprint, a one-body one-lens combo such as Leica/ Minolta CL (or Minolta CLE) + 40mm great for biking. Another alternative, within budget but slightly larger in size, would be a small Nikon SLR (such as FE/FM series) and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2. Absolute terrific lens!

If you are OK with a larger size than a 35mm SLR or rangefinder, TLRs are great and offer all the advantages of medium format. Some are well within budget (e.g. Rolleicord, Yashicamat, etc), even a Rolleiflex should be within budget if you shop around a bit and don't go for an F or later. In any case, any TLR including the cheaper ones are capable of very good image quality. And they shoot square which is the best format (although this is very much a matter of opinion!)

A Plaubel Makina is much, much larger, both in terms of size and budget. If you wish, I can post a size comparison picture of mine next to a rangefinder and/or TLR, let me know.

Good luck with your choice let us know what you end up with!

etn said:

Leica CL has framelines for 28/40/90 mm lenses, not 35 or 50. Therefore this might limit your options to use 35 and 50 with it - however 40mm is a very fine "one size fits all" lens. Due to its small footprint, a one-body one-lens combo such as Leica/ Minolta CL (or Minolta CLE) + 40mm great for biking. Another alternative, within budget but slightly larger in size, would be a small Nikon SLR (such as FE/FM series) and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2. Absolute terrific lens!

If you are OK with a larger size than a 35mm SLR or rangefinder, TLRs are great and offer all the advantages of medium format. Some are well within budget (e.g. Rolleicord, Yashicamat, etc), even a Rolleiflex should be within budget if you shop around a bit and don't go for an F or later. In any case, any TLR including the cheaper ones are capable of very good image quality. And they shoot square which is the best format (although this is very much a matter of opinion!)

A Plaubel Makina is much, much larger, both in terms of size and budget. If you wish, I can post a size comparison picture of mine next to a rangefinder and/or TLR, let me know.

Good luck with your choice let us know what you end up with!

Click to expand...

etn, The Leica CL has 40/50/90 framelines. It's the Minolta CLE that also has the 28 framelines. But you're not restricted with the CL. I use 21/28/35/40/50/90 lenses on my CL. No question the medium format camera advantage is the big negative....& the OP was concerned about getting more sharpness than he has w his Canon.

Why not test the rangefinder/zone finder waters with one of the inexpensive Ricoh or Konicas? I’ve never heard any complaints about the Hexanon and Rikenon lenses and the cameras are very quiet. My choice for a bike or bus ride would be the small Ricoh 35 ZF.

My Olympus OM2n is also small, quiet, and handy with a 50mm lens on it.

But my go-to SLR camera if I was taking one on a bike or bus ride would be a Nikon N55 or N75 with the 28-80mm lens. They make nice photos, nice sounds, and are extremely light. Plus they are very inexpensive.

etn said:

Leica CL has framelines for 28/40/90 mm lenses, not 35 or 50. Therefore this might limit your options to use 35 and 50 with it - however 40mm is a very fine "one size fits all" lens. Due to its small footprint, a one-body one-lens combo such as Leica/ Minolta CL (or Minolta CLE) + 40mm great for biking. Another alternative, within budget but slightly larger in size, would be a small Nikon SLR (such as FE/FM series) and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2. Absolute terrific lens!

If you are OK with a larger size than a 35mm SLR or rangefinder, TLRs are great and offer all the advantages of medium format. Some are well within budget (e.g. Rolleicord, Yashicamat, etc), even a Rolleiflex should be within budget if you shop around a bit and don't go for an F or later. In any case, any TLR including the cheaper ones are capable of very good image quality. And they shoot square which is the best format (although this is very much a matter of opinion!)

A Plaubel Makina is much, much larger, both in terms of size and budget. If you wish, I can post a size comparison picture of mine next to a rangefinder and/or TLR, let me know.

Good luck with your choice let us know what you end up with!

Click to expand...

None of the slrs have or need frame lines. What you see is what you get plus the minimum possible depth of field of the largest aperture. Of course one can stop down and see the real depth of field instead of reading it off a scale and guessing what it means.

I was going to bump this thread myself and glad it got bumped for me.

I took the last week to zero in a little more on what I'm looking for, and I really do want to try a medium format camera, particularly a 6x6. I like the idea of big square negatives and prints, even though I know that printing a 6x6 will either waste paper or lead to cropping. But as someone who likes LPs, I gravitate towards this kind of presentation. I also realized that in trying be less conspicuous, I often shoot with my camera by my waist, or hanging from my neck. So something with a waist viewfinder might be just what I'm looking for, so I've been looking into TLRs trying to figure out if they're the right choice for me.

Also, since folder cameras were mentioned in this thread I've dug into those quite a bit. I'm particularly referring to folders from the 50s-60s. It really seems to me like they all are pretty much the same. Some with somewhat better lenses, some with coupled rangefinders, some move the film back instead of the lens to focus, etc., but overall it's pretty much the same camera. The examples of photos that were taken with them aren't bad, but more often than not they're not quite as sharp as I'd want. Also, looking at a lot of them on ebay, most have scratched or fungus-y or hazey lenses. A folder 6x6 would be ideal tho - extremely portable and a big negative, but seems like it would be a hassle to find the right one, or at least necessitate buying a few and keeping the best one. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though!

What are some other possible 6x6 cameras that I may have overlooked? I am not interested in 6x7 cameras despite being a bigger negative yet close enough to 6x6. 10 exposures per roll is not enough for me.

An honorable mention is the Fuji GS645. Also a folder but newer. Seems like the lens is pretty sharp. But the 6x4.6 negative gives me pause. A minor quibble is that when the camera is horizontal it shoots portrait and to shoot landscape it has to be tilted. I'm sure I would get used to it a few a roll or two though. If the Fuji was a 6x6 I'd have one by now.

Lastly, I'm still considering a 35mm rangefinder, and while I found an M mount that could work for me quite well (Bessa R2), I'm realizing that the M lenses are truly a money pit that I'm not sure I want to dive into. LTM lenses are plentiful and cheaper than Ms, and some were even made not that long ago. LTM cameras are also quite affordable (Canon 7..) If I wait for the right deals, I could probably find a decent LTM camera + lens and a medium format camera and still be within my budget. Am I being naive? Are the Leica Ms really that much more unique than everything else, including their predecessor?

eliya said:

I was going to bump this thread myself and glad it got bumped for me.

I took the last week to zero in a little more on what I'm looking for, and I really do want to try a medium format camera, particularly a 6x6. I like the idea of big square negatives and prints, even though I know that printing a 6x6 will either waste paper or lead to cropping. But as someone who likes LPs, I gravitate towards this kind of presentation. I also realized that in trying be less conspicuous, I often shoot with my camera by my waist, or hanging from my neck. So something with a waist viewfinder might be just what I'm looking for, so I've been looking into TLRs trying to figure out if they're the right choice for me.

Also, since folder cameras were mentioned in this thread I've dug into those quite a bit. I'm particularly referring to folders from the 50s-60s. It really seems to me like they all are pretty much the same. Some with somewhat better lenses, some with coupled rangefinders, some move the film back instead of the lens to focus, etc., but overall it's pretty much the same camera. The examples of photos that were taken with them aren't bad, but more often than not they're not quite as sharp as I'd want. Also, looking at a lot of them on ebay, most have scratched or fungus-y or hazey lenses. A folder 6x6 would be ideal tho - extremely portable and a big negative, but seems like it would be a hassle to find the right one, or at least necessitate buying a few and keeping the best one. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though!

What are some other possible 6x6 cameras that I may have overlooked? I am not interested in 6x7 cameras despite being a bigger negative yet close enough to 6x6. 10 exposures per roll is not enough for me.

An honorable mention is the Fuji GS645. Also a folder but newer. Seems like the lens is pretty sharp. But the 6x4.6 negative gives me pause. A minor quibble is that when the camera is horizontal it shoots portrait and to shoot landscape it has to be tilted. I'm sure I would get used to it a few a roll or two though. If the Fuji was a 6x6 I'd have one by now.

Lastly, I'm still considering a 35mm rangefinder, and while I found an M mount that could work for me quite well (Bessa R2), I'm realizing that the M lenses are truly a money pit that I'm not sure I want to dive into. LTM lenses are plentiful and cheaper than Ms, and some were even made not that long ago. LTM cameras are also quite affordable (Canon 7..) If I wait for the right deals, I could probably find a decent LTM camera + lens and a medium format camera and still be within my budget. Am I being naive? Are the Leica Ms really that much more unique than everything else, including their predecessor?

Click to expand...

The Bronica EC. It was an engineering marvel, puts all other 6x6 in the dust, but as anything mechanically complex (has electronic shutter) not all had survived the time. I do wish Bronica continued its development more than just adding TL, followed by last short lived try the TL II. I have the first EC, and it's going strong. Lenses are great AND small / light. Camera itself quite heavy and visibly larger than i.e. Hass, but feels like everything is in the right place. With lens on it is not any heavier than i.e. Hass, but it handles in a superior way. Lenses are small as focusing is done with separate helicoid. FIlm magazines are also well above its peers, and build in inconspicuous slide holder just puts icing on the cake.

GregY said:

etn, The Leica CL has 40/50/90 framelines. It's the Minolta CLE that also has the 28 framelines. But you're not restricted with the CL. I use 21/28/35/50/90 lenses on my CL. No question the medium format camera advantage is the big negative....& the OP was concerned about getting more sharpness than he has w his Canon.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I confused CL and CLE - thanks for your comment!

Sirius Glass said:

None of the slrs have or need frame lines. What you see is what you get plus the minimum possible depth of field of the largest aperture. Of course one can stop down and see the real depth of field instead of reading it off a scale and guessing what it means.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. My comment regarding framelines concerned rangefinders.

eliya said:

What are some other possible 6x6 cameras that I may have overlooked? I am not interested in 6x7 cameras despite being a bigger negative yet close enough to 6x6. 10 exposures per roll is not enough for me.

Click to expand...

With 6x6, you will probably have the biggest choice with TLRs. Many names here, Rollei obviously, Yashica, and many other, more minor or more readily overlooked, but definitely worth considering. Mamiya, Zeiss, Minolta, etc. (I do not know them all, you'll have to do a bit of research)

If I had to choose between a TLR vs a folder, I'd go for a TLR for the following reasons:
- TLRs were in production later than folders,
- they are probably more serviceable and have less weak points (particularly the bellows)
- you get a 6x6 screen vs a tiny viewfinder

Another option is the Mamiya 6 which is much more modern, absolutely brilliant, electronic, and... more expensive, way above the $1k mark here.

eliya said:

Lastly, I'm still considering a 35mm rangefinder, and while I found an M mount that could work for me quite well (Bessa R2), I'm realizing that the M lenses are truly a money pit

Click to expand...

Several other brands than Leica did M mount lenses. Voigtlander, for one, makes excellent lenses reasonably priced. I have a few and do not miss Leica glass by any means.

eliya said:

Are the Leica Ms really that much more unique than everything else, including their predecessor?

Click to expand...

You have to hold one yourself. It cannot really be described. Pity there are a few thousand miles between you and me, I would have invited you to drop by and see for yourself.

Following this thread so far I would recommend a Rolleicord V, Va, or Vb. I have a V and love it. It’s light, quiet and 6x6. I paid about $450 for mine a few months ago.

For 35mm look at the original Bessa R. I had one years ago and the 35mm color skopar that came with it was very sharp. This is a screw mount camera however. If you want M mount go with a later Bessa.

eliya said:

Lastly, I'm still considering a 35mm rangefinder, and while I found an M mount that could work for me quite well (Bessa R2), I'm realizing that the M lenses are truly a money pit that I'm not sure I want to dive into. LTM lenses are plentiful and cheaper than Ms, and some were even made not that long ago. LTM cameras are also quite affordable (Canon 7..) If I wait for the right deals, I could probably find a decent LTM camera + lens and a medium format camera and still be within my budget. Am I being naive? Are the Leica Ms really that much more unique than everything else, including their predecessor?

Click to expand...

What about a Bessa R and some of the newer LTM lenses from Voigtlander? You can find a Bessa R for <$500 if you're patient (there's a local guy selling one in FB Marketplace for $350 that I keep talking myself out of). For well under a grand you can have the body and a 35/2.5 lens with money left over. Adding a modern LTM 50mm (Voigtlander made a few) will put you over the grand mark, but only by a couple hundred. That'll give you two lenses and a lightweight body, perfect for taking on a bike ride. I often do the same with my Canon VT, Voigtlander 35/2.5, and Canon 50/1.8. The VT is hardly lightweight, but it's lighter and more compact than my Canon FL and FD SLRs.

I briefly owned a Leica M camera, but I used it with the two lenses above equipped with LTM-to-M adapters. Predictably the results were the same as with my VT. I ultimately returned the M because it had a light leak that was supposed to be fixed and was anecdotally challenging to repair. I didn't want to deal with that and the uncertainty about the permanence of the repair. What I learned in the meantime was that unless I was prepared to drop real money into M glass it wasn't going to make my photographs any better than the Canon I already owned.

brian steinberger said:

For 35mm look at the original Bessa R. I had one years ago and the 35mm color skopar that came with it was very sharp. This is a screw mount camera however. If you want M mount go with a later Bessa.

Click to expand...

Totally missed this before posting my reply, seems we're on the same page. The Bessa R and 35m Color Skopar would be a supremely light combo and deliver modern results. Honestly, if I ultimately fail in talking myself out of the local Bessa R, my 35 CS would live on it nearly full time.

Chris

Mt favourite all-round camera is the 1970s Leica CL. The Summicron-C is a wonderful lens, and the Rokkor equivalent is just as nice (and is cheaper). You can mount many M and LTM lenses on that body from Leitz to Canon lenses and beyond. It's small and discrete. It's a winner IMHO.

brian steinberger said:

Following this thread so far I would recommend a Rolleicord V, Va, or Vb. I have a V and love it. It’s light, quiet and 6x6. I paid about $450 for mine a few months ago.

Click to expand...

+1 on this. Excellent cameras with terrific lenses. Rolleiflexes lenses have 1-2 more elements and in theory are better, but there is little practical difference for actual shooting between the two.

You can also look at Yashicamat 124 / 124G. Price is in the same ball park or possibly even lower. The lens is similar to that of a Rolleicord, with the added advantage of the more convenient film loading and advance system (which is also found on Rolleiflex T, FX, GX). It is a 1-lever system which advances the film and cocks the shutter with that famous "Rolleiflex movement" i.e. 1/2 turn forward followed by 1/2 turn backward into the original position. Pretty cool if you ask me (I love advancing the film of my Rollei ) Most important, it prevents double exposure.

I can't think of many cameras that would be less comfortable to cycle with than a TLR. Most of them are fixed-lens too; and the ones that aren't are even bigger.

In fact, I think I'd recommend the OP not to buy a camera now. He simply doesn't know what he wants. In the original post, he's thinking about a rangefinder, unless it turns out to be another SLR. He wants the camera to be compact, but wouldn't mind medium format. And reading that post again, what strikes me is he says he wants a range of lenses to be available, but it seems he's only used a 50 and a 35 on his A-1.

So I would get another lens for the A-1, and keep shooting with it: either a 28mm or an 85mm. You can probably get a 28 f/2.8 for under 100 dollars. The 85 f/1.8 is less common and will probably cost a little more.

Poor sharpness is unlikely to be the camera body's fault. Consider these:
i) You may be using too slow a shutter speed to hand-hold. Usually, hand-hold at speeds of 1/60 and above with a standard lens. To shoot slower than that reliably, get a tripod or a bean-bag.
ii) Read up about depth of field and aperture. You don't get much DOF close up.
iii) Distant subjects may be hazy rather than strictly unsharp, because dust in the air scatters the blue light. This may be especially true in the city. If you haven't already got one, get a UV or skylight filter to cut out the UV. If you're shooting black-and-white, try a yellow filter to cut out the blue, for an even stronger effect.
iv) If you still suspect your lens, try borrowing another if you can.

I often shoot with my camera by my waist, or hanging from my neck.

Click to expand...

That's just asking for camera shake (and photographing surreptitiously is borderline creepy in my book anyway).

FWIW, given the OP’s needs, I would recommend a TLR. Reasons:

1. The step up from 35mm to 6x6 is enormous in terms of image quality. The OP’s first concern was image quality. Medium format is the obvious solution — even a mediocre MF camera will blow away the best 35mm in image quality.

2. Folders will not likely resolve so well as a TLR. Most have front-cell focusing lenses. And many will suffer from misalignment of of the lenses to the film plane given that the user is always collapsing and reopening the lens into and out of the camera.

3. System MF cameras are unwieldy and heavier than most TLRs.

I know the Rolleis best but there are plenty of other viable choices — Minolta Autocords, Flexarets, YashicaMats, fixed-lens Mamiyaflexes and many others. If it were me, I’d get a Rolleicord. They are light and less prone to service needs. And the optics are superb. Look for one with a recent CLA and a modern view screen. And don’t get hung up on which model — a II or III or IV in good shape and a new screen is just as good as a V-series, and likely cheaper.

eliya, A Rolleicord or Yashicamat 124 would be a great camera for 6x6....a lot in a small package The Bronica EC Hassassin recommended is pretty massive & loud by comparison.
There are lots of Leica LTM lenses, & if you're lucky you may find one at a bargain price. The new Voigtlander LTM & M lenses are well built & sharp. Best of luck

Dustin McAmera said:

In fact, I think I'd recommend the OP not to buy a camera now. He simply doesn't know what he wants. In the original post, he's thinking about a rangefinder, unless it turns out to be another SLR. He wants the camera to be compact, but wouldn't mind medium format. And reading that post again, what strikes me is he says he wants a range of lenses to be available, but it seems he's only used a 50 and a 35 on his A-1.

Click to expand...

The problem is he won’t know what’s important until he has a camera in hand to test his presumptions. He can buy a good TLR for less than $200 and shoot it for a month, then sell it for what he paid for it. That will quickly tell him a lot of things, like whether the fixed lens is a problem, and whether the form factor works for him, and whether the image quality meets his needs. He needs experience, and he’s not going to get it from reading posts on the internet.

Rolleiflexible said:

FWIW, given the OP’s needs, I would recommend a TLR. Reasons:

1. The step up from 35mm to 6x6 is enormous in terms of image quality. The OP’s first concern was image quality. Medium format is the obvious solution — even a mediocre MF camera will blow away the best 35mm in image quality.

2. Folders will not likely resolve so well as a TLR. Most have front-cell focusing lenses. And many will suffer from misalignment of of the lenses to the film plane given that the user is always collapsing and reopening the lens into and out of the camera.

3. System MF cameras are unwieldy and heavier than most TLRs.

I know the Rolleis best but there are plenty of other viable choices — Minolta Autocords, Flexarets, YashicaMats, fixed-lens Mamiyaflexes and many others. If it were me, I’d get a Rolleicord. They are light and less prone to service needs. And the optics are superb. Look for one with a recent CLA and a modern view screen. And don’t get hung up on which model — a II or III or IV in good shape and a new screen is just as good as a V-series, and likely cheaper.

Click to expand...

Sanders, I agree. The best bang-for-your-buck with a big negative.

Rolleiflexible said:

FWIW, given the OP’s needs, I would recommend a TLR. Reasons:

1. The step up from 35mm to 6x6 is enormous in terms of image quality. The OP’s first concern was image quality. Medium format is the obvious solution — even a mediocre MF camera will blow away the best 35mm in image quality.

2. Folders will not likely resolve so well as a TLR. Most have front-cell focusing lenses. And many will suffer from misalignment of of the lenses to the film plane given that the user is always collapsing and reopening the lens into and out of the camera.

3. System MF cameras are unwieldy and heavier than most TLRs.

I know the Rolleis best but there are plenty of other viable choices — Minolta Autocords, Flexarets, YashicaMats, fixed-lens Mamiyaflexes and many others. If it were me, I’d get a Rolleicord. They are light and less prone to service needs. And the optics are superb. Look for one with a recent CLA and a modern view screen. And don’t get hung up on which model — a II or III or IV in good shape and a new screen is just as good as a V-series, and likely cheaper.

Click to expand...

Folders do not offer interchangeable lenses.
SLRs are smaller that TLRs.
TLRs do not stop down to see the depth of field.

Sirius Glass said:

Folders do not offer interchangeable lenses.
SLRs are smaller that TLRs.
TLRs do not stop down to see the depth of field.

Click to expand...

Are you Sirius? Hasselblads & Rollei SL66 & Bronica or Kiev 6C.... smaller than a Rolleiflex TLR ?