At the time I used it, I found that the Hy6 was a very good camera, though the back was rather miserable. I am sure they are better now. I had a Sinar E54LV...some liked it, I found the results from the M9 significantly better in every way other than pure low-iso resolution. The handling was terrible, but the color and image character were so bad that I never got on with the files...I always brought along a film back and always chose those images! I don't have a single e54lv image in my portfolio.
I had a full kit of Rollei lenses and shot on Rollei for a long time on film. The camera itself is well-laid out, easy to handle, and very nice to use. There was no 6060 back when I was shooting (I waited YEARS!!!), but I would say the Hy6 is superb to shoot film on...probably one of the best film cameras ever made, at least for studio or work where weight is not an issue...the camera and lenses add up to a LOT of weight.
The lens quality is as high or higher than anything else made in the film era...BUT...as amazing as they are, the Leica S lenses put them to shame, particularly in the wides. The 35mm S vs the 40mm Curtagon I had would be a bloodbath. For example, I had the 110/2 Planar on both the Rollei and the Hasselblad 203FE. I shot the Hasselblad version on the S2 in comparison to the 120 Summarit, and the results were not pretty. The Summarit is sharper across the entire image plane at 2.5 than the Planar at f/8!! No, there is nothing wrong with the lens...the S lenses are just in a different league. Sure, the 150mm Tele-Xenar and 90/4 will do better, but it is something to consider. I know Rollei are making some new digital spec'ed lenses, but as the backs get better and better, they become truly necessary to get the most out of the cameras. The older lenses can have beautiful character and very good performance (particularly at middle apertures), but "designed for digital" is a real moniker, at least in some cases. Keep that in mind when you put together a system. I am not saying get an S camera, as from your workflow it does not sound like it would be a good fit, just that if you want to get the most out of 50+ megapixels with old lenses, you are not going to do it. If everything can be shot at f/8-f/16, you are in better shape.
Stuart -
Well put and I respect your insights. I have not compared the Schneider Rollei lenses with the S2, but someone else (PeterA) did and suggested the Leica's were better but not shamefully so. Its likely true, as they are more modern in design by close to 15 years…. and while the AFD Rollei lenses are better, still, the Leica is likely superior. Especially these new wides.
On a lens by lens basis - here is some user feedback on the Schneiders, most of these MF lenses, not AFD. Don't own all these (I wish) but have borrowed from friends and used at length. All from review with 33mp back and in some cases compared to view camera lenses. Its informal, but then again, there isn't much discussion about this lens lineup, so here's something at least:
40mm - decent, good center 2/3 sharpness, soft on edges. Not in the same league as 35XL.
50AF - sharp edge to edge, but has barrel distortion. Can be cleaned up in C1. Have used on line art as a copy lens (!) with good success. f 2.8, so a bit bigger.
55PC - was out of favor for a long time. With tilt truly zeroed, its good at f11-16, but not for other apertures. Very heavy, but has movements in both directions, plus auto metering.
60 f 3.5 Curtagon - somehow, my favorite lens. Not sure why/how, but it brings clarity to the game all the time. Some CA if you shoot into the sun.
80 f2.8 AF - very good, all apertures.
90 Macro - super sharp. Eric's favorite, but not mine - it compares for sharpness very well with Rodie 90 HRW (older version), but somehow I seem to get caught with a lack of DOF with this lens. Not sure why.
110 (Zeiss) - older lens configuration, not in the same league for sharpness with the Schneiders, but has good aura.
150 Telexenar - was out of favor, until dialed in with focus adjustment. Now its a go-to lens, with a lot of practicality. Truly sharp.
150 f4.6 (on bellows) - lovely tones, and even better than the Tele-xenar. Holds up vs. 150 Apo Sironar for sharpness and tonality. This lens finds light where you only think it might be.
180 (manual) - not enough experience to judge, but seems to deliver well. Not small. Also f 2.8.
300 - amazing lens - crystal clear. But heavy and hard to use - as the max shutter speed is 1/500. I've had more "nope, not this time" shots with this lens than any other, but when you get it right, its very good. Spider webs sharp at 50 yard.
There were also some zooms made - 75-150 and 140-280, which I've not used. I don't think they are quite in the same league as the primes.
Eric has shot with the 60-140, and while there is barrel distortion at the wide end, it cleans up easily. His shot with an 80 mp back of ducks from about 80 yards revealed feather definition on the ducks…. absolutely too much! THis lens also comes as an AFD, which is really intriguing, if it weren't so darn big.
Your point about the higher res backs is valid, but Eric's shot with the AFI 12 back (80mp) and I think he's not found any lack on the lenses. He's done many detailed tests, not yet published, and perhaps he'll chime in. But truth to tell, haven't tested it at that resolution - but only to say very strong results on the Leaf 7.
Your comments on the 40 and 110 are valid. I'm not sure those same comments apply across the whole line up. Again, these comments are for the Schneiders, don't think the Zeiss lenses (of older design) are in the same league. Mind you, some of the Schneiders have different iterations, first as manual PQ lenses (which are most of the above), then some AF, and then finally some AFD. The only AF lenses used have been the 50 and the 80.
One other thing to keep in mind is that many of these can be bought used in good condition for $1-2k, with only a few more than that. Makes assembling a kit that much more possible.
Hope this helps.