ondebanks

<blockquote> <p>in terms of how a 127mm f4.5MF lens will appear to behave on an FX body, sure it's always a 127, but when looking through the viewfinder of FX what do we see? the same as a Nikon FX 127mm or an image that looks more like 60-65mm? </p> </blockquote> <p>Answer - the same as a Nikon FX 127mm. You said it yourself - "sure it's always a 127". </p> <blockquote> <p>or does it present us with the same view that we would see on an RB?</p> </blockquote> <p>Answer - no. Focusing screens have essentially the same dimensions as the film/digital sensor inside the camera. So an RB screen, being about 4 times larger than a Nikon screen, shows a much wider image field than a Nikon, when the same lens is put on both.</p> <blockquote> <p>I've read that in effect the f4.5 will get a lot faster on FX.</p> </blockquote> <p>It remains an f4.5 lens, on all formats. Perhaps what you read is that faster shutter speeds are possible because the FX digital camera has vastly better high ISO performance than medium format film/digital? But that has nothing to do with the lens.</p>

<blockquote> <p>These seem to be about the only pics I can find: <a href="http://japanorama.co.uk/2014/06/03/mamiya-rb67-lenses-on-nikon-d800e/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://japanorama.co.uk/2014/06/03/mamiya-rb67-lenses-on-nikon-d800e/</a> enough to get me interested</p> </blockquote> <p>He tries a 127mm f3.8 RB lens on his D800E and - ouch! - he goes on to say: "Focal length is, I am guessing [i'll do a proper comparison with my Nikon 24-70mm tomorrow], about 60-65mm".</p> <p>Well, I am "guessing" that the focal length of his 127 mm lens is...127mm.</p> <p>Anyway, the Fotodiox RB/RZ adapter family looks promising. Wish they'd make one for RB/RZ lenses onto the M645...at those prices rather than at Hartblei's prices!</p>

<p>Peter - PM sent.</p>

<p>But having said that, you might want to wait and see what Leica does next with the S series. Speculation is building that they will reveal a new S camera with the same Sony CMOS tech as the Pentax 645Z (except perhaps in the 3:2 aspect ratio). Not only is there room for an adapter which permits infinity focus with the Contax lenses on the S body; Leica have made such an adapter themselves and it fully controls the lens' aperture and autofocus motors.</p>

<p>No adapter plates; can't be done. For this to work, you'd have to physically strip the Hasselblad DB down to it's undies and re-dress it in Mamiya livery. This was possible with many Sinar and Imacon (later Hasselblad CF) DBs, but Phase One has never gone down that modular road.</p> <p>Phase One do offer the concept of a "mount swap" - which sounds like they take your DB, remove some parts specific to camera "A" and fit new parts specific to camera "B". In fact, they do nothing of the sort; they just take your old DB away and give you a different DB of the same type and overall condition, in the mounting that you wanted. Unless the original DB is still covered by a "value added warranty" (itself costing $$$$ 4-figures per year), they charge a fortune ($2500) for this "mount swap".</p> <p>When you think about what's actually happening - the fact that Phase One does no actual work on the DBs, and yet a lot money changes hands - you realise that this is a scheme where you trade in your 2010 Ford Focus (with grey seat covers) for another 2010 Ford Focus (with brown seat covers), and you pay $2500 for the different colour of the pre-existing seat covers.<br> So they pocket your $2500, and then wait for someone to come along looking for grey seat covers. Then they give him your Focus, take his brown-covered Focus, and take his $2500. That's $5000 for doing nothing more than relaying a Focus (or in reality, a DB) between two owners.</p> <p>Is it any wonder that Phase One always seems to turn an annual profit?</p> <p> </p>

<p>There's no market for such an adapter, because the Contax lenses would only focus on shorter distances. Pentax 645 lenses could reach infinity on a Contax 645 body, but the reverse is impossible.</p>

<p>Peter,</p> <p>Perhaps you already found this, but a few years ago I downloaded the Version 1.3.0 installer for this software, dated 28 December 2006, from www.mamiya.co.jp - HOWEVER, it is just an update patch - it won't work unless one already has the original Mamiya DPS software installed. I never managed to locate the original DPS software, so the updater is useless without it...</p> <p>OTOH, if you are also looking for Mamiya Remote Capture for the ZD camera and backs, I do have a working version of that. I believe it does the same thing as Mamiya DPS, as regards controlling the camera/back and its settings over Firewire. Just the other week I sent a copy to an Italian photographer, who was similarly at his wit's end trying to get his ZD camera connected up, and he was delighted with it. Let me know if you'd like a copy.</p> <p>I myself never had a ZD camera or back, but came close to choosing a ZD back 4 or 5 years ago, hence my acquisition of all the ZD software I could find at the time.</p>

<blockquote> <p>which of the two are better at rendering the out of focus areas? I've always heard great things about Zeiss and it's microcontrast</p> </blockquote> <p>Microcontrast is only applicable within in-focus areas. Out of focus areas will, by definition, have no contrast over small scales.</p>

<p>First, calculate the linear aperture of each lens - this determines the wide-open bokeh blur "size" and dof at a given shooting distance:<br> 80 mm / 2 = 40 mm...Contax<br> 80 mm / 1.9 = 42.1 mm...Mamiya a bit bigger<br> 105 mm / 2.4 = 43.75 mm...Pentax just bigger again</p> <p>Second, calculate the FOV of each lens...or as a quicker proxy, the ratio of the frame diagonal to the lens focal length. If the values are about the same, then the lenses compose scenes about the same, and shooting distances will be about the same:<br> 645: 69.7 mm diagonal / 80 mm lens = 0.87...both Contax and Mamiya<br> 6x7: 89mm diagonal / 105 mm lens = 0.85...Pentax is close enough to the others; a very slightly "longer" lens in terms of framing.</p> <p>Taken together, these values show that the 3 lenses will behave very similarly in terms of the <em>quantity</em> of bokeh (of course the <em>quality</em> depends on other things, like spherical aberration)...with a slight edge to the Pentax.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I seem to recall there are metering and/or other issues related to iris operation when using the newer auto-focus bodies with manual-focus lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's just the normal thing of stop-down metering and fully manual aperture control - like when you adapt a lens from one system onto another system's camera.</p> <p>The upside is that you do get the advantage of electronic focus assistance (it tells you which way to turn the focus ring to move towards focus, and confirms when you're "there"). The older non-AF 645 bodies of course cannot do this, so it goes some way to compensate for not having their very snappy focusing screens and massive WLF view.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I was actually offered a Mamiya 645 afdII at a bargain price. Would adding the type-c focusing screen make things any better?</p> </blockquote> <p>For manual focusing, yes.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />I'm also confused as to what factor has a larger influence over manual focus: The brightness of the screen, or the ability to have a split prism screen.</p> </blockquote> <p>The latter. Counterintuitively, a brighter screen may actually be worse for manual focus; it may be too fine-grained and transparent to provide a good scattering surface where the focusing image would form. There is a good discussion of this <a href="http://www.tumblr.com/search/focussing%20screen">here</a>.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Has anyone bought from fforders?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, a couple of times - Ffordes are excellent, at least for intra-EU sales. What problem you were encountering with your order? </p>

Well, shot count is fairly irrelevant - no lens is included, and digital backs have no moving parts. The bigger question is whether you would embrace the full automation of the H system, or would you just use it as a platform for your manual focus V lenses?

<blockquote> <p>Hassy is offering 0% financing on their certified pre-owned Hassy H4D and H5D bodies.<br> Secondly I'd get the newer backs that have CMOS instead of CCD sensor arrays.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'd agree in principle with Ellis - the new CFV50c for V cameras is a game-changing performer, at a price which hugely undercuts the Phase One IQ250 with the same sensor. But it's still not exactly cheap! How much are Hasselblad charging for the certified pre-owned systems?</p>

<p>Few medium format and 35mm format lenses are truly identical designs. For this to be the case, the lens cannot in general be optimised for the 35mm format camera, as a longer flange distance and larger image circle are imposed on it by the requirements of the medium format camera. So it is really restricted to lenses in the telephoto range (but with a modest telephoto ratio).</p> <p>The CZ Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar, and the Meyer/Pentacon 500/5.6, which were sold in mounts for both 6x6 and 35mm Pentacon cameras, are a couple of examples that come to mind.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Some chance, if rumor mill chatter matters, that Fuji might replace it with a big-sensor digital version.</p> </blockquote> <p>If Fuji does come up with a big-sensor digital camera (which would be great!), it's a very safe bet that it won't look, or operate, at all like the GF670. It will be like a Fuji X-series or Sony A7-series CSC, only slightly bigger.</p>

<blockquote> <p>My M645 is a "first edition" 500s so will the PD finder work on it?</p> </blockquote> <p>The PD prism goes to 1/500 sec; the "PD prism finder S" (which people like me shorten to "PDS") goes to 1/1000 sec. Are you aware of the Butkus manuals site? It has all this info in PDFs. So the PD prism S manual says it will work, as long as you heed the the warning in the extract below...</p><div></div>

<p>Let's check the obvious things first:<br> (1) Is the same ASA/ISO set on both cameras? (it's set on the CDS prism itself)<br> (2) Is the same aperture set on both cameras?<br> (3) Is the A-M switch set to "A" on the lens?<br> (4) Has the pin on the front of the prism settled in the meter-coupling prong on the lens' aperture ring?<br> (5) Are you remembering to set the same shutter speed on both the meter and the camera body?</p> <blockquote> <p>Which is the better alternative finder? PD or AE?</p> </blockquote> <p>Personally I don't know why anyone puts up with the CDS finder, when the the PD (or PDS if you have a M645 1000s body) trumps it in several ways. The PD has the better metering technology - fast, accurate, super sensitive in low light. The colour LED display is also very easy to use, in any light, less fussy than the needle system, and more suited to setting precise amounts of exposure compensation. The PD gets its power from the body, whereas the CDS needs its own battery and its own on/off switch. And most importantly of all, the PD is fully coupled - set a shutter speed on the PD prism and it automatically transmits to the body. Whereas the semi-coupled [aperture coupling only] CDS requires you to set the shutter speed in two places, the prism and the body. This requires more attention from the user and it's easier to slip up.</p> <p>The AE prism uses the same, more limited metering tech as the CDS, and shares some more of its minor disadvantages (needle type display, separate power switch), but like the PD and unlike the CDS, it gets its power from the body. Of course, the reason for selecting this prism - the only thing it has over the PD prism - is that it does have the great convenience of automatically setting the shutter speed i.e. aperture priority auto-exposure.</p>

<p>I'd go with option 1), providing that you move the matched pair and keep any shims with the lens cells, as Charles says.</p>

<p>Nice story. Apart from the photographic aspects, the other striking message was the continual loss of wild environment in the American southwest.</p>

<blockquote> <p>then the next issue will of course be dynamic range for color negative and B&W film.</p> </blockquote> <p>Brad, color negatives consist of a small dynamic range, so that's not a problem. Everyone talks about the huge dynamic range of colour negative film, but don't let that confuse you. There's DR in, and DR out; the film <em>captures </em>a large dynamic range in the original scene; but it <em>stores</em> it within a density range which is quite modest, and well within the range of a good DSLR or CSC sensor if you are using it to "scan" the negatives.</p> <p>B&W negatives are a different matter, and may require HDR-style shooting to capture the full range. </p>

<p>Generally if a lens is misaligned due to a fall, you can tell by asymmetry in the image corners...the 4 corners won't have equal performance. They may also all show smearing in a particular linear direction. Whereas a well aligned but poorly designed lens will show equal corner performance, and smearing will be radial and axisymmetric (the same amount of aberration at the same distance from the centre of the image).</p>

<blockquote> <p>As usual the price tag is in the astronomics somewhere.</p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed, but it's still less than half the price of the Phase One IQ250 back with the same sensor - $15k vs $35k; hence the good reception it's getting. </p>

<p>Mamiya 645AFD, Kodak DCS645M with the IR-block filter clicked off, 80/1.9 at f2.8.<br> Stack of 12 x 1 minute exposures on an AstroTrac mount, processed in Deep Sky Stacker.</p> <p>This reminds me of old hypered Tech Pan film shots with a deep red filter, except here it's actually in colour: the little nebulae are reddish due to the 656 nm Hydrogen line. The star-clouds and interstellar dust clouds are more structured in IR than they would be in the visible.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>AFAIK no medium format digital back has ever had a sensor nearly as large as 56x56mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>One of the earliest DBs, the 16MP Dicomed BigShot of 1996, holds the record for sensor size in a photographic DB: 60 x 60 mm. So it was actually larger than the film gate of the Hasselblads it was designed for. Sadly, despite its huge 15 micron pixels, it had buckets of noise, and cost buckets of money ($35k for the B&W version is not unknown for a top-end DB now, but those were 1996 dollars - equivalent to about $55k now; the colour version was $55k - equivalent to about $85k now).</p> <p>The story goes that these 60 x 60 mm Loral Fairchild CCDs were originally developed for Cold War satellites. That probably explains why no subsequent DB has had such a large sensor: if the military doesn't need them (the trend to smaller pixels gives them equally good resolution in a smaller sensor size), then the market is not there to make them. </p>