stan_blevins

<p>Why not have security both ways? Shoot film and scan it. Then you have a hard copy and a digital copy. Protect each in a manner appropriate to the medium (fireproof files, multiple back-ups). The primary reason millions of digital images will be lost from our present era is human nature. Most people (there are exceptions, of course) don't regard digital pictures as "of value" and thus make no serious effort to preserve them. Very sad.</p>

<p>I sold cameras while in grad school (1962-64) and the Retina Reflex was among them. In the place I worked the Miranda D was the "low cost" alternative SLR. I still have a Retina Reflex III. To me the most impressive thing about the Retina line at that time was that the Retina IIIS rangefinder camera and the Retina Reflex S, III and IV used the same lenses. How often has any camera line boasted an SLR and a rangefinder with cross-platform lenses!? Those were the days of the Compur shutter SLRs and they were terrific cameras. I also have a Contaflex Super, with a set of component lenses to match...and the interchangeable film back! Amazing times, maybe even "the glory days."</p>

<p>Back to your original question. You have a Leica R4s. I used one some years ago and enjoyed it a great deal. You don't need to change to another camera if it is working well. You are interested in street photography but cannot afford to spend a lot. Understandable. A good focal length is 35mm and the 35mm f2.8 Elmarit-R (previously mentioned) is an excellent lens and affordable as Leica R lenses go. For a little more money a 28mm f2.8 Elmarit-R is also nice. Be sure you get a 3-Cam lens. In spite of it's many detractors, I think you will enjoy the R4s and using Leica glass. Best wishes.</p>

<p>I use the 35-50-90-135 lens set, but on a Leica M3. My 35 has "goggles." Try this combination and you will never complain about the viewfinder again. The .91 viewfinder is terrific. I wear glasses and it's no problem. I have no issues with focusing the 90 and 135. I tried an M4, M5, M6, M6TTL and M7. None compare with the M3's viewfinder. I have an M9 and its finder is truly poor compared to the M3. For me (YMMV) the solution was use the Leica M3 and shoot film.</p>

<p>I agree with Francisco. I keep hearing how difficult it is to secure medium format film processing. I've not found that to be true. Holland Photo in Austin, Texas, processes just about any kind of current film: 35mm, 120 and larger. They do B&W, E6, and C41. They offer printing as well as digital services. North Coast Photographic Services (that Ken Rockwell praises) also offers many kinds of processing. If one wants 120 film processed, it is available. Maybe your local drugstore and/or discount store no longer offers it, but it's out there.</p>

<p>Hi Ashtyn, I have a Rolleiflex 2.8F and Tele-Rolleiflex. I also have a Hasselblad 503cw with 80mm & 150mm lenses (used to have more focal lengths but never used them). The Rolleis are much easier and more fun to use -- waist level and eye level viewing readily available -- lightweight and quiet. They are the "street shooting" cameras. The Hasselblad is a "tripod camera" to me, and is for more precise photography. The interchangeable lenses and backs make it very versatile, but it is, in my opinion, too clumsy and loud for hand-held shooting (although certainly it can be used in that fashion). Just sharing my personal experience....I know others have a different view.</p>

<p>I am late to this thread, but will add my two cents for what it might be worth. I have some of the cameras you are considering (once had a Mamiya C330 but no longer). The Rolleicord wins for lightest weight and gives an excellent negative. The Hasselblad V series wins for practicality, that is, interchangeable lenses and backs. The Rolleis, (2.8F and Tele-Rollei) win for ease of use and plain old fun of using. If I am shooting only one kind of film (I use B&W the most) and have the space, I'd much rather use the Rolleis than the Hasselblad. The Hasselblad is preferred if I am using more than one kind of film. Interchangeable lenses, in my opinion, are somewhat overrated in medium format. At one time or the other I've had Hasselblad focal lengths of 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150 and 250. Now I have only an 80 and a 150. These pretty well match the 80 of the Rollei 2.8F and the 135 of the Tele-Rollei. Since I am now older and shoot mostly for fun, if I had to choose I think I'd keep the two Rolleis. Whatever you decide, use it a lot and be happy!</p>

<p>I think the "Leica Look" is more the way the photographer using a Leica "looks" at the subject to be photographed. I find that true with the Leica rangefinders. Using them I take more time (manual focus) and care in composition. I shoot less rapidly and the results give me a "less is more" result -- fewer photographs but better ones. But I will add that in the days of Kodachrome I definitely felt that color slides made with Leica lenses (rangefinder or reflex) seemed to have more "snap" and brilliance than those made with my Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>In one of your earlier posts you wrote: "Or wait for better offer on Rollei 2.8F." That would be my suggestion. I have a Rolleiflex 2.8F and find it perfect for "walk around medium format." I also have a Hasselblad 503cw, but the Rollei is my "walk around" choice. I don't usually use the 2.8F for portraits, but one certainly can. Minor cropping will give the results you want yet maintain an acceptable perspective. Unless you want the ability to fix a prism to the Rollei, you might consider an older model (if in good condition) Rollei 2.8. Lens-wise they are comparable, but the "F" model offers interchangeable finders. The Rollei TLR and the Hasselblad SLR each have their place. Those who denigrate the TLR have missed the point of light weight, near-silent operation, non-threatening use (especially with waist-level finder) and superb results (no mirror slap). There is a place for both TLR's and SLR's, but for "walk-around" I'd take the TLR every time. Best wishes on your final decision...but I'd wait awhile and get the Rollei 2.8.</p>