vartan_grigorian
-
Posts
194 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by vartan_grigorian
-
-
'I would say that if I handheld it even at 1/1000 and did not use MLU I was missing a portion of what the format and lenses have to offer...'. Sometimes technical quality needs to be sacrificed to take advantage of the photographic opportunity and a 45 mm lens at 1/1000 should deliver good quality. MF SLR's are a quick and dirty tool intended for convenience, rather than optimum technical quality.
-
I rather suspect that most photojournalists could not wait to get rid of the cumbersome TLR for a 35 mm SLR or rangefinder with eye level viewing and interchangeable lenses. It's not a question of automation (how much automation does a Nikon F have?), but one of suitability and convenience. Certainly TLR's are capable of good results (but then so are Speed Graphics!) and the Rollei's are well engineered, but the main reason for using them today is for the nostalgia value.
-
Waist level viewing gives a low eyepoint, the screen image is laterally reversed and difficult to see in both bright and dim lighting conditions, parallax error, no new parts available for repair other than overpriced 2.8 GX/FX models. Modern range finder cameras are much more pleasant to use in my opinion. Despite this I would not mind using a decent 'cord or 'flex, and they work better on a light weight tripod than a rangefinder because you can focus over the whole screen area rather than just over the rangefinder patch.
-
Surely a smaller format is more critical in terms of camera movement induced blur, because for a given print size the magnification is higher? I would be more concerned about handholding a half frame camera or even a digital p/s camera than the Pentax 67. Even so I find that for handheld use a rangefinder camera is a better proposition because of the lack of viewfinder blackout and reflex mirror. You say that you are getting excellent results at between 1/60 and 1/250s with a 105 mm lens. If the result at 1/250 is not noticeably sharper then you probably not viewing your negs. or transparencies at a high enough magnification.
-
Is the Lubitel TLR (available in UK) not awful enough for you?
-
Because variable contrast paper, compensating developers, and C41 process b/w films have rendered it unecessary as a tecnique. Why make things more difficult or complicated?
-
The only old Bronica that has a chance of lasting is probably the S2a so I would avoid the D or S. A mint Hasselblad and three lenses for $2000? If the equipment is really mint then I would grab it. It should have the edge in terms of sharpness as well, although the difference may not be noticeable if you don't use slow (100 ISO) or less and a tripod.
-
Ilford suggests longer developing times for some developer/dilution combinations for FP4+ in roll-film and sheet formats compared to 35 mm, thus suggesting a different emulsion.
-
Whilst I fully understand the attraction of the SL66 system, I would question your decision to invest in an obsolete system with a questionable reputation for reliability (film backs), expensive or impossible repairs and expensive lenses. Are you sure you would not be better served by a Hasselblad + flexbody if you really need the movements or even a Bronica SQ? If you are looking for a photographic tool rather than a classic camera then a current model or at least a current system makes a lot more sense.
-
Usually the film base is different from MF to 35 mm and emulsion may or may not be different. Look for different recommended developing times (from the manufacturer) for MF and 35mm. The cameras may not be giving the same exposure to the film even for nominally the same settings, so don't assume the difference is due to lens contrast. 35 mm film usually has a higher base density.
-
The black and white condenser version of the Magnifax 4 was tested in Amateur Photographer a few months ago. They criticised it for long printing times and a rather rough finish. Maybe they did not set up the condensors correctly for 35 mm. The diffuser heads require the correct diffusor box for the format in use otherwise printing times will be long. I have put off buying one myself becuase I will be moving in the next few months. I am still planning to buy one in the future because it is the only sturdy, reasonably priced 6x9 enlarger available new in the UK.
-
On my Seagull 4A-103 the counter resets when the back is opened and then closed. I don't have the camera with me at the moment, but if you look at the camera back and the film chamber you should be able to find out how the counter is reset. These cameras have a poor reputation for reliability so maybe you have just been unlucky with yours.
-
Firstly, unless you have a ground glass back you are not going to be doing macro photography with a Mamiya press. Most direct vision cameras have a minimum focussing distance of about 1 m.
With the damage to your camera and the need for rangefinder adjustment (probably a CLA and replacement of the light seals as well) it is quite likely that a repair will exceed the value of the camera. Try to get a quote anyway, but buying a good working example may be cheaper than getting yours repaired.
Next time buy from a dealer who will give you a guarantee, or better still save your money for a new camera.
-
If you are buying an old camera as a collector or for occasional use then fine, but don't expect to get as much use out of it as you would a new or recent one. Some people may dispute this, but buying a ~45 year old beast for regular use does not make sense. If you really must have a Rollei then look at a clean late 3.5F or a 2.8GX as it will be much nicer to use and less worn. Don't buy something that is in need of repair! Unless you are stuck on a classic don't dismiss the modern options such as the Fuji, Bronica, and Mamiya rangefinders. They may not have 'classic appeal' but are almost invariably better photographic tools.
-
If it is a lens designed to transmit UV the elements will be made of quartz or fused silica. I have never come across this lens, but I have used a UV Nikkor 105 mm f4.5 to image fluorescence at ~310 nm.
-
The Fresnel lens of the focussing screen is usually made of plastic; hence the sandwich construction mentioned by a previous poster. If you have managed to get propellant (which will be a fluorinated hydrocarbon) from the compressed air can on the plastic underside of the screen then I am sorry to say that you probably have ruined it. This may well have acted as a solvent for the plastic and at least etched the surface. It may still be usable but I don't think you will get rid of the blemish. At least it is a user replaceable part.
-
It's what everyone else calls a mirror lockup function. While it will reduce the delay between pressing the button and making the exposure; what the use unless you use some sort of sports finder?
-
Whilst the Rollei bodies may seem quite affordable, lenses for the SL66 are not that common, and can be extremely expensive in the UK, but maybe the situation is different in Austria/Germany. The Rollei SL66 would seem like an ideal landscape camera with the bellows focussing and tilt available, but reliability of the film backs is suspect. I'm sure someone will deny this, but I can almost promise you that a new Bronica SQ-B will have a longer useful working life than a used Rollei. I think almost no body will deny that you should avoid the SLX like the plague. Remember that much used medium format gear will have had a hard life at the hands of professionals.
-
I would guess that you are referring to the pre-release button. If this is the case then its function is to close the lens shutter, stop down the lens, lift the mirror and open the secondary shutter in the body. The vibration inducing operations are then completed before you make the exposure. Since you can no longer view the image this feature is only really practical if you are using a tripod and photographing pretty much static people/objects. Handheld use really precludes using this feature; but in other circumstances; use it as often as possible.
-
without
-
I have to agree with Roger that expecting a 1/4 to 1/3 stop tolerance is not very realistic. Remember that the shutter and diaphram will introduce further errors in addition to the lightmeter. Film speed can probably be off by 1/3 of a stop anyway. If you really need that sort of 'precision' the only way is to bracket. If you are using transparency film I think it makes sense to bracket if the subject is contrasty in order to see what exposure gives the most pleasing result. Back to the subject; I have used one of these meter knob's and there is nothing wrong with its accuracy. The only other meter that is so compact is the Voigtlander hot shoe meter. If you don't want to carry much then it is certainly a reasonable option.
-
What do you have to do to get banned from PhotoNet?
-
Since you already have both cameras why not tell us? My guess is that you will not get the same results as the Hasselblad and 50 mm. Under optimum condition the Fuji should give better results because the lens is a true wideangle rather than a retrofocus design, also the straight film path and smaller format will tend to result in better film flatness. Whether the difference will be evident in practice is largely down to you. I'm assuming you crop the Hasselblad pictures to fit a rectangle.
-
I would be most interested to see someone post images demonstrating a meaningful difference in images produced by Zeiss and Japanese lenses. I have used a 80 mm Planar a couple of Leica M lenses as well as the Sonnar in the Rollei 35S. While I have not done formal side by side comparisons I don't think they are noticeably better in any way than my Nikkor and Pentax lenses. I have nothing against Zeiss or other German manufacturers but I don't believe that the prices are justifiable. I find the idea that an 'artist' would only choose a German lens to be utterly ridiculous.
120mm s-planar What a wonderful lens
in Medium Format
Posted