flavio_egoavil

<p>It seems there are some things that nobody told you... and i think i have come late to the party since you already bought a camera. But anyways:</p> <p>- The hasselblad 500C series have strong vibration issues; handholding at less than 1/60 might give you some sharpness issues because of that. TLRs and some SLRs (like the RB67 or the SL66) have none of such issues and can be handheld at slower speeds. It is also not the most reliable of MF cameras, to say the least. Of course, since there is an aura and romanticism about the camera, people seldom acknowledge these faults.</p> <p>- There are no heavy cameras, just inadequate camera straps...</p> <p>- If you require great sharpness wide open, and you're not satisfied with the Mamiya 80/2.8, try the 65/3.5 lens. It is very good wide open.</p> <p>- The Mamiya 105D or 105DS lens is reputed to be sharper than the 80mm as well, plus it has been specifically engineered for a smooth bokeh.</p> <p>- At f2.8, a 80mm has very narrow depth of field; so i'm not sure why would you want to use such a wide aperture. Pushing HP5 to ISO 1600, on medium format, allows using smaller apertures and the end result is extremely sharp pictures with fine grain.</p> <p>- If the lens isn't sharp enough or isn't reliable with flash, you can always try buying another 80mm lens. They're cheap.</p> <p>- On the C330, have you checked that the internal foam padding that sits around the top of the focusing screen is soft and bouncy? An extremely common issue is that such foam rots, and then the focusing screen will not sit fully, causing sharpness issues.</p> <p>- For all your requirements list, the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7 rangefinders were the best fit. Lenses are to be likely sharper than even the Zeiss Planars on the Rolleiflexes or Hassies. Seriously.</p> <p>- But then, in medium format, at f11 apertures, even a good 3-element lens can get excellent results...</p> <p>- If you definitely need very sharp f2.8 performance in a 80/2.8 TLR, get a Rolleiflex with the Xenotar. Schneider = heaven.</p>

<p>"...and the light source being too diffuse"</p> <p>Excellent observation Andy!!</p>

<p>Alfredo,</p> <p>What i use is a simple made-in-china thing identical to this one:<br> <a href="http://img.dxcdn.com/productimages/sku_151980_2.jpg">http://img.dxcdn.com/productimages/sku_151980_2.jpg</a></p> <p>Now, back on topic, if you REALLY are concerned with weight, your best option is a Rolleicord with a Xenar lens, say a Va or Vb model. It is extremely light and the lens is very sharp at all apertures, the shutter speed/aperture is really quick to set, and the viewfinder has parallax correction. Almost a perfect camera and i'd say it's a bit more practical camera to use outside than a Rolleiflex. However, i often leave the Rolleicord at home and carry the Mamiya C330 with me, because for me the C330 is still light enough, and i can handhold it in a more stable way. Plus it has interchangeable lenses, of course. </p>

<p>Regarding Xenophon's post concerning the RZ strap lugs:</p> <p>I carry my RB using a strap which attaches to the tripod mount (i.e. "quick-lok"). So the camera gets carried from its center of gravity and can pivot freely as needed. I agree with Xenophon: Using the standard camera straps on the RB or RZ will be uncomfortable. But with the strap i use, it gets easy to carry.</p>

<p>Any competent camera tech can give a CLA to that camera. It was designed to be easy to service, and my camera technician here loves to work on these because of this.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Even with aftermarket film holders with adjustment the V750 discarded a lotof information on the frame (actual resolution was cited between 2000 and 2200 dpi at best, and then, with low sharpness compared to the original)... I wish they updated the optical system of the scanner to something better. I know, it gives <em>acceptable</em> results, but it does not give optimum results.</p>

<p>Karim,<br> I know rem-jet has nothing to do with the sensitivity. But what i mean is that the film is intended to be processed on the ECN-2 process where it gives an ISO of 500 on tungsten light. The C41 process is different and in this process the resulting effective speed is ISO 800 (tungsten).</p>

<p>Another vote here for the Mamiya RB67, my favorite camera ever (over the Nikon F, Nikon F3, Nikkormat FT2, Rollei 35, Rolleicord, Mamiya C330, Canon 5D, Canon A-1, Olympus Pen S, Olympus OM-1, OM-2, Yashica Electro 35, and Kodak Retina IIIc.)</p> <p>Although the Kodak comes close.</p>

<p>Alfredo,<br> 2650 grams with the 127/3.8 lens, waist level finder, and film back.<br> You should actually try using the camera (with a quick-lock strap, the ones that attach to the tripod body) in order to assess weight. It is definitely lighter than carrying a FF DSLR with a 17-35/2.8 and a 80-200/2.8 like some journalists happily do these days:</p> <p>Nikon D800 + Nikkor 80-200/2.8 AF-s = 2380 gram.<br> + the 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S = 3125 gram.</p> <p>In any case if you are <em>very</em> concerned with weight, perhaps Medium Format is not the best choice, unless you can buy a Mamiya 7 or Mamiya 6, or you feel OK with a Rolleicord, or a folder camera. Or an Agfa Isola II which is probably the lightest medium format camera.</p> <p>I have no experience with any Bronica camera so far.</p>

<p>I wish they posted a transcript.</p> <p>FILM Ferrania is not iffy at all. They have the plant, they have the engineers, they have a lot of documentation and knowledge on how to make film. There is a market for E6 now that Fuji is the sole supplier, everything makes perfect sense.</p> <p>They have my full support!!</p>

<p>Alfredo,<br> <br />I don't know if you want to compare the RB67 to the RZ67 or the RB67 to the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7. But let's do both comparisons:</p> <p>As you know the Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7 are rangefinders, much lighter and smaller. With perfect optical quality (although you'll never find a bad lens in any half-decent medium format system). But they are considerably more expensive. And they are rangefinders, so they can't show you the actual perspective and depth of field effects.</p> <p>The RZ67 is supposed to be lighter than the RB, but it's an electronic machine, and some people don't like electronics on their cameras. The electronics are there for controlling the shutter on the RZ-specific lenses. However, the RZ can use the lenses of the RB as well, with their mechanical shutters.</p> <p>As for digital backs, digital backs are so expensive than the camera body cost is a minor consideration. If you want to go digital, a Nikon D800 is cheaper than most digital MF systems...</p>

<p>No problem at all with the reversed image!</p>

<p>Alfredo,</p> <p>Once you get used to the weight of the Mamiya RB67, you might find that this is the best camera ever. Trust me, i own two, as well as a Mamiya C330 TLR and a ultra-light Ricoh TLR. The one that gets used the most is the RB67, and i use it out in the streets. I'm considering buying a third RB... Yes, i like it so much.</p> <p>It is actually a very comfortable camera to handhold, and particularly stable to handhold. Because of this, <strong>and because of practically no vibrations (it has a mirror de-acceleration mechanism)</strong>, you can actually get usable shots at 1/8s shutter speed with no problem at all. Which increases the versatility. Regarding camera vibrations the RB67 is very superior to the Pentax 67 and to the Hasselblad 500C cameras. Vertical shots are more comfortable than any camera i own including the DSLRs with a vertical grip. This because the camera never needs to be rotated. It allows using 6x4.5 format with the optional, inexpensive, film back, which opens up a world of possibilities. The lenses are cheap and extremely sharp and the results using NEOPAN ACROS 100 film resemble results from 4x5" format, no kidding.</p> <p>So don't be put off by the weight or size; once you fit one with a waist level finder and the 90mm (or 127mm) lens, and a good "quick-lock" strap, you'll find it easy to use on the street.</p> <p>In comparison, the lighter TLRs are not so easy to hold steady, particularly if they're small like a Rolleicord, needing a tripod for sub-1/30s speeds, which means added weight. The C330 gets steady once i add the lateral grip, but then the weight gets a bit close to the weight of the RB67. Plus i find the RB67 viewfinder a bit better for focusing. Still, the C330/C220/C33/C22 are great cameras and if you can find one in good shape with the 65, 80, or 105mm lens, grab it one quick, you won't be dissapointed. Leave the Rolleiflexes to the collectors!!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Any competent camera technician will be able to clean the lens and should charge far less than US$200, since removing the front element is easy on that camera.</p>

<p>Difficult to answer because i have way too many cameras, but in general i'm very happy with the focus feel of AI and pre-AI Nikkor lenses.<br> I also had a Canon New FD 200/2.8 with IF (internal focusing) that had a really smoooooooth focusing action...</p>

<p>I can't help but feel that the sensor size (30x45) is too small. Too close to 24x36mm, and similar to the budget-priced MF backs, not to the more expensive MF backs.<br> <br /> Since this camera is aimed at studio and commercial shooting, compactness isn't a big requirement. Image quality is. Thus, i'd have chosen a bigger sensor size as a starting point.</p> <p>Otherwise once a more advanced sensor is placed on a 35mm FF DSLR with (and, remember, Canon and Sony are HUGE companies compared to Leitz), it will easily match the image quality of the Leica S.</p>

<p>I use RB67 so same format. I find 90mm a good all-purpose compromise (equiv to 45mm in 35mm terms), but a slightly longer focal length would be more pleasing to the eye IMO. I'd choose 105mm if the optical quality is good (no idea).</p> <p> </p>

<p>KL lenses have a more recent optical design which in theory should be superior.<br> I only own the 50/4.5 and 90/3.8 "C" lenses. The 90mm is sharp at all apertures, so if you are not happy with it, it can be due to a bad sample.</p>

<p>I agree, this is a <strong>great</strong> idea. Even when during the non-digital era, i don't recally any fast tungsten-balanced color negative film being available. And in slide you could only get Ektachrome 320T and Scotch 640T (which was extremely grainy).<br> <br />If i recall correctly this is Kodak Vision3 500T motion picture film, one of the most advanced films by Kodak; but they (CineStill) remove the rem-jet backing so it can be processed through the C41 process, where it gives an effective speed of 800.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Short answer: No, if you don't want to lose image quality. Stay away from FD->EF adaptors that contain a lens to regain infinity focus.<br /> You can adapt the lenses with perfect image quality if you physically modify the lens, by dissasembling it and changing the lens mount, so it's compatible with the EF mount. There is a gentleman on eBay that is selling such modification kits for some FD lenses like the 55/1.2 or 50/1.4, for example.</p> <p>I sold all my FD lenses and switched to both Nikon and Canon EF because of this problem. But now that i'm back into film photography, I miss them badly.</p>

<p>The 58/1.2 lens (R or FL) is full of aberrations in general. Which doesn't mean it's a useless lens. Quite the opposite, you can get a very peculiar look with it. I never owned one but experimented with one. Loads of coma aberration!</p> <p>The FL and FD 55/1.2 lenses (non-aspherical) are of exactly the same optical design. I don't think that they can match any of the 50/1.4 FDs wide-open. However, i owned one and it's an excellent lens, my favorite FD lens. Bokeh is really smooth; resolution is very usable at f1.2 and once stopped down a little bit (f2.8) is an impressively sharp lens. Also, i like the look of 55mm focal length better than 50mm. Contemporary is the Nikkor 55/1.2 which is unloved by Nikon-ians, while the 55/1.2 FD is usually well liked by Canon-ists.</p> <p>The FD version is multicoated, and i think the FL version was multicoated as well -- one of the first FL lenses (or pehaps the only one) to have multicoating. The front lens has a strong red reflection. Beautiful.</p> <p>The aspherical FD 55/1.2 has been described by leica specialist Erwin Puts as superior to any Leitz offering at the time and probably the "best normal lens in the world."</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi,<br> The initial chrome 180/4.5 lenses (actually, marked "18cm") were designed for the Mamiyaflex, Mamiyaflex C2, and Mamiya C3, cameras without the auto-cocking lever. Those lenses won't mount on an auto-cocking body (C33 and C330) because the cocking lever from the body touches the lens base. BTW this early 180/4.5 we're talking about is a very good performer, at least at f8-11, and with creamy bokeh.</p> <p>The spacing between the two lenses is standard and identical on all Mamiya "C" series cameras, so it shouldn't be a problem UNLESS a technician has done a messy job when re-assembling the lens.</p> <p>Greetings,<br> F.</p>

<p>For 6x7, divide the focal length by two to have a very good equivalence:<br> I.e. 90mm ---> equivalent to 45mm in 35mm terms<br> For 6x4.5, divide by 1.6<br> I.e. 90mm ---> equivalent to 56mm in 35mm terms<br> For 6x6, divide by 1.85<br> I.e. 65mm --> equiv. to 35mm lens.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'd say that if you don't mind the size, you will LOVE the Mamiya TLR system.<br> Other than that the Yashicas are small, inexpensive, easy to repair, rugged and the Yashinon lenses are good. So it's a good choice.</p>

<p>For black and white I almost never use a light meter. I judge exposure using my eyes (no kidding - you can do it.)<br> As for the Mamiya metering viewfinders, i have the CdS Porroprism for the C330, which uses exactly the same design and circuitry than the Mamiya RB chimney CdS, and it is very reliable and accurate. I recommend it !</p> <p> </p>