"Marflex Magic"!

[richard_boulware]

Recently, I was using my 75mm Biogon (third and final production run

of the 75mm Biogon on a FLAT lens board)...and decided to use it hand

held. I borrowed a genaric 75mm Linhof cam to run some tests and

discovered that by sliding the top section of the bed back into the

rear and locked position (N-1)could focus the Biogon at

infinity...but that the cam was ground so that at closer focusing the

error in the range finder became exponentially inaccurate.

 

I called Martin Arndt, the president and "Chief Magician" at Marflex,

and asked him if he, and Krikor, could cut a Linhof cam so it would

line up with the infinity stops that were already calibrated for the

150mm Linhof Symmar...without moving the infinity stops.

He replied..."Sure".

 

SURE ENOUGH!...the lens and Technika V came back in record time and I

spent yesterday afternoon checking the GG and RF sync. DEAD ON. Using

a pinpoint light source I checked the focus at distances from six

feet to infinity. Testing showed that the RF cam was slightly more

accurate that GG focusing with a 6X loupe. Amazing.

 

Checking the genaric cam with the one ground by Marflex, the

appearence is identical...until I checked the two cams with a digital

micrometer. Variations were measured in four decimal places.

 

This should be a 'heads up' for those why buy genaric Linhof cams

thinking that they will work on any lens of a specific focal length.

Not so. Save your money.

 

If you want dead on accuracy...let Martin and Krikor cut you one and

they will stamp the matching serial number on the cam.

 

Nice to know that the precision of the Linhof Technika is matched by

the skill of dedicated technicians like Martin and Krikor at Marflex.

[ed_balko3]

They're equally competent with the care and feeding of Rolleiflex TLR's.

[bob haight]

I can only say great things about the service and abilites of Marflex. Truly a pleasure to deal with.

[mclaine]

Richard, have you done any resolution tests with your Biogon? <p><p>I recently acquired one as part of a virtually unused 1976 Tech V kit. I know the 75mm Biogon has a legendary reputation, but I'm wondering about real results. There is very little info about this lens on the web. Mine is virtually unused since new. I've so far only exposed a handful of negs with it, and I'd be interested if you have an opinion of yours yet?<p><p> I've yet to shoot any negs I'd care to enlarge, but there are examples <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1394331">here, </a>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1395914">here, </a>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1383573">and here. </a>

<p><p>

 

I intend to use it mainly for wilderness photography, but it is a bit big for backpacking!<p><p>

BTW, mine came with a matched factory cam.

<p><p>

Cheers,

[matthew_brain]

John,

 

I have put your biogons lens test results up with some other lenses that I tested of yours and mine for interest as a new post.

 

Richard, I assume you tested the cam vs the ground glass on film (or how else could you say the cam was more accurate than the ground glass). Will you get marflex to recalibrate your ground glass?

 

I have as you know been a proponent of non factory matched cams. I have never said that for critical focussing they were as good but in my opinion (and more importantly to me, for my style of shooting) depth of field from optimal aperture more than covers any minor difference (and I also agree that if the difference was not minor - and it is a risk - then I would not use a cam with a said lens).

 

If I was doing sports photography with a linhof, and fast apertures then correct camming would be critical however only a select group of lenses such as you biogon and a planar are sharp at fast apertures.

 

If I was hand holding a biogon I would be more worried about camera shake (that is about 2.2kg for the camera and 1.3kg for the lens) then critical rangefinder focussing.

 

I guess my point is, if you run most lenses at their optimal aperture and your cam is pretty close to the ground glass be happy - unless you have a need for that sort of accuracy, DOF will cover it. Personally I would use a MF SLR if i needed fast critically focussed large pictures. There is also of course the school of thought that you should superglue all your shutters to their optimum aperture and only focus at infinity of the sharpest photos.

 

To summarize, if you need critical focussing use a groundglass. If you like using a viewfinder to frame your shots, use the rangefinder with a cam that is well matched to your lens. If you regularly need a perfectly focussed single subject that is on a vertical plane at a constant distance from the camera, then send your cam to marflex.

 

Matt

[richard_boulware]

John McLaine: To answer your question...yes, the 75mm Biogon is an amazing lens, especially if you consider when it was produced.

 

As you will see in an older post of mine, I did check the Biogon with a brand new Grandigon-N 4.5! The Grandigon-N is a superb lens, but the Biogon is a VERY close second. I shot USAF lens test charts as well as real world views. Film was examined under my 20X binocular medical microscope.

 

If I needed to often use front-stand movements, I might use the Grandigon-N...but I don't. I sold the new Grandigon-N and kept the Biogon. I really like it.

 

I am a professional shooter, and only test lenses when I first get them, so I can feel confident with the len's performance and then I go on to the really important business of making good pictures. Clients are totally unforgiving when a photog says..it wasn't my fault...it was the camera or lens.

 

Be well...Richard. P.S. If your primary shooting is landscapes and you back pack a lot....choose a lighter weight lens than the Biogon.

[richard_boulware]

Matthew Brain: Dear Mr. Brain. No, I am not aware of any proclivity of yours to use genaric, non matched focusing cams. Frankly, I don't know you from a hole in the wall.

 

I am an award winning professional photographer who has come back out of early retirement to re engage in professional photography...to both my delight and some of my clients, too. I am not a photo 'techno-geek'! I thoroughly test new equipment, and move on to the more important task of making good pictures...

 

The tests I did with 75mm Linhof cam, actually were done with two Linhof 75mm cams, each serial numbered. I too..thought I might be able to 'get by'....by using your flawed logic of "DOF will take care of it."

 

I learned that my hopes were unfounded...as are yours. Test prooved that thesis.

 

Before I had Marflex cut my new matched cam, I tested both of the mismatched Linhof 75mm cams. At infinity,(a 1000' tall radio tower with pinpoint lights..three miles distant) the first cam was dead on at infinity, and the second nearly so. As I focused at about 200' the error in the RF window began to be out of sync. At 50' the error was (estimated) at least 50%. At 20' the RF viewfinder would not even show two images in the eyepiece.

 

Lenses are like "Twin brothers". They may look the same to the eye, but each will have different personalities. Lenses are the same. I have seen this over and over again in my 40 year career since graduating from Art Center (BFA '67) and entering professional photography.

 

I'll overlook your slightly sarcastic comment about having my camera back calibrated by Marflex. Two years ago, when I had six lenses camed and calibrated, Marflex checked my back on a Linhof factory instrument, before calibration for the cams. This is standard procedure...when new matching cams are cut. That is one of the things included in the cost of cams. Think about it! Why would Marflex attempt to cut a cam on a Super Technika or Master Technika camera back unless they had a factory reference point, that it IS in compliance with Linhof factory specs. Krikor at Marflex has a special device to do this.

 

My test to double check the RF with the GG was done using a tiny light source. A tiny bulb with two filaments that hold the glowing wire that produces the light. This mini Maglite burns continiously when you unscrew the reflector head assembly. It is a superb near point light source. This light source is superb for RF focusing as the image is either superimposed or NOT. It is harder to focus this image on the GG because a good loupe powerful enough will confuse the grain of the GG with the target image.

 

In my test, shooting film with GG focusing only and in comparison with using the RF with the NEW Marflex cam, clearly showed that at distances up to 20 feet, the RF focused image could clearly show the double posts of the interior of the tiny bulb with is about 1/4' Long by about 1/16th" wide...and clear. The same shot using only GG focusing technique, could not be accurate enough to discern the twin posts within the light bulb envelope.

 

Images were evaluated under a 20X binocular medical microscope that I own.

 

I'll grant you that the cams for lens longer than 150mm might be more accurate, as the angle of the bed cam is not as radical as the 75mm cam which approaches 45 degrees to the centerline of the camera and front focusing bed.

 

By the way the Linhof Super Technika or Master Technika RF coupling arms are designed,..any error is exponential. Like light falling off my the square of the foot.

 

It is your choice to use non matched cams and I wish you well. I would then ask the question..."If you are going to use your RF for focus...why bother using your RF at all, if it not dead on?"

 

I'm IN this business. I'm only as successful as my last job. I can't affort to serve my clients best interest by being 'penny wise and dollar foolish'. Sharp is sharp..PERIOD. I test new equipment so I can have confidence in my equipment...and then forget equipment, and get on to the much more important item of making fine photographs. My

clients demand no less.

 

Be well....and with respect. Richard Boulware

 

 

[matthew_brain]

Richard,

 

Sorry for assuming any familiarity but we have discussed this topic before. I would not know you from a hole either.

 

Thank you for explaining your test method - you have explained why the cam was more accurate for that method. My point still remains, a non-matched cam can be very close BY CHANCE to what a lens requires - the opposite can also apply it could also be quite bad. As I said above, if it is critical to your photography (and it obviously is to yours), get it cammed properly.

 

If is close enough and you only use the RF occassionally keep the cam you have and stop down more. It works for me, your mileage was obviously different. If I saw cheap cam that I did not have for a focal length that I did, I would grab the cam and try it out.

 

Matt

[bob_salomon]

"keep the cam you have and stop down more"

 

And risk image degradation not only from not being in sharp focus but also, possibly,

diffraction.

[richard_boulware]

Matt: Bob Salomon is right on the money. Your chance of getting a matching cam is 1:10,000! Guess your time is so cheap you can afford to NOT make sharp pictures. Good for you. I wish I was that lucky..but I'm not. Perhaps you are just a weekend snapshooter, perhaps not! Perhaps you are photo-techo-geek! Fine. Be well...and enjoy your hobby.

 

For the rest of us, our time is to valuable to waste time with a 'hit or miss, technique'! Pro's invest money for lenses and systems they can depend on, and obtain a return for our investment in quality and performance. Our clients appreciate that, and it is an insurance policy for our reputations, as professionals.

 

I choose to use Linhof, Zeiss, Rodenstock, Schneider because they deliver. I get a return on my investment. I cannot afford to use a

"Matt-Cam". My client art directors and editors would throw me out on my butt faster than you can email this board.

 

Please tell us more about your lens tests and philosophy about sharpness, or lack thereof....or better yet, post some of your PUBLISHED photographs.

 

For myself, and other seasoned professionals, you are trying my(our)

patience.

 

Richard Boulware

(Seven Gold Medals, advertising/editorial illustration, National Photographer of the Year, Don Christiansen Memorial Award - Picture of the Year, etc., etc.,)

[matthew_brain]

Richard,

 

Your patience may be tried - a string of artistic awards does not mean your technical solution is the only one, particularly for others in this forum who may be budget limited and have an old linhof and the opportunity to pick up a cheap cam.

 

To your speculation about my time and technique, I have invested time to develop a solid and efficient technique that allows me to get on film the maximum quality for the compositions I desire to record with the light that is provided. If you would like published examples, send me a mailing address.

 

I use my groundglass for greater than 95% of my shots, it is how I make sharp pictures. I use the rangefinder as a tool if the light is changing rapidly or the subject is moving quickly - I am lucky that my cam matches well the lens it was not machined for. I have already said that if it didn't I would not use it - simple.

 

What was the cost of your lens camming?

 

On what percentage of your shots do you use your rangefinder?

 

I don't think you could calculate a probability of a non factory matched lens-cam combination working. But if you can, then knowing the cost of having one cammed will help us all estimate the risk- benefit ratio of picking up a cheap used cam. And if it is too long, you could always file it with careful checking. I would still give it a go. YES i know you wouldn't, as you have already said 'Good for you. I wish I was that lucky'.

 

Matt

[richard_boulware]

Matt: I'm gonna give it to you straight. Your "penny wise and dollar foolish" attitude about Linhof Technika cams, is giving a lot of 'newbies' some very BAD information, which is unfortunate.

 

When some person new, to LF goes out and spends the big $$$ for a Technika, and more big $$$ for a decent or really fine lens, the idea of 'penny pinching' on a focusing cam is idiotic. Focusing cams on eBay most likely average from $60-75....with some genaric serial number which does not represent the focusing profile of the new owners lens.

 

The purpose of the Linhof rangefinder is to accurately focus the lens on a specific point...as seen in the RF eyepiece.

 

Using a genaric (non matched cam) is like deciding to tune up your Mercedes with a spark plug change, an going down to the auto parts store and asking for just any old spark plug that the jobber has on his shelf. IT IS NONSENSE!

 

I didn't spend four years, and a small fortune at Art Center getting my BFA in photography..FULL TIME, to know nonsense when I read it.

And by the way. ALL my awards were for photographic excellence...not 'artsy fartsie' stuff.

 

Your question about cost of Marflex caming is easy to answer for myself, although I must confess that it is just what it cost me, and may or may not be Marflex policy on pricing...although I believe it is.

 

Matching a lens to a Technika body is $200. (This includes a check on the Linhof factory specs by a device owned and operated by Marflex...to make sure the back and focal plane is correct before caming is done. The cam is cut, the infinity stops are mounted on the rail and the focusing scale is mounted on the bed strip. Although I am not sure, I am confident that Marlfex most likely uses a big Zeiss

colomator, an optical device which give an accurate infinity target, and can be adjusted to various distances, for calibration of the cam at varying distances. These colomators are very BIG BUCK items.

 

My 75mm Biogon cost me $140, because I did not need a new set of infinity stops or the focus scale for the bed. I have had marflex cam six lenses for me, and their service and quality of work is superb.

 

One only has to take the two generatic cams, and compare them to the matched cam, done by Marflex, to measure the difference as I did with my Mitutoyo dial caliper accuract to .0000!

 

"What percentage of my shots do I use the RF on?". 100%, but often back up the RF focus by checking the GG if DOF is a concern. I can set up a shot, make it, while you are still fumbling to attach your camera to your tripod head.

 

"Filing a cam youself...."? You have to be kidding. Your lack of experience betrays you. Why...because you assume that removing metal from the cam is the solution. Ever think that you may had to ADD metal to the cam to get a proper calibration? What are you going to do...get out your soldering iron? Gimmie a BREAK?

 

Your silly comments supporting genaric cams for quality work, may be giving some promising new photographers some bum advice.

 

If you can afford a Technika, and a decent lens....are you or anyone else going to get 'cheap' and buy an eBay cam for your lens. Why don't you just flush your money down the drain. For an additional modest investment, you could have a matched cam you could be confident with.

 

Every time I go out to shoot, I have confidence in my equipment, because it has been calibrated to factory specs by the superb technicians at Marflex, who guarantee their work. Nice people who bust their collective buts to make sure that pros like me can get the job done. Clients are very unforgiving of screwed up shots, and the statement that..."My rangefinder was off"...don't cut it.

 

When I use my Technika to make a shot, I have the feeling that the Marflex people like Martin, and Krikor are standing righ behind me...

when my shutter goes off.

 

With the great information provided by Bob Salomon and the terrific

support by Marflex...we are very lucky people to have this kind of resource standing with and behind us...on the job.

 

Wise up Matt, and stop being such a tightwad. Sooner or later, it will show up in your work.

 

This is the end of this thread for me. Good luck all, and if any have any questions, please email me off line.

 

Best wishes, and with respect. Richard Boulware - Denver.

[matthew_brain]

Thank you for your information on the pricing Richard, it is less than I expected.

 

As I have already said if I relied heavily on the rangefinder I would get it cammed correctly. I don't - as I have already said for the subjects I shoot I usually use the ground glass. An aperture of 32.5 allows 4mm focus adjusment either side of the plane of sharp focus - I know from testing my equipment that my cam sits within half a milimeter of the groundglass in terms of focus shift at close distances and is dead on (with a loupe) on the ground glass from infinity to about 10 feet. This is reliable and for me not worth the cost or loss of my linhof for a period to get a cam when I mostly use the groundglass.

 

As you always use your rangefinder for 100% of your shots, it is obviously going to be worth it for you.

 

I know 32.5 is a diffraction prone aperture. That is why I use the groundglass and lens movements to optimise my shots. With the rangefinder I am often more interested in determining the near point so I can choose an aperture for DOF from there to infinity.

 

We have different subjects and different uses for our equipment. You have the equipment to shoot fast apertures at high quality with the biogon but are limited for movements with this lens. My grandagon is brilliant at f22 but at f4.5 is considerably poorer (see my posting on resolution). At f22 I can afford half a milimeter in difference for a close object because I know that I have just under 2mm of sharp focus in terms of focus shift. I wouldn't use f4.5 for the poor performance, certainly wouldn't bother using my rangefinder with it.

 

See

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html

for details on sharpness and focus shift.

 

As for filing a cam, you can carefully see if a cam needs less metal. Of course you can't add it back on if the cam you have is to narrow. As you have said, buying a non-matched cam is a risk but to me it is worth it for my limited use of the rangefinder.

 

Thank you for the discussion Richard, may others be able to make an informed decision from it and choose what will be best for their technique and subjects.

[huw_finney]

On a technical note, you can 'add' metal to a cam by squashing it. Simply tap with a hammer at the point you want bigger. Works for the odd thou (mil, 0.001" etc.).

 

Huw

[michael_kadillak6]

This diatribe absolutely boggles my mind. How anyone can continue to support this backwards mindset that any generic "cam" will suffice based upon a "good enough for me" or "depth of field" will cover mind set is absurd. Who is to say that you will consistently have the flexibility in your situation (even if it is one shot in ten) to stop down? You might think about sticking your tail between your legs and try to listen a bit. You may just learn something.

 

Mark Twain was right on the money - "Let us be thankful for the fools - for without them the rest of us would have a hard time getting by."

[matthew_brain]

Thanks for the words of wisdom Michael,

 

I have already said that if it didn't work I would not use it and also if I relied on using the rangefinder more often I would get it cammed.

 

As it stands - mine IS sharp, you will just have to beleive that. I usually want everything in focus and hence use the groundglass. If the light is changing quickly I can rely on my rangefinder to choose a hyperfocal distance. I have a correctly scaled printout of:

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/dofknob/dofcard.gif

 

printed on transparent plastic screwed onto one of the markers above the distance scale that tells me how much focus spread any aperture will have. Next time I have a digital camera available I will photograph the scale on the camera in case your imagination suffers from visual impediments.

[michael_kadillak6]

Good Luck Matt. I had three lenses professionally cammed by Marflex after attempting to make the cheap way work on lenses of the same focal length from the same manufacturer and it caused me endless headaches when I threw the results on the light table. The inherent innacuracy and the lack of confidence it precipitated for me was like wearing an old pair of glasses for which the prescription was tweaked ever so much to current conditions. But, hey, whatever turns your crank. Wishing you all the best.