Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 15:20:10 -0400
References: <B78D9C57.11DF7%tarek.charara@wanadoo.fr> <OE64j6fIMVPPfRnJzxJ00004e08@hotmail.com> <3B683AAC.E63E51D3@rabiner.cncoffice.com>

Mark Rabiner wrote:

> 
> Consider a Rolleiflex 2.8 F or a new GX.
> Simplicity in itself unless your work around revolves around a 35mm Focomat enlarger.

There's one real drawback, though, Mark - and that's the scanning issue
(forgetting for a moment the film cost, etc. etc. etc.. The Rollei TLR
is a fabulous camera. It is quieter than an M, unobtrusive,
anachronistic enough to really be ignored by most people, has great
optics, etc. etc. etc.....But if one prints digitally, then one needs a
120 scanner - which requires a substantial investment in addition to the
investment in the camera.

BTW - A few nights ago I was looking through a book I have which is a
collection of the photos from some World Photo something or other
competition - in 1964. At the back of the book there is a section giving
technical detail - film, exposure, lens, camera, etc., for all the
photos. And interestingly enough, the Rollei TLR is far and away the
most frequently named camera...by far. There's a smattering of Leicas, a
few other 35s, etc....but shot after shot after shot with Rolleis.....

Times change..

B. D.

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)
In reply to: Message from Tarek Charara <tarek.charara@wanadoo.fr> (Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)
Message from "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)
Message from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)