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 » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 16th 04, 04:20 AM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf

Bob Monaghan wrote:

Hi Gordon, some very interesting comments, thanks ;-)

. . . . . . . . 150mm lens

it isn't just the close focusing issue, which I agree with you can be
achieved by cropping. It is also that 150mm on MF 6x6cm equates to
90-105mm on 35mm SLR, which achieves the classic portraiture perspective;
using a wider lens can work with care, but the "big nose" effect is more
of a problem than with the short telephotos. It isn't just getting closer
to your subject jitters that makes the 150mm the classic MF portrait lens
;-)


Excellent point, and in consideration, then no rangefinder would ever work
for your needs. I think that the magnification, or base length would need to
be quite large, and that would eliminate having a compact camera. I suppose
something like goggles on the lens, or a screw on viewfinder magnifier are
options, though I have doubts that Mamiya or Bronica would ever make these.



I haven't had the $$ either to use/buy the Century Precision adapters for
movie work.


Someone else was paying the bills when I used those. I cannot afford those
either, though while using them, the results were mostly good. One issue with
one of the adapters is that it got loose on the mounting too often (could be
quality control). It would have been expensive to drop one.

The high cost of good examples like the Zeiss Mutars were what
led me to suggest that interchangeable lens front elements could be used
with very good results, sort of like interchanging filters, but with
thicker elements for the wide and telephoto variants. As we noted, this
was done in the past with Kodak Retina and Contaflex, and with modern
designs should be do-able again today ;-)


Though so far it seems that only a few large format lenses have
interchangeable elements.



the final reason why this hasn't been done is that too many folks are
happy with the existing offerings, esp. of low cost folders (ikonta/moskva
clones..) or rangefinders such as Mamiya 7/6 and bronica rf645. I also
think the bronica RF should have done better, and if they had opted to
tweak the bodies to match the 135mm lenses, it would have been sold as a
plus factor rather than the recall approach they took, leaving us without
a longer lens than 100mm ;-( Cropping from 6x7 and 6x9cm is pretty
forgiving, as you noted, so that can cover some of the tasks.


Agreed, and I think what some UK Bronica places did by offering adjusting to
match the 135 mm was a good solution. Unfortunately, Bronica did not follow
that idea in any other markets, though they did provide a conversion to match
the newer 100 mm. I wonder if the current cameras are still being produced,
or if they are just selling off an initial manufacturing run. If the latter,
then would they continue making the RF645?



So I should probably look for a better afocal telephoto adapter of 3X or
4X range for those admittedly infrequent shots (in which these telephoto
adapters incorporate a focusing setup, so what you see in focus thru the
adapter is what you get on the film ;-)


Or just two cameras. A small rangefinder for wide to normal (or short tele),
and an SLR for normal to tele. I don't think that is too much to carry,
perhaps with four lenses. Having used rangefinder cameras of various film
formats and sizes, I find that I usually want normal to short tele lenses for
these, so I guess my needs could be met by current offerings.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

  #62  
Old May 16th 04, 10:38 AM
Q.G. de Bakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf

Gordon Moat wrote:

What do you mean, "most of the square images get cropped anyway"?


Usage patterns, in that there are not many square images that get printed,

at
least in publications. Of course, there are some that only do square image
prints, so again this is over-generalized. i don't think it is possible to
state anything on this news group without someone refuting it, however, at

some
point assumptions need to be made for point of argument, or just to try to

make
a point.


Supplying square originals results in square pictures in print.
I strongly believe that the majority of images in magezines etc. being
rectangular is the result of more photographers using rectangular formats to
begin with, and is not because there is some preference for, or even "law"
prescribing the use of rectangular images.
So yes, i contest the "square images get cropped" assertion.

I feel that I have not stated this well enough. Let's try: . . . with the
larger than 35 mm film area, and great modern emulsions, cropping is one

great
creative tool. Using that tool of cropping ability, one can accomplish
particular desired framing or coverage in the final printed image by

cropping.
Obviously, if one only accepts the absolute maximum extent of quality in a
system, then cropping could be an unacceptable option. I don't have any
problems cropping an image, so I choose to use cropping as a creative

choice.

Yes, cropping can be (!) used to improve the composition.
That's true for square and non-square formats alike, is it not? Not
something done "especially" with square formats.

The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to

end
up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format.
And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in
square mm/inches. The more the better.


Obviously, but I am not against cropping a few millimetres to get a

different
end composition. There is a group of photographers that do not believe in

using
cropping, but I am not one of them. Also, I have never cropped any medium
format film down to 35 mm size, nor even close to it. In fact, it is tough

to
use much of any cropping with 35 mm film, so framing tends to be much more
exacting requirements to maintain the more limited quality, not that I am
advocating sloppy framing for medium format.


Then i really can't understand why you advocate cropping over the use of
long(er) lenses.
"Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
(???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an
80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less
than 35 mm format.
It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses".
Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller than
35 mm format???



  #63  
Old May 17th 04, 01:40 AM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .
Obviously, if one only accepts the absolute maximum extent of quality in a
system, then cropping could be an unacceptable option. I don't have any
problems cropping an image, so I choose to use cropping as a creative

choice.

Yes, cropping can be (!) used to improve the composition.
That's true for square and non-square formats alike, is it not? Not
something done "especially" with square formats.


Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a
crop. This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on
this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a difference
of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other.



The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to

end
up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format.
And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in
square mm/inches. The more the better.


Obviously, but I am not against cropping a few millimetres to get a

different
end composition. There is a group of photographers that do not believe in

using
cropping, but I am not one of them. Also, I have never cropped any medium
format film down to 35 mm size, nor even close to it. In fact, it is tough

to
use much of any cropping with 35 mm film, so framing tends to be much more
exacting requirements to maintain the more limited quality, not that I am
advocating sloppy framing for medium format.


Then i really can't understand why you advocate cropping over the use of
long(er) lenses.


If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would be
helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice. Now if one always found
that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the
time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be better
served by using a system that more closely matched their desired compositions.


"Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
(???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an
80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less
than 35 mm format.


Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF 100
mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image (more
than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape (horizontal)
format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance, gives
a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image to
the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be cropped
to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small, but
it is hardly 35 mm.

However, here is the interesting part about this, the closest focusing on the
100 mm is 1.2 metre, while the Bronica SLR 150 mm only close focuses to 1.5
metres. The reason this is relevant is that Bob M. and I were discussing this
exact scenario, and reference to the Bronica RF 645. To the credit of the
ETRSi, there are longer lenses, and there are some extension tubes available to
get an even tighter head shot on the full frame of film, so I still think the
SLR is a better choice for head (and shoulders) photos, and this only shows
that it is possible to do the occasional head shot using the RF645. It might be
possible to find other 645 SLR systems that can focus closer using a 150 mm,
and without resorting to extension tubes, making them even better choices. If I
had many tightly framed head shots to do, the RF 645 is probably the last
camera I would choose.

The Mamiya 7 II is the other current model medium format rangefinder, and
offers a 150 mm lens, though it is a 6x7 camera. The RB/RZ 67 would be the
obvious comparison, though the focusing mechanism on these SLR cameras already
allows for very close range photos, and tight compositions. Clearly, either an
RB67 or RZ67 will allow for tighter head shots. The close focus ability of the
Mamiya 7 150 mm f4.5 is only 1.8 metre, which is not really very close in
comparison to the .82 metre closest focus ability of the RB 150 mm. Even here,
some slight cropping would be needed to match the SLR lens at closest distance,
though much more (in area and percentage) than in the 645 example above. Again,
I think a Mamiya 7 is a poor choice for tightly framed head shots.


It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses".
Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller than
35 mm format???


Why ask a question when you already know the answer? I expected better of you.

Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only answer.
Cannot get close enough to the subject, but still want a tight shot, then SLR.
Want a really tight framing of a subject, or even a macro image, then use an
SLR. In fact, nearly every photographer desiring these types of shots is better
served by an SLR, and when I do tight head shots, guess what . . . I use an
SLR. Want to use long lenses, or really feel the need to use long lenses . . .
.. . get an SLR.

My photography is not only tight head shots. I also have the "luxury" of being
able to get close to my subjects, making my longest lens a 300 mm, and that one
rarely gets used. In fact, short telephoto and normal focal ranges are my most
used lenses, in medium format, large format, and in 35 mm gear. The type of
imagery I do could be done only on rangefinders, and I do own a few, but most
of my photography is done using SLR cameras.

The discussion Bob M. and I were having brought up medium format rangefinder
cameras, since they are often more compact and light weight than medium format
SLRs. Tight head shots are an obvious shortcoming of rangefinder systems,
unless you ad weird devices like goggles and rangefinder magnifiers. Within
reason, one can get closer to a tighter shot by cropping a little, and even
with cropping, starting off with a larger film frame would be better. There are
some slight advantages to rangefinder cameras, and those few advantages are the
only reason to use them instead of using an SLR. All rangefinder cameras sell
poorly in comparison to SLR cameras, so the best choice for most photographers
seems to be . . . get an SLR.

If you are interested in some wonderful software, that I used for doing the
comparisons, there is a camera and lens calculation program called "pCAM" for
the PalmOS. I have version 1.95, available from http://www.davideubank.com.
You can use it to compare several lenses, and many film frame sizes, including
DOF, FoV, distance computations, image preview, etc. Easy to use too.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

  #64  
Old May 17th 04, 04:08 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?


quoting Gordon's thoughtful posting:

Or just two cameras. A small rangefinder for wide to normal (or short
tele), and an SLR for normal to tele. I don't think that is too much to
carry, perhaps with four lenses. Having used rangefinder cameras of
various film formats and sizes, I find that I usually want normal to short
tele lenses for these, so I guess my needs could be met by current
offerings.
endquote:

Multiple cameras, what I call "mix and match" to get the best out of each
format, is the only thing that works for me too. But my lens use is
strange ;-) I have gotten into the habit of carrying my panoramic veriwide
100 for 18mm equiv. on 35mm panoramic 6x10cm shots 'cuz it is book sized
and compact and only 2 lbs. For shooting birds around the lake, I'm using
35mm with 500mm T-mount (unscrews in half for carrying compactly). This is
for a lakeside walkabout I do alot, so missed shots will come around
again. I usually have a normal lens with me too, for light weight and low
cost speed lens.

When I am shooting cityscapes, I find very wide angles handy, adding a
superwide hassy or 14mm for nikon etc. I experimented with a hassy ELM and
250mm lens with radio control for remote telephotography of birds, but too
much hassle and time consuming. But these 250mm lenses on 'blad and kowa
6/66 do very well at the local wild parks and zoo with the tamer and
bigger critters there ;-)

So I guess the good news is that I have an excuse for having all this
stuff, because what I like to photograph varys a lot, and I make up the
kit I need to match. But that does make it very hard to conceive a single
camera kit that would match my needs, esp. when traveling light. As you
noted, it is easy to crop out needed shots with the veriwide 100 panoramic
from 6x10cm- film area, and there aren't many wider angle non-swing lenses
on MF cameras ;-) The hassy SWC/M is a nice travel camera too, but a lot
of $$, and not near as wide (24mm equiv. horiz. on 35mm vs. 18mm on
veriwide 100). But the biogon hassy can be used at any speed even wide
open, while the veriwide wants to be shot at f/16 for best results ;-)

=====

yes on other good points short focusing limitations on the MF RFs
too. I did manage to get an excellent buy on the 135mm for koni omega
RO200 6x7cm RF, which has the best close focusing distance of the bunch.
Paradoxically, it was only made for a few years, and so is rarer and
pricey as the wedding types favoring KO kits use it a lot for portraits

This is also a reason I am promoting third party lenses, specifically the
Kiron/Vivitar Series I early lenses on my website (medfmt.8k.com/third)
because those lenses, while heavier than modern optics, had great close
focusing distances, esp. the telephotos and longer zooms. Ditto many prime
lenses offer superior close focusing distances (e.g., 28mm f/2.8) over the
settings for many zooms (e.g., 28-300mm ;-), a difference of inches vs ft!

bronica rf645?
Hard to predict what will happen with Tamron/Bronica's future offerings;
the problem with dropping the RF645 is that they have lots of $$ invested
in brand new tooling and lens/camera R&D. They aren't recouping it with
the kinds of discounts they are giving out; as I noted in another thread,
B&H had a $450 mfgers rebate on the basic camera kit, dropping it to just
over $1,100 US$. Will Bronica end up a casualty of the medium format
market fall in the digital era? I do think they could and should have
followed the Tamron/UK approach of trying to make your camera body work
with your lens, but probably the profitability vs. cost of that approach
was problematic, esp. with owners underserved by local support services?

For a company that primarily makes their money on lenses, Tamron/Bronica
has not put the $$ into Bronica lens development that I had hoped. As I
noted in reviewing the GS1 6x7 SLR, it is a great camera for many users,
but the lack of many lens offerings and high cost of existing lenses vs.
competitors like Mamiya RZ67 have made it less of a success in the market
than it deserves (see GS1 case study http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/system.html )

This is a dicey time for MF mfgers; a market demand shortfall of major
proportions, rapid change in the digital end, lack of large low cost
digital chips (16MP and esp. 32MP and 64 MP) for digital MF cameras to
respond to the 35mm challenges etc. and huge costs in R&D for modern AF
MF cameras of uncertain sales potentials, as well as strong entrenched
competitors with deep pockets vs. innovative mfgers with thinner $$
backing. Should be a great case study for business schools in a few years
;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #65  
Old May 17th 04, 07:10 PM
Q.G. de Bakker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf

Gordon Moat wrote:

Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a
crop.


So why did you mention 6x6 format specifically?

This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on
this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a

difference
of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other.


Hmm... This also proves the point that sometimes much nonsense is produced.
;-)

If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would

be
helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice.


Duh! "If no longer lens was available" is your excuse for wondering why
people use long lenses that *are* available???

Now if one always found
that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the
time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be

better
served by using a system that more closely matched their desired

compositions.

Yes...
And if the moon was made of cheese it would go good with crackers. ;-)
You seem to be forgetting that we two are discussing your assertion that
using long(er) lenses (you know, the ones available) is somewhat of a
questionable practice.

"Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
(???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by

an
80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something

less
than 35 mm format.


Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF

100
mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image

(more
than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape

(horizontal)
format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance,

gives
a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image

to
the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be

cropped
to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small,

but
it is hardly 35 mm.


No, it isn't. But that is a conveniently chosen example.
Have another look at mine. It is about the same practice you advocate over
the use of long lenses. You do end up using less film than 35 mm format.
You may say that that too is a conveniently chosen one. But it's not
unrealistic, is it?

[...]

It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses".
Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller

than
35 mm format???


Why ask a question when you already know the answer? I expected better of

you.

Ah, but i wasn't asking a question. I was expressing my lasting surprise
about the thing you put forward.

Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only

answer. [...]

Is it about SLR vs RF now?
I was sure you did not understand why people used long lenses, i.e. you
believed people could well do without. And that you thought 6x6 cm format
got cropped anyway.

Anyway. ;-)


  #66  
Old May 18th 04, 11:36 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF? Focal vs. leaf

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a
crop.


So why did you mention 6x6 format specifically?


It is the only current square format, and few square images are in current
printed publications. Perhaps that means that most printed matter comes from
rectangular formats, or it could mean that it came from cropped square format.
Perhaps I was going out on a limb supposing that 6x6 shots got cropped into
rectangular compositions, and instead there is little current 6x6 usage,
meaning the remaining rectangular images in publication came from rectangular
format cameras. Only a statistician can solve this one, so I will leave it
alone.



This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on
this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a

difference
of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other.


Hmm... This also proves the point that sometimes much nonsense is produced.
;-)


Glad you agree. ;-)



If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would

be
helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice.


Duh! "If no longer lens was available" is your excuse for wondering why
people use long lenses that *are* available???


If I need a longer lens, and I don't own one, then I rent one. If I had a
system that was at the longest lens limit, and needed even longer, then my
choice would be to rent a different system with longer lens choice. If I still
find myself at the longest lens limit, then I have no choice but to crop, or
not take the photo. Of course, given a chance for a photo, and no long lenses
immediately available, would someone be better off skipping taking the photo,
or cropping it later to a better composition?



Now if one always found
that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the
time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be

better
served by using a system that more closely matched their desired

compositions.

Yes...
And if the moon was made of cheese it would go good with crackers. ;-)


Must have been watching too much Wallace & Grommit. ;-)


You seem to be forgetting that we two are discussing your assertion that
using long(er) lenses (you know, the ones available) is somewhat of a
questionable practice.


I never meant to imply that. Long lenses can be inconvenient due to cost or
size (weight), but if that is the only way to get particular images, then that
is the only choice. My assertion was that some people made comments about some
lenses not being long enough, which might imply that the usage of shorter
lenses was a questionable practice, though you read that the opposite
direction.

Let's back up to the Bob M. statistics about lenses. While I will not judge the
accuracy of his figures, it is interesting that the normal focal length lens
for a given medium format system is the most common lens, and quite often the
only lens owned. Both of us know people who do not fit that pattern, though it
makes one wonder how some people accomplish so many different compositions with
only one lens. Using just a normal lens, one needs to be closer to a subject to
get a tight head shot. The limits of close focus for some systems limits how
close, and the comfort of the subject with that closest distance is another
consideration. A longer lens with similar closest focusing distance could allow
a tightly framed composition, or alternatively, the photographer could put more
distance between the subject and the camera. I like having that longer distance
most of the time, which I feel allows a comfortable working distance, though
obviously all situations and photographers can differ in this regard. I have
also done fairly close distance images, some of which are very tightly framed
images.



"Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
(???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by

an
80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something

less
than 35 mm format.


Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF

100
mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image

(more
than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape

(horizontal)
format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance,

gives
a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image

to
the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be

cropped
to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small,

but
it is hardly 35 mm.


No, it isn't. But that is a conveniently chosen example.


Thank you, I was trying to be careful about that. ;-)

I should point out that the mention of the RF645 was one item that Bob M. and I
specifically discussed, so I felt a closer examination was a good choice. Bob
M. mentioned the desire to use a 150 mm, and the RF645 only has a 100 mm
(though a 135 mm was briefly available). Also interesting is that a comparison
with the RF 135 mm lens would have shown that lens to have an even tighter
composition than the 150 mm at closest distance.


Have another look at mine. It is about the same practice you advocate over
the use of long lenses. You do end up using less film than 35 mm format.
You may say that that too is a conveniently chosen one. But it's not
unrealistic, is it?


To put this to a point, I "advocate" the use of long lenses. I also "advocate"
cropping as a creative tool. I "deride" the non-usage of normal to short
telephoto lenses due only to considerations of tight composition. I
"understand" it is not always possible, nor desirable, nor comfortable, for a
photographer to be physically at a close distance to their subject, though I
further "deride" the non-acceptance of that as a valid technique.

While we could both come up with many unrealistic examples (and I thought 80 mm
compared to 150 mm was unrealistic), the current reality of imagery is that
nearly anything goes. Both of us have likely seen large prints from truly small
sensor direct digital cameras, prints from pinhole cameras, and unusual usage
of various formats and films, both in publications, and in galleries. The vast
acceptance of direct digital images, and small image files, has made many
formats acceptable. While it use to be the situation that few professionals
used smaller than medium format gear, it is less common for publications, art
directors, and galleries to deride (or dismiss) the usage of smaller formats,
smaller crops, or even smaller digital sensors . . . anything is valid today.

Have you ever tried to crop an image to a small area? Do you crop at all? I am
not trying to push towards a "crop every shot, because your gear is too short"
approach, and I never intended for anyone to think that. I also do not want
anyone to get the idea that "cropping is evil, and should not be done".


. . . . . . . .

Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only

answer. [...]

Is it about SLR vs RF now?


Actually, yes. That is what Bob M. brought up about wanting a compact camera
for medium format, and that led our discussion (Bob M. and I) onto rangefinder
(and folder) cameras. Bob M. expressed his dislike for some newer rangefinder
cameras due to the lack of longer lenses, and sighted the example of wanting a
645 format that could use a 150 mm lens (or even a 6x6 that could use a 150 mm
lens). While I could have mentioned the Mamiya 6, it is not a currently sold
camera, and there are some aspects of it that I do not like much.


I was sure you did not understand why people used long lenses, i.e. you
believed people could well do without. And that you thought 6x6 cm format
got cropped anyway.


So, we are left with lots of writing. Perhaps somewhere in all this interchange
between both of us, there is some understanding for others, or at least things
to ponder. If my lack of eloquence, or writing ability, has left some doubt, I
do apologize in advance. We are here to share and learn.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

  #67  
Old May 19th 04, 12:33 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default normal lens biggest seller surprise convertible lens RF?


Gordon cited my continuing surprise at the relatively low sales of
accessory lenses for both 35mm RF/SLR and medium format SLR cameras, based
on Rick Nordin's figures for Hassy C lens sales (over half were the 80mm
normal lens - amazing!) and only 2.3 lenses sold for SLRs per JCIA stats
(for japanese made SLRs including those in Chinese and other overseas
factories). The situation is evidently similar for Leica M mount lenses by
Leica per study of their body and modest M-lens sales figures.

It appears that the majority of camera owners have only the original
camera kit lens. I also infer that the situation is similar with accessory
backs for interchangeable back SLRs etc.

In other words, lots of buyers are paying for features like
interchangeable lens mounts and interchangeable backs (in MF) and then
never using these features.

This is one reason, I think, that the basic TLR does so well as an entry
level MF camera - it is light, compact, often cheap for quality of lenses,
relatively inconspicuous, nifty and a classic camera design, and many MF
SLR owners only have one lens anyway, so the TLR entry level user is able
to make many of the same images just as well ;-)

I agree with many of Gordon's comments (and QGdB's ;-) on lenses, but will
add that you can do a lot with the "wrong" or non-ideal lens.

I once did a 10,000+ mile bus trip around the USA on an Ameripass in which
I grabbed the wrong camera bag in my early morning bleery-eyed departure.
I ended up with a 24mm lens instead of the short zoom I had planned.

I still managed to take a number of up close and personal environmental
portraits (with surprisingly little facial distortion if you shoot
mid-body) and similar photos in which the very wide angle nature of my one
optic on the trip was not as obvious as I had feared ;-) The close
focusing capabilities of the 24mm was surprisingly useful, though I still
missed the macro option ;-) The very wide angle was quite useful in many
shooting situations where a 28mm would have been not wide enough...

One result of the trip was my recommendation to do short local trips with
different lenses, preferably with one lens on each walkabout, forcing you
to fully explore what each lens can do under many situations.

I think past amateurs were better aware of their lens capabilities, due to
having only a few in hand, than many of us with a dozen or more optics in
our camera kits? ;=)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #68  
Old May 20th 04, 07:37 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default normal lens biggest seller surprise convertible lens RF?

Bob Monaghan wrote:

. . . . . . .

I agree with many of Gordon's comments (and QGdB's ;-) on lenses, but will
add that you can do a lot with the "wrong" or non-ideal lens.


Just to get back into the leaf shutter and ideal compact camera discussion,
it seems that neither of us discussed the Mamiya 6 much at all. That one did
have a 150 mm lens, though I am not sure about the closest focus ability. The
collapsing front made it somewhat more compact than a Mamiya 7. Any thoughts?



...

One result of the trip was my recommendation to do short local trips with
different lenses, preferably with one lens on each walkabout, forcing you
to fully explore what each lens can do under many situations.


I usually only do that when I am testing a lens, though sometimes it is just
a good exercise. The one lens limit is fun to try sometimes, but I don't
think I could sell off many lenses and keep just one. Considering how many
lenses you have, I would be surprised if you found a way to cut down. ;-)



I think past amateurs were better aware of their lens capabilities, due to
having only a few in hand, than many of us with a dozen or more optics in
our camera kits? ;=)


I once had only two camera bodies (35 mm), each with one lens. It was
definitely a limited set-up, but I was able to accomplish a great deal.
Unfortunately, what led to more lenses was dissatisfaction with some results,
or some situations in which I would just not take a shot at all due to an
inappropriate lens. I sort of envy those few professionals that have been
able to limit themselves and their photos to mostly one lens.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

  #69  
Old May 21st 04, 07:56 AM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default normal lens biggest seller surprise

from Danny Gonzalez's hands-on reviews of medium format cameras
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html and page go2.html#mamiya6

Disadvantages: (of Mamiya 6 RF)

Very expensive.
Limited close focusing ability (esp. w/ 50 and 150mm lenses).
Lenses aren't fast.
System is limited.
Resale values are low.
Focus is finicky with the 150mm
Metering with earliest 6 models tends towards underexposure because of
poor in-finder baffling (improved on later production runs and all 6MF's)

=====

the optics, per many users and tests (C. Perez etc.) are very good, but as
usual most RF in MF poop out on close focusing ;-( You can get around it
with fractional diopter + lenses for portraits and wire frame and +4 etc.
magnifier diopters for flower shots, but in a multi-kilobuck system with
high end optics, that rather defeats the purpose of the high $ optics? ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #70  
Old May 21st 04, 09:40 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default normal lens biggest seller surprise

Bob Monaghan wrote:

from Danny Gonzalez's hands-on reviews of medium format cameras
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html and page go2.html#mamiya6

Disadvantages: (of Mamiya 6 RF)

Very expensive.
Limited close focusing ability (esp. w/ 50 and 150mm lenses).
Lenses aren't fast.
System is limited.
Resale values are low.


Which should imply low cost used . . . . .


Focus is finicky with the 150mm


Apparently the rangefinder base is not enough. Surprisingly, I have heard a
bit of the same complaint about the 150 mm for the Mamiya 7, including a
limited close focus.


Metering with earliest 6 models tends towards underexposure because of
poor in-finder baffling (improved on later production runs and all 6MF's)

=====

the optics, per many users and tests (C. Perez etc.) are very good, but as
usual most RF in MF poop out on close focusing ;-( You can get around it
with fractional diopter + lenses for portraits and wire frame and +4 etc.
magnifier diopters for flower shots, but in a multi-kilobuck system with
high end optics, that rather defeats the purpose of the high $ optics? ;-)


It just really makes me wonder why the things Leica has created for macro,
close focus, and rangefinder magnification have not been adopted by Mamiya,
nor Bronica. In the older rangefinder cameras of the past, like Contax and
Kodak Retina, there were several different solutions for close focus, or
macro imagery. Surely there must be some expired patents that could be
revived.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

 




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
Formula for pre-focusing Steve Yeatts Large Format Photography Equipment 9 June 22nd 04 02:55 AM
zone system test with filter on lens? Phil Lamerton In The Darkroom 35 June 4th 04 02:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 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.