This was my father’s camera he worked with it for over 20 years. How does this camera with a design dating back to 1928 and a lens dating back to 1902 compare to a modern DSLR? I recently had a chance to find out. While I was taking my Golden Gate picture with the Rolle. I was taking a very similar shot with a 10D and 24-85 zoom. EXIF data shows 24mm, 1/60 sec, f16 and ISO 100. A nice clear and sharp picture as you’d expect from that combination. I scanned my neg as a 6000x6000 pixel greyscale image. Although the Rollei scan is very grainy - grain like golf balls - there’s much more detail in the 6x6 neg than Linda’s 6.3Mpx file. Remember this isn’t technically a good neg, the grain is limiting the resolution.
My later scans from correctly exposed and processed FP4 show minimal grain. If the current 6-8 mega pixel digital cameras are close to or equal to film quality, we’re only talking about 35mm film. This old classic puts the $1500 DSLR in the shade. That’s the medium format advantage. The 16 megapixel EOS 1DSmk2 might be a closer match, that’ll cost you $5,500 with a 50mm f1.4 lens. That’s approx. 36x the price of a 40+ year old Rolleicord VA for sale at Ffordes at the moment. Want 1DSmk2 quality for just $150? Get a Rolleicord, or for a bit more a how about a Rolleiflex 3.5F? But hold on, is a 40 or 50-year camera up to regular use? Certainly - they were built to last and many are still in use. If you can live with just one focal length, and don’t mind taking a little more time over your photography, there’s nothing for the money that’ll beat it. Not as quick or as versatile as a DSLR, but we’re talking about quality.