myco_megasoid

I have a circa 1980 Schneider 300mm f/5.6 Symmar-S [not the

old Symmar "non-S"] intended for 8x10 use that I use of 4x5

format to allow extensive camera movements on a monorail. It's

only use is for studio product photography, from objects the size

of a 35mm camera body to objects around 1 meter cubed.

<p>

I'm thinking about trading up to the 300mm f/5.6 Apo-Symmar.

<p>

I can compare lens test charts, etc., on my own--of course, the

newer lens specs out better.

<p>

Has anyone had any real world experience with both

lenses--does the newer lens really make images snap better

with contrast, more sharpness, etc., to any noticeable extent?

Do you have any comparison images that you could post to a

URL or e-mail me?

<p>

Although my older lens is EXCELLENT, I always thought I

noticed just a touch of color fringing in certain types of subject

matter due to chromatic aberration. However, I could never

measure it, not having any mechanism by which to do that, and

the images were nonetheless great for both clients and myself.

Also, it might have been my illusion at high contrast edges in

certain subject matter, and whatever it was, it was very subtle--no

one else saw it until I pointed it out, and even then many said

they saw nothing like my description.

<p>

But then, why do large format without being a fanatic about

getting the last % of performance out of it?

<p>

Thanks in advance,

Myco

http://www.megasoidstudios.com

Wow, thanks Bob! As Johnny Carson used to say in metered

verse, "I did not know that." I suppose that since I've only used

gel filters behind lenses, I haven't seen such optical effects. I'm

now curious and will experiment with some thicker glass filters

behind lenses, just to learn.

<p>

In my use of 65mm lenses on 4x5, I've exploited the luminance

falloff to the corners and sides. And then, there's Photoshop,

since everything is scanned and improved there anyway. So I

may just end up doing that with the even more extreme falloff

inherent in a 47mmXL, as long as there is sufficient shadow

detail in the falloff areas--or, could shoot a 1 and 2 stop series of

overexposed chromes and merge them with gradient masks in

Photoshop--but only if I had a flare situation with a CF in front of

the lens.

<p>

I've found that for lenses as wide as a 65mm on 4x5 and wider,

that compendium shades and the like won't work without

vignetting--I usually try to make a flag to gobo the flare source if

possible.

<p>

Myco http://www.megasoidstudios.com

I'm considering this 47XL on a Cambo Wide DS. Is it possible

to somehow use the CF behind the lens in this body, or a

standard bag bellows view camera body? I suppose that if the

rear lens element diameter were much smaller than the front,

that the filter might not work, but I don't have them to examine. As

long as the center spot gradient accomplished its job, as

determined by real world testing, that's all that should count.

<p>

I use many other filters behind the lens to avoid flare problems.

<p>

Myco

http://www.megasoidstudios.com

The most important thing for all of us to do is to REGISTER

YOUR © ON IMAGES. Yes, you do technically own the © at the

moment of creation of the image, but if there is an infringement,

the best you can get is value of actual damages.

<p>

If you have a Registered © with the Library of Congress, Bureau

of ©, an infringement can get you $150K in statutory fines, not to

mention criminal prosecution of the infringers.

<p>

I've been registering © since 1982, and have forced $150K out of

2 infringers [cosmetics industry] without ever going to court when

the infringements were discovered. Discovered by luck, as it

turns out--finding infringements in print isn't always easy.

Finding infringements on the web with Digimarc digital

watermarking is easier, though not guaranteed.

<p>

Here's the link to register

<p>

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/

<p>

I send in JPG's on a CD along with filling out the forms as PDF's

in Adobe Acrobat. I send hard copy of the forms, as well as

putting the PDF files on the CD itself. The JPG's should be

named with .jpg file extensions, and file names should only have

alphabetic and numeric characters along with periods and

hyphens only. This way, they can be opened with a PC or Mac.

<p>

I use Mitsui Gold CD-R media for this, as it's the most archival.

Burning CD's at a slow 2X is also the optimum archival speed. I

use a Mitsui CD marker on the top surface to identify the CD and

my contact info, which with a URL and domain name e-mail

address and 888 phone number are "essentially permanent".

<p>

REGISTER YOUR ©'s DO IT NOW!!!! Let's take the money

away from the infringers!

<p>

Myco

http://www.megasoidstudios.com

Pete, sorry I missed your second to last line about un-American

activities and slave trade, etc. I had a heavy-duty negotiation

going on in my studio earlier in the day, and although I "won", I

was so long faced and serious afterwards that I was just about

incapable of humor.

At least you didn't say anything about the dangers of owning a

camera with "Hassel" for a first name. I always grimace when I

hear Mamiya RZ67 owners say that. They're so jealous.

But I am glad I asked the question I did, because I had always

wondered about this gray market issue, and thanks to Peter

Jørgensen and the rest of the posts, I have a very good picture.

Exercising my diaphragm with staccato reflex contractions,

Myco

http://www.megasoidstudios.com

Danny,

I'm the one who warned you in an earlier post about the lack of

professional camera rental stores and lack of real professional,

super-tight tolerance film processing there. I own and run a full

time advertising photography studio. I started in N.O. 22 years

ago because I grew up there, and 20 years ago left for Dallas

and San Francisco, in which I have dual operations.

Half of the business reasons for leaving were to get higher

paying, more sophisticated clients. The other half of the

business reasons for leaving lay in the utter dearth of reliable,

deadline conscious, no dust, no drip mark, no cigarette ash

marked, no out of tolerance chemical film processing, I had

around 15% of my total film output in N.O. ruined by the labs in

that town--it got so bad that I started buying Kodak Control Strips

and running them simultaneously with my film to make sure that

I wasn't the one making the errors. The out-of-tolerance

development in density and color on film was atrocious, and

from tests I ran while on traveling assignment to N.O. about a

year ago, the labs there are even worse now, at least the ones

still in business. I ran the same test film through my labs in

Dallas and San Francisco for comparison, and both labs turned

out perfect processing.

I include all the labs in N.O. listed by others on this forum. If

you're talking about wedding photography level stuff, then these

labs might be OK--if you don't mind late deliveries, because

everything in N.O. is slow and late--they like it that way, and for a

traveler exploring things, why should you hurry. But you want

your labs to be timely on delivery.

Bottom line--for ultimate perfectionists' work, don't use any N.O.

processing lab--any. If you're into medium and large format,

then you are into higher quality. Why use a Bronica or

Hasselblad or 4x5 and then get crappy lab work?

You may or may not be able to find pro 120 size films there in the

exact types and quantities you want. Yes, Lakeside or Liberty

Camera are places to try, as they do carry some--but if you want

to be sure, I recommend calling ahead of time, buying with a

credit card, and having them hold the film for you. Be sure to ask

what is actually in stock--don't depend on them to order it for you.

There simply isn't enough high level business in N.O. to support

a critical mass of high level pros, along with a high level

professional photo lab network

Here's what I now do when flying anywhere on assignment or for

personal stock image shooting, to avoid the X-ray and unknown,

risky local lab situations. I ship 3 times as much film as I think I

need of each type, ahead of time via FedEx to a contact in the

location. If I know in advance, I use their Express Saver 3 or

more day service. If there's no contact, I can specify that it be

held at a particular FedEx station for my pickup. I then FedEx my

film back to either Dallas or San Francisco in split shipments

[never put all of your eggs in one basket], and again, if there's

time, I use Next Business Day service. For personal work, you

could use Express Saver 3 or more days. FedEx doesn't X-Ray,

and I've never had anything lost by them. Keep your Airbill # and

copy to enable tracking. This whole method eliminates nasty

surprises in new airports and new cities.

Finally, none of this should reflect on the fun and growth, both

personally and photographically, that you'll experience in the

unique areas of N.O. I'm warning you of the bad so you can

enjoy the good with unfettered pleasure. It's TERRIFIC FOR

SCENES for photography and having a good time, just

TERRIBLE FOR LABS for photography.

And in case you think this is an ex-native picking just on N.O., I

won't run my film anywhere but in labs I know and have run tests

at in the big 6 photography cities--NYC, ATL, CHG, DFW, LAX,

and SFO. There's too much at stake. As far as the rest of the

labs in the country are concerned, there may be some good

ones here and there, but I don't have time as a travelling pro to

check them out--I'll stick with the best I already know.

Can't wait for a 300MB full 6x6cm digital back for my

Hasselblads--all this film and processing nail biting will become

a thing of the past.

Danny, I hope this helps. Once again, forewarned is forearmed.

Myco

http://www.megasoidstudios.com

Thanks to Philip and Danny for their information, and to Philip for

his kind remarks about my photography on my website!

In reference to the comments above by Pete, you have me

wondering now. If these manufacturers could indeed increase

their profit by selling gray market goods using inferior plastic

lens elements, and could then get away with stamping "Made in

Germany" instead of "Made by Slave Labor in China"--then why

would they even bother to ever make anything in Germany at 10X

or more the manufactured price, and then sell them for only

25-33% more? What they would do is to sell only the inferior

goods to everyone, at 2 different price points, 1 under "regular"

and 1 under "gray market" to get the 2 different market

psychology segments. But then I have total confidence that

Hasselblad and Zeiss would never stoop to this. Anyone who

would stoop would do so across the board, and not just partially.

This would assume, of course, that someone else besides

Zeiss and Hasselblad isn't making counterfit goods, and selling

them as genuine. I don't think that most of these gray market

goods that the above writers have had experience with are cheap

counterfit, because the fit and finish and function of such poor

goods would have either shown up to the buyers to their eyes, or

would have shown up in use and in inferior images on film.

Besides that, the US Customs Department is pretty aggressive

on shutting down counterfit goods importation, and Hasselblad

and Zeiss would never stand for such counterfit being allowed

on the market with their venerable names. They'd probably hire

their own mercenaries to shut down the counterfitters, and I

would cheer them on.

I don't know why "gray market" is cheaper than normal, but I

suspect from all evidence that I've seen that the goods are

exactly the same in quality. If I'm wrong, please tell me why and

show me some proof, because if these gray market goods are

legal, and are the same high quality, I see no reason why I

shouldn't buy the same thing at a lower price if I can.

Finally, while I may be upset at Hasselblad for their using more

plastic and less metal in their goods as time goes by, this has

nothing to do with gray vs. normal market. And I must say that

the plastic vs. metal issue is mostly a matter of taste to me--I've

tested both C and CF and CFi, and the optical and mechanical

quality, even with the plastic focusing, aperture and shutter

speed rings, seems the same or better to me. I just "like" the

look and feel of knurled metal rings better. And I see no

evidence of plastic lens elements. All manufacturers have had

to increase their economy of manufacturing to remain market

viable, but Hasselblad and Zeiss are only doing this in ways that

do not affect mechanical and optical performance--in fact, the

optical performance seems equal or better all the time. They are

2 of the last bastions of supreme excellence in a "well, let's just

do it good enough" world.

Thanks for everyone's time and thoughts on this!

Myco

http://www.megasoidstudios.com

I have the Nikkor-SW 90mm and 65mm lenses. I use my 65mm

about 70% of the time for architecture. I tested a 75mm for my

uses, and it wasn't wide enough. Besides, I like the forced

perspective look. So, from this vantage, I recommend getting a

65mm. The Nikkor-SW, with a maximum aperture of f/4, is a lot

easier to focus than those lenses with a max of f/5.6. The

Nikkors are also more contrasty than the other brands, which is

great by me.

<p>

My next 4x5 wide angle will be the Schneider Super-Angulon XL

47mm, which covers the format. There's no equivalent Nikkor

lens.

Hey, you've convinced me! Some of the newer FLE and CFi

lenses I'm looking for are nearly as much on the used market as

new US prices.

Give me a URL web link on where I can buy Hasselblad gray

market equipment.

I'm at an address in the US, does this cause problems?

Thanks!

Myco

http://www.megasoidstudios.com

Danny,

I'm from N.O.--grew up there and operated a studio for 2 years

before moving to Dallas and San Francisco about 20 years ago.

I still have a few clients there. So I know what's there.

The situation in New Orleans for processing labs is poor, and

the situation for equipment rentals is virtually non-existent.

When I'm there on assignment, I FedEx my E-6 film back to

Dallas, who then FedEx's finished film back to me. Yes, it's a

hassle and an expense, but I can't afford failures.

Without exception, every lab in N.O. does awful processing and

is incredibly slow. If you just want "pitchers" and don't care

when, then use their labs. There isn't enough money there to

support a true pro photography talent pool there, and so that

trickles down to the suppliers or lack thereof. But if you're

serious about imaging, save your processing for Toronto, where

I understand that there is a pro community having grown out of

the movie industry.

Also, universally in N.O.--things are promised for a deadline, and

then they don't meet the deadline. "The City That Care Forgot. . ."

is the motto of N.O., and I often rewrote this as "The City That

Forgot To Care".

The best lab of the worst is Colorpix on Tchoupitoulas Street.

Don't even think about anyone else. And they aren't too hot by my

standards. When I was last there on assignment, I sent some

E-6 test film there strictly for a focus check on 4x5, and sent

some of the same to my lab in Dallas. No comparison. The

N.O. film was underdeveloped by 0.33 stop, and was green in

color cast. The Dallas film was perfect.

In the early 8O's, there was K&B Camera Center for very limited

equipment rentals in the French Quarter, but that went bankrupt

some time ago.

Advice--bring what you need, and bring or ship your film back to

Toronto or some really good lab in a major city.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Myco Megasoid

Hi Luis,

Based on your question, I'd go for the 555ELD, if the cost of the 503CW and

winder come to the same approximate total as the cost of it. The integral

motorized bodies, starting with the original EL, EL/M, ELX, and so on through

the latest 555ELD, have more heavily constructed gearworks and mechanisms

than do the manual wind bodies. Also, I've found that all externally mounted

winders of any brand for any format work loose from the camera body with

heavy use, allowing for a sloppy mechanical coupling that increases parts

wear, as well as a less than solid feeling.

A valid point to consider is whether or not you need a motor at all. For most

advanced amateur uses of a medium format camera, motorized operation is

not all that necessary. For a pro fashion photographer shooting hundreds of

rolls a week like me, it is very necessary. It depends on what you want to use it

for. If you don't need a motor, go for the 503CW and skip the motor, and use

the money saved for more optics or other accessories.

Another important point--the 555ELD is ready to go with digital camera backs,

having all of the electronic contact interfaces necessary. (The huge

disappointment to me so far is that there are no one-shot digital backs for the

6x6cm format yet that have a full 6x6cm CCD array, and since I primarily use

my Hasselblads for fashion and beauty photography, a scanning or 4-shot

digital back is useless to me.)

I do not understand the comment about the film backs being different for the

555ELD. . .all A12 and older #12 backs that I know of will fit any Hasselblad

body, manual or motorized. As you stated, it will make no difference in terms of

lenses.

From my point of view as a professional, I am always working with controlled

situations on a tripod and do not need the extra speed of the lenses made for

the FE body--and I do need the leaf shutter X sync to allow for mixing strobes

with available light as I wish.

Myco;

Check My Profile For My Website