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>

<p>Hi David, I asked the same question about six months ago. My answer: I had used Leica film cameras and loved them, and I wanted to try a Leica digital. Many PhotoNet responders encouraged me, so I bought a "like new' M9 from Dale Photo. I have "shot the daylights" out of it and loved every minute of having it! Using ISOs under 800 is no problem for me. I've gotten accustomed to the poor viewing screen; no big deal. My eyesight is poor and I wear glasses, but I've easily overcome that and love the rangefinder way of doing things. I'd say if you want the Leica experience, buy an M9 and don't look back. Never mind the naysayers; there will always be some and in some ways "the grass will always be greener" somewhere else.</p>

<p>In 1975 bought a new Leicaflex SL-2 and a CL. Since then, all bought used, R4, R6.2, R7, R8, R9, M4, M6TTL, M7, M9. Still have the M4 and M9. Loved the SL-2, nothing like it before or since. The M9 puts the Leica-feel into digital. Have had little or no problems with any of them, but, more importantly, Leica USA has promptly and courteously addressed any problem I ever had.</p>

<p>Hey All, Is no one familiar with NCPS, North Coast Photographic Services? They do everything a film shooter needs, at prices that are palatable, if not cheap. Check out their web site at http://www.northcoastphoto.com/film_developing_scans.html</p>

<p>THANKS EVERYONE! A wonderful, informed, experienced response. Just what I needed. Thank you for your time and expertise. Happy Thanksgiving!</p>

<p>There's just something about some cameras....and a Rollei is one of them. I have the 2.8F and the Tele, as well as a Hasselblad 503CW outfit. The Hasselblad is more practical (interchangeable backs and lenses), but the Rolleis are far more fun to use. I also enjoy shooting Infrared, and for that the Twin-Lens design can't be beat.</p>

<p>My question calls for an answer from either practical experience, or formal testing, or advised opinion. Will I get the best B&W negatives from an Agfa Isolette III with Agfa Solinar 85mm f4.5 lens or from a Rolleiflex Vb with Schneider Xenar 75mm f3.5 lens (assuming same settings and all else being equal)? Thanks for your help!</p>

<p>Hi Friends, Just want to express my appreciation for the many insightful and informative responses I received to my "buy a Leica M9 now?" question. Like many others, I'm sure, I'm watching the price fluctuations. But I'm thinking fairly soon an M9 will cost 1/2 the price of an M (240), and for my purposes will serve me almost as well (or maybe completely as well). At any rate, many, many thanks for your help! Stan</p>

<p>The Leica M9 appeals to me. Full frame, simple interface, few if any frills, similar to my Leica M4 and M6. It is now in a price range I could afford. The new M (240) has features I don't need and cost more than I wish to pay. The M8 and M8.2 are not full frame, and I want that. I shoot only JPEGs at the moment, and while I could learn to use RAW, I'm not sure I will. So here's my question: Should I purchase a Leica M9 now, since it is (or will be) discontinued, has a CCD sensor (the M (240) is CMOS), and a poor viewing screen? Some also say it is not good for JPEGs. I value the opinion of this forum. Thanks very much!</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your most helpful and prompt responses. I appreciate it very much! Stan</p>

<p>Hi Friends, While I am well aware that an uncoded lens can be used on a Leica M9 by entering the lens info in the menu, I am wondering how that plays out in practice. Does EACH lens have to be selected in the menu EACH time it is mounted on the camera? In other words, with uncoded lenses, does one have to pull up the menu and select the proper lens listing to match the lens mounted EVERY time a lens is changed? Can uncoded lenses be used effectively WITHOUT matching them with the proper listing in the menu? If so, what does one give up? I am considering an M9, but am wondering what is actually required to use this system. Thanks very much for your help and advice.</p>

<p>Hi Friends, and thanks for your help.<br>

My Leica R9, recently acquired, has a battery cover in the grip, as I'm sure you know. On my R9 the cover is very, very difficult to remove. I have had to use a knife blade to somehow loosen it at the top (next to the metal) and then "work hard" to get it to slide off. It is a significant problem, for it makes changing batteries a major task, and certainly not one to be done quickly while working with the camera.<br>

Have any of you had a similar problem? If so, did you find a solution? I would appreciate any advice on how to make the battery cover remove smoothly and easily, as I feel sure it was intended to do. Did I just get an R9 body that is "defective due to frustration?" (It can hardly be called "defective" for it works beautifully.) It's not broken, I don't suppose, but it is very frustrating.<br>

Thank you again for any help you can be.<br>

Stan</p>

<p>Thanks, friends. Both responses are helpful. No doubt I'll figure a way to do it. Thanks again! Stan</p>

Hi Friend. I have obtained a Horseman 6x12 back for my Super Graphic. I have the "standard" top-mounted

viewfinder on it, which uses the slip-in metal masks. Where could I find a mask that shows the 6x12 area (if

there is one)? Many, many thanks for your help! Stan

Hi Terence, I know this is an old discussion, so by now you may have done something. In my case I use both

Hasselblad and 4x5 film cameras, but I do like the immediate feedback of digital. So I take my D200 along with my

film cameras, and use it for both metering and feedback. Then I shoot the same photographic subject on film, and

later scan it if I want a digital file. It's a little more trouble, but a lot less money. Stan

Hi Darr,

 

Many thanks for the information. Most helpful!

 

Stan

Hi Friends,

 

Partly due to good reviews on Photo.Net, I recently picked up a nice used Horseman 6x12 roll film back to use on

my 4x5 Super Graphic. Unfortunately there was not an Instruction Sheet with it.

 

I think maybe I can figure it out, but I thought I'd ask if anyone out there could provide me with a copy of the

Instruction Sheet for the Horseman 6x12 back. I'd be happy to pay for it, of course.

 

Thanks! Stan