tariq_gibran

You don't mention the CF FLE version with the Bay 60 as an option. That would seem to be

the way to go since you get the same optics as the CFi FLE AND maintain the Bay 60

compatibility. I have the CF FLE 50 and it is one amazing lens. It will also be many hundreds

of dollars cheaper than the CFi version. Comparing CF to CFi cosmetics, build quality, feel,

etc., my opinion is that the CF lenses just feel more rugged/solid and better built. I doubt

thats actually the case but thats the impression I have handling them. The CFi's focus does

not have as much drag or resistance as the CF and which you prefer is really a matter of

preference.

Ilkka, Were you not questioning the end result above? Your response is ridiculous of course

but you will notice that it was me who said its not just about the end result but the process.

My only point was that it indeed is possible to replicate the look of color films if one is

familiar enough with the emulsions and how they react. And yes, you end up "hand painting"

the color to a degree digitally. Now, could you do that with an empty document

photographically, of course not!

If you are an experienced film shooter and know, for instance, that a certain artificial light

source such as sodium vapor or whatever will give a certain color or look a certain way with

that film, then its not a big deal to do a local selection in Photoshop and use Selective color

to re-create that. Same with the Greens of Velvia or whatever. Now, it might not be fun and

it might be a lot of tedious work AND it might be much easier to just shoot it with the actual

Film. The point is that if you know the look your going for, acheiving it is very possible. The

only stumbling block is ones familarity with a particular emulsion and skill level.

Ilkka, All very good points particularly about having an Analog physical hard copy. At

some point, technology and software will overcome the "look" issues you mention. Skillful

use of editing software such as photoshop can acheive a lot if not all of this right now, at

least for color work. I shoot Digital for all my commercial jobs and have been doing so for

the past 6 years. For personal, fine art work though, there are many more considerations

an artist should consider. Paramount among these for me is the process and how that

influences the final image. Film forces one to slow down as it does not offer immidiate

gratification. This can lead to more thought on what your doing, a closer examination of

your subject. For me, my mind and imagination continues working on the image as it lays

latent on the film and that incubation period has a major influence on, for instance,

choices made later on when I edit and print the images. I"m also not going to be hiting

"delete" while shooting with film. Thats a big deal as its not uncommon to see something

later on that you might not have noticed while shooting. When I shoot digitally and view

the results instantly, that tends to stop the creative process. So, the process of how we

create our images bears a strong relation to how and what we see. I mentioned elsewhere

that shooting digitally was like eating at McDonalds. It satisfies temporarily but really

gives no enduring sustenance. Its also like taking the train or traveling on land versus

flying. You might end up at the same place but the experience is vastly different. Thats

my take anyway.

Of course, reports of Mamiyas impending death may have been greatly exageratted. But, as I

understand things, increasing sensor size resullts in an exponetial increase in cost due to a

much lower success rate with larger sensors(more imperfections). Canon is the only one that

has done it successfully thus far at a reasonable consumer price. Keep in mind also that they

are selling to a much larger base than any Medium Format would. So I think the best we can

hope for in a close to full frame Medium Format sensor would be at around 7000

optimistically, at least for the next few years unless some sort of technological breakthrough

in chip manufacturing occurs.

"if this is indeed the case they will be going on a parallel track with Hasselblad."

And Pentax.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that we are on the cusp of a medium format film renaissance

of sorts. Heres why: In the past 6 years, a lot of photographers have switched completely

to Digital for Commerical work, myself included. But, for my personal work, I'm not happy

with neither the aesthetics of working digitally nor with the final look(particularly with

B&W). Even if, for instance, I could afford a 39MP digital back which might meet my

personal standards, the fast, quick, non reflective process of working digitally is so far

removed from the way one works with Analog film and paper that too much is lost. I

doubt I'm alone in my appreciation for how the process of working with a latent image on

film stirs the imagination and aids the creative process. Thats lost with the immidiate

gratification of Digital. There is a huge difference between sitting in front of a computer

for hours on end versus getting your hands wet and smelling fixer in a Darkroom. Its

about a physical connection to ones work vs. the disconnect through the mouse.

Creatively, Digital is like premature ejeculation or eating at McDonalds. With the huge

amount of inexspensive medium format used gear available and a probable backlash to

digital once some of us realize what is being given up, medium format film will be around

for quite some time. More of a niche market for sure, but a growing one I suspect. More

expensive, probably. Thats a certainty for B&W. Color, I'm not so sure. And, by the way,

Tri X 320TXP is available in 220.

The fact is, this is bad news for all photographers/consumers as this dramatically

decreases competition not only in MF gear where now Hasselblad is really the only safe

choice for the future(and they now will see/feel even less price pressure from within their

own segment) but it also means that Nikon and Canon will be less likely to continue

dropping their prices/increasing their competitiveness in their top of the line stuff with the

fear of an inexpensive MF Digital camera on the Horizon. It also leaves Phase One and

Leaf without any other camera brands but Hasselblad/Imacon to build backs for. If

Hasselblad decided to go Proprietary with their own Imacon backs, goodbye Phase One

and Leaf. The Pentax 645 Digital is the only wild card now but given Pentax's record thus

far with Digital, I'm not holding my breath. I foresee that the industry is hitting a will hit a

sort of Plateau late this year with whatever new models appear.

Having also owned and used the Fuji GSW 690 111 and looking at the Alpa TC, it appears

to me that the Alpa will be both heavier and much slower to use hand held than the Fuji

due to the Alpas modular design and lack of a built in rangefinder. Image quality wise, all

would depend on what lens you put on the Alpa of course. The lens on my Fuji was very

nice and I loved it but it was not tack sharp when viewed at 100% from a 4000 dpi scan

made on my Polaroid Sprintscan using Velvia such as my 50mm FLE hasselblad Zeiss lens

is. Perhaps that was just my sample, I don't know. Usually, the argument is that there is

no replacement for displacement meaning larger film, better quality. That really only

holds true if both optics being compared are equal. I can see a situation where even with

larger format film, if the lens does not resolve as much as say a smaller format lens, then

at some point going larger really gets you nowhere image quality wise. Keep in mind also

that most of the lenses used for 612, 617 etc. are large format lenses so you might need

to use an expensive center filter to compensate for wide angle lens vignetting and that will

also rob you of faster, hand holdable shutter speeds. It really comes down to which

format you prefer. It would seem to me that most of the wider aspect ratio cameras really

acheive their best image quality when used slowly on a tripod. I don't think you will be

able to use any of those options as easily and quickly as your fuji.

A lot of very good points being made. It is true that you will get much more foreground -

and more exagerrated - with the 50. That sounds like what you may be looking for. Also,

keep in mind that since we are speaking of a square format vs. rectangular of 35mm, a

lens will not feel the same if you just go by the diagonal. Framing and composition are

completely unique to each format. I actually have both the 60 CB and the 50 CF FLE

currently as I wanted to use both side by side for a while to see which one I favored the

most...and will sell the other. Thus far, as I have mentioned in another thread, I am much

more impressed with the 50 in every respect. With my two examples, the 50 is sharper

wide open at every distance and at closer distances, it is sharper at every aperture. When I

shot 35mm film, the 35mm focal length was my favorite. I have found that that does not

translate to square, at least for me. I prefer the wider 50. Both lenses are very nice in

their own right, no doubt about that but if you are ever going to get an 80mm, I don't

think the 60mm makes much sense as you will always want something just a little wider.

But, if your only going to get one lens, then the 60 might be the way to go.

You will get dramatically more of the closer subject/wide angle distortion effect with the 50

than with the 60, no question about it. The 50mm CF FLE is a great lens, sharp in the center

wide open and will perform better than the 60 at closer distances. Of course, with people/

nudes, sharpness and ultimate resolution may not be your number one priority. If thats the

case, than the older non FLE 50 CF or C at closer distances would be fine..and save you about

$500.

Just to add some recent experience with the 50mm CF FLE vs. the 60mm CB. I recently

purchased both of these lenses. I once owned the 50 CF FLE and frankly, I was not

impressed with its sharpness so I sold it. I picked up the recent 50mm as it was just too

good a deal that I felt I should give the lens another try. I have always also thought that

the highly touted 60mm would fit my style of shooting as the 80 often seems just ever so

slightly too long. So here is what I have discovered after some exstensive testing fo these

two lenses, at least my two samples. This current 50mm is extremely sharp! Tested

against the 60mm, it is actually sharper wide open at any distance(I tested at close to

infinity and at between 50-100 feet). This very much surprised me as I have continually

read how sharp the 60 is. Closed down to F8, F11, the 50 was noticebly sharper at the

closer distance and the two were very close to one another at infinity with the 60 perhaps

having a slight edge. On all shots, I tried to compose exactly the same which meant

moving back when using the 60. With the close to infinity shot, this gave the 60 a slight

edge as respective objects with the 60 where slightly larger(and that may be why the 60

might have appeared to have the edge here). I shot both B&W Acros and Velvia 50 and

scanned at 4000 dpi on a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 with the film perfectly flat in a glass

holder to judge sharpness. Color rendition was slightly warmer with the 50 and colder

with the 60. After using both lenses, I think the 50 is a much more versatile lens. Given

that I previously had a poor experience with the 50 and that the 60 by all accounts should

outperform the 50, I can only conclude that sample variation is of very real concern even

with these great lenses and I was very surpised at how poorly the 60 performed at closer

distances and wide open. If you are going to get the 80, then the 50 would certainly be

the way to go. Another observation on these two lenses and their Zeiss Data. The 50 FLE

actually has less linear distortion than the 60!

Point and quote well taken! Alll these cameras we are talking about are so good it comes

down to use and preference. And as in another thread, there is much more to image quality

than just Sharpness/Resolution and even contrast which is one reason I take issue with the

authors "hands down" coment. If he had shot some color transparency film in all the tested

cameras, it would have provided more useful information than B&W. The mamiya is a great

camera....and so is the Rollielex and Hasselblad.

Hi Stuart,

Yes, I have seen that page and I think its a very good test, but it is only one sample point

for the Hasselblad and the Mamiya. The particular sample of the normal lens I had on my

Mamiya 6 was not that good. I do think that your statement that the Mamiya wins "Hands

down" is a bit optimistic given this statement from the conclusion drawn in that test:

"This test proved to me several things. First, c.1956 Rolleiflex Twin Lens Reflex cameras

can keep up with modern photographic equipment. Let me put this another way; I'm blown

away by the fact that a 50 year old single coated lens camera can produce large prints that

show as much fine resolution and detail as the best modern multicoated lens that I

currently own. Both Rolleiflex tested at 96 lines per mm against the USAF Resolution test

chart."

That's basically what I have found through practical everyday use.

Kerkko,

I think the models you are refering to are 6x6, not 6x9. At least thats what it says here:

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/sikonta/si3.htm

NO Super Ikont C 6x9 format camera(the one the original poster mentions) ever had

Automatic Film positioning. The Later B 6x6 versions did I believe. A Rolleiflex with a

Schneider Xenotar or Planar is at least the equal of any Mamiya normal lens, if not better.

The only Folder which seemed rigid enough to take advantage of lens quality was the Zeiss

Super Ikonta's. That's after trying many examples of Voigtlander Bessas and Agfa Super

Isolettas. Personally, if your just going to use a normal lens, then there are plenty of

cheaper options than a Mamiya 7 with as good on film quality. But, if your interested in

wide angle, then the choices become much fewer with more trade offs. The Mamiya

Rangefinder lenses are top notch in my experience. No better though then the much

much cheaper Koni Omega 58mm and Koni Omega M or Omega Rapid 100 or 200. But,

what a heavy, ungainly beast that is. If you can live with the size/weight, it has to be the

best performance per dollar anywhere. Not something you might look forward to carry

with you all day though. For that, the best bargain/weight/size would have to be one of

the 645 rangefinders such as the Bronica 645 or a fixed lens Fuji 645. Both will give you

what you ask for. If money is no object, then go for the Mamiya. The Super Ikonta is a

slow camera to actually use(Remember, your winding the film while looking through a little

red window for a number to show up after each shot!) and that may or may not be

important to you.

I have shot with two Super Ikonta C's, coated and uncoated versions of the Tessar as well as

routinely shot with an older rolleicord with a Tessar style Schneider Xenar. I also used to own

a Mamiya 6 with both a spectacular 50G lens and a so so 75m lens(the normal lens). I have

also compared all these lenses to my 80c planar on my Hasselblad. Concerning sharpness-

resolution, the Tessar can be an amazingly sharp lens when stopped down about three stops.

All of the examples I have used were every bit as sharp as both the Planar and the Mamiya

lenses when stopped down in the center and not too far behind beyond center. A sinngle

coated Tessar has only 4 elements so multi-coating does not make that huge of an

improvement compared to some of the more modern 5-7 element normal lenses.

Eric, in my opinion the Pixel Peepers you are refering to are not quite the same as those

people rarely are able to see the big picture and only obsess over say per pixel sharpness.

In the case here, it would be like the coments where someone says flatly "Zeiss lenses are

shaper than Pentax lenses". That just shows ignorance as there is so much more to it than

just sharpness or any one lens-film-camera quality alone. The camera, lens, film, etc. are

of course just tools but most of the better photographers learn these tools inside out so

well that they then becomes second nature... freeing them to then make the photographs

they imagine while forgeting that they are even holding a camera, it becomes such an

unconscience part of the process. I have worked with many well known and not so well

known Photograhers who would favor say Pentax or Mamiya lenses for Fashion as they

loved the softer tonality a particular lens might give(considering the Zeiss lenses too

harsh) and I have also worked with many a commercial shooter who prefered a specific

Zeiss lens on their Blad exacty for the extreme, "poke you in the eye" contrast. It's very

easy to see on a light box with trannies or on a B&W neg when comparing some of these

lenses. The most dramatic incident I have seen recently was not even comparing an

uncoated lens to a coated lens(older Pre 50's Tessar to newer Tessar) but was in

comparing a Fuji 65mm EBC coated lens on a GSW690111 to a Koni Omega 58mm lens

and an older single coated 80mm Planar on a Hassy. The Koni and the Planar had extreme

contrast compared to the very low soft contrast of the Fuji. So much so that to even come

close in "equalizing" the difference would mean shooting the Fuji with Velvia 50(very much

taming the sometimes garish quality of Velvia) and shooting the other two with something

more neutral like Astia. So, the fact that one can make Velvia look like Astia just by

selecting a certain lens is not a subtle thing.

Yes, I addressed this very issue yesterday here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fwrg&tag=

And I think your conclusions pretty much agree with what I have found. That said, a good

photographer who knows the qualities of their equipment(lenses and Film choices) should be

able to get just about anything out of it, at least when your talking about equipment at this

level. Its just a matter of testing to see what you prefer and how each film/developer combo

works with each lens.

Yes, the Fuji loves either a contrastier color film(I used Velvia which took on a fairly normal

contrast shot with the Fuji!) or, if shooting B&W, I might process with say Rodinal vs. a

sulfite based developer to give more edge effects. With B&W, I could easely acheive tack

sharp effects using Acros/Rodinal if I wished so it was never a question of ultimate

resolution. That said, I used to shoot with a Mamiya 6 with the 50 G lens which was very

sharp and had good contrast, but still slightly less than Zeiss lenses(which is not

neccesarily a bad thing). I would suspect the Mamiya 7 lenses to perform similarly. So,

Velvia shot with the Fuji looked like Astia almost but Velvia shot with a contrasty lens

looks garish and harsh in my opinion. Ultimately, it all comes down to testing what films

give the look one likes with your equipment and my experience with the Fuji proved to me

that an individual lens can often be more influencial than developers and Film types but its

funny how you don't read much about that. Its always I prefer Rodinal to D76 or Astia to

Velvia or whatever.

I just sold my Fuji GSW690 111 but it did not suffer from any noticeable vignetting nor

terribble corner sharpness. The lens was slightly softer than an 80mm Planar on my

Hasselblad in the middle but surprisingly sharper towards the edges at F11 but with a very

different charecter in that it was not nearly as contrasty as the zeiss planar but also

offered a certain smoothness of tonality which is near impossible to get from my 80mm

planar. I think there is probably a trade off which lens designers make between Contrast

and smoothness of tone with a contrasier lens appearing sharper but at the expense of

tonality. The Fuji 65mm SWC is biased towards smooth transitions of tonality where as

the Zeiss Planar was extremely biased towards Contrast. Which you prefer or what you are

capable of getting out of either is entirely subjective.

Stuart, I hear what your saying about good, non company affiliated repair shops. I think

though that the NJ Hasselblad Service center is one of the exceptions and has a very good

reputation.

One of the major problems I see with the manual focus Zeiss lenses for Nikon bodies is that

Nikon built their repuatation and helped japan push the Germans out of the number one spot

with their incredibly performing and built manual focus lenses. The same terrific, all metal,

well built lenses which can be had on the used market now for peanuts. This is what Zeiss is

really competing against with their new lens line: Used $100 Nikkor AI 50mm 1.4 lens, a

$150 105mm 2.5 AI lens, 35mm 1.4 AI $300 lens and so forth. How can Zeiss compete with

that? If you are willing to settle or prefer Manual Focus lenses for your Nikon, the choice is

fairly simple from an economic AND quality perspective.

Sorry, at far as out of focus areas, it would depend on the particular Mamiya 7 lens. You

might find this interesting:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-june-05.shtml