ondebanks

<p>Just announced, out of the blue: <a href="http://www.hasselblad.com/media/4795264/uk_cfv%2050c%20data%20sheet%20v2.pdf">a version of the CFV digital back with the new Sony 44x33 mm CMOS sensor</a><br> Will be amazing in low light.<br> 4:3 aspect ratio like the CFV-39 and CFV-50, but bigger crop factor.</p>

<p>With Pentax, you buy a body with a non-removable digital sensor - a Kodak CCD in the 645D and a Sony CMOS in the new 645Z. Kodak CCDs are renowned for their low to mid ISO colour response, while the Sony CMOS has amazingly low noise in high ISO and long exposure scenarios, somewhat higher dynamic range, and also supports live view and video. Take your pick according to your requirements. There is some current debate on image quality, along the lines that the 645Z ticks all the technical boxes while the 645D with its "CCD look" ticks more aesthetic ones.</p> <p>With Mamiya, other than the ZD body which was the first medium format SLR with a non-removable digital sensor, you buy a body which takes interchangeable backs. You don't need to fork out for a Mamiya 645AFD III to shoot digitally, BTW - the 645AFD and 645AFD II work just as well, and for a couple of really old backs, even the 645AF (non-D). I use a 645AFD.</p> <p>Dave is correct that the 645AFD III is the last/newest Mamiya to take both film and digital backs. Phase One took the decision to make the more recent 645DF and 645DF+ compatible only with digital backs.</p> <p>As digital medium format goes, both Pentaxes are "bargains" in a relative sense, and if your lens requirements are not too fancy, I'd recommend them over the alternatives. I stay with Mamiya however because there's nothing in the Pentax lens lineup to correspond to must-haves like my 24/4 fisheye, 80/1.9, 200/2.8 APO...</p>

<blockquote> <p>but of course I have no idea if it actually moves the film forward or not wasting a frame.</p> </blockquote> <p>Actually it is very easy to know if the film is advancing - you can feel (and hear) the resistance as you pull the film through the gate. If the second turn of the crank feels like you are pulling something, you are advancing the film. If OTOH the crank spins with the flick of a finger, with the ease of a bike freewheeling downhill, then you're fine. </p> <blockquote> <p>I don't think it's a serious fault. My 1000s crank sometimes doesn't stop at the first rotation and then "freewheels" for 360 degrees before the stop kicks in. Slightly annoying, but that's all. The film advances and the shutter is cocked as normal with no adverse effect on frame spacing.</p> </blockquote> <p>The exact same happened with one of my 1000s bodies - it hardly matters. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I am interested in taking advantage of the 67 format without investing in a different set of lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>While the HK modified Pentax 67 bodies are intriguing, they are also very expensive.</p> <p>If you can live without SLR viewing, a much cheaper solution might be a Hasselblad lens board (something like item # 321465340894 on ebay) and a 6x7 back on a small view camera. A big question mark hanging over this though is how the lens shutter is cocked and fired...I don't see any mechanism in that particular adapter anyway. So a camera like a Speed Graphic or "baby" Speed Graphic, with its own focal plane shutter, would probably be required. </p>

<blockquote> <p>If you want autofocus the Pentax 645N usually goes for less than Mamiya's autofocus offering. Added plus: Pentax manages 16 exposures per roll rather than 15 like the Mamiya (or 32 on 220 film)</p> </blockquote> <p>15 exposures is true of the <em>manual</em> focus Mamiya 645 line...but it changed with the autofocus line, where the HM401 back always takes 16 shots.</p> <p>Then came the HM402 back for the autofocus line, which made the choice of 15 or 16 shots selectable. That's a rare and expensive back, though.</p> <blockquote> <p>I'm still undecided: Mamiya 6 + 50mm or Hassy + 50mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>For a portable camera, to me this choice is obvious: Mamiya 6 + 50mm, with built-in coupled meter. Reasons:<br> 1) Hassy + 50mm + meter (either handeld or in a prism head) is much larger and heavier.<br> 2) Choosing an SLR like the Hassy only really makes sense if you are intending to use more than one lens.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I just find it strange that they call it the same when it isn't... In 35 mm they have FX and DX for example, but here they seem to just call it 645 format even though it's a big difference...</p> </blockquote> <p>The 645D and 645Z cameras do inherit the "645" string as part of their name because they have the body DNA (and lenses, accessories) of the 645 film system. But I believe that Pentax actually refer to their digital sensors/images as simply "medium format", not as "645 format".</p> <p>Before Nikon launched the D3/D700, they were coy about making that DX/FX distinction. The cropped-sensor D1 and D2 were presented as the evolutionary successors to the full-film-frame F4 and F5 lineage. Like Pentax, they weren't being factually misleading or false; they just weren't drawing attention to the obvious decrease in real estate.</p> <p>Personally, I'm happy with one traditional definition of medium format, as "any format where both dimensions exceed the larger [36mm] dimension of 135-format". Effectively, it mandates a minimum 1.5x area advantage over 35mm-format. It applied in the film days for super-slides (only ~ 38 x 38 mm viewable area) cut from 645/6x6 frames, so it should still apply with these digital sensors.</p> <p>On that basis, my old Kodak DCS645 digital back (36.7 mm square) is <em>just</em> medium format. But the 33mm short side of the digital Pentaxes (and certain equal sized backs from Phase One and Hasselblad), and Leica's 30mm short side, trips them up from qualifying as medium format.</p> <p>OTOH, using sensor area, the Leica is exactly the same size as the Kodak, while the Pentax/Hasselblad/PhaseOne sensors are actually slightly larger (1.7x the area of 35mm format).</p> <p>So what definition to use? It hardly matters. But that "minimum 1.5x area advantage over 35mm-format" might be the fairest and most reasonable one to apply in the digital age. In part, because to date there is no camera sensor occupying that gap between 1.0x and 1.5x the area of 35mm format, so the question of where to draw the threshold line does not have a fuzzy answer.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I am about to do a job with a Mamiya 645AFd<br> Also, I rented a Phase One IQ180 worth 17.000€</p> </blockquote> <p>Do let us know how the combination of IQ180 + 645AFD works out. I'd be a little worried that Phase One did something stupid in terms of limiting electronic backwards compatibility with the older Mamiya bodies. There <em>shouldn't</em> be a problem, but the 645AFDIII (which came after the 645AFD and before the IQ180) had an update to Mamiya's original MSCE protocol for digital back communications, so there's an outside possibility of an issue. I'm sure you'll be testing the combination thoroughly before you embark on the job!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Was the manual sponsored by Metz by any chance? I see no reason why Metz flashes should be used in preference to any other make, except that Metz probably make one of the few TTL compatible modules for this camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>You're right (on the "except that..." - not on the sponsorship speculation!).</p> <p>AFAIK, the Metz is the <em>only </em>system which can do TTL flash with the 645AF(D) series. On my 645AFD, I use a Metz 54MZ-3 with the requisite dedicated SCA 3952 adapter. But previously it worked fine with a cheap, auto-sensor, non-dedicated flash.</p>

<p>The Mamiya Press was primarily a 6x9 camera (all its lenses cover 6x9), with film back options and secondary frame lines or viewfinder masks for smaller formats (6x7, 6x6, 645).</p> <p>Its lens range tended to track the focal lengths available for other 6x9 press/technical cameras of the day. So its 50mm was a counterpart to the 47mm and 53mm Super Angulons and 53mm Biogon, its 65mm to the 65mm Angulon, its 90mm to 90mm Tessars, its fast 100/2.8 to the equally fast 95mm Heligon, 100mm Planar and 105mm Xenotar; and so on.</p> <p>Two late lenses (75/5.6 and 127/4.7) were introduced to fully cover full-frame Polaroids. (Some of the other lenses just about cover Polaroid if you focus at closer distances or if you accept some corner darkening.)</p> <p>So while a focal length is just a focal length regardless of the format, one can consider 6x9 to be the main "intended" format for these lenses. OTOH the system modularization opens a huge range of alternative options: for example the 100/2.8 wide-standard (on 6x9) is really nice for portraits with a K-type back set to 6x6 format, where it frames the subject as a long-standard.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>is it designed only for using a Mamiya Press back in vertical orientation on an RB system?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, that's exactly the reason for this adapter. RB users are accustomed to not having to rotate the camera body in order to change film orientiation, so this was Mamiya's solution for portrait orientation of Press backs on a stationary RB body.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I find the PD prism to be a great help (so long as you do not want waist level)</p> </blockquote> <p>There was also an RB67 chimney finder with PD metering...it provides a similar vertical viewing experience to the waist-level finder.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Ray,<br> If it were to be a MF 645, I'd take both a film back and digital..... Yes the size of neg is further away from the 4x5 unfortunately. But really I'm questioning the quality of the 67 Voigtlander as a suitable alternative to the 54. Mamiya is a option of course, as would be a Fuji 69.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well if you are indeed considering MF digital in Antarctica, this link is mandatory reading!<br> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml<br> Interesting that he reports technical failures amongst some DSLRs and compacts (especially Canon), but none among the electronic medium format cameras shooting digital or film, except for a glitch with a Hasselblad electronic lens connection. All the Phase One/Mamiya gear, and the solitary Contax 645, are reported to have worked fine. They seem to be a safe choice.</p>

<blockquote> <p>MF SLR is a option, maybe a Phase One.....</p> </blockquote> <p>Jake, do you mean an MF SLR with a Phase One digital back? Or do you mean one of the "Mamiya 645AFD III" SLRs rebranded as a "Phase One 645AF" when the two companies merged? That's the <em>only</em> Phase One SLR that can take a film back. But now we're in 645 film format, moving further away from big 5x4 and 6x7 negatives and that 50-inch print size goal...even with 5x4 film that's a 10x enlargement; with 645 it's around 23x. </p> <p>Please let us know what you meant anyway, so that we can better advise you. Sounds like it would be an amazing excursion!</p>

<p>Thanks, Ludwig!</p> <p>I was probably about 4 feet away from the bird for that one. That was the best of a few shots I took as I crept up. </p>

<p>Ludwig - I love your infrared shot.<br /><br />Ronald & Richard - you seem to have got a "middle-aged bikers" theme going this week!</p>

<p>An older shot, with the legendary Mamiya 80/1.9 wide open. </p><div></div>

<p>This wild bird didn't seem to mind me inching ever closer...</p> <div></div>

<p>This is a familiar issue - the exact same happened one of the M645 1000s bodies I bought.</p> <p>There is a real problem, which requires a bit of camera surgery to fix. A sprung piece in the winding mechanism must fall into place to make the winding cycle come to a stop: but whether through a tired spring or aged lubrication, that piece sticks. If this happens, the shutter is re-tensioned correctly as you wind on, but the film advances indefinitely - which is why the problem does not manifest itself when Multi is engaged, as the film never moves in a multi exposure.</p> <p>So, send it back. The CLA may have been pretty superficial - they possibly never ran a film through it, and may have just set it to Multi to make sure that the shutter speeds were ok. But as I explained, that does not test the film advance. The other possibility is that the problem is intermittent - it was in my case. It sounds like you'll have no problem with that seller, but just in case, before you return it, video yourself winding it on, so as to have a record of the problem.</p>

<blockquote> <p>you are half-pressing the shutter speed</p> </blockquote> <p>Oops, I meant shutter <em>release</em> of course...</p> <blockquote> <p>Does anyone know if this is a common issue on the 645AF? Or if there's a common fix?</p> </blockquote> <p>I have not heard of this problem occuring before.</p> <blockquote> <p>How about any recommendations on where to get it fixed?</p> </blockquote> <p>Depends on where you are based? I only know a couple of UK repairers.</p>

<blockquote> <p>2. Metering mode set to "S" (spot)</p> </blockquote> <p>It shouldn't be necessary to set that mode explicitly...when a non-AF lens is used on my 645AFD, it automatically reverts to spot mode and displays "S" in the viewfinder, regardless of whether the mode switch is on "A", "A-S" or "S". Do you see this "S" in the viewfinder?</p> <p>If you're not seeing any response from the LCD focusing symbols, while the lens is set to f5.6 or faster, you are half-pressing the shutter speed, and trying to focus on a reasonably well-lit subject [the AF illuminator only kicks in with AF lenses]...then it sounds defective. Would you be able to borrow an AF lens to see if it focuses ok?</p>

<blockquote> <p>scientifically high-quality lenses that only Leica or Carl Zeiss can provide</p> </blockquote> <p>Dear me, no, not "only" them. Any Mamiya APO lens (645 or RB67/RZ67) will be in the same class. For example: check out the MTF diagram for the 350/5.6 APO for the RB/RZ.</p>

<blockquote> <p>a film camera system under $500.<br> so the back holds the rolls, do you recommend digital/non-digital?</p> </blockquote> <p>Mood, "system under $500" and "digital back" are totally incompatible notions. You'd need to add another zero to surpass what you can already get from your 5d mark iii.</p> <p>So for now, just embrace that big 6x7cm film format!</p>

<blockquote> <p>But competent such a person is not.</p> </blockquote> <p>You seem to be channelling Yoda today, Q.G.!</p>

<p>Charles:</p> <blockquote> <p>Instant positive film operates inverse of negative film.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes...at least in terms of the end result.</p> <blockquote> <p>White-near white, weak images= <strong>under exposed</strong>; dark to almost black=<strong>over exposed.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>No, that's the wrong way around. Dark images on an instant print means under-exposed - just like any positive print!</p> <blockquote> <p>My first comment is based on Polaroid instant film. I assumed Fuji would operate the same.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, it does. But the reason why Alan questioned your first comment is that the logic was inverted, not because the types of instant film behave any differently.</p>

<p>In leaf-shutter lenses like this, the most likely place for fungus to develop is on a glass surface facing the shutter & aperture unit - i.e. the back of the front lens cell or the front of the rear lens cell. These surfaces are well hidden but nevertheless exposed to air which can circulate in from outside the lens, carrying fungus spores and humidity.</p> <p>This is "good" (if lens fungus can ever be considered good!) because getting access to those lens surfaces is normally an easy DIY job - you just need a spanner wrench to unscrew the whole front or rear cell from the shutter threads. I've checked and cleaned several MF and LF lenses in this way. In only one case (a 50 year old Mamiya Press 90/3.5 lens covered in fungus) did I find that the fungus had etched the coatings on a surface.</p> <p>Of course, the outermost front and back surfaces of the lens are also vulnerable, but they are usually routinely cleaned by the owner. Other lens surfaces should be sealed within the lens cell, so they are much less likely to develop fungus. But if one does need to get access to them, opening up a lens cell can sometimes be rather difficult and one needs to pay close attention to the orientation, spacing and rotation of the elements in order to put it back together correctly. </p> <p> </p>