Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

yes, the Omega 120 is one ugly camera ;-) So are my Koni Omega 6x7cm RF
and lenses, rather hard to pack cuboidal bodies, heavy, but very rugged
;-) The interchangeable inserts and magazines (my RO200 model) add to
flexibility, at modest weight. And the lenses are very good also, as Chris
Perez' tests suggest and many users have confirmed. Obviously, I don't
care a lot about camera appearance or the looks I sometimes get using mine
;-)

yes, the uncoupled rangefinder would probably work fine for many users,
esp. landscape types and a lot of travel work. A simple focusing chart
along the sliding standard (as with many older folders) could do the job
too, minimizing the cost and complexity of the focusing mount.

But you are probably right that our interest doesn't match the real
marketplace, so we will have to homebrew such cameras rather than expect
to run in and buy them off the shelf. I think if fuji had made their zoom
lens a bit longer, it might have been enough to make it a nice travel
camera (esp. at 28 ounces for a 645 RF).

I think a big part of the reason folders died, similar to TLR sales, is
that the existing market of used and low cost but serviceable TLRs and
folders made it possible to satisfy many buyers with a used rolleiflex or
ikonta or whatever. Even today, many folks are settling for a Moskva 5
copy or similar at modest prices, and happily so if they get a good one
;-) But the lack of a multiple lens option makes these cameras less of a
stand-alone solution for travel and so on, making the Bronica RF645 and
Mamiya 7 series a lot more attractive to users.

I have been playing with a few polaroid SLRs, captiva etc., and keep
trying to think how a MF rollfilm folder could be similarly crafted.
Another area of inquiry is how a digital chip could be used in a modern
design for focusing and composition (including closeup work as with SLR)
and then pop out of way and allow film exposure. This would eliminate much
of the SLR bulk and complexity while providing thru the lens composition
and effects (grad filters, polarizers..) etc.

Finally, it may just be that we need better afocal adapters. As I have
noted, the telephoto (finder scope style) attachments could be used easily
enough in a pinch with the right bayonet filter ring adapter (faster
on/off). A low magnification afocal adapter should be do-able with minimal
vignetting, though size and close focusing distances would be tradeoffs...

The zeiss mutars were very pricey but also very excellent adapters. The
standard japanese/korean superwide 0.42x and similar are not close to the
cost or quality, though pretty good for the $$. Perhaps some of the new
lighter superwide adapters for video will be better optically, and so
provide an option for fixed lens camera users (moskva 5 etc.?). The one I
have purchased is not as good as the bigger heavier glass older 0.42x
mutar I matched it against, but then, what can you expect for $20-ish from
dealer closeouts? ;-)

oh well, the search for the perfect camera, as with the perfect
cheeseburger, continues...

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************