randall_shafer

I'm not sure why tossing such a technical question out to the unwashed is a good idea at all. Schneider and Rodenstock are well-versed in the problems of LF digital imaging and have, as you noted, developed lenses to address some of these problems. They are the best place to ask about how the lenses you mention will work in this mode.

There's some very good and very bad advice in this thread. I'll try to add some good advice from thirty years of landscape photography, both as a hobby and profession.

 

For landscape work, film rules. A 645 would be my least-recommended format for landscape work. You are moving to a camera that is substantially bulkier and slower to operate than a 35mm camera but only gives you about 2.5X the film-- Not a good trade off. With 5X time film, 6X7 is the smallest MF I recommend. I'd even go to 6X9 if possible. And 6X12 is almost an ideal balance between camera size, frame size and convenience. Integrated cameras like the Horseman 612 are remarkably compact for the frame size.

 

MF cameras don't have to be huge. I recommend you look for a Fuji GW67 or GW69 camera. They are rangefinder systems with no meters so you will need to use a hand-held meter. (Which you should be using anyway if you are serious about outdoor photography.) They make good field cameras, have excellent lenses and don't have reflex mirrors to cause meter shake. There are several models with normal, wide and extra-wide lenses. I've seen clean W67 and W69's sell for as low as $500 on ebay.

I honestly doubt we will see new, affordable digital backs for any pro camera like the RZ. There's just not a big enough market and corresponding sales to make it worth development. (Which is also why existing backs are so expensive.)

 

The real bonanza is for photographers who want to shoot film, and can now buy great equipment like the RZ at bargain prices. With the market for medium format so depressed, one can get a great deal for the money and I don't see any time in the foreseeable future when any digital camera can approach the quality of 6X7 image shot on slide or B&W film.

 

Large format is even better to a certain extent, with some top quality pro cameras like the Sinar P going for under $1000.

 

Gads I love digital. It's like someone selling you a collection of fine wines for 2 cents on the dollar so they can buy cheap wine with screw caps instead of corks. ;-)

'blads are very easy to hand hold and use, especially in it's "native" configuration with waist level finder and manual crank. When you add a 90 or 45 prism, it gets awkward to hold without the winder or a grip.

I use a wide range of formats and equipment.... They are tools. I'm not passionate about any particular brand. Each has advantages and disadvantages and I try to leverage the advantages when shooting. If my Leica equipment ever got to the point where it was no longer useful to what I was doing, it would be gone with no regrets.

Absolutely, sell it all, and FAST.

 

Then you can take some extra cash and add it to the pitiful sum from your film cameras and get a digital wundercam. You know it will improve your photography since the pictues are free !!

 

Of course, five or six years from now your digital investment will be worth virtually nothing, like the $17,000 Kodak/Nikon 2.3 MP wundercam I bought the other day at my local camera dealer for $50. (Stripped off the digital crap, put on a regular back and ended up with a clean N90s for a total investment of $80, but I guess that just proves I'm not a wise buyer since it's no longer digital.)

 

At that same distant point in time, the poor sucker who bought your Leica will have something worth about the same price he paid for it, and he will still be able to produce images that rival anything the wundercam of the day can produce...... and do it without batteries or a computer.

OK, I'm game. I've looked over the Leica catalog to find out what

function the ROM contacts perform on the latest R-series lenses, to

no avail. I haven't been able to find anything on the net, either.

 

Since the conventional cams transmit aperture information to the

body, I've got to guess that the contacts send information on the

focus distance setting to the TTL flash electronics, and perhaps

identify the focal length and/or zoom setting of the lens.

 

Apparently Leica wants the ROM contacts to be some kind of mysterious

inducement to buy newer lenses because they don't mention their

function in the catalog.

 

Does anyone know what they do?

I'm really surprised at some of the responses. Putting a Cosina lens on an M3 is like putting panties on a pig-- the panties deserve a lot better. (And so does your Leica.) Leave the Cosina and Konica "wannabees" for the Leica wannabees. I'm surprised everyone is not pushing the 50mm dual range summicron. This is a legendary lens for resolution and bokeh and also has ability to focus a bit closer. You should be able to find a very clean one for around $500, and cleaner still if you forego the clip-on "eyes" for the close focus feature. It's a great match (and contemporary) for the M3 and has construction quality that is unmatched by ANYTHING being made currently, even by Leica. It is the only "classic" Leica lens I own, with all the others being latest generation, and I prefer it over the 50mm Summilux although sometimes I'm forced to the Summilux because of lighting conditions. One of the best, if not THE best classic Leica M3 lens.

I thought the comments on the Leiciaflex Gallery page summed up my impressions of this lens. It is the only zoom I have in my Leicaflex system and I use it exclusively for "people" pictures.

 

From

http://www.leicagallery.com/rlensang4590mm.htm

 

"The 45-90mm Angenieux Zoom lens was the only non-Leica lens that Leica endorsed and sold as part of the Leicaflex kit. For a brief period, it was also marketed in a 3-Cam version for use with the then New Leica R3. An outstanding Zoom with a constant aperture of F2.8, the Angenieux was made in Paris France and became a cult lens for the Leica system. It was a very expensive lens in its day and not many people could afford to purchase one, so they are somewhat scarce. The lens is characterized by a certain Smoothness in tonal texture that the Angenieux brand is famous for. It is not overly contrasty, making this lens ideal for portraits. If you buy this lens only for taking people pictures, your money will still be well spent. The lens can be used for a variety of other subjects as well and makes a great all purpose lens. It is well built, easy to use and hand hold and not too heavy to carry. It does a great job and I would never dispense with mine as it is part of my everyday kit. The character of photographs produced by this lens cannot be reproduced by any lens on todays market, therefore it is worth searching for and holding on to. I am sure that it will fast become a favorite of yours as well when you witness the beautiful tones and textures that this lens produces."

Is any camera or lens "worth it"?? A Nikon 300mm AFS, a Leica M7 and 35mm Summilux Asph, a Canon EOS 1V and L-series lens? How about a Mamiya 7-II and 43mm lens or a Rolleiflex 6008i? All of these are very expensive pieces of equipment, especially when you compare them to the other end of the spectrum, like Chinese TLR's or Russian Kiev's, or a Nikon 70-300 "G" or a Canon Rebel, or the Voigtlander rangefinder.

 

For many with less demanding needs, the cheaper item will probably produce about the same results. Of course, they could also buy a cheap digital watch for $10 instead of a $$$$ Rolex. Unless you are a professional with some serious optical and durability issues, no doubt much of the appeal of cameras like the Rolleiflex GX, Leica, or many others is the pride of ownership and the simple appreciation of a quality product. There is a side benefit, too-- these types of cameras tend to have top-notch optical performance, which can often be seen in slides and prints.

 

One additional benefit that is rarely mentioned is the low depreciation and high resale value of premium cameras and lenses. If purchased with some care and patience, one can often sell an item later for the same price paid or with little depreciation. Compare that to the person who paid $900 for a Voiglander Bessa-L outfit and can't get $350 for it a year later on Ebay.

 

For the record, I do own a Rolleiflex GX, the 75th Anniversary Special Edition. Although my primary medium format cameras are the Mamiya RZ and 7 series, I do enjoy taking it out for a "spin". I've had a number of Rollei TLR's in the past and find this one to the the best optically, although I will agree with others that mechanically, the Rolleiflex line peaked with the F-series cameras. Indeed, some of the mechanical features of the GX remind me of much cheaper TLRs like the Yashica Mat 124. Yet, the overall quality and handling are pure Rollei, and other photographers enjoy looking at and handling the camera as much as I.

I own an 645 system with the 45mm and 65mm lenses. It has always struck me as a system with a serious "gap". I never could figure out why they don't offer a "normal" focal length lens and why they had two lenses so close together (45 and 65) and then this huge gap all the way up to a 135mm telephoto. I consider rangefinder cameras to be fairly useless in the telephoto range due to focusing accuracy issues, and there should be something around 80mm or 90mm. I also find Bronica's reliance on an electronic aperture with no intermediate stops to be a bit bizarre. Yes, I know the settings are stepless in the auto modes, but I really need 1/2 stop control in aperture-preferred or manual mode when shooting chromes. I do not shoot chromes with auto modes and with a primitive metering system like the one on the Bronica, since the results seem to be a bit random.

As a photographer who uses a variety of 35mm and medium format equipment, I can offer some advice.

 

First of all, shutter type should be of concern if you intend to use flash illumination quite a bit. Typical leaf shutter systems will synchronize with strobes over their entire range of speeds, while focal plane shutters are usually limited to 1/60th of a second or slower. (Medium format-- newer 35mm systems can often sync at 1/125 or faster.) If you will use flash regularly then you should lean towards leaf shutter cameras. If a prime requirement is fill flash outdoors, then you definately need a leaf-shutter system.

 

You list two requirements-- close ups and portability, that have a big impact on your choices. I shoot with both the Mamiya 645 (645 Pro system) and the RZ67 Pro II system. You can certainly use the RZ in the field, even hand-held (with the left-hand grip) but the champ here is the Mamiya 645. The film area is about 3X the size of 35mm, and you will be able to see the difference in slides and prints. I like the horizontal format (backs don't rotate) and the camera is every bit as portable as my Nikon F5. The camera is easiest to hold and shoot if you have one of the winder grips and the SV reflex finder or a metering prism. It does have a focal plane shutter, though, which limits flash sync speed to 1/60th second. Close up accessories are plentiful (including bellows) and you can get a wide variety of models of this camera series from inexpensive (about $500 for a complete kit -645J) to the latest autofocus version. (About $2500 for a clean demo kit.)

 

The RZ is just not very portable, but if you are willing to drag the equipment around and use a tripod, you will find it a superior photographic machine. The rotating back you've already mentioned, and you can get backs for 6X4.5 and 6X6 formats too. Honestly, the first time you see 6X7 transparencies from this camera, you will be shocked at the quality and sharpness!! The RZII AE Prism has the best metering system I've ever used with a medium format camera, and the system includes a short bellows built-in for closer focusing. Also available are two different-length extension tubes, and a truly excellent 140mm macro lens. (The macro lens has adjustment scales for use with the macro tubes printed right on the barrel.) I also use my macro lens for regular shooting.

 

Lenses and accessories for the M645 tend to be quite a bit cheaper than the RZ, but RZ lenses and accessories seem to be an order of magnitude or more cheaper than those for systems like Hasselblad and Rollei. I got out of Hasselblad to switch to the Mamiya, and frankly, the images are just as good, and I don't have to put up with the constant stream of camera lockups which the Hassy is famous. I've looked at the Rollei system, and even tested it, but I couldn't justify paying $30,000 for a system that cost me $10,000 for Mamiya equipment. My test shots with the Rollei system didn't reveal any substantive difference in image quality (compared to RZ equipment)that I could detect.

 

The bottom line for my recommendation: If you don't need to use flash extensively, look at a Mamiya 645 system. Currently the 645 "Pro" is the best balance of performance vs. cost.

I had a good laugh at the recent article on Chi-Com Seagull TLR's in

Pop Photo. They must have a major advertiser (can anyone say B&H or

Adorama?) with a warehouse full of these things. Does anyone else

think it is ironic that the writer never really explores the

possibility that so many vintage TLR's like Rolleiflex and Yashica

offer much higher quality-- both mechanical and optical, while

selling at similar or even lower cost? My trusty old MX-EVS automat

was a mere $200 but offers very high quality compared to the Chinese

product, and also still works well after a half-century. It is such

a nicely-built camera that it will also be worth paying for repair or

CLA if needed, and the f3.5 tessar outperforms the Seagull lens in

every way. I guess we should never forget that the primary purpose

of the editorial content of periodicals like Pop Photo is to induce

you to buy from advertisers; hence, the total unreliability of their

reviews and recommendations.

Any filter reduces contrast and can induce flare. I always use my hood (Bay 1 on an Automat). One nice thing about the Tessar lens design is the high contrast and flare resistance because of the small number of elements, but it is still easy to get flare on these old cameras with limited lens coating.

The RZII with the 180 soft focus was, until recently, my primary portrait system. It takes a bit of learning to use effectively, but it offers results you can't get any other way, and certainly not with a filter over the lens.

 

I've found the regular RZ lenses and the big MF piece of film to be too sharp and detailed for good portraits. (110mm 140mm and regular 180mm) Especially with light-skin people, every whisker and imperfection show. However, with the soft focus, you can literally dial away this very fine detail to whatever extent you desire, without producing an image that looks soft or out of focus. (Which is a typical result with filters.)

 

The camera is set up with disc no. 3 and the strobes set for an exposure at f9.5, and the aperture varied to vary the effect. Because of the way the lens works, a four-stop variation can be made in the aperture with only a 1/2-stop variation in exposure at the film. (No sweat for print film.)

 

I have a favorite sequence of shots at each setting of a middle-Eastern gentleman who has light skin but black hair. His beard always shows very heavily though the light skin, and the non-soft focus shot really looks haggard and unattractive, even for a man. As the soft focus effect is dialed in, the whiskers and small imperfections, lines, pores and blemishes disappear, with the smallest ones going first, while larger features like eyelashes and eyebrowns are still very visible. On the strongest setting, though, some of these features start to go and the image does start to look soft, without looking blurred or out-of-focus.

 

This is an excellent tool for the studio portraitist. I do not, however, recommend this lens for candids and available light portraits. It is difficult to focus and does not react well to high key and backlit scenes. It also does not integrate well with the metering prism, and the result usually is underexposure. Finally, because the optimum situation is with lighting set to expose at f9.5, available light conditions can create situations where the aperture settings do not produce the results you expected. I have used it in the field, with mixed results.

I've followed this issue for several years now and agree with Mark Hubbard's response- You may certainly bring a Mamiya product back with you from overseas but may not import a system for resale.

 

There seems to be some confusion about buying one from overseas by mail order-- I haven't heard of anything being seized by U.S. Customs officials and quite a few people have posted about satisfactory buying experiences with Robert White in the U.K. and new Mamiya.

 

I believe the response from Mamiya America (M.A.C) has been that they will agressively pursue anyone known to them importing for resale, but will service (non-warranty) imported product with no penalty.

 

This is in contrast to an organization like Nikon USA, which will not service imported Nikon product if they can identify it as such. (Although they will sell repair parts and you can service it through an independent.)

 

My personal take on all this is that importers like Nikon USA and M.A.C. are dinosaurs that serve no real purpose other than to act as a middleman and inflate costs to the consumer. Most of my contact with M.A.C. employees is at the frequent dealer shows/sales where they seem to spend most of their time, offering special discounts and come-ons to get people to buy their product because they are unable to move it otherwise. My local camera dealer tells me that 90% of their Mamiya sales are at these special events, and I concur- I've never bought new Mamiya gear at retail prices--- I've always bought at special events or used.

Why do you think it's not a successful MF system for landscape photography? The cameras are fairly easy to find at good prices, indicating that quite a number have been sold (much more common than 6X17 systems, for example) and a wide range of lenses and accessories also seem to be available on the used market. Most photographers that I have spoken to that use Horseman 6X9 systems use them for landscape work primarily. I do as well, including the use of the 612 back with the 4X5 adapter.