danielheller

<p>No Paul Whiting, the consensus is not that flatbeds are OK for medium format film. Yes, if you scan a larger size (larger than 35mm) positive or negative the result would be a bit better but not ideal, superior, sharp, true to color in any way shape or form. All flatbeds were created for scanning REFLECTIVE media, that's right, PAPER, not film. And somehow, manufactures found a way to kill two birds with one stone, so "film" was added to the mix. At most, one can achieve mediocre to average results when scanning film on a flatbed. To scan film and achieve a superior visual result (photographically speaking) one must scan on a device that was conceived, created and manufactured for scanning FILM.<br>

The OP is advised to read David Henderson's post since his clarifications are right on the money and most valuable in this thread.</p>

<p>What do you intend to photograph? What level of photography do you aspire to achieve? Do you wish to be a film devoted person or a digital photographer? So many questions you need to answer before we can point you in the right direction. You certainly can keep the gear you have and also purchase a digital like a Sony alpha A7 or similar mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. I have one and it is a joy to use and very light. As others have stated here, please hit a photo store to try the cameras in your hands and to get help.</p>

<p>Congratulations Rifqi. Like I said you are now shooting with the legends.<br>

I definitely agree that the focusing screen is a must. I own the Acute-Matte with grid and split image rangefinder (42170) and it is a pleasure. Incidentally this is one area where the Hassy is superior to the Rollei. The Rollei's are darker.</p>

<p>Buying a film scanner to achieve "good to excellent" results will require a substantial outlay of money. The best choice would be indeed a Flextight.<br>

Buying a film scanner to achieve "average" results, could cost $1-1,999, used or new. Some of the scanners mentioned in this thread may fit the requirements.</p>

<p>Never assume that a seller is giving away something out of his "good heart".<br />Usually, "you get what you pay for". Would it be possible to inspect it?<br>

Prices I believe are about $550-600 (USD) for the older model of this camera.</p>

<p>The Rollei or the Blad.<br>

Both have excellent lenses.<br>

The Rollei is much lighter than the Blad and more portable.<br>

The Rollei is also a bit more fragile construction wise.<br>

Although you say now you do not need many lenses, your statement may change in time. So, the Blad.<br>

There are many more Blads on the used market than Rolleis.<br>

Either way you choose, you'll be "shooting with the legends"!</p>

<p>Why not use a pro lab like LTI in New York City?</p>

<p>My favorite and only medium format camera used is Hasselblad.<br>

In abundance on the used market, many many awesome lenses to choose from, very well built and, you would be "shooting with the legends"</p>

<p>A new Hasselblad Flextight would do a "very good job"</p>

<p>I second Colin. I store negatives the same way.</p>

The only way to know is to scan on each machine using the same parameters and compare.

For me the best is my Flextight.

<p>Hasselblad Flextight.</p>

<p>Hasselblad.<br>

Lot more to choose from on the market, a much larger lenses selection, and a lot less delicate then Rollei TLR. And yes, it is heavier and less portable.</p>

<p>Do not use any glass or plexiglass. At least at one photographer exhibit I recently visited in a gallery, the photographs were framed, but there was no glass and no plexiglass, the prints were exposed!</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Even if you have to fix it, it is a steal.<br>

Cameras must be exercised routinely even if kept in storage.<br>

You need to hope the lens is clear of haze, mold and so forth and then it is a great find.<br>

Good luck</p>

<div></div>

<p>I second Edward.<br>

Sony A7r.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>