Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I suppose the final choice is a matter of priorities and objectives. I learned on a Roleiflex, only because my high school yearbook owned one (my good fortune at an early age). Many years later, I owned two Mamiya camera, the C330 and the M645. They were great cameras! If the priority is taking pictures, I agree that they are more versatile, configurable and more bang for the buck than the Rollei or the Hasselblad. If the priority is shooting with and owning a truly vintage camera(s), that’s really a different set of objectives that comes at a high price when compared with other film camera options.

srg

That was my first camera.
Sadly, it's gone too.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I've had my Rolleiflex for 50 years now, love it. Picked up a Hasselblad CM500 with a wide, normal and telephoto lens last year but have been to busy with a remodel to play with it. Grew up with my Aunt shooting weddings and portraits with her CM500 and always wanted one and now between having more money and their price dropping, I have one.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, that describes my experience with the Linhof Tecknika press ...... have the complete lens set to go with this - 53 Biogon, 100 Planar, 180 Sonnar and 270 Tele-Arton .....
.

(Download)

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

Sounds almost like the camera that you see in my avatar for this site, a Zeiss Ikonta 52 ½, which I bought at a garage sale in 1972.

dbrugger25 Loc: Raleigh, NC

I have a Rolleiflex 2.8D twin lens reflex. My father bought it in the mid 1950's. It is a great camera. Mine was produced before Rollei made models with built-in exposure meters. It has digested thousands of rolls of film.

The twin lens system completely negates the need for a flipping mirror. It does have one design flaw. When very close to the subject the twin lenses cause a parallax problem.

When they get very old, the mechanism can get stiff due to dried-up lubrication. I sent mine to KEH and, for $375.00 they cleaned, lubed, adjusted and calibrated it and it is as good as new.

A. T.

Thanks

A. T.

Okay, thanks for the information.

A. T.

Okay thanks, I've got some reading to do.

A. T.

Okay thanks, I've got some reading to do.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

The Rolleinar diopters solve the parallax problem...and they make it able to get closer to the subject. You can find Rolleinar diopters on EBay. They come in three strengths, 1, 2 & 3. There are also two different kinds. The original three-piece diopters (two on the viewing lens and one on the taking lens), which were only available in 1 & 2 strengths. After that (in the early- to mid-1950s), Rollei started making two-piece diopters, one for the viewing lens and the other for the taking lens, which came in three strengths.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Perhaps the best 2 1/4 roll film camera ever made was the Rolli SL66. Not well know among many. This is product of Zeiss. Any comparison between the SL66 and Hasselblad is idiotic, Roll SL66 glass was ALL hade by Zeiss and because the SL 66 is their camera, who do you think got the best glass from Zeiss? Hasselblad did not and does not make any of the glass in their cameras, all made by Zeiss. Most EVER accessory and add on offered by Hasselblad is built into the SL 66 (tilting lens, different format counters and sizing, a built in bellows that will take their 80mm to 1:1 close up. Light traps that do not leak, amazing the rage the camera has). One absurd failing was that there was no Polaroid back for test exposures, but, then Polaroid film is now gone. One last thing, the tracking of the magazines is so precise that each roll yields 13 exposures instead of just 12, and the tracking of the exposures never goes astray unlike Hasselblad A12 magazines. I've owned and worked with both, the Zeiss camera was superior to the Hasselblad in ALL respects.

mtbear

Love my Mamiya Universal Pro with its moving back, three lenses and a lens extender. It works well for landscapes and architectural photography. I bought it without the film mask which is ok since I prefer to shoot in 6x9.

skatz

There is more variety of medium format film cameras available than current digital cameras. Therefore, the principle of "right camera for the job" is more applicable to this choice. If there is a particular type of photography you are interested in, the choice of a TLR, SLR, technical or press style, folder/rangefinder, etc. is important - check all the Youtube videos on the subject of selecting medium format camera types. Sorry, I can't tell you which camera to buy. You mentioned Rolieflex which is usually top-dollar in either their TLR or SLR models but excellent quality if that is the style of camera you need. A Pentax 6x7 would be close to the SLR form-factor you are used to with your Nikons. Also consider format: 6x9, 6x7, 6x4.5 (frames/roll), and film processing, scanning or printing.
I suspect most people getting into medium format film now either inherited a camera, or found a good deal at a flea market or antique shop, or had a friend (or UHH buddy) say buy such-in-such. Overlaying all that, most of these cameras (at least the affordable ones) are old and may not be functioning as well as when new. Complexity and the use of electronics may be a factor in selection. Be sure to budget for a CLA if not recently done.
Recently I read someone's pitch for folding cameras, either with or without rangefinders. There is quite a range of prices, features, and lens qualities available from simple Kodaks to Super Ikontas and beyond, but most are reasonable in price. They typically do not have interchangeable lenses, but are compact when folded and easy to carry around and use. If the shutter is sluggish, you can compensate as long as it is consistent, and they are relatively easy to work on.
Good luck.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

If you want the experience without the investment the Maymia 645 is quite inexpensive and versatile. Poor man’s Hasselblad. Unless you are very dedicated to 120 roll film chances are you won’t use it as much as your digital system.