New test results!

Heads up all you numbers jocks: Christopher M. Perez has added some new test
results to his MF tests page.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

Very depressing, since the two cameras I'm interested in ('flex with f/2.8
Xenotar and GW690) come out badly. Sigh.

But the Mamiya 7's AMAZING! (I wonder how the 65mm lens does???)

Anyway, thanks to CMP for keeping up the good work!

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: "David J. Littleboy"

Heads up all you numbers jocks: Christopher M. Perez has added some new test
results to his MF tests page.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

But the Mamiya 7's AMAZING! (I wonder how the 65mm lens does???)

I have five Mamiya 7 lenses and they are all excellent, though the shorter ones
are much easier to use than the longer ones (the 210 is *really* limited since
it doesn't couple to the rangefinder for focussing ... you either measure the
distance and trust the numbers on the barrel or you zone focus).

Now that I have a Canon 1Ds digital the Mamiya 7 is about the only reason I'm
using film at all, since prints from 35 mm just can't keep up with the 1Ds
prints.

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote:
From: "David J. Littleboy"

But the Mamiya 7's AMAZING! (I wonder how the 65mm lens does???)

I have five Mamiya 7 lenses and they are all excellent, though the shorter
ones
are much easier to use than the longer ones (the 210 is *really* limited
since
it doesn't couple to the rangefinder for focussing ... you either measure
the
distance and trust the numbers on the barrel or you zone focus).

Yep. And the 150 doesn't focus very close. I use my 110/2.8 (645) a lot, and
the 150/3.5 when my tripod's along, and would miss them. And the Mamiya
viewfinder/rangefinder are really poor (compared to, for example, the
Bronica R645), and outrigger viewfinders are completely hopeless with my
glasses. I'm not in love with the Mamiya 7. Except for the glass.

Now that I have a Canon 1Ds digital the Mamiya 7 is about the only reason
I'm
using film at all, since prints from 35 mm just can't keep up with the 1Ds
prints.

Yup. I can neither lift nor afford the 1Ds, so I'm waiting for the next (or
following) dSLR generation: 16MP full-frame 35 will be fun. But 6x7, even
cropped to the A-series proportions (1:1.414) is 5.0 square inches of film,
and that's a lot more detail at 13x19 and larger.

My problem with 6x7 is that for 1:1.414 prints, 6x9 is 6.6 square inches of
film. At 2400 dpi (about the limit for getting even close to dSLR quality
pixels from film) 6x9 (38MP) is almost as much more than 6x7 (29MP) as 6x7
is more than 645 (19MP).

Numbers: for 1:1.414 prints

Size | Area in2 | MP at 2400 dpi

35mm | 1.3 | 7.5MP
645 | 3.38 | 19MP
6x7 | 5.0 | 29MP
6x9 | 6.6 | 38MP

So for landscape sorts of things at 16x23 to 24 x 34, 6x9 will be a lot
better than 16MP digital. Assuming you can get reasonably sharp images
across the film.

Given the above numbers, I was considering picking up a used GW690III to
determine if it can cough up adequate edge-to-edge sharpness, but a quick
call to the "usual suspects" came up blank on used GW/GSW690s, but,
surprisingly, I found a place with a _new_ GSW690III. It's not the camera I
was planning on, and the price is over 50% more than the used price of the
camera I was planning on. So I'm being indecisive. And the amazing
performance of the Mamiya 7's 80/4.0 relative to the Fuji made that worse.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:


Heads up all you numbers jocks: Christopher M. Perez has added some new
test results to his MF tests page.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

Very depressing, since the two cameras I'm interested in ('flex with f/2.8
Xenotar and GW690) come out badly. Sigh.



My bet is there is something wrong with their sample of the fuji, like a
rangefinder is out of calibration which on a lens chart would be fatal.
Look at the numbers for the Plaubel when they moved the focus 5 inches, it
went from 45 lpmm to 85! Everyone I've ever talked to that owns or has used
any one of the fuji 6X7/6X9's raves about the glass. The GSW I have is
incredible. People may complain about other things but contrast and
sharpness aren't a problem! I sure wouldn't rule out one of these because
of one person's lens chart test.

http://www.camerareview.com/template...?camera_id=124

--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

Heads up all you numbers jocks: Christopher M. Perez has added some new
test results to his MF tests page.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

Very depressing, since the two cameras I'm interested in ('flex with
f/2.8
Xenotar and GW690) come out badly. Sigh.

Sorry: that should be "less than unexpectedly good", not "badly".

My bet is there is something wrong with their sample of the fuji, like a
rangefinder is out of calibration which on a lens chart would be fatal.
Look at the numbers for the Plaubel when they moved the focus 5 inches, it
went from 45 lpmm to 85! Everyone I've ever talked to that owns or has
used
any one of the fuji 6X7/6X9's raves about the glass. The GSW I have is
incredible. People may complain about other things but contrast and
sharpness aren't a problem! I sure wouldn't rule out one of these because
of one person's lens chart test.

Yes. I'm quite sure you are exactly right he his tests represent a lower
limit on what to expect. And there are sample-to-sample variations. And Fuji
is notorious for excessive contrast and resolution. (I'm more worried about
the Rollei Xenotar results.)

So I will be buying a GW690III if one crosses my path. My problem with the
GSW is that I'd rather a 55mm lens than a 65mm lens, and the lens is slow.
And it's US$1500 instead of US$900 (that's only because the only one of
these I could find was a new one.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:


So I will be buying a GW690III if one crosses my path. My problem with the
GSW is that I'd rather a 55mm lens than a 65mm lens, and the lens is slow.

65mm on 6X9 is WIDE. Strange as it sounds.. as the format gets larger, the
angle of view doesn't need to be as wide to -feel- wider. On my 8X10 even a
normal lens seems.... well it's hard to describe. Must be something about
the resolution? I know the 65mm on 6X9 seems at least as wide as 45mm on
6X6 does. Might be the details that the smaller formats can't resolve?

I'm not sure I'd be too worried about it being an f5.6 lens. It's pretty
good wide open and by f8 it's outstanding with f11 being the sweet spot
from my in field testing. Most wide shots are going to be shot at f8 or
smaller anyway, even if the camera had an f2.8 lens.

Then again you might like the 90mm version better, sometimes I wonder if I
wouldn't be happier with it.
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:


So I will be buying a GW690III if one crosses my path. My problem with the
GSW is that I'd rather a 55mm lens than a 65mm lens, and the lens is slow.

65mm on 6X9 is WIDE. Strange as it sounds.. as the format gets larger, the
angle of view doesn't need to be as wide to -feel- wider. On my 8X10 even a
normal lens seems.... well it's hard to describe. Must be something about
the resolution? I know the 65mm on 6X9 seems at least as wide as 45mm on
6X6 does. Might be the details that the smaller formats can't resolve?

Arithmetics supports your feelings. 6x9 (or 56x84mm) is exactly 7/3
times 24x36. Therefore 65mm for 6x9 is the equivalent of 28mm for 24x36.
Pretty wide.

If you use the proportion of the long side only, 65mm x (56/84) = 43mm
on 6x6.

-- Lassi

Wow. David. Thanks for pointing people to the latest updates.

What was disappointing about the results from the 2.8E1 Xenotar? I'll
bet it was the edge readings. Am I correct?

One of the things that I'm wondering is just how well early Rolleis keep
the film flat across the film plane. When I've used the specific test
sample in the real world, the edge resolution drop off is not as
apparent as the tests might indicate. 120 lpmm in the center isn't 1/2
bad either. Someone asked if I'd try the test again using a glass film
back. I don't have or use a glass back, so I'm somewhat stuck with the
results as reported.

Regarding the Fuji, I have traded emails off-line with folks about my
feelings concerning the mediocre test results. Compared to the Mamiya
7, the Fuji's RF patch is smaller and dimmer. Getting critical focus
was difficult the night Kerry and I tested the Fuji sample. Also, the
RF mechanism could have been within specification/tolerance, but may not
have been as accurate as the Mamiya 7.

For large format use, Fuji lenses are the most consistant in terms of
resolution and contrast of any of the manufacturers I've seen thus far.
I have no reason to believe that Fuji medium format lenses are any
different.

Regards - Chris


David J. Littleboy wrote:
Heads up all you numbers jocks: Christopher M. Perez has added some new test
results to his MF tests page.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

Very depressing, since the two cameras I'm interested in ('flex with f/2.8
Xenotar and GW690) come out badly. Sigh.

But the Mamiya 7's AMAZING! (I wonder how the 65mm lens does???)

Anyway, thanks to CMP for keeping up the good work!

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Christopher Perez" wrote:

Wow. David. Thanks for pointing people to the latest updates.

Thanks for doing that page: it's one of my favorite pages.

What was disappointing about the results from the 2.8E1 Xenotar? I'll
bet it was the edge readings. Am I correct?

Yup. I need my corners sharp since I mostly do landscape/cityscape things.
The center of the frame is the last place people's eyes would go looking at
my shots. (For example, I look at the Mamiya RZ 110/2.8 results and drool
(much preferable to the Hassy 80/2.8), while you're unimpressed and prefer
the Hassyg. (The Mamiya lens is as good at f/2.8 as the Hassy lens gets
anywhe that's "ultra high performance" in my book.))

One of the things that I'm wondering is just how well early Rolleis keep
the film flat across the film plane. When I've used the specific test
sample in the real world, the edge resolution drop off is not as
apparent as the tests might indicate. 120 lpmm in the center isn't 1/2
bad either. Someone asked if I'd try the test again using a glass film
back. I don't have or use a glass back, so I'm somewhat stuck with the
results as reported.

Regarding the Fuji, I have traded emails off-line with folks about my
feelings concerning the mediocre test results. Compared to the Mamiya
7, the Fuji's RF patch is smaller and dimmer. Getting critical focus
was difficult the night Kerry and I tested the Fuji sample. Also, the
RF mechanism could have been within specification/tolerance, but may not
have been as accurate as the Mamiya 7.

The GS645S rangefinder is pretty painful, too. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:

Stacey wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:


So I will be buying a GW690III if one crosses my path. My problem with
the GSW is that I'd rather a 55mm lens than a 65mm lens, and the lens
is slow.

65mm on 6X9 is WIDE. Strange as it sounds.. as the format gets larger,
the angle of view doesn't need to be as wide to -feel- wider. On my 8X10
even a normal lens seems.... well it's hard to describe. Must be
something about the resolution?

Arithmetics supports your feelings. 6x9 (or 56x84mm) is exactly 7/3
times 24x36. Therefore 65mm for 6x9 is the equivalent of 28mm for 24x36.
Pretty wide.



But it's more than the math would say looking at the prints. I've shot 28mm
on 35mm and the 65mm fuji -looks- wider in print even though the angle of
view is the same. It's got something to do with the extra resolution maybe?

--

Stacey