Which medium format system has the best glass?

[jeffrypittman]

I've used the Rollei TLRs, Rollei 6008i and 6008AF, and now use the Mamiya 7II. I've never had an opportunity to shoot

Hasselblad or the Mamiya RZ but they are, of course, outstanding. Just my observations on the Rollei 6008 vs Mamiya.

Both offer amazing glass. The real difference - and it is a huge difference - is in what you intend to use the system for.

The SLR systems provide a lot the range finders don't including much closer focusing on the telephoto lenses, the ability

to use extension tubes (macro or just to get even closer with your telephoto lenses) and more choices of glass. I prefer

the Mamiya (but really miss the Rollei 6008AF sometimes) rangefinder because I shoot a lot of street shots and

landscapes. This is where a light, quiet, easy to carry camera (with amazing glass) really shines. The Rollei is much

heavier and not nearly as in-obtrusive. The Rollei (and Hassy, RZ) would be better choices for studio and portrait work.

The glass is great in all the systems mentioned. You can check the charts for comparisons, but in practical use, the

results will be amazing when enlarged with all these systems (hey, the pros used to blow these up to billboard sizes).

Focus on getting the system that meets your needs.

[tonmestrom]

Mamiya has tack sharp lenses. Hasselblad does too but it's a bit "softer" which works out nice when doing portraits.

[george_schafer]

Yep, Pandora's box.

 

Thanks everybody! I always learn the most when I read threads like this.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Holga, without a doubt. Nothing else will produce such dreamy images.

[paul_gardener]

Holga:

 

 

http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/discus/messages/8/38601.jpg

[andrew_howes2]

Ellis, why would you choose RZ for portraits? I am not arguing, just curious as I am also pondering a MF camera for portraits only, mainly on location not studio. I want nice tones and flattering rather than ultimate sharpness and contrast. Have even considered going vintage. I have liked the look of portraits taken with the rz and pentax 67. I had an RZ with 110 f2.8 which I loved. I would actually prefer an RF but I may settle with an slr for convenience of use.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

The Mamiya 7 won't focus close enough for tight head shots. It is, however, a great camera for environmental portraits.

[philippartridge]

Well, this one went all over the place but it shows there is still a lot of interest in MF, unless we are just a bunch of old timers indulging in reminiscences of times gone by! Everyone has their favourites, one of mine that runs my Mamiya 7II lenses close is an unsung Fuji rangefinder lens, a tiny retractable metal tube enclosed thing, a 60mm f4 on the Fuji GA645.

[randall cherry]

In terms of image quality, the Mamiya 7 system has the best glass. The Mamiya optical engineers really took advantage of the inherent optical benefits of the mirror-less rangefinder system of the Mamiya 7 to produce the best lenses, when judged purely by image quality. Each lense in this is system is spectacular. Plus, the lack of mirror vibration further improves the image quality.

 

For ease of use, however, the rangefinder system has more than one inherent short comming. The main short commings include: 1) hard to precisely focus; 2) hard to frame close-up; 3) limited long focal length capability.

 

For landscape photography, the short commings of a rangefinder system can be accommodated and the Mamiya 7 is the best medium format camera for landscape work. For in-studio portraits, the limitations of the rangefinder system outweigh the advantages of the high quality lenses and the user would become very frustrated with a Mamiya 7.

 

JMHO.

 

--randall<div></div>

[bogdan_nicolescu]

My vote is for Mamiya 7 II, nice round system and excellent travel kit. M645 APO lenses are also great glass... I have no doubt that Zeiss lenses are great too but I didn't experience with them... Mamiya works just fine for me....<div></div>

[papy_g1]

Graham> My favourite system is Kiev modular (Salyut-K88), however I am aware of its lacks, and that it needs much time

for trial and error before going to serious shooting, so I tried to be objective and giving a complete answer regarding what

are the original contributor's needs.

[charleseagan]

I have purchased most of the Mamiya lenses for the 645 system, and they are razor sharp from edge to edge and extremely fast for a medium format system the 45, 55, 80, 110, & 150 mm lenses are all in the 2.8 range. And one 80 mm lens is 1.9. I have had excellent results, and the price is more than reasonable for these lenses. I have heard that the lenses perform as well or better than the ones used on hassleblad systems, but I'm sure that could be debated.

[q.g._de_bakker]

I think that this ("645 system") perhaps needs to be specified in more detail.<br>I have used the old, 'original'

Mamiya 645 system, and found the lenses decidedly less than excellent. The worst glass Mamiya offered. Still not

bad, but without doubt not as good as the lenses available for the Mamiya RB/RZ or the Zeiss lenses Rollei and

Hasselblad use.<br>I don't know about possible newer lenses that were made available for the newer Mamiya 645

systems though. Maybe they got better?

[jeff_drew4]

Medium format assumed "professional user" a few years ago and earlier. I have used most of the MF choices and formats. The lenses collectively were very good to excellent- no matter the brand. I think your biggest hurdle is deciding on fit and workflow! There are lots of choices of excellent glass and mechanics, so for me, it boils down to handling and workflow. IMHO, Value = Pentax and Precision = Zeiss. Everything in photography is based on compromise, but it's a great time to get a MF system!

[wai_leong_lee]

"For ease of use, however, the rangefinder system has more than one inherent short comming. The main short commings include: 1) hard to precisely focus; 2) hard to frame close-up; 3) limited long focal length capability."

 

(1) is weird. For many users of Leicas and other rangefinders, the ability to focus precisely is the reason to buy them over SLR's, esp. autofocus SLR's. Of course, it all depends on the rangefinder effective baselength, lens aperture and focal length, but within the design limits, focusing accuracy is generally more than SLR's.

 

(2) and (3) are of course the compromises one has to accept for RF photography.

[papy_g1]

Wai-Leong Lee> I can't see how a RF can focus more precisely than a SLR.

 

First, think about adjusting both, on a RF, the body/RF has to be adjusted, same goes for the Slr's body/ground glass,

but for the RF, then, lenses has to be adjusted to body too, not on the SLR.

 

Second, considering you have both side fully adjusted gear, on an RF, one can only focus precisely in the center of the

frame, and cannot preview the DOF, on an SLR, you can precisely focus almost anywhere in the frame, and also

preview the DOF (for sure, you have to get used to your ground glass type, but then, you can).

 

Three, because I anticipate another RF fan's preferred argument, I'll tell you: "Yes, it is no tale, full frame ground glass

SLR exists yet."

[wai_leong_lee]

In the 35mm world, Leica images are reputed to be tack sharp.

 

Ditto mamiya 6 and 7 images.

 

How would you explain that?

 

You can focus anywhere in the frame using an rf, same like you do with an slr. Just focus and recompose.

 

If you use a manual focus slr, you have to focus and recompose. If you use an autofocus slr with multiple focus points, hey-- did you know autofocus has tolerances too?

 

Dof is not an issue with rf's as the lenses come with dof markings. Frankly, I don't think many people use the dof preview on slrs as it really dims the image. It's really a landscape thing.

 

While it would be nice to adjust every lens to every body, there is no reqmt to do so to get sharp focus.

 

Else there would be armies of leica and other mf users up in arms.

 

There's studies on the focusing accuracy of autofocus slr vs rf and the finding is that beyond a certain focal length (90mm or so) the slr is more accurate, below that the rf is more accurate.

[charles_mason]

Simple answer to this--though it IS a toss up. Holga and Lubitel win it hands down!

[vijay_nebhrajani]

Wai-Leong,

 

Focusing and recomposing necessarily throws the subject out of focus. The extent of this varies with distance from center of frame. This sounds counter intuitive until you realize that lenses are designed to bring an entire plane into focus. Recomposing puts this plane behind the actual subject. The only saving grace is depth of field; and this tells you why the usage of long focus lenses on rangefinders is iffy at best.

 

Leica and Mamiya 7 users are not "up in arms" over this because this is a well known rangefinder limitation.

[wai_leong_lee]

I already stated clearly that with rf's, one accepts the limtations caused by baselength, focal length and aperture. But within those limits, where is your evidence that one can't focus precisely?

 

And more importantly, focusing and recomposing does not cause inaccuracies per se. If you have two subjects in different parts of the frame, you have to choose what you want in focus.

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<i>And more importantly, focusing and recomposing does not cause inaccuracies per se. </i>

<p>

Actually it is exactly per se that inaccuracy is introduced by focusing and recomposing. The rest of the system

could be absolutely perfect, with no errors at all, but the mere action of recomposing causes whatever you

focused on to go out of focus; the camera will (after recomposition) be focused at a distance greater than the

actual subject distance.

[vijay_nebhrajani]

Forgot to mention: This is also true for SLR users who focus and recompose using the central split prism or central microprism, or central AF sensor.

[wai_leong_lee]

"Actually it is exactly per se that inaccuracy is introduced by focusing and recomposing. The rest of the system could be absolutely perfect, with no errors at all, but the mere action of recomposing causes whatever you focused on to go out of focus; the camera will (after recomposition) be focused at a distance greater than the actual subject distance."

 

I don't agree. You're splitting hairs here. Swiveling the camera around the eye to focus on a subject that is a few mm off-centre of a 24x36 mm piece of film does not introduce such large focusing "inaccuracies", especially considering the angle of view of common lenses. If you have two objects in the frame, the centre object at 2.1m from you and the edge object at 2.05m from you, using a 50 mm lense it is not even likely that your focusing cam will allow you to differentiate the 5 cm difference.

 

Maybe if you are shooting macros 5 cm might make a difference but RF's are designed to do that so it's not an applicable example.

[papy_g1]

Wai-Leong> In the 35mm RF world, it is very common to take pictures to hyperfocal setting, or so and diaphragm at f8, I

have tack sharp pictures with Zenit 122 and helios 44 with such settings. And also, RFs are not this often used to take

close pictures, because of parallax, first, but it helps to obtain a better DOF not to take too close pictures.

 

I never focus in the center and recompose with my SLRs, just because of what Vijay explained, and I don't have to. That

kind of focussing/recomposing is a newbie error that you should figure out with just the first roll you make with your

camera.

 

I use an AF SLR (EOS 500) for everyday pics, and I know there is tolerances in this, but since I don't use fast lenses,

and not too opened, except in manual mode, I don't have too much pics to trash back from the lab.

 

You can't ignore DOF markings could be leaved to the manufacturer's fashion, but when you're used to a lens, it is

certainly at least a guide.

 

DOF preview is something very useful, although I must admit that dimmed light is a problem when I wear my glasses

and have to compose with prism viewfinder equipped camera.

 

Focussing device adjusting is the same with RF and SLR, it is usually considered as tolerable, even should you find one

especially well adjusted, except if you make comparative shots at short distances and wide opened.

 

I would be happy to know what focussing device was used on the SLRs in your studies, and not too much surprised if it

was RF splitted center, a fast but poor technique when it comes to precision.

 

So to get back into the subject, the sync cams between lens and RF can get wear from use, in an SLR, there is no

moving part that can cause such de-adjusting, and since we talk about used gear to be bought...

 

If you have two subject in different parts of the frame, there is much possibilities:

 

Both are in the same plane, you can focus both precisely and get a short DOF if you want.

 

Both are in different planes, you'll have to choose between focussing one and getting the other out of focus, or you can

focus between both, adjust DOF, and get both barely focussed.

 

You sound like you never used a SLR, I you were close to my location, I would have be happy to lend you one just for

you to see by yourself what it is all about.

[mervyn_wilmington]

This really has become the most silly string of replies that I have seen. As more than one member has commented, others would do well to concentrate on the question asked rather than indulge in tangential caprices. That assumes, of course, that there is a cogent answer, and that members have testing equipment available to provide more than empirical evidence.

 

I bought into the Bronica Etrsi system a year or two ago. Price was one consideration, but I relied on the views of Stewart Bell, who was a much respected reviewer for the Amateur Photographer. In a report in 1992 on the PE series lenses, after clinicial tests, in his conclusion, he said, "....At long last Bronica has come up with a set of lenses that match Hasselblad for image quality. Of course, Hasselblad owners enjoy the benefit of a large and diverse range of auxiliary and accessory items that the Bronica user does not........."

 

Notwithstanding, the qualification, what he said was good enough for me.

 

Perhaps some member with more time and discipline than I possess, might summarise the string on this subject? Whether we would then get a clear answer, would , I suspect, be doubtful.

 

Mervyn