Decision for Rollei 6008

After asking this question I got few answers from nice folks. But still I have

anothers:

1. What kind of differences did you see in using Rollei 6008 Integral (1 or 2)

or Rollei 6008 AF. What advantages autofocus can bring? For what kind of work

you can really see difference?

 

2. I'm thinking about scanning films with Nikon 9000 with glass holder and

Anti-gaussian rings glass. Can you see alternative (for the same quality)? I got

throught flatbed scanners, but in affordable price (up to 1000 US) I wasn't

satisfied with quality.

 

thx

Peter, <p>

(1) I really do not understand this question. What kind of visible differences have you in

mind? You are not asking us to write on the general pros and cons of AF, aren't you? That

question was discussed in the 1970s. Wouldn't it be helpful if you would take the trouble to

explain what kind of photography you have in mind? Then the helpful people of this group

can limit themselves to helping you with a specific subject. <p>

(2) The Nikon 9000 would be a good choice if you want something better than a flatbed. <p>

Kind regards, <p>

Ferdi.

My question about AF is mostly like that: Would you consider go for 6008 AF, or Integral 6008 will be O.K. Reasons why go or don't can be different (AF lenses have diff. construction, higher CLA, AF model have more reliable electronics, design, AF is not very realiable on this camera, very nosiy, slow... and so on).. Thanks for your contribution.

Simple answer will do perhaps: if you are planning to use a digital back, go for the AF.

That's

why it exists in the market, as digitial backs are notoriously precise about focus. If not,

then

its user preference as to which you prefer.

 

I prefer the simpler MF. Longer battery life, nicer feel, etc. The lens quality is not an issue

- all are superb. However, the feel of the AF lenses when used manually is not quite as

nice as it is on the manual lenses.

In my experience the autofocus is faster than manual for changing focus large amounts, but doesn't always end up where you want it to,

so if you use AF, be prepareed to have to tweak the focus after it finishes sometimes.

<BR><BR>

You can use the autofocus lenses on the 6008i or 6008i2 but you have to focus them manually. Even though I have tried them against one another and seen my finger travel through the same distance around the circle form one end of focusing to the other, the manual focus lenses always feel like it takes longer for me to adjust the focus, and concequentaly give me the feeling that I can make smaller adjustments to focus more accurately than I can with the AF lenses. I don't know if it's truth or an illusion, but it sure feels that way.

<BR><BR>

As mentioned above, the 6008i2 and 6008AF have extra contacts for communicating with digital backs without the necessity of an external

cable.

<BR><BR>

The 6008AF and 6008i2 use an lcd display instead of the bright red

led's used by the 6008i. Sometimes I like the extra wordyness in the

lcd, and sometimes I like the older display better.

<BR><BR>

The 6008i2 and 6008AF also handle fill flash a little bit differently than does the 6008i. The best description of this I have ever read is Erik's reply in the thread <BR><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ImDC&tag=">Which 6000 series bodies have TTL flash metering? by Graham Mitchell</a>

<BR><BR>

My 6008AF doesn't work with the (apparently no longer manufactured) Rollei shutter adapter, but my 6008i does.

<BR><BR>

Those are all the differences that come to mind right now.

<BR><BR>

For a scanner you might want to do some research reading scanner related threads in the Digital Darkroom forum. Scanners are discussed more frequently there. I think a dedicated film scanner will do a better job for you than a flatbed will.

Peter, I shoot a manual focusing Rollei, chromes mostly, scan with a Nikon 9000 with glass holder (absolutely necessary) and print on an Epson 7800. I printed a 24" square image last weekend that could easily have been doubled in size with nose to the glass sharpness. When I examined the image I noticed a hair thin line about six inches long and thought it was a flaw in the paper. Turns out it was a single thread of spinder silk spanning two peices of hay. In another 24" square image, I saw a fly that is about a quarter inch long. The detail in his wings is clearly defined, though from a reasonable viewing distance, you would probably never even notice the fly. The only thing that limits the quality of my final product is me. If an image is off, it is because I was not careful with focus, exposure or some other techinal obligation. But when they are good, they are inspiring. My only gripe with the Rollei kit is an issue with the format. Razor thin depth of field with slow (f4) sometimes compromises composition. I have the 90mm Schneider which has a macro capability which can render mere millimeters in or out of focus. It is just something you learn to deal with with. I also have a Nikon digital kit with some of the best glass Nikon offers. I could not do without this tool. Many instant opportunities I captured with the Nikon would have long since passed if I had to use the Rollei. I have learned a great deal about exposure from the Nikon by studying a variety of the same shot made with different settings. Granted, the images with the Nikon, size for size, can not compare to the Rollei on a tripod. But they are often wonderful up to 20" wide if viewed from an appropriate distance. Bottom line is that I could not do what I want without both tools. Make no mistake -if my house is burning down, I am grabbing the Rollei.