A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 27th 06, 09:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Progressiveabsolution
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei

I know this isn't the right forum, but I also know many around here
have shot with these at one point or another. The fact that the other
"film" based boards are basically dead makes me feel this is the best
place to make the post. I hope the board does not have a problem with
this as I also am an advocate of digital photography. But for a time,
I want to do medium format so I would have been able to compare my
digital with 35mm film, and now medium format images. Here are my
questions:

1) Is it best to go with the Kiev 60 (current model or one that has
been CLA'd) OR should I go with a Mamiya/Pentax...and the reasons
why...pros/cons for both cameras?

2) With the lens selection, I have learned the late model Flektogon and
Sonnar are good choices. What other lenses are as good/better? than
these two in the 100-120mm length? I know there is the late model
Biometer, but can it be bested by something else?

3) For those that have also shot with the Rollei/Blad lenses,
specifically the traditional 50/80/150 ones, what can you say about
them by comparison to the ones for the Kiev? From what I have seen, it
seems people tend to think the Flektogon is better than the Distagon
whil the 80mm Planar is better than any Kiev offering, and the 150mm is
not as good as the slightly longer 180mm Sonnar. Are these comparisons
true or not so...and what other lenses in the Kiev lineup could be
tossed in against the Rollei/Blad "traditional 3" as being similarly
good or better.

Thanks all for your help, particularly with the camera to use and then
with the lenses to go with.

  #2  
Old September 27th 06, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei


"Progressiveabsolution" wrote:

Mamiya, Pentax, Zeiss, Bronica, and Fuji lenses are all seriously wonderful
optically. The build quality (and quality control) on these lenses is
seriously amazing.

I don't understand the fascination with the Eastern European lenses; it
makes no sense that I can see. You'll get into games of buying multiple
copies and ebaying the dogs (a trick recommended repeatedly by the most
vociferous of the the Eastern European lens fans). Which means that the dogs
simply make the rounds on ebay, time and time again.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #3  
Old September 28th 06, 12:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mark B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses forKiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
I know this isn't the right forum, but I also know many around here
have shot with these at one point or another. The fact that the other
"film" based boards are basically dead makes me feel this is the best
place to make the post. I hope the board does not have a problem with
this as I also am an advocate of digital photography. But for a time,
I want to do medium format so I would have been able to compare my
digital with 35mm film, and now medium format images. Here are my
questions:

1) Is it best to go with the Kiev 60 (current model or one that has
been CLA'd) OR should I go with a Mamiya/Pentax...and the reasons
why...pros/cons for both cameras?

2) With the lens selection, I have learned the late model Flektogon and
Sonnar are good choices. What other lenses are as good/better? than
these two in the 100-120mm length? I know there is the late model
Biometer, but can it be bested by something else?

3) For those that have also shot with the Rollei/Blad lenses,
specifically the traditional 50/80/150 ones, what can you say about
them by comparison to the ones for the Kiev? From what I have seen, it
seems people tend to think the Flektogon is better than the Distagon
whil the 80mm Planar is better than any Kiev offering, and the 150mm is
not as good as the slightly longer 180mm Sonnar. Are these comparisons
true or not so...and what other lenses in the Kiev lineup could be
tossed in against the Rollei/Blad "traditional 3" as being similarly
good or better.

Thanks all for your help, particularly with the camera to use and then
with the lenses to go with.


I have a Kiev 60 with a couple of lenses. It served my purpose at the
time, but I use it very little now. I bought it because many of the
older Zeiss lenses would fit it. At that time the Pentax, Mamyia prices
were sky high even for used ones. The digital revolution has had many
pros dump their medium format equipment and the prices for them now are
much more reasonable. IF I could find used equipment that was even
close to the price of the Kiev that would meet my needs Id avoid the
Kiev. I used the Kiev because the outside in the environment I was
going to use it in was going to take a beating. The Kiev could take
that in that its as heavy as a tank. The mechanical workings are a
different matter and those can be somewhat fragile.

The Blad is a great camera but look at the prices of the lenses before
you buy. I needed more of a focal length selection than I could afford
to buy with the Hasselblad. The shutter is in the lens so each lens
costs lots more. If you can get by with just an 80mm then it has some
advantages. I might could now but couldn't then. Now I use mostly
digital anyway.
  #4  
Old September 28th 06, 01:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei


"Mark B" wrote:

The Blad is a great camera but look at the prices of the lenses before you
buy. I needed more of a focal length selection than I could afford to buy
with the Hasselblad. The shutter is in the lens so each lens costs lots
more. If you can get by with just an 80mm then it has some advantages. I
might could now but couldn't then. Now I use mostly digital anyway.


Hehe. I could have written that. Were I seriously rich, a Hassy kit
consisting of the SWC, 60/3.5, and 100/3.5 might be interesting. Maybe.

My current take on things, though, is that 6x6 and 645 really aren't enough
film to justify their use given the 5D (or even the D2x, although you'll be
stuck at ISO 100 there). Mamiya 7, Mamiya RZ67, Pentax 6x7, and the Fuji
GSW690III and GW690III are what I'd be looking at today.

Another problem is scanning. Without a Nikon 9000 (or a real darkroom) it's
probably not possible to make even 6x9 compete with the 5D. The Epson V750
might do it, but by the time you're done, you'd have been better off just
buying a 5D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #5  
Old September 28th 06, 02:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Progressiveabsolution
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei


David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Mark B" wrote:

The Blad is a great camera but look at the prices of the lenses before you
buy. I needed more of a focal length selection than I could afford to buy
with the Hasselblad. The shutter is in the lens so each lens costs lots
more. If you can get by with just an 80mm then it has some advantages. I
might could now but couldn't then. Now I use mostly digital anyway.


Hehe. I could have written that. Were I seriously rich, a Hassy kit
consisting of the SWC, 60/3.5, and 100/3.5 might be interesting. Maybe.

My current take on things, though, is that 6x6 and 645 really aren't enough
film to justify their use given the 5D (or even the D2x, although you'll be
stuck at ISO 100 there). Mamiya 7, Mamiya RZ67, Pentax 6x7, and the Fuji
GSW690III and GW690III are what I'd be looking at today.

Another problem is scanning. Without a Nikon 9000 (or a real darkroom) it's
probably not possible to make even 6x9 compete with the 5D. The Epson V750
might do it, but by the time you're done, you'd have been better off just
buying a 5D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


The more 5D photos I look at online the less impressed I am. The Nikon
9000 was compared to the V750 and the differences were subtle. And the
wetmount kit seemed to show greater improvements that never were
compared go the Nikon 9000. Asked which the reviewer would get, they
said the V700 because the differences between all three are so subtle
and the V700 is the least expensive. But at what sized print can these
"subtleties" be made more obvious. I really could not see much
difference between the 9000 and V750 in the enlargements done. Another
test with the 8000 and V700 showed there was very little difference
between those two as well. The 8000/9000 give straight out of the box
results. The V700/V750 require a LOT of time getting results close
enough to the 8000/9000 to be negligable...I think it's more up to user
patience to learn than it is having to buy one scanner over another.
Even Rockwell, who isn't the greatest source, says the 4990 is 99% of
the Minolta Multi Pro which he says about the Multi Pro is better than
drum scans, etc.

I like the look of the Fuji, but don't think it's as impressing as what
I have seen from the better results of the Fuji vs. the better results
of the Kiev. The Fuji is also limited to one fixed lens unless you buy
the inferior lens that is a very short ranged zoom. But the Fuji is
very appealing with color and size...

  #6  
Old September 28th 06, 02:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Progressiveabsolution
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei


David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Mark B" wrote:

The Blad is a great camera but look at the prices of the lenses before you
buy. I needed more of a focal length selection than I could afford to buy
with the Hasselblad. The shutter is in the lens so each lens costs lots
more. If you can get by with just an 80mm then it has some advantages. I
might could now but couldn't then. Now I use mostly digital anyway.


Hehe. I could have written that. Were I seriously rich, a Hassy kit
consisting of the SWC, 60/3.5, and 100/3.5 might be interesting. Maybe.

My current take on things, though, is that 6x6 and 645 really aren't enough
film to justify their use given the 5D (or even the D2x, although you'll be
stuck at ISO 100 there). Mamiya 7, Mamiya RZ67, Pentax 6x7, and the Fuji
GSW690III and GW690III are what I'd be looking at today.

Another problem is scanning. Without a Nikon 9000 (or a real darkroom) it's
probably not possible to make even 6x9 compete with the 5D. The Epson V750
might do it, but by the time you're done, you'd have been better off just
buying a 5D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


The more 5D photos I look at online the less impressed I am. The Nikon
9000 was compared to the V750 and the differences were subtle. And the
wetmount kit seemed to show greater improvements that never were
compared go the Nikon 9000. Asked which the reviewer would get, they
said the V700 because the differences between all three are so subtle
and the V700 is the least expensive. But at what sized print can these
"subtleties" be made more obvious. I really could not see much
difference between the 9000 and V750 in the enlargements done. Another
test with the 8000 and V700 showed there was very little difference
between those two as well. The 8000/9000 give straight out of the box
results. The V700/V750 require a LOT of time getting results close
enough to the 8000/9000 to be negligable...I think it's more up to user
patience to learn than it is having to buy one scanner over another.
Even Rockwell, who isn't the greatest source, says the 4990 is 99% of
the Minolta Multi Pro which he says about the Multi Pro is better than
drum scans, etc.

I like the look of the Fuji, but don't think it's as impressing as what
I have seen from the better results of the Fuji vs. the better results
of the Kiev. The Fuji is also limited to one fixed lens unless you buy
the inferior lens that is a very short ranged zoom. But the Fuji is
very appealing with color and size...

  #7  
Old September 28th 06, 02:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei


"Progressiveabsolution" wrote:

The more 5D photos I look at online the less impressed I am.


That's odd. The sample images at dpreview knocked me out (as do everything
that comes out of the camera). Are you looking at full 12.7MP images or
downsampled images?

The Nikon
9000 was compared to the V750 and the differences were subtle.


Yeah, that's what people said about the 4800 ppi Epsons too.

rant
It's _really_ hard to get full quality from these scanners, because the film
has to be perfectly flat, and it looks to me that a lot of people aren't
getting sharp scans from their Nikon 8000/9000. I'd never pay anyone to do a
scan on a Nikon 8000/9000 because there's no way I could afford to pay
someone competent the amount of time it actually takes to do it right. I
don't make a scan with the 8000 without measuring focus at at least 5 points
across the frame and verifying that I can manually set the focus so that the
whole frame is within +/- 15 focus units. Most people will tell you it's not
worth spending that much time. At which point, you're wasting your time.
/rant

And the
wetmount kit seemed to show greater improvements that never were
compared go the Nikon 9000. Asked which the reviewer would get, they
said the V700 because the differences between all three are so subtle
and the V700 is the least expensive. But at what sized print can these
"subtleties" be made more obvious. I really could not see much
difference between the 9000 and V750 in the enlargements done. Another
test with the 8000 and V700 showed there was very little difference
between those two as well. The 8000/9000 give straight out of the box
results. The V700/V750 require a LOT of time getting results close
enough to the 8000/9000 to be negligable...I think it's more up to user
patience to learn than it is having to buy one scanner over another.
Even Rockwell, who isn't the greatest source, says the 4990 is 99% of
the Minolta Multi Pro which he says about the Multi Pro is better than
drum scans, etc.


Rockwell says a lot of silly things. Here's what I see comparing the Nikon
8000 and a 4800 ppi Epson.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original


I like the look of the Fuji, but don't think it's as impressing as what
I have seen from the better results of the Fuji vs. the better results
of the Kiev. The Fuji is also limited to one fixed lens unless you buy
the inferior lens that is a very short ranged zoom. But the Fuji is
very appealing with color and size...


There aren't any Kiev lenses that are anywhere close to the Fuji lenses.
Completely different classes of optics. Also, I only mentioned the 6x9
cameras. Again, I don't recommend 6x6 or 645 in this day and age.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #8  
Old September 28th 06, 03:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Progressiveabsolution
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei

I love rangefinders, but what I have seen from the Fuji rangefinder
board was not impressing to me at all. Maybe they are poor scans? The
color looks bland. I'd rather have the Canon though I think the Canon
color is rather rough/bland looking unless you put some
Zeiss/Rollei/etc. glass on it. It is definitely a LOT nicer than the
other Canon stuff (whatever sensor is in the 5D is much nicer than in
say the 20D, 1DS, etc.). I'd rather have the 5D with good Zeiss/Rollei
glass than anything I saw from the Fuji stuff, in spite I did find some
images that are simply beautiful.

If you want a comparison to the Nikon 9000, considered to be better
than the 8000 known to band a lot, check this:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-imag...ad_id=30694884

Aside from color which can be adjusted, they don't look much different
to me. They are also blowups from a TINY little portion of a very big
landscape image.

I think some know how to use the machines and some don't (as you
demonstrated by that person who did the comparison of the same scanner
to your 8000).

  #9  
Old September 28th 06, 12:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
SimonLW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei

"Progressiveabsolution" wrote in message
ups.com...
I know this isn't the right forum, but I also know many around here
have shot with these at one point or another. The fact that the other
"film" based boards are basically dead makes me feel this is the best
place to make the post. I hope the board does not have a problem with
this as I also am an advocate of digital photography. But for a time,
I want to do medium format so I would have been able to compare my
digital with 35mm film, and now medium format images. Here are my
questions:

1) Is it best to go with the Kiev 60 (current model or one that has
been CLA'd) OR should I go with a Mamiya/Pentax...and the reasons
why...pros/cons for both cameras?

2) With the lens selection, I have learned the late model Flektogon and
Sonnar are good choices. What other lenses are as good/better? than
these two in the 100-120mm length? I know there is the late model
Biometer, but can it be bested by something else?

3) For those that have also shot with the Rollei/Blad lenses,
specifically the traditional 50/80/150 ones, what can you say about
them by comparison to the ones for the Kiev? From what I have seen, it
seems people tend to think the Flektogon is better than the Distagon
whil the 80mm Planar is better than any Kiev offering, and the 150mm is
not as good as the slightly longer 180mm Sonnar. Are these comparisons
true or not so...and what other lenses in the Kiev lineup could be
tossed in against the Rollei/Blad "traditional 3" as being similarly
good or better.

Thanks all for your help, particularly with the camera to use and then
with the lenses to go with.

Get a Pentax 67 and 3 lenses for it. While most of the former 35mm shooters
spout off "Film is dead!", You'll soon realize why it is not.

Of course, there is now the new 'blad with 39mp, 48x36mm sensor, so maybe
film is dead...

Better just get a 8x10 sheet film camera!
-S


  #10  
Old September 28th 06, 05:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Progressiveabsolution
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya/Pentax and questions regarding lenses for Kiev vs. Hassleblad/Rollei



Get a Pentax 67 and 3 lenses for it. While most of the former 35mm shooters
spout off "Film is dead!", You'll soon realize why it is not.

Of course, there is now the new 'blad with 39mp, 48x36mm sensor, so maybe
film is dead...

Better just get a 8x10 sheet film camera!
-S


One thing for sure, I like the color of the Pentax 67 much more than
the 645. I don't know how to describe it, but images with the 645 look
"flat" to me, flatter than the fuji look. But the 67 has some very
good tonal richness/depth that I really like. In a way, it reminds me
of the few images I have seen with the Flektogon/Sonnar lenses. Only
problem=cost. I did look into this system and it's quite a price. I
will have to re-look again and see if it is an option I can afford.
The photos I have seen, again, are really special, especially these
nature shots and then just simple candid or model based photos. The
color, again, has a very good tonality to it that I really like. And as
for sharpness...well...it's as sharp as one can ask for IMHO.

One thing for sure, all of these MF setups have some major
dimensionality to them that I just don't see with digital stuff w/some
exceptions. Again, just web images, of course, but they can tell
something I feel. In other words, when I have seen something and then
purchased it, my experience resembled what I saw on the web. Even my
weak setup with a 300D and kit lens showed the extremely distinct look
of Canon digital DSLRs. EVERY canon DSLR image has this same look that
I saw with my camera and kit lens...in spite some color difference, it
shows in the 5D shots also.

BTW, for tokyoboy, there's a very nice image with the 5D and Flektogon
20mm posted on the manual lens forum that looks wonderful.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak Z740 - Thoughts and Questions about Lenses ScriptDude Digital Photography 1 August 8th 06 01:14 AM
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses Joseph Chamberlain, DDS Digital SLR Cameras 128 November 20th 05 12:01 AM
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses Joseph Chamberlain, DDS Digital Photography 24 November 13th 05 05:28 AM
Some basic questions about process lenses vs. "regular" lenses Marco Milazzo Large Format Photography Equipment 20 November 23rd 04 04:42 PM
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories Henry Peña 35mm Equipment for Sale 2 November 12th 03 02:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.