Rolleiflex image quality?

Jim-Ed Browne wrote:

TTL viewing is great for macro or microscope or extreme long lens
work. For 90% of general camera work it's a frill, and a rangefinder
or TLR is so much quieter and less obtrusive.



I've tried rangefinders and find them difficult to "see" what I'm shooting.
The viewfinder gives unlimited DOF and trying to visualize what a limited
DOF image will look like is difficult. While some people like the split
image type focusing, I abhor it. It's dificult for me to see where the
focus plane is, especially if there are no edges etc to focus on.

Also some of the viewfinders don't have as good an optics as the lens and
show barrel distortion ect than the lens doesn't have, my 6X9 fuji GSW
comes to mind. The other problem is when you can change lenses, the
magnification of the lens doesn't change with the lens so it's only
optimized for one focal length lens and the others are a comprimise.

So for me either a TLR or an SLR is a much better.
--

Stacey

I'm one of the few people in the world who don't stop and think "What would
Panavision do?" before buying a lens.

Since I collect 35mm cameras and projectors, I though I might make a comment
about motion picture image quality in general.

A 35mm motion picture frame is really a still camera half frame. The final
print quality varies greatly with the production. The highest quality is
usually the trailers wth show prints being next. Most general high spped
release prints, being 3rd or 4th generation, are very low quality in
relationship with 1st gen still camera slides or negatives.

A 35mm movie frame will make a very poor indeed 5x8 inch image flat or a 5x11
inch image in scope. So lens quality is not the biggest issue with movie
cameras. Rather, it's the registration from one frame to the next which
Panavision is very good at.

Larry

Swings and tilts are associated with view cameras, on which the image
is viewed on a ground glass directly. There are perspective control
lenses that do the same thing on 35mm and medium format systems, but
not as flexibly or well.

Polarizers are easier to use on SLR or view cameras. But again is it
worth the tradeoffs? Sometimes yes, more often no.

The Linhof, the last "press" style system, has grown to where it is
no longer much of a handheld camera, but a 6x9 version that was
designed specifically for rangefinder use would be nice. Ever use one
of the old cast aluminum Polaroids with the big focusing knob under
the bed? A very convenient thing, hobbled by being a Polaroid (and
most having lousy lenses-but a 110B did have a real lens and shutter
of surprising quality.) A modern version with a roll back would be
pretty cool.

Any review or comparison about Mamiya 7 but without mentioning the
Fuji 690 can not be called complete.





Martin Jangowski wrote in message ...
Sam wrote:
How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current
Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense?

Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs?


You may want to read http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
and be surprised.

Martin