chris_patti

If the Pentax seems pricey, take a look at the Soligors. There are digital and analog models, both of which are considerably less expensive than the Pentax. My Soligor digital has worked very well for me for years, despite much abuse.

If you put stock in MTF tests, there are results for both lenses at http://www.photodo.com. From my own experience I can say that the Mamiya 6 50mm is a very fine lens, and I can't imagine you would be unhappy with it.

I just held the Mamiya 7 II for a few moments today. It looks and feels somewhat "plastic" to me. It seemed significantly lighter than my Mamiya 6 (suggesting less metal) and seemed slightly lighter than an older Mamiya 7 body on hand. Perhaps the construction of the body is being changed. The viewfinder has some very odd looking coating but seemed very bright when looked into.

Gene,

 

<p>

 

Nope, the current version of the 45mm lens has 82mm filters. I'm not

sure about any earlier versions of the 45, but I believe that the

older version of the 55mm lens had 100mm filters.

The 45mm is an excellent lens. Choose between it and the 55mm on the

basis of which angle of view you prefer, not concerns about

differences in quality. The filters for the 45mm are, as Gene

Crumpler says, "huge", but they are 82mm, not 100mm.

Check out http://www.lightroom.com, which has lots of information on

Cibachrome printing and exposure/selection of slides for printing.

I'll agree with Paul that the overall sharpness war goes to MF, but

its smaller DOF can be a limiting factor in practical picture taking.

Let me give a concrete example. I have a photograph, taken on 6x7

format from Olmstead Pt. in Yosemite. The foreground is glacially

polished granite with a fissure running into the distance leading

toward Halfdome across the valley. I had to use a normal lens to keep

Halfdome a reasonable size in the frame, and I had to get close enough

to the foreground granite to make the composition work. The lens was

focused at the hyperfocal distance, aperture at f/22 (minimum). The

limiting factor on my ability to enlarge the picture is the softness

of the closest foreground granite: 8x10 is pushing it, and anything

over that looks terrible. A 35mm slide taken of the same scene w/ a

50mm lens is acceptable at 11x14 (even though, except for the extreme

foreground, it's not as sharp as the 6x7). (This is an obvious case

for a camera with movements, which I didn't have.) This

problem occurs over and over in "hyperfocal" style

photography--you just cannot get as close to the foreground with MF as

with 35mm. Although my vote

goes to MF overall, in this circumstance 35mm had an advantage, even

in "enlargeability."

To put Bob's response slightly differently: If what you want is a

panoramic aspect ratio (e.g., 1:2), cropping MF is just fine. If what

you want is that aspect ratio with a super-wide angle of view, you

probably need a swing lens panoramic.

Given your photographic priorities, here are some things to think

about before moving to MF:

 

<p>

 

(1) Moving from 35mm to MF makes it harder, not easier, "to have

landscapes that are . . . "tack-sharp" . . . from foreground to

infinity." The depth of field of a given focal length lens is

unaffected by film format; 45mm super wide angle on 6x7 has about the

same depth of field at equal aperture as a normal lens on 35mm. Put

another way, at equivalent apertures, the hyperfocal distance depth of

field of lenses of equivalent angle of view is much narrower in MF

than in 35mm. You cannot get a MF wide angle way in close to your

foreground and keep infinity in focus the way you can with 35mm.

(View cameras compensate for this by using camera movements to shift

the plane of focus.) Although the greater enlargeability of MF

partially compensates for limited depth of field, at equal angles of

view and equal sized prints, 35mm still has a depth of field advantage

over MF. So, comparing equal sized prints of foreground-infinity

scenes taken from the same position with lenses of the same angle of

view, the MF may have more detail and better tonality than the 35mm,

but the MF foreground (or background) may be less sharply in focus.

 

<p>

 

(2) If flower photography (I'm assuming by this you mean close up) is

a priority, forget the Mamiya 7. You really can't do macro

photography with it. Even moderate close ups (less than 1 meter)

require a fussy Rube Goldberg-like attachment that works with only one

lens and at only one distance.

 

<p>

 

(3) Macro photography in MF brings its own set of complications. In

addition to the depth of field issue mentioned above, you have to get

higher magnification to fill the larger MF frame with an object than

in 35mm. This means more extension (and perhaps faster shutter

speeds), thus more light loss, thus wider apertures, thus even

shallower depth of field.

For whatever you may think it is worth, there are MTF tests for a

number of Pentax 645 and Hasselblad lenses on the Photodo web site

(photodo.com). A cursory look at the results does not indicate does

not consistently or significantly favor H.B. If you credit these

kinds of tests, you might well conclude that difference in lens

quality (if any) does not justify the difference in expense. The H.B.

lenses seem to cost about 4-5 times as much as comparable Pentax

lenses.

You can answer this question by asking how often you set focus at less

than 1 meter (or, for that matter, the hyperfocal distance for the

lens's minimum aperture) in your current landscape photography. This

seems to be a problem mainly for portrait photographers who would like

to get a tight head or head and shoulders shot, which the Mamiya

rangefinders cannot achieve. Of course, you can't really do close up

or macro work with the Mamiya 7 or any other rangefinder.

I seem to remember seeing, maybe a year or so ago, in one of the Lens

& Repro Company's ads in View Camera, a listing for a superwide lens

manufactured (maybe one-of-a-kind) by one of the large makers and

20x12 (or larger?) dedicated camera. I think it had a fan filter. My

vague recollection is that the whole rig cost about $10,000. You

might call Lens & Repro in New York to track this down.

For my upcoming Nepal trek I'll be bringing a medium format

rangefinder & 3 lenses (because it's relatively small and light for a

MF system), a 35mm panoramic swing-lens camera, and a compact 35mm

fixed-lens rangefinder from the 70's (as my backup "point & shoot").

Leaving my SLRs at home. Also a spot meter, a flash, assorted filters

& accessories, and a small but sturdy tripod & ball head. The MF

rangefinder system all fits in a Lowepro Photo Runner fanny pack. The

other items all go into their own little cases. Everything fits in a

large-ish daypack (with room to spare for jackets, sweaters, water,

etc.), which I will carry on to the plane and take everywhere. Total

weight is about 18lbs. Oh yeah, I'll also be bringing about 200 rolls

of 120 film and some 35mm. I guess porters will carry that.

Last year, the week after Columbus Day, I drove from west of Boston on Rte 2 to Hwy 91 to Rt 30 (in Vt.) to Rte 100 to Rte 4 to Woodstock. The foliage was spectacular the entire way. I spent several days in the Woodstock, Vt. area; it was unbelievable (and I have the chromes to prove it). If you go there, look for some of the backroads that take you through towns like Pomfret. The hike to the top of Mt. Ascutney was very rewarding. Photograph America photo newsletters has done a very good issue on this area.

This is an interesting topic. To me the camera-subject distance determines, not how close you "feel" to subject when viewing the print, but the perspective. A portrait taken from 5 feet, say, will give the same perspective (e.g., apparent size of subject's nose) whatever lens is used. Wider lenses will just show more of the subject and background. We may take a portrait from a given distance because, at that distance, the perspective seems natural and flattering. Using a longer lens (or cropping) appears to bring the subject closer. In the final print, a subject taken at 5 feet with a 250mm lens seems closer than one taken at the same distance with a 60mm lens. On the other hand, I'm not sure that a head shot taken from close range with a 60mm (on 6x6) looks any more "intimate" than one taken from 5 feet with a 250mm; it just looks distorted.

I used to avoid shooting color film at all in my MF rangefinder because I assumed I couldn't use ND grads with it. After experimenting, however, I've found that by carefully estimating where the edge (between the clear and ND parts) should go and using a soft-edged grad, I can get a pretty good success rate. This works less well on scenes were grad placement is very critical, such as an ocean scene where there is a sharp horizon line.

Another thing to keep in mind is that for cameras of this type (Technikardan 23, Arca-Swiss F-Line) the size of the negative is determined by the roll-film back you use. If you are concerned about problems some of the posters raise with 6x9, you could always buy 6x7 or 6x6 backs instead (or more than one format).

This subject has been touched on in previous posts, but I still have some questions. I recently bought a 6x6 projector, and I'm somewhat daunted by the price of slide mounts, in particular the Gepe anti-newton glass mounts which go for almost $1 each. Some folks have indicated that they use glassless mounts, which seem to be less than a third the price. Also, I can buy some old used Bauch&Lomb mounts, which are glass covered (not anti-newton) inexpensively, but only in substantial quantities. Questions: (1) How important have people found glass slides? Can you get sharp projection with glassless mounts for 6x6 slides? (2) Any experience with the old B&L mounts or others of their type (these have glass plates that slide into a metal frame)? (3) Anyone know any other cheaper sources of slide mounts? Thanks for any advice.

Sorry for the delay; just saw the original question. I have one of the medium-sized Giottos heads (the store where I bought it had three sizes, this is the middle one) which I bought about 6 weeks ago and used extensively on a recent overseas trip. I was attracted to the Giottos ball heads because they are light, compact, look similar to the Linhoff "Profi" ball heads (which I have always coveted) and were quite cheap. The one I bought would be is equivalent to the Profi II. I put the Giottos on a Gitzo 260 and used it with a Mamiya 6 system. For this application, and given the extremely reasonable price price of the Giottos ($80 in the store vs. about $300 for a Profi II), I was very happy with it. I has tension control, panning, can tighten down firmly, and seems durable. It's not as silky smooth in operation as the Linhoffs, but does feel nicer than the larger Kaiser I own and much nicer than the two Bogens I have used. (If I needed a larger ball head, I would probably pick up the large Giottos.) I would think the medium sized Giottos would work very well with your Fuji.

Focusing longer lenses on a rangefinder like the Mamiya 6 is inherently more difficult than focusing shorter lenses. That said, I've been able to get sharp focus with my Mamiya 6 150. Yours may have a problem that the Mamiya service folks can fix.

Derrick Miller's advice is all good, but I'll put in a plug for the Mamiya 6. If you are interested in a system with two lenses at focal lengths equivalent to 35mm and 85mm in 35, the 6 (with 50mm and 150mm lenses) is a good choice. Its disadvantage compared with the 7 is smaller negative size. For me this has not been much of an issue: I often compose and print in squares, I don't enlarge over 11x14 very often, and I find that for equal print sizes, the lenses on the Mamiya 6 produce prints as sharp as I get from my Pentax 67. (I think the biggest disadvantage of the 6 is that it doesn't have a really wide lens like the 7's 43mm, but if you only need a 35mm equivalent, this isn't important.)

 

<p>

 

Advantages of the 6 over the 7 are (1) the 6 is much more compact, especially when folded and stowed (the difference feels much greater than the respective cameras' dimensions unfolded would suggest), making it an ideal travel camera (you can fit the 6, three lenses, film and accessories in a small LowePro Photorunner fanny pack) and (2) the 6 is much cheaper, especially on the used market. Also, the smaller size may allow you to get away with a slightly smaller tripod.

 

<p>

 

I strongly second the recommendation of renting before you buy, but you may want to try renting the 6 as well as the 7. Try making enlargements from each and see whether the extra negative size makes much of a difference to you.

 

<p>

 

Finally, my opinion is that you do need a hand held meter for either the 6 or the 7. You won't have to use it all the time, but there are times when it's necessary. The Sekonic L-408 seems like a good choice if you need both a flash and spot meter.

Re Lacey's point about the larger circle of confusion compensating for "loss" of depth of field: Maybe someone can help me here, but as I recall, when you run the calculations, even if you are enlarging to the same size print (say 8x10), the larger "COC" factor for the larger format size only compensates for 1/2 of your "loss" of depth of field (keeping aperture and field of view constant). So you "lose" depth of field in going to MF, even if you are not making bigger prints. And, after all, one of the reasons to move from 35 to MF is so you can make bigger prints. The real bottom line here (for me anyway) is that if you are trying to squeeze out the most depth of field (like if you're in love with those dramatic close foreground/infinity background landscapes) moving from 35mm to a larger format (at least without camera movements) has a substantial drawback.

When people talk about "loss" of depth of field in MF compared to 35mm, they are referring to comparisons between lenses with similar angles of view, not similar focal lenths. It is true that a 45mm lens with have the same depth of field whether used on a 6x7 camera or a 35mm, but that is an irrelevant comparison since, on a 35mm it is a nearly "normal" lens while on 6x7 it is a wide angle. The 45mm wide angle (on 6x7) has substantially less DOF than a 24mm on 35mm, which has a similar angle of view. When you move from 35mm to medium format, as a practical matter, you do, indeed, "lose" substantial depth of field at comparable fields of view.

Rene wrote:

 

<p>

 

"The Pentax 67 is a fine camera system but for my money I'll go with the Mamiya RB or RZ Pro 2 67. Simply for this reason: I find the waist level finder a great compositional aid especially for deliberate studied work like landscapes."

 

<p>

 

The Pentax 67 does have an available waist-level finder, although you seldom see people using them.

There is a lot in the MFD archives on comparisons of various systems. But if you are really going to be doing a lot of overnight camping trips on a mountain bike, I think that size and weight of the system (and the size and weight of the tripod you will need to hold it steady) will be a much more important factor than 6x6 vs 6x7 or the differences in optical quality among major MF systems. I would look at rangefinders, such as the Fujis (fixed lens)or Mamiya 6 or 7 (interchangeable lenses), or a lightweight TLR, like a Yashicamat if the rangefinders are too pricey. All of these will make fine pictures, and you can always crop a square to a rectangle.