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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |