alexo

<p>There is NOTHING like a projected slide. No digital projector will hold a candle to a real slide</p>

<p>Hi Kent, <br /><br />That is what I mean.</p>

<p>I currently use the Canon Autobellows (old FD mount) with adapters and I've never gotten crap on the image sensor from the bellows. <br> Did it matter which lenses you used and what extension you had or was the image circle always big enough regardless of the focal length and extension?</p>

<p>Hi,<br /><br />I am considering getting a PB-4 bellows and I was wondering if there is a formula to calculate the size of the image circle based on the lens extension. I want to know how much I can swing and tilt the bellows without actually doing it.<br> Thanks</p>

<p>You're very welcome. Please let me know what you've been able to find.</p>

<p>Take a look at this: <br> <a href="http://www.metz-mecatech.de/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/fm-dam/Download/Homepage_Englisch/Photo_Electronic/SCA_Archiv_GB/SCA_Adapter_Archive_GB.pdf&t=1444606057&hash=7b5762c25c93b157ac32bb2e747265c541bbf0c5"> http://www.metz-mecatech.de/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=fileadmin/fm-dam/Download/Homepage_Englisch/Photo_Electronic/SCA_Archiv_GB/SCA_Adapter_Archive_GB.pdf&t=1444606057&hash=7b5762c25c93b157ac32bb2e747265c541bbf0c5<br /><br /></a><br> It's the most comprehensive Metz SCA compatibility chart I could find. Your camera isn't there, but it could be close to one of the ones listed.</p>

<p>Thank you. That answers my question. I appreciate everyone taking the time to post.</p>

<p>I've been looking at various phase one backs and all of them have a pixel pitch of 6 microns. They range from 40 to 80 mp. I understand the resolution difference. However, what I'm asking is this:<br /><br />Is there a difference in image quality between a 6 micron FF camera and a 6 micron MF camera if we do NOT go beyond the resolution capabilities of the FF camera?</p>

<p>Thank you for your replies. I'm less interested in the focal length lenses needed to achieve the same angle of view (I've shot with med format film cameras, so I'm aware of that), nor am I interested in the service aspect.<br> I'm more interested in the actual image quality comparison as it relates to pixel size, unless I'm missing something in concentrating primarily on pixel size and there are some other features at play. Brian mentioned something about "thickness". What is it about these files that makes them easier to retouch? What do you mean these files don't fall apart? What makes them not fall apart?<br> Will an image made from a med format camera with 6 micron pixels look the same (barring focal length differences) as an image made from a 6 micron FF camera provided we don't go over 300ppi?<br> <br />Thanks again </p>

<p>I've been perusing various sites, looking into the advantage of a medium format digital back vs full frame digital camera. It seems that the biggest argument for going to medium format digital is the pixel pitch - the size of the individual pixels, which allow better light gathering abilities, thus rendering a better, more accurate image.<br> Of the backs that I've looked into, most seem to use 6 micron pixels. I own a Canon 5D II, which uses 6.4 micron pixels. <br> <br />So, aside from allowing me greater resolution at the same pixel size, is there any other advantage to med format digital? Would my images from my Canon look essentially the same at a given PPI as a med format image? (Assuming we don't go larger than 300PPI) Is there anything that I'm missing? I understand there are differences in implementation, software, AA filters, etc, but I'm talking specifically from a format related perspective.</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>The digital Pentax 645 cameras use a crop sensor. Therefore, ANY Pentax 645 lens will have a sufficient image circle coverage.</p>

<p>Hi,<br /><br />You can't get Nikon lenses to work in Pentax 645. Their image circle is designed for a 35mm frame, and they're designed for a much shorter flange to film plane distance. No 35mm lenses can be adapted to work on med format cameras.</p>

<p>Hi Ivan,<br> I'm not familiar with any camera system that can use Hassleblad lenses. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't be used with any other camera system because of the leaf shutter built into the lens.<br> If you're looking for another square format with good optics, then Bronica SQ series has really good optics as does the Mamiya C220 and C330. However, keep in mind that the Mamiya cameras are TLRs. <br> If you don't mind a rangefinder, Mamiya 6 is fantastic.<br> Having said all that, I'm not quite sure why you don't just get a Hassleblad? They're not much more expensive than other offerings and the most money you're going to spend is on lenses anyway, so you may as well get a Hassy.</p>

<p>You may want to take a look at Koni Omega or Koni Omega Rapid. It's a 67 rangefinder with interchangeable backs and with great optics. It's an older camera, so there's no built-in meter or any electronics at all, but the optics are fantastic. If you get one, be sure to get a few backs because they tend to go bad and you have to be gentle with them.</p>

<p>I would go with the Mamiya 645 AF. The RB/RZ cameras aren't hand holdable cameras. They're too big, too heavy, too bulky and too awkward to use hand held. They're great studio cameras and field cameras when you have the luxury of a tripod. The 645 can be easily hand held. Even though the prism does not detach on the AF, I don't see it as an issue because the waist level finder is useless to me without rotating backs (which neither 645 cameras have). If you don't like the AF, you can always use the manual focus lenses (albeit with stopped down metering and manual diaphragm control). These lenses are cheap, light and small compared to RB/RZ lenses. Furthermore, you can attach a digital back to the AF without losing any of your wide angle options (especially if it's a full frame back), whereas attaching a digital back to the RB or RZ would severely limit your wide angle options due to the crop factor.</p>

<p>The SQAi will take the SQ-i120j and SQ-i220J backs, which are 645 backs. However, those things must be extremely rare. I've never seen anyone use one of these backs. You may have a tough time finding them on the used market.<br> If you're willing to go the 645 route, look into Pentax 645NII and any of the Mamiya offerings. Mamiya is modular (especially the Pro and Pro TL versions which have interchangeable backs) and has the 80mm f1.9 lens, while Pentax is lighter and has an integrated motordrive, built-in metering prism and feels the most modern.</p>

<p>It's an opinion. Otherwise, the conversation goes off on a tangent or worse yet, becomes a slug fest.</p>

<p>The OP has made a choice. She set a very clear set of parameters under which a system recommendation should be made. You may think it's not a good idea to recommend a system under those parameters, but the original question was clear. If a range finder or a 35mm system is not under consideration, then just recommend a system that is regardless of whether or not you agree that it's the best way to go. <br> I'm sure there is a reason why the rangefinders and 35mm are not under consideration. The question was clear, the parameters were communicated, so just answer the question or don't answer at all, but it serves no purpose to start preaching a system that was explicitly rejected.</p>

<p>I agree that if there is a chance to reconsider the 645 format, that would be the best bet.</p>

<p>That's a very tall order. The lightest med format SLR that I'm aware of is Pentax 645. However, since you said you're not interested in a 645, the next lightest SLR that I can think of is Bronica SQA. It has interchangeable lenses, backs, prisms. I'm not aware of any lens in the Bronica SQ series with an aperture larger than 2.8. Mamiya 645 has an 80mm f1.9 lens. That's the fastest lens in med format that I'm aware of.<br> So, the lightest camera: Pentax 645<br />Camera with the fastest lens: Mamiya 645<br> The lightest camera that meets your criteria: Bronica SQ/SQA<br> Hope this helps</p>

<p>The 54x68 is the 6x7 mount</p> <p>I haven't used the Wess mounts<br /><br />I prefer glassless. The glass mounts are thicker, the glass gets dingy with time and they're more expensive. The advantage of the glass mounts is that they hold the slide straight within the glass, however, if you're using a curved field projection lens, having a glassless mount is less of an issue</p>

<p>The RB is a studio camera. You could use it in the field, but think of it as small view camera in terms of the way you would need to shoot with it. It's heavy and virtually impossible to hand hold. You'd need a tripod.<br> Pentax 6x7 is a nice camera, but if I'm not mistaken, its flash synch is 1/30 of a second. It doesn't have interchangeable backs and its mirror slaps pretty hard.<br> Of the 645 cameras you mention, the Bronica is the most modular. It's the only one of the 645 cameras you mention that has interchangeable backs, which means you can switch film midstream, without having to finish the roll. So, if you're shooting color and then decide you want to take a shot in black and white, you pop the back off, put on a back loaded with b&w film, take whatever shot you want and then put the color back on the camera and continue where you left off without losing any frames. Neither Mamiya 645E, nor Pentax allow you to do that. However, it doesn't have an instant return mirror, so the viewfinder goes dark after you take a shot until you wind to the next frame.<br> Bronicas are also pretty well made. They are more rugged than Mamiya 645E. In fact, I think that of the cameras you mention, the 645E is the weakest. Mamiya does have the widest selection of lenses though and you can use it with third party accessories such as pentacon bellows or lenses with appropriate adapters, something you can't do with a Bronica.<br /><br /><br> All of the 645 cameras you mention have significant mirror slap. If you want something quieter, your choice would have to be a rangefinder camera.<br> <br />If I were in your shoes, I would probably go with either a Mamiya or a Pentax system because of the ability to use other lenses and accessories with adapters, which are much cheaper. However, I wouldn't go with Mamiya 645E. I would most likely get AFD I, II or III, which is the most versatile, as it allows you to use newer AF lenses and older MF lenses with stopped down metering and manual aperture control. Barring that, I would go with Mamiya 645TL, which is modular like the Bronica and it's pretty well made.<br /><br />Good luck. Let us know how you make out.</p>