Which medium format system has the best glass?

Mervyn,

 

The joy of internet forums is that threads do not stay on topic all the time. Sometimes that is bad, eg when people start sliming each other, things get personal, etc. Other times, the digressions take people into intellectual and stimulating directions.

 

It's up to you to think which direction these digressions have taken here.

 

I've enjoyed the discussion with Vijay so far because he has been courteous and to-the-point. I disagree with his views that "RF's cannot focus precisely like SLR's" and that RF's cannot focus accurately off-centre, but it's been a good exchange, no personal attacks.

Wai-Leong,

 

I'm not sure I want to further the problems that have been already been caused by responding to your posting, but I will say this. A forum should never be the place for personal attacks and abuse. Nor do I expect people to stay exactly on topic all the time, but there should be parameters. If they stray far, the issues become confused, and the essential question lost in a mire of tangents, possibly stimulating personal attacks and abuse.

 

Ultimately, a reasonably knowledgeable member, new to the string, should be able to read through it, and at the end feel that the question has been clearly and properly addressed. If the string does not achieve that with some cogency, the purpose has failed. I refer back to the last paragraph of my original email.

 

Mervyn

Mervyn> Original question has been well answered several times, IMHO.

 

Look at my first answer, isn't the ETRSI an in-lens shutter 6x6 or 6x4,5 SLR?

 

After usefull answers came some tangential strings, well, such tangents can't be handled by this forum, so where can we

expand in such discussions, that can eventually enclose more precisely the details on wich the OP will have to choose.

 

And as I saw exprimed views that are not mine, I came back to discuss it and give pros and cons I have on the subject.

Jerome,

 

I've used lots of SLR's, From Minolta Maxxum 7's to Hasselblads. I've also used lots of rangefinders, from M3 to M4 to M7 to ZI.

 

While it's true that many people use hyperfocal in RF's, it's also true that people enjoy using Noctiluxes at 1.0 or even 0.95 to get incredibly thin DOF images.

 

Focusing and recomposing is not a newbie error. How else can you focus on objects not in the centre of the frame if you have only a centre split prism?

 

To get back to the subject, if you want to compare two cameras, obviously you must compare two serviceable cameras. I don't get this obsession with saying that RF's can get out of adjustment. Sure, but that's what CLA's and adjustments are for. I could also talk about SLR lenses with back focus/front focus issues if you want.

Mervyn,

 

The discussion that I have been having with Wai-Leong is (perhaps obliquely) relevant to the original question. What is the point of good glass if you can't focus it well? Witness the Rollei FX; the Planar is great glass, some would say among the best of them all, but the viewfinder makes precise focus difficult to achieve, meaning you can't really get much benefit from that vaunted Planar.

 

Further, there are members on these fora that have testing equipment available; I am one who has electronic testing equipment available that I do use on occasion to test my cameras electronic functions. Other members may have optical testing equipment available as well. How is your statement that you bought Bronica based on someone's assertion that it has glass equivalent to Hasselblad helpful in the least, given that you performed no optical test on both systems to compare apples to apples? Please, these fora are for sharing experiences as well, and by belittling that of others you do no justice to your own.

 

In terms of a future user asking himself the same question, he would actually benefit from these tangential discussions, because they could bring up issues he never foresaw when asking the "Which MF system has the best glass?" question. If in your opinion this is silly then I fail to understand why you would participate in the silliness, thereby amplifying it.

Gentlemen (and perhaps ladies),

 

I am not seeking to belittle anyone's knowledge or expertise, nor did I suggest that every posting amounted to an

attack on another member. I said it was the string that was becoming silly. I have read the new contributions on a

daily basis, and I was simply giving alert to what I thought was a situation that weakened the quality of advice in

relation to the original poster's question. I thought that question was the paramount issue, and that there are other

ways of exercising conundrums.

 

Vijay says I had chosen to rely on another person's opinion, and yes, indeed, I did. It was a someone whose

equipment reports I had read over a number of years - especially in relation to optics - and who I had come to admire

because of his well respected expertise and objectivity - if you will forgive the pun!

 

If George Schafer, perhaps as a beginner, can now say he is wholly confident that he knows the way he should be

going in relation to his original question, then I bow in apology to any member I may have offended, however

slightly. If he isn't so confident, then perhaps someone could summarise the string so as to help him? I think it

would be beyond my skills.

 

Mervyn

Dear Mervyn and readers of this thread,

 

The TS already mentioned he was about to open Pandora's box. This thread has derailed seriously.

I have been called a liar by a certain gentleman with a better knowledge of photography than he has good manners.

 

The question is impossible to answer. I will not enter the discussion on focusing RF cameras. It is all useless.

Accept that photography as any other means to record is only partly a physical process and for the other part a craft with strong influences that you may call art.

The way humans register images, musical performances etcetera is strongly influenced by circumstances that have little to do with the things being registered.

Only a few professionally trained experts will have a chance to successfully analyse what is recorded and tell what means were used to record.

Those experts are the same that decide to use lens X or body Y to do their job.

It means they have to know the particular qualities and weak points of the gear they are using.

It also means they willfully influence the physical process to achieve their goals.

 

That part of their work is not easy to explain. Germans say "Fingerspitzengefühl"

Literally translated: the feeling at the tip of your fingers.

 

The sooner one accepts the limitations of the process the sooner it is possible to do a good job.

Maybe the new launched medium format LEE S2 system has the best glass? But, I personally doubt, that they are all "home made" at Solms!

 

Cheers

I must apologize to you all since I was wrong writing this terrible mistake:

 

"...in an SLR, there is no moving part that can cause such de-adjusting, and since we talk about used gear to be

bought..."

 

The mirror axle can wear, the mechanism putting the mirror in place has to do it over and over again and precisely where

it was when adjusted.

 

So for the precision of focussing in the center of the frame, let's say that with a serviceable gear, there will be close to

no differences between RF and SLR.

 

Wai-Leong> I'm impressed how with such experience in SLRs you never found that focussing was better after

composition, especially with uncentered subject.

 

Does people using Noctiluxes at 1 or 0,95 focus uncentered subjects before composing? Did you tried it by yourself?

 

If I only have a centre split screen on a camera, I don't use it for important pictures/keep it for backup/parts.

 

You're right, I was blinded in my obsession and wrote silly things.

Jerome,

 

You won't shoot off-centre subjects if you only have a centre-split screen? Well, it's your choice. I've done it many times with results I'm happy with by focusing and then recomposing, on both rf's and slrs.

I stand by my original assertion that the question is flawed. All this silliness because a newbie hasn't stated requirements for print size or system size and weight.