ondebanks

I used one of those 30mm Kiev fisheyes - mine was a later one, labelled MC Arsat - on various 6x6 bodies (Arax 60 MLU, Kiev 6C, Pentacon Six TL) and also with adapter on a Mamiya 645. Great lens overall, with excellent central performance in particular. But it is still some distance in performance behind the 24mm ULD fisheye that I now use on Mamiya 645 bodies. This is tangential, as I know that Ben said he's not a fisheye guy. But in time-honoured photo.net tradition, when someone asks for info on a rectilinear wideangle for 6x6 film, we respond with info on a fisheye for 645 digital! :D I emulate the great 38mm Biogon on 6x6 film by defishing the 24mm fisheye on my old square Kodak DCS645M digital back. I end up with the same square aspect ratio, 90+ degrees angular coverage, and lack of distortion. Example below. http://imageshack.com/a/img922/8885/JwfwAy.jpg

The irony is that Phase One don't actually change the mount! Instead they take the back you have, and supply another back, in similar condition, with the mount you require. That €1800 is to cover the cost of swapping boxes in a warehouse. Nice money if you can make it, eh? ;)

How do you folks like the new photo.net interface? I just used the "Like" button for the first time. I know it's been standard on other photography internet platforms for a long time, but it still seems strange here. It certainly is nice to finally be able to post images larger than 700 pixels wide or tall.

If you set your aperture according to an entry on the left hand column and a focal distance according to an entry on the top row, then the box where they intersect gives the range of distances which will be in acceptable focus. You need two values to express a range. You'll notice how these two values fall either side of the focal distance chosen on the top row.

<p>I'd have some concerns about that kickstarter 617 camera.</p> <p>For example, the film transport and positioning. There is no mention anywhere of "film rails" or "pressure plate". It could be that these important components are in fact present, but the description is lacking.</p> <p>They consider the ability to focus as "optional"! So the basic camera is designed as a fixed-focus (infinity or hyperfocal) box.</p> <p>And I'd worry about unwanted film plane tilt. The user is to set the lens spacing by adding stacks of washers (how good are their thickness tolerances?) between the 4 corners of the lens board and a wooden intermediate board (wood is compressible!). </p> <p>It just seems a little too rudimentary for anything other than shooting a distant scene at f/22 or f/32.</p>

<p>No problem, Ed - glad to see that on reviewing the evidence, you came to a different conclusion.<br> You hadn't targeted anyone in particular, so I didn't think an apology was warranted, but it was big of you to do that as well.</p>

<blockquote> <p>This film vs digital stuff drives me nuts…</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't see this thread as an argumentative "X vs Y" discussion. Everyone explained their own preferences and experience. If I say that I used drive a VW, but I drive a Ford now because it has more luggage space and a more responsive engine, that does not mean that I am giving vent to a verbal Ford vs VW deathmatch. I still miss some things about that VW :)</p> <blockquote> <p>What does matter is the pompous attitude that I hear from so many who want to proclaim that digital is “better”.<br> Quit with the quasi religious proselytizing.</p> </blockquote> <p>I honestly didn't see any of that going on in this thread, Ed. Maybe Rodeo Joe did, a little, but his was more of a "big slow film beats small fast film" argument rather than anything about digital.</p> <blockquote> <p>The camera manufacturers have touted pretty much nothing but resolution since digital cameras hit the stores, it’s the only way they can keep selling new cameras year after year.</p> </blockquote> <p>Now this, we can have a factual assessment of. The resolution/megapixel war really faded away 7 or 8 years ago. Since then, virtually everything new on the market has been between 12 and 24 MP. You have a few 36 and 50 mp models, but not many.<br> What's actually been "touted" on digital cameras in recent years are qualities other than resolution - dynamic range, high-ISO performance, HD/4K video, mirrorless designs, touchscreens, wireless stuff...</p>

<p>Kaugu,<br> If you ask this question on getDPI.com, you are bound to get reliable answers, as several medium format digital vendors participate in the forum.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Does it has 16 bit? Hasselblad official site claimed that it has 16 bit but I dont know why people kept telling me that is has 14 bit.</p> </blockquote> <p>Because at a given ISO setting, it can only resolve 14 bits of useful intensity information between the maximum (saturation) signal at one end, and the readout noise at the other end.</p> <p>It stores these values in 16 bits in order to partially resolve the noise, thus keeping the deep shadows dithered and unblocked.</p> <p>I analysed files from a Hasselblad H3DII-39 back a few years ago and found that they were actually only using 15 bits - the 16th was hardwired. It wasn't too surprising; the much higher readout noise in that CCD back (compared to CMOS in the X1D) meant that it could only resolve 12 bits of useful information. I doubt that it's still the case that they would not use all 16 bits in an X1D file.</p>

<p>You are correct that the Polaroid 600SE body has a different lens mount, and therefore the same 75mm optics from Mamiya are housed in a modified barrel.</p> <p>But I'm not aware of two different versions of the 75mm lens in Mamiya Press mount - if you have seen examples, could you share links to them?</p> <p>My understanding is that the red P designation on the front ring flagged that it was designed to fully cover the Polaroid format with minimal vignetting, at all focal distances and apertures.<br> The 127mm lens also has this red P; it and the 75mm were introduced later than the other lenses.<br> The 150mm also fully covers Polaroid (a version was made for the Polaroid 600SE), but it was an older design predating the Polaroid capability of the Universal camera. AFAIK it doesn't have the red P, presumably because it covers Polaroid more by accident than by design.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Why were Hasselblad unable to survive the introduction of digital photography?</p> </blockquote> <p>I think it's unbalanced to single out this one traditional medium format camera manufacturer, without also discussing how its peers fared. At the turn of the millenium, the "big 8" in medium format systems were (in no particular order) Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica, Rollei, Fuji, Contax, and Sinar.</p> <blockquote> <p>Seriously though: what are your thoughts as to why a legendary camera company is in such poor shape?</p> </blockquote> <p>They're in better shape than Bronica, Contax, Rollei, Sinar...and arguably Mamiya.</p> <p>Bronica - gone;<br> Contax - gone;<br> Rollei - first vastly diminished as DWH, and now that's gone too;<br> Sinar - clinging on only thanks to Leica technology, and no longer making digital backs compatible with other MF cameras.</p> <p>The medium format manufacturers that were also big players in 35mm film cameras and small-format digital, namely Pentax and Fuji, got through the big clearout; mainly by effectively letting their medium format wing become dormant for several years, until good enough "all-rounder" digital sensors became available to let them build a medium format digital camera that would appeal again to the "serious amateur" market.</p> <p>Leica took the same approach with the introduction of their S cameras. They stand out as the only new entrants in the medium format camera system game since digital displaced film. As with Pentax and Fuji, their success in the smaller format film and digital market gave them the technology platform, and bought them the time, to do this.</p> <p>Mamiya entered the 21st century in the best shape of the medium format manufacturers, and tried to get first mover advantage in that "serious amateur" digital segment with the ZD DSLR and ZD digital back. Unfortunately, they moved too soon; the DALSA CCD in the ZD was large but it was certainly no "all-rounder" - terribly noisy when pushed to even ISO 200 and also at exposures longer than a few seconds. The ZD line flopped, draining Mamiya's resources and leaving them commercially vulnerable. They merged with Phase One and Leaf, but as time passes the Mamiya identity is gradually being lost from the lineup. The 645DF+ was the last camera model to bear an alternate Phase One or Mamiya logo. The XF is Phase One only. Likewise, most of the lenses. So while "under the hood", Mamiya technology is still doing well, this also "legendary camera company" is fading away as an entity in its own right.</p> <p>Hasselblad made some serious mistakes along the way - the godawful blingy rebadged Sony cams like the Lunar for example. But their medium format product has always been fundamentally good, and is still popular within the (greatly diminished) medium format sector; and the brand name is still strong.</p> <p>As for this latest change of ownership, it could be a good thing for Hasselblad. DJI have by all accounts a leadership in the technology of their segment (camera drones); they can support serious R&D and not just blingy merchandising.</p> <p>I hope that you award my essay a good score :)</p>

<p>Hi Jeet,<br> You cannot switch mounts on a Leaf Aptus back; what you have is a Mamiya 645 AFD mount back, and that's the way it will stay. I'm just pointing that out in case "mount swap" was what you had in mind when you talked about adapting the back.</p> <p>As regards adding an adapter to it: the only adapters I am aware of, which take an existing Mamiya 645 AFD mount back and mount it on another SLR camera body with waist level finder, are for the RZ67 and RB67.</p> <p>Bronicas (ETRS line) can be fitted with an adapter for a digital back, as long as that back has a Hasselblad V mount. See <a href="http://www.kapturegroup.com/bronica/bronica.html">Kapture Group</a> - I don't know if they are still making these items.</p>

<p>Marco,</p> <p>You mentioned that the SpeedBooster and similar devices are for mirrorless cameras, but I don't think you have thought through all the implications of that.</p> <p>They can <em>only</em> work on mirrorless cameras - the adapter requires the space saved, by not having a mirror-box, to accomodate its own optical path and the focal reduction effect. So it is not enough to design a medium format SpeedBooster adapter; you also have to design an accompanying <em>camera</em> between the adapter and the back.</p> <p>Hasselblad do have a mirrorless camera body now, but it does not take detachable backs.</p> <p>The other issue is that all the existing SpeedBooster type devices are for cameras with focal plane shutters. It would be take a very high level of engineering for a 3rd party to develop a SpeedBooster which can actuate the leaf shutter on the Hasselblad lens in front of it.</p> <p>Sorry to play devil's advocate - I do like the idea, notwithstanding. For some time, I've pondered the choice between a SpeedBooster + Fuji X-T series camera, vs. a full-frame Nikon. Both have nicer interfaces and more modern sensors than my full-frame Canon. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I really think that someone could make some money by releasing Instax backs for the 645 systems (Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad, Bronica, Contax</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm curious, Karim - what would an Instax back give you, that the regular Polaroid backs for these cameras doesn't?</p> <blockquote> <p>- I don't think Fuji made a 645 reflex).</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, sort of. They co-produced the Hasselblad H1, and released a version of it as the Fujifilm GX645AF.</p>

<p>Hi Mags,<br> OK, but for the comparison, we'd need to see the same pair of pics for the other lens.</p> <p>Incidentally: from the non-square, larger than 70 x 70 mm image area on the polaroid snap, it looks like you have the rarer, oldest version of the polaroid back - does it have a shiny metallic edge to the casing, rather than a black plastic one?</p>

<p>A couple of other suggestions - apologies if you've already ruled them out:</p> <ul> <li>If you need eyeglasses or contact lenses, wear them when focusing.</li> <li>Check that the dioptre lens in the viewfinder is the "neutral" one; it may have been exchanged by a previous owner for something specific to their eyesight.</li> </ul>

<blockquote> <p>That means that I should mark off an area that's 4.5x5.5cm, not 4.125x5.5cm.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily. Measure the film gate in your 645 back; don't assume it is 4.5 cm wide. Or measure a shot from your first roll with the new back. The norm in other 645 systems like Mamiya and Bronica is 56 x 41.5 mm / 5.6 x 4.15 cm.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Kay,</p> <p>The polaroid pack film image area is 95 x 73 mm, but the RB67 can't illuminate all of it.</p> <p>The main bottleneck is that the "film gate" on the P adapter to which the polaroid back is mounted constrains the image size to 70 x 70 mm. The gap between this area and the 95 x 73 mm boundary is unexposed, so it remains black in the developed image.</p> <p>Another issue is that different lenses project different image circles, converging at different angles. I wondered if this might explain the different results for your 65 mm and 180 mm lenses - the 65mm may be able to project a little bit "past the edges" of the P adapter. However we are talking only a couple of mm difference in image size - whereas you said "much larger". I can't explain a large difference. Could you link to some images of the focusing screen as seen with each lens, and the resulting polaroids?</p>

<p>Daniel,<br> You criticized people who</p> <blockquote> <p>make blanket statements</p> </blockquote> <p>- but then in the same post you go and make a blanket statement yourself:</p> <blockquote> <p>because all that matters is passion, vision and talent...not what it was done on.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have seen and heard this sentiment very often, and it is always from photographers who work in technically undemanding domains. They'll say: give me a Minox, a Holga, an M6, a Hasselblad, an EOS DLSR, a 5x7 view camera: the technology doesn't matter, I'll give you a great photograph from it!</p> <p>Unfortunately, no amount of "passion, vision and talent" can coax photons to register detections at a high efficiency, suppress thermal noise, or eliminate off-axis aberrations without stopping down. "What it was done on" is the making or breaking of many types of photograph. For example, I can refer you to spectacular astro-photos which are so technically demanding that they could <em>only</em> have been executed with the equipment that they were executed with - that one camera, that one lens; nothing else has the necessary spectral response and light grasp.</p> <p>Now it <em>also</em> required "passion, vision and talent" on the photographer's part to scout the remote location, be there at the right time, patiently polar-align the equipment, find the composition, nail the focus, judge the camera/lens settings, monitor for dewing in the freezing cold, take the dark and flatfield calibrations, and skilfully process it all at the end.</p> <p>But none of that would be enough without getting the "what it was done on" choices right.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you could tell me what kind of lenses I can mount on that adapter, infinity to focus, adding more adapters to use common lenses like nikon / canon and some other things I just couldn't think of.</p> </blockquote> <p>Unfortunately, this won't suit Canon, Nikon or any other 35mm format lenses. None will focus to infinity with this setup. They will be mounted more than twice as far from the film plane than they "should" be, so they are basically turned into macro-regime lenses (a regime where most of them are certainly not optimized).</p> <p>This helicoid is for mounting oddball, old "barrel" or projection lenses, with long flange distances. There is a cottage industry on ebay of people selling such lenses, sometimes pre-adapted to medium format cameras.</p> <p>You didn't give the specs of the helicoid, but most of the ones I've seen have a 58mm or 65mm front thread. Knowing this enables you to tell which lenses might directly screw onto it, or what you would need to machine to fashion your own adapter between the helicoid and the lens.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If the digital backs don't cover 6x7 (and 6x6?), wouldn't one be better off with a 645 camera?</p> </blockquote> <p>In general, you are exactly right. I use a 645 camera with a digital back. Based on the diagonal measurement, it has a 1.3x crop sensor relative to full frame 645 film. The same sensor on a 6x6 camera would be a 1.5x crop. As Edward above would attest, that does limit your widest wideangle possibilities.</p> <p>But there are other factors, which can make using a bigger format camera worthwhile for some digital back users. It might be a higher speed flash synch, a particular lens or lenses, a rotating back, a particular viewfinder, a particular user handling experience, or something else...</p> <p>In my case, I did not think "I want to get a digital back...so I should get a 645 camera". I was already substantially invested in and partial to the Mamiya 645 platform (my "particular" reason mainly being the large and fast lens range), so that decision was already made for me. I am fortunate that it turns out that this was also the best platform for digital back use. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The 60 is closer to a 40mm lens, and the 50 is close to a 35mm lens (on 35mm format)</p> </blockquote> <p>...if you assume that printing crops the negative from 6x6 to 645 or similar rectangular format.</p> <p>But if you retain the 6x6 square format, then Robin's equivalents are more accurate: a 60 mm on 6x6 is like a 35 mm lens on 35mm, a 50 mm on 6x6 is like a 28 mm lens on 35mm.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Your desire for something reliably rugged + old style MF digital backs-- I'd say these are competing priorities and are mutually exclusive.</p> </blockquote> <p>You can put digital backs on a Mamiya RB67. Is that not everyone's definition of a rugged camera? "The tractor of the medium format world". </p> <blockquote> <p>Digital backs of more than a few years ago will be far, far less reliable than anything you're likely used to in 35mm DSLRs.</p> </blockquote> <p>Why? That is a bold statement without any supporting evidence. Digital backs usually last and last and last, because they have no moving parts; "shot counts" are available but irrelevant.</p> <blockquote> <p>There's been wholesale hari-kari in the MF world over the past decade, in no small measure because FF 35mm has become so good.</p> </blockquote> <p>True; and I've noticed a marked increase in the number of used sub-40MP CCD digital backs for sale in the past year or so. They are being dropped for things like the Sony A7RII and Canon 5DSR, as well as upgrades to the 50MP and 100MP CMOS medium format digital options. But that does not imply there's anything wrong with them; these are still bullet-proof backs delivering spectacularly good image quality in most scenarios, and now they are bargains to the right type of user.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Ray the insert and back are a matched pair, and always have been.</p> </blockquote> <p>Russ, I misremembered it - you are quite right: it was the insert and back that were matched, not the back and body.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"the newer cameras were built to tighter spec" I still have NEVER heard this before.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not a Hasselblad user, but I do recall a recommendation to use a factory-matched pair of body + film back; the rationale given was that if the body was ever so slightly "long" then the flange on the matched back would be ever so slightly "short" to compensate, or vice-versa. I don't recall which era of bodies this applied to.</p>