If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf
Bob Monaghan wrote:
Hi Gordon, some very interesting comments, thanks ;-) . . . . . . . . 150mm lens it isn't just the close focusing issue, which I agree with you can be achieved by cropping. It is also that 150mm on MF 6x6cm equates to 90-105mm on 35mm SLR, which achieves the classic portraiture perspective; using a wider lens can work with care, but the "big nose" effect is more of a problem than with the short telephotos. It isn't just getting closer to your subject jitters that makes the 150mm the classic MF portrait lens ;-) Excellent point, and in consideration, then no rangefinder would ever work for your needs. I think that the magnification, or base length would need to be quite large, and that would eliminate having a compact camera. I suppose something like goggles on the lens, or a screw on viewfinder magnifier are options, though I have doubts that Mamiya or Bronica would ever make these. I haven't had the $$ either to use/buy the Century Precision adapters for movie work. Someone else was paying the bills when I used those. I cannot afford those either, though while using them, the results were mostly good. One issue with one of the adapters is that it got loose on the mounting too often (could be quality control). It would have been expensive to drop one. The high cost of good examples like the Zeiss Mutars were what led me to suggest that interchangeable lens front elements could be used with very good results, sort of like interchanging filters, but with thicker elements for the wide and telephoto variants. As we noted, this was done in the past with Kodak Retina and Contaflex, and with modern designs should be do-able again today ;-) Though so far it seems that only a few large format lenses have interchangeable elements. the final reason why this hasn't been done is that too many folks are happy with the existing offerings, esp. of low cost folders (ikonta/moskva clones..) or rangefinders such as Mamiya 7/6 and bronica rf645. I also think the bronica RF should have done better, and if they had opted to tweak the bodies to match the 135mm lenses, it would have been sold as a plus factor rather than the recall approach they took, leaving us without a longer lens than 100mm ;-( Cropping from 6x7 and 6x9cm is pretty forgiving, as you noted, so that can cover some of the tasks. Agreed, and I think what some UK Bronica places did by offering adjusting to match the 135 mm was a good solution. Unfortunately, Bronica did not follow that idea in any other markets, though they did provide a conversion to match the newer 100 mm. I wonder if the current cameras are still being produced, or if they are just selling off an initial manufacturing run. If the latter, then would they continue making the RF645? So I should probably look for a better afocal telephoto adapter of 3X or 4X range for those admittedly infrequent shots (in which these telephoto adapters incorporate a focusing setup, so what you see in focus thru the adapter is what you get on the film ;-) Or just two cameras. A small rangefinder for wide to normal (or short tele), and an SLR for normal to tele. I don't think that is too much to carry, perhaps with four lenses. Having used rangefinder cameras of various film formats and sizes, I find that I usually want normal to short tele lenses for these, so I guess my needs could be met by current offerings. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf
Gordon Moat wrote:
What do you mean, "most of the square images get cropped anyway"? Usage patterns, in that there are not many square images that get printed, at least in publications. Of course, there are some that only do square image prints, so again this is over-generalized. i don't think it is possible to state anything on this news group without someone refuting it, however, at some point assumptions need to be made for point of argument, or just to try to make a point. Supplying square originals results in square pictures in print. I strongly believe that the majority of images in magezines etc. being rectangular is the result of more photographers using rectangular formats to begin with, and is not because there is some preference for, or even "law" prescribing the use of rectangular images. So yes, i contest the "square images get cropped" assertion. I feel that I have not stated this well enough. Let's try: . . . with the larger than 35 mm film area, and great modern emulsions, cropping is one great creative tool. Using that tool of cropping ability, one can accomplish particular desired framing or coverage in the final printed image by cropping. Obviously, if one only accepts the absolute maximum extent of quality in a system, then cropping could be an unacceptable option. I don't have any problems cropping an image, so I choose to use cropping as a creative choice. Yes, cropping can be (!) used to improve the composition. That's true for square and non-square formats alike, is it not? Not something done "especially" with square formats. The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to end up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format. And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in square mm/inches. The more the better. Obviously, but I am not against cropping a few millimetres to get a different end composition. There is a group of photographers that do not believe in using cropping, but I am not one of them. Also, I have never cropped any medium format film down to 35 mm size, nor even close to it. In fact, it is tough to use much of any cropping with 35 mm film, so framing tends to be much more exacting requirements to maintain the more limited quality, not that I am advocating sloppy framing for medium format. Then i really can't understand why you advocate cropping over the use of long(er) lenses. "Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway (???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters". For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an 80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less than 35 mm format. It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses". Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller than 35 mm format??? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . Obviously, if one only accepts the absolute maximum extent of quality in a system, then cropping could be an unacceptable option. I don't have any problems cropping an image, so I choose to use cropping as a creative choice. Yes, cropping can be (!) used to improve the composition. That's true for square and non-square formats alike, is it not? Not something done "especially" with square formats. Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a crop. This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a difference of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other. The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to end up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format. And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in square mm/inches. The more the better. Obviously, but I am not against cropping a few millimetres to get a different end composition. There is a group of photographers that do not believe in using cropping, but I am not one of them. Also, I have never cropped any medium format film down to 35 mm size, nor even close to it. In fact, it is tough to use much of any cropping with 35 mm film, so framing tends to be much more exacting requirements to maintain the more limited quality, not that I am advocating sloppy framing for medium format. Then i really can't understand why you advocate cropping over the use of long(er) lenses. If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would be helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice. Now if one always found that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be better served by using a system that more closely matched their desired compositions. "Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway (???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters". For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an 80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less than 35 mm format. Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF 100 mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image (more than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape (horizontal) format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance, gives a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image to the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be cropped to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small, but it is hardly 35 mm. However, here is the interesting part about this, the closest focusing on the 100 mm is 1.2 metre, while the Bronica SLR 150 mm only close focuses to 1.5 metres. The reason this is relevant is that Bob M. and I were discussing this exact scenario, and reference to the Bronica RF 645. To the credit of the ETRSi, there are longer lenses, and there are some extension tubes available to get an even tighter head shot on the full frame of film, so I still think the SLR is a better choice for head (and shoulders) photos, and this only shows that it is possible to do the occasional head shot using the RF645. It might be possible to find other 645 SLR systems that can focus closer using a 150 mm, and without resorting to extension tubes, making them even better choices. If I had many tightly framed head shots to do, the RF 645 is probably the last camera I would choose. The Mamiya 7 II is the other current model medium format rangefinder, and offers a 150 mm lens, though it is a 6x7 camera. The RB/RZ 67 would be the obvious comparison, though the focusing mechanism on these SLR cameras already allows for very close range photos, and tight compositions. Clearly, either an RB67 or RZ67 will allow for tighter head shots. The close focus ability of the Mamiya 7 150 mm f4.5 is only 1.8 metre, which is not really very close in comparison to the .82 metre closest focus ability of the RB 150 mm. Even here, some slight cropping would be needed to match the SLR lens at closest distance, though much more (in area and percentage) than in the 645 example above. Again, I think a Mamiya 7 is a poor choice for tightly framed head shots. It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses". Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller than 35 mm format??? Why ask a question when you already know the answer? I expected better of you. Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only answer. Cannot get close enough to the subject, but still want a tight shot, then SLR. Want a really tight framing of a subject, or even a macro image, then use an SLR. In fact, nearly every photographer desiring these types of shots is better served by an SLR, and when I do tight head shots, guess what . . . I use an SLR. Want to use long lenses, or really feel the need to use long lenses . . . .. . get an SLR. My photography is not only tight head shots. I also have the "luxury" of being able to get close to my subjects, making my longest lens a 300 mm, and that one rarely gets used. In fact, short telephoto and normal focal ranges are my most used lenses, in medium format, large format, and in 35 mm gear. The type of imagery I do could be done only on rangefinders, and I do own a few, but most of my photography is done using SLR cameras. The discussion Bob M. and I were having brought up medium format rangefinder cameras, since they are often more compact and light weight than medium format SLRs. Tight head shots are an obvious shortcoming of rangefinder systems, unless you ad weird devices like goggles and rangefinder magnifiers. Within reason, one can get closer to a tighter shot by cropping a little, and even with cropping, starting off with a larger film frame would be better. There are some slight advantages to rangefinder cameras, and those few advantages are the only reason to use them instead of using an SLR. All rangefinder cameras sell poorly in comparison to SLR cameras, so the best choice for most photographers seems to be . . . get an SLR. If you are interested in some wonderful software, that I used for doing the comparisons, there is a camera and lens calculation program called "pCAM" for the PalmOS. I have version 1.95, available from http://www.davideubank.com. You can use it to compare several lenses, and many film frame sizes, including DOF, FoV, distance computations, image preview, etc. Easy to use too. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
quoting Gordon's thoughtful posting: Or just two cameras. A small rangefinder for wide to normal (or short tele), and an SLR for normal to tele. I don't think that is too much to carry, perhaps with four lenses. Having used rangefinder cameras of various film formats and sizes, I find that I usually want normal to short tele lenses for these, so I guess my needs could be met by current offerings. endquote: Multiple cameras, what I call "mix and match" to get the best out of each format, is the only thing that works for me too. But my lens use is strange ;-) I have gotten into the habit of carrying my panoramic veriwide 100 for 18mm equiv. on 35mm panoramic 6x10cm shots 'cuz it is book sized and compact and only 2 lbs. For shooting birds around the lake, I'm using 35mm with 500mm T-mount (unscrews in half for carrying compactly). This is for a lakeside walkabout I do alot, so missed shots will come around again. I usually have a normal lens with me too, for light weight and low cost speed lens. When I am shooting cityscapes, I find very wide angles handy, adding a superwide hassy or 14mm for nikon etc. I experimented with a hassy ELM and 250mm lens with radio control for remote telephotography of birds, but too much hassle and time consuming. But these 250mm lenses on 'blad and kowa 6/66 do very well at the local wild parks and zoo with the tamer and bigger critters there ;-) So I guess the good news is that I have an excuse for having all this stuff, because what I like to photograph varys a lot, and I make up the kit I need to match. But that does make it very hard to conceive a single camera kit that would match my needs, esp. when traveling light. As you noted, it is easy to crop out needed shots with the veriwide 100 panoramic from 6x10cm- film area, and there aren't many wider angle non-swing lenses on MF cameras ;-) The hassy SWC/M is a nice travel camera too, but a lot of $$, and not near as wide (24mm equiv. horiz. on 35mm vs. 18mm on veriwide 100). But the biogon hassy can be used at any speed even wide open, while the veriwide wants to be shot at f/16 for best results ;-) ===== yes on other good points short focusing limitations on the MF RFs too. I did manage to get an excellent buy on the 135mm for koni omega RO200 6x7cm RF, which has the best close focusing distance of the bunch. Paradoxically, it was only made for a few years, and so is rarer and pricey as the wedding types favoring KO kits use it a lot for portraits This is also a reason I am promoting third party lenses, specifically the Kiron/Vivitar Series I early lenses on my website (medfmt.8k.com/third) because those lenses, while heavier than modern optics, had great close focusing distances, esp. the telephotos and longer zooms. Ditto many prime lenses offer superior close focusing distances (e.g., 28mm f/2.8) over the settings for many zooms (e.g., 28-300mm ;-), a difference of inches vs ft! bronica rf645? Hard to predict what will happen with Tamron/Bronica's future offerings; the problem with dropping the RF645 is that they have lots of $$ invested in brand new tooling and lens/camera R&D. They aren't recouping it with the kinds of discounts they are giving out; as I noted in another thread, B&H had a $450 mfgers rebate on the basic camera kit, dropping it to just over $1,100 US$. Will Bronica end up a casualty of the medium format market fall in the digital era? I do think they could and should have followed the Tamron/UK approach of trying to make your camera body work with your lens, but probably the profitability vs. cost of that approach was problematic, esp. with owners underserved by local support services? For a company that primarily makes their money on lenses, Tamron/Bronica has not put the $$ into Bronica lens development that I had hoped. As I noted in reviewing the GS1 6x7 SLR, it is a great camera for many users, but the lack of many lens offerings and high cost of existing lenses vs. competitors like Mamiya RZ67 have made it less of a success in the market than it deserves (see GS1 case study http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/system.html ) This is a dicey time for MF mfgers; a market demand shortfall of major proportions, rapid change in the digital end, lack of large low cost digital chips (16MP and esp. 32MP and 64 MP) for digital MF cameras to respond to the 35mm challenges etc. and huge costs in R&D for modern AF MF cameras of uncertain sales potentials, as well as strong entrenched competitors with deep pockets vs. innovative mfgers with thinner $$ backing. Should be a great case study for business schools in a few years ;-) grins bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf
Gordon Moat wrote:
Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a crop. So why did you mention 6x6 format specifically? This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a difference of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other. Hmm... This also proves the point that sometimes much nonsense is produced. ;-) If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would be helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice. Duh! "If no longer lens was available" is your excuse for wondering why people use long lenses that *are* available??? Now if one always found that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be better served by using a system that more closely matched their desired compositions. Yes... And if the moon was made of cheese it would go good with crackers. ;-) You seem to be forgetting that we two are discussing your assertion that using long(er) lenses (you know, the ones available) is somewhat of a questionable practice. "Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway (???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters". For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an 80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less than 35 mm format. Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF 100 mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image (more than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape (horizontal) format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance, gives a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image to the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be cropped to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small, but it is hardly 35 mm. No, it isn't. But that is a conveniently chosen example. Have another look at mine. It is about the same practice you advocate over the use of long lenses. You do end up using less film than 35 mm format. You may say that that too is a conveniently chosen one. But it's not unrealistic, is it? [...] It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses". Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller than 35 mm format??? Why ask a question when you already know the answer? I expected better of you. Ah, but i wasn't asking a question. I was expressing my lasting surprise about the thing you put forward. Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only answer. [...] Is it about SLR vs RF now? I was sure you did not understand why people used long lenses, i.e. you believed people could well do without. And that you thought 6x6 cm format got cropped anyway. Anyway. ;-) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote: Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a crop. So why did you mention 6x6 format specifically? It is the only current square format, and few square images are in current printed publications. Perhaps that means that most printed matter comes from rectangular formats, or it could mean that it came from cropped square format. Perhaps I was going out on a limb supposing that 6x6 shots got cropped into rectangular compositions, and instead there is little current 6x6 usage, meaning the remaining rectangular images in publication came from rectangular format cameras. Only a statistician can solve this one, so I will leave it alone. This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a difference of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other. Hmm... This also proves the point that sometimes much nonsense is produced. ;-) Glad you agree. ;-) If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would be helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice. Duh! "If no longer lens was available" is your excuse for wondering why people use long lenses that *are* available??? If I need a longer lens, and I don't own one, then I rent one. If I had a system that was at the longest lens limit, and needed even longer, then my choice would be to rent a different system with longer lens choice. If I still find myself at the longest lens limit, then I have no choice but to crop, or not take the photo. Of course, given a chance for a photo, and no long lenses immediately available, would someone be better off skipping taking the photo, or cropping it later to a better composition? Now if one always found that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be better served by using a system that more closely matched their desired compositions. Yes... And if the moon was made of cheese it would go good with crackers. ;-) Must have been watching too much Wallace & Grommit. ;-) You seem to be forgetting that we two are discussing your assertion that using long(er) lenses (you know, the ones available) is somewhat of a questionable practice. I never meant to imply that. Long lenses can be inconvenient due to cost or size (weight), but if that is the only way to get particular images, then that is the only choice. My assertion was that some people made comments about some lenses not being long enough, which might imply that the usage of shorter lenses was a questionable practice, though you read that the opposite direction. Let's back up to the Bob M. statistics about lenses. While I will not judge the accuracy of his figures, it is interesting that the normal focal length lens for a given medium format system is the most common lens, and quite often the only lens owned. Both of us know people who do not fit that pattern, though it makes one wonder how some people accomplish so many different compositions with only one lens. Using just a normal lens, one needs to be closer to a subject to get a tight head shot. The limits of close focus for some systems limits how close, and the comfort of the subject with that closest distance is another consideration. A longer lens with similar closest focusing distance could allow a tightly framed composition, or alternatively, the photographer could put more distance between the subject and the camera. I like having that longer distance most of the time, which I feel allows a comfortable working distance, though obviously all situations and photographers can differ in this regard. I have also done fairly close distance images, some of which are very tightly framed images. "Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway (???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters". For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an 80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less than 35 mm format. Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF 100 mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image (more than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape (horizontal) format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance, gives a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image to the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be cropped to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small, but it is hardly 35 mm. No, it isn't. But that is a conveniently chosen example. Thank you, I was trying to be careful about that. ;-) I should point out that the mention of the RF645 was one item that Bob M. and I specifically discussed, so I felt a closer examination was a good choice. Bob M. mentioned the desire to use a 150 mm, and the RF645 only has a 100 mm (though a 135 mm was briefly available). Also interesting is that a comparison with the RF 135 mm lens would have shown that lens to have an even tighter composition than the 150 mm at closest distance. Have another look at mine. It is about the same practice you advocate over the use of long lenses. You do end up using less film than 35 mm format. You may say that that too is a conveniently chosen one. But it's not unrealistic, is it? To put this to a point, I "advocate" the use of long lenses. I also "advocate" cropping as a creative tool. I "deride" the non-usage of normal to short telephoto lenses due only to considerations of tight composition. I "understand" it is not always possible, nor desirable, nor comfortable, for a photographer to be physically at a close distance to their subject, though I further "deride" the non-acceptance of that as a valid technique. While we could both come up with many unrealistic examples (and I thought 80 mm compared to 150 mm was unrealistic), the current reality of imagery is that nearly anything goes. Both of us have likely seen large prints from truly small sensor direct digital cameras, prints from pinhole cameras, and unusual usage of various formats and films, both in publications, and in galleries. The vast acceptance of direct digital images, and small image files, has made many formats acceptable. While it use to be the situation that few professionals used smaller than medium format gear, it is less common for publications, art directors, and galleries to deride (or dismiss) the usage of smaller formats, smaller crops, or even smaller digital sensors . . . anything is valid today. Have you ever tried to crop an image to a small area? Do you crop at all? I am not trying to push towards a "crop every shot, because your gear is too short" approach, and I never intended for anyone to think that. I also do not want anyone to get the idea that "cropping is evil, and should not be done". . . . . . . . . Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only answer. [...] Is it about SLR vs RF now? Actually, yes. That is what Bob M. brought up about wanting a compact camera for medium format, and that led our discussion (Bob M. and I) onto rangefinder (and folder) cameras. Bob M. expressed his dislike for some newer rangefinder cameras due to the lack of longer lenses, and sighted the example of wanting a 645 format that could use a 150 mm lens (or even a 6x6 that could use a 150 mm lens). While I could have mentioned the Mamiya 6, it is not a currently sold camera, and there are some aspects of it that I do not like much. I was sure you did not understand why people used long lenses, i.e. you believed people could well do without. And that you thought 6x6 cm format got cropped anyway. So, we are left with lots of writing. Perhaps somewhere in all this interchange between both of us, there is some understanding for others, or at least things to ponder. If my lack of eloquence, or writing ability, has left some doubt, I do apologize in advance. We are here to share and learn. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
normal lens biggest seller surprise convertible lens RF?
Gordon cited my continuing surprise at the relatively low sales of accessory lenses for both 35mm RF/SLR and medium format SLR cameras, based on Rick Nordin's figures for Hassy C lens sales (over half were the 80mm normal lens - amazing!) and only 2.3 lenses sold for SLRs per JCIA stats (for japanese made SLRs including those in Chinese and other overseas factories). The situation is evidently similar for Leica M mount lenses by Leica per study of their body and modest M-lens sales figures. It appears that the majority of camera owners have only the original camera kit lens. I also infer that the situation is similar with accessory backs for interchangeable back SLRs etc. In other words, lots of buyers are paying for features like interchangeable lens mounts and interchangeable backs (in MF) and then never using these features. This is one reason, I think, that the basic TLR does so well as an entry level MF camera - it is light, compact, often cheap for quality of lenses, relatively inconspicuous, nifty and a classic camera design, and many MF SLR owners only have one lens anyway, so the TLR entry level user is able to make many of the same images just as well ;-) I agree with many of Gordon's comments (and QGdB's ;-) on lenses, but will add that you can do a lot with the "wrong" or non-ideal lens. I once did a 10,000+ mile bus trip around the USA on an Ameripass in which I grabbed the wrong camera bag in my early morning bleery-eyed departure. I ended up with a 24mm lens instead of the short zoom I had planned. I still managed to take a number of up close and personal environmental portraits (with surprisingly little facial distortion if you shoot mid-body) and similar photos in which the very wide angle nature of my one optic on the trip was not as obvious as I had feared ;-) The close focusing capabilities of the 24mm was surprisingly useful, though I still missed the macro option ;-) The very wide angle was quite useful in many shooting situations where a 28mm would have been not wide enough... One result of the trip was my recommendation to do short local trips with different lenses, preferably with one lens on each walkabout, forcing you to fully explore what each lens can do under many situations. I think past amateurs were better aware of their lens capabilities, due to having only a few in hand, than many of us with a dozen or more optics in our camera kits? ;=) grins bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
normal lens biggest seller surprise convertible lens RF?
Bob Monaghan wrote:
. . . . . . . I agree with many of Gordon's comments (and QGdB's ;-) on lenses, but will add that you can do a lot with the "wrong" or non-ideal lens. Just to get back into the leaf shutter and ideal compact camera discussion, it seems that neither of us discussed the Mamiya 6 much at all. That one did have a 150 mm lens, though I am not sure about the closest focus ability. The collapsing front made it somewhat more compact than a Mamiya 7. Any thoughts? ... One result of the trip was my recommendation to do short local trips with different lenses, preferably with one lens on each walkabout, forcing you to fully explore what each lens can do under many situations. I usually only do that when I am testing a lens, though sometimes it is just a good exercise. The one lens limit is fun to try sometimes, but I don't think I could sell off many lenses and keep just one. Considering how many lenses you have, I would be surprised if you found a way to cut down. ;-) I think past amateurs were better aware of their lens capabilities, due to having only a few in hand, than many of us with a dozen or more optics in our camera kits? ;=) I once had only two camera bodies (35 mm), each with one lens. It was definitely a limited set-up, but I was able to accomplish a great deal. Unfortunately, what led to more lenses was dissatisfaction with some results, or some situations in which I would just not take a shot at all due to an inappropriate lens. I sort of envy those few professionals that have been able to limit themselves and their photos to mostly one lens. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
normal lens biggest seller surprise
from Danny Gonzalez's hands-on reviews of medium format cameras
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html and page go2.html#mamiya6 Disadvantages: (of Mamiya 6 RF) Very expensive. Limited close focusing ability (esp. w/ 50 and 150mm lenses). Lenses aren't fast. System is limited. Resale values are low. Focus is finicky with the 150mm Metering with earliest 6 models tends towards underexposure because of poor in-finder baffling (improved on later production runs and all 6MF's) ===== the optics, per many users and tests (C. Perez etc.) are very good, but as usual most RF in MF poop out on close focusing ;-( You can get around it with fractional diopter + lenses for portraits and wire frame and +4 etc. magnifier diopters for flower shots, but in a multi-kilobuck system with high end optics, that rather defeats the purpose of the high $ optics? ;-) grins bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
normal lens biggest seller surprise
Bob Monaghan wrote:
from Danny Gonzalez's hands-on reviews of medium format cameras http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html and page go2.html#mamiya6 Disadvantages: (of Mamiya 6 RF) Very expensive. Limited close focusing ability (esp. w/ 50 and 150mm lenses). Lenses aren't fast. System is limited. Resale values are low. Which should imply low cost used . . . . . Focus is finicky with the 150mm Apparently the rangefinder base is not enough. Surprisingly, I have heard a bit of the same complaint about the 150 mm for the Mamiya 7, including a limited close focus. Metering with earliest 6 models tends towards underexposure because of poor in-finder baffling (improved on later production runs and all 6MF's) ===== the optics, per many users and tests (C. Perez etc.) are very good, but as usual most RF in MF poop out on close focusing ;-( You can get around it with fractional diopter + lenses for portraits and wire frame and +4 etc. magnifier diopters for flower shots, but in a multi-kilobuck system with high end optics, that rather defeats the purpose of the high $ optics? ;-) It just really makes me wonder why the things Leica has created for macro, close focus, and rangefinder magnification have not been adopted by Mamiya, nor Bronica. In the older rangefinder cameras of the past, like Contax and Kodak Retina, there were several different solutions for close focus, or macro imagery. Surely there must be some expired patents that could be revived. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |