david_holland1

Another way is, if space and control permit, to move the subject farther from the background, then mount the flash on a separate stand and connect with a cable (not the hot shoe) so the shadow falls outside the frame.

 

You can minimize the shadow with only two light sources by using one as the main light (with a reflector for fill) and the other (also on a stand) to overpower the main the main on the background, but you'll probably find the side effects of this technique a bit more difficult to manage.

 

A good place to post this question would be on the lighting forum.

A reasonably concise explanation of exposure value is available here:

http://www.jackspcs.com/evzones.htm.

 

However, it sounds as though you might want to back up even another step to understand what the aperture values are, how they relate to shutter speeds, and how their change affects images.

 

A good place to start, in addition to a good treatise on the subject as suggested above, would be a hand held light meter.

Pasted from the RZ Manual: "It the red line around the Mirror Lock-up Socket is still visible when the cable release is removed,

the camera is still set for mirror lockup operation.

If such is the case, reattach the cable release,

making sure that the socket retracts as you

remove it once again." (The "it" for "if" typo is Mamiya's).

 

Clearly the problem you have is common enough that Mamiya addressed it in the manual. You can find it discussed in some past threads here.

 

Mine does it half the time too.

 

If you don't have the manual, you really should go to the Mamiya site and download it. If you can't, repost or email me and I'll send it to you.

I have to have missing something.

 

What would 3500 Hassleblad posts and 2500 Mamiya posts (1,000 of which are RB/RZ) be doing on a Pentax forum, almost all of which is 35mm and digital?

 

I have a Pentax 645n, but I don't bother with the Pentax forum because there are so few posts there that are of interest, plus it and my other medium format (RZ) have as much or more in common with a Bronica or Rollei than they do with a P67, much less a *ist.

 

What about close to 700 film posts? Or the other categories on this site that are not camera specific, but have medium format in common?

 

And how do you merge Medium Format Digest with Medium Format when the latter doesn't exist? What would be the difference between that and just dropping the word "Digest" and leaving everything else alone? ("What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet").

 

What would make a lot of sense would be consolidating all of the P67 and P645 posts out of the Pentax forum and put them in the appropriate sub-categories on this one. I seem to recall that, by coincidence, there were two unrelated P645 posts on the same topic, one on Pentax and one here, at almost the exact same time. (It might have been about the fill flash work around for the AF500FTZ with the 645N?) Surely we can all agree that they belonged together. I would hope that many would agree that the dozen or two P645 posts there would be better grouped with the more than 400 here.

 

On another note, I have a Nikon F3, D70, and CoolPix 4600. I don't try to wade through the Nikon forum to find the portion of the posts that are of interest to me. The point is that the smaller number of posts here, easy to sift through for relevance by bylines, is of far more value to me than a huge number of posts many of which cannot be easily ruled out of my frame of interest.

 

I don't care what the name is, but please keep the sphere of interest.

Let me hasten to add I don't mean to disagree with any of the practical advice from Edward and Bueh. My experience is like theirs.

I always assumed that since difraction occurs when light rays are bent on encountering an edge, and since the ratio of the length of the aperture edge (i.e., its circumference) to the aperture area decreases as focal length increases, holding f stop constant, that difraction at any specific f stop would similarly decrease as focal length increases. That is, at an aperture of f/16, and f=96, the circumference of the aperture would be 6*pi and its area would be 9pi (.67). At a focal length of 192, the math would be 12pi versus 36pi (.33). Thus some time backI made a comment similar to the one above.

 

Other responses (was it you, Q.G.?) indicated that in fact the effect varies with f stop and not absolute aperture. If it is really important, you might want to search for that thread.

A Houston mini-lab for processing color and B&W negative films (no longer E-6) is 59-Minute Photo on Westheimer in the shopping center just east of Voss/Hillcroft. It is fast, reasonable, and personal.

 

They no longer do wet print contacts and the ype that look like contact sheets but are printed from scans are really usable only for digital proofs. I used to get 4x6s, the digital contact sheet, and scans, but I don't think the so-called contact sheets add anything. If the shoot was for someone else, I get the CD and 4x6s. If it is personal, I just get soup and CD. Then the ones worth enlargement can be scanned yourself, you can get high-res scan from somewhere else, or of course a wet print from the negative.

 

If you use the 4x6s as proofs, the ones you get will be machine prints, but they have the capability to do custom wet chemistry darkroom work and will on request, if you settle in as a good customer.

 

I used to use HPI for high-res scans, but over the last year or so I wasn't that pleased with the results.

 

There is a pro-lab left just east of Shepherd and just south of Memorial: AZ Photo (http://www.azphoto.com) that does excellent custom work, but of course at pro-lab prices.

 

Camera Exchange will send your E-6 out, but I don't know where. I'm always afraid to hand film over to someone in Houston to send who knows where and spend who knows how long in some van being cooked somewhere from medium rare to medium well done, though.

 

I haven't seen a post on this formum by Ellis Vener in some time, but he would be the best source of Houston info. You might try emailing him.

I second Ellis's recommendation. The ball head he mentioned just went for $59 on the a-site. I seem to recall that I paid $50 new for mine maybe 30 years ago and B&H lists them (now Leica) for $200 new. It looks virtually unchanged except for the marque. There probably isn't a lot of photo gear that's been around that long virtually unchanged.

 

It holds a P645 with 200mm and a RZ just fine without much tightening pressure. For MF, I use it mostly with the Leitz table top legs for the Pentax when I don't want to carry a full-size tripod, but I have used it with 3021 tripod legs for both cameras.

 

That said, with full size legs, I much prefer a geared head so I can't say I've used the Leitz a lot in that configuration nor could I compare it to other ball heads.

Note also the post three above yours on the forum regarding 6x7 vs 645. There is a huge amount of such format comparison here in the forum, which should not be hard to find with a search.

For your last question, see the post of Tommie Porter, June 25, 2004.

 

In case it isn't clear, the Pro II succeeded the RZ67. The RZ preceded the lemming rush to digital, so any non-Pro II stands a somewhat higher chance chance of heavy professional use for a longer period.

 

For the first questions, looking at your considerations, I would chime in as another happy RZ user and strongly recommend it as a tool to take your photography to a higher level. I don't agree with others that it is only a studio camera and have used mine in the great outdoors, even hand held on a boat wallowing through heavy swells. Nevertheless, I'm not at all sure I would choose it for your intended use.

 

Instead, I'd pass on 6x7 for now and get a Pentax 645N or Nii. I don't think the learning curve for the transition from 35mm is all that important, but if you do the curve is higher coincident with the bigger negative.

 

The direction of larger format digital is still in the main stopping short of 6x7 and in fact a bit short of 645 as well, so the RZ is likely to be throw away relative to compatibility with digital backs. However, with the smaller Pentax, there is at least some chance that the lenses will be usable in the future.

 

I have never gone hiking or even walk around shooting with my RZ. I admit to not being very much inclined to schlepping loads around at this stage of life, but even young, hardy newbies who could have selected either the RZ or the 645N from the car to initiate themselves into medium format invariably pass on the RZ. The 645N with three or four lenses is heavy enough, expecially if you add the additional weight of the appropriate tripod.

 

An additional consideration regarding prism vs. waist level is that, to me at least, waist level rules with 6x7 and with medium format in general. But if you do want a prism, keep in mind that light loss is exacerbated by the slower lenses of 6x7. For example, in 645, a medium tele can be 2.8 rather than a 4.5. In addition, the tele range will be much longer without giving up coverage at the wide angle end end.

 

The advantages of 6x7 over 645 break down to enlargements at the really large end of the scale (how many will you do above say 16x20?) and the very features that increase the learning curve, the weight you have to carry around, etc.

 

So if I were you and I were young, brave, sturdy, and curious, I'd forget transition concerns with either 35mm or digital and dive in head first with the RZ. If you feel like you need to get your feet wet, go with the Pentax 645N. If the transition to digital is important for the kit you buy, consider instead a Mamiya 645, a surer bet to be able to use the stuff you buy for digital as well as film.

I would think that B&H, Adorama, and KEH could all tell you which film you need.

 

My sense, though, is that if you want to experiment with lighting set ups, even Polaroid will be pretty expensive, not to mention a bit small.

 

Have you thought about a digital camera for the initial experimentation? There's a lot to learn and you'll go through as much Polaroid as 120, so my suggestion would be to mix a lot of digital time with relatively little film time at least starting out. You can pay for a digital camera that way if you don't already have one.

 

There will be some nasty (and once I recall totally inexplicable) surprises trying to use digital to proof for film, so I don't think you'll wind up sorry you bought a Polaroid back. That said, there's no substitute for volume and instant feedback that are virtually free.

I'm surprised no one has provided a response by now. Perhaps I'm not alone in trying to use the prism finder and discovering that it's a bit difficult to focus with except in the brightest light, not to mention adding weight and bulk to a camera that most feel has enough already.

 

Have you tried the Mamiya user forum? Usually someone with Mamiya will respond to requests such as yours promptly and, unlike me, will actually be helpful rather than just try to be.

 

Try this link: http://www.macuserforums.com/webx?14@36.XM6NaLWUuAS.0@.ee70433

 

Of course if the link doesn't give you the fast track, just delete everything after ".com" and navigate from there.

 

Please post the anwser when you find it so those that come after you can find it with a site search.

I believe that A is for aperture priority auto exposure. AEL is too, but it allows the reading to be locked by depressing the shutter release part way, to allow a change of composition (the way perhaps the majority of auto-exposure non-autofocus cameras work).

 

You should be able to confirm by watching the aperture reading while centering different parts of a contrasting scene. See if it continues to change while the shutter is pressed half way with A, but not with AEL.

The LS series lenses beat the AF series bodies to the market by over a decade.

 

Go to the Pentax site and download the manual (there is one document for both the 75 and 135). The illustrations and text are for the earlier series 645. Here is a link: http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/645_LS_75mm_f2.8_&_135mm_f4_Lens_01.pdf

 

I didn't want to overly influence your decision, but if you don't really use shutter priority much, I think it's a much better choice.

I have all three (you must mean the 135 LS, which is a f/4, not a 3.5). The 200 is AF. I also have the 150 2.8, which is also AF.

 

The 135 has a shutter in the lens. It allows flash synch at three speeds higher than the focal plane shutter in the camera body (1/125, 1/250, and 1/500). The lens shutter can be locked open so that the lens functions much like the 150 3.5. However, metering when using the lens shutter is more complicated and it has to be cocked for each shot.

 

You can see a shot with the 135 scanned from Portra 400 VC at www.nudi.com, by putting the cursor over the underwater shot on the home page.

 

The size and weight of the 135 and 150 3.5 are comparable. The specifications for all of the lenses are available on B&H if you want a closer comparison.

 

The the 150 has a built-in retractable lens hood and an extra half stop of speed, but the close focus distance is 4.1 feet rather than 4.6 for the 135, so there really isn't a significant difference as far as getting tighter head shots is concerned. (Note, however, that the focusing distance of the 2.8 is 3.9 feet, so it will go tighter than any of the others, although in the case of the 200 at the expense of working distance.)

 

I would not consider the 200 as my only portrait lens, nor do I ever recall using mine for a static portrait. Although it is my longest lens, it is my least used. It is somewhat heavier than the shorter lenses, but the biggest difference is the working distance you will need indoors for anything but a very tight head shot. In addition, the combination of longer focal length, smaller aperture, and 1/60 maximum for shutter speed makes it the worst choice for hand held use in the lower light levels of the best natural portrait light, early in the day or late at night.

 

Here is my recommendation:

 

The 150 3.5 if you want to spend the least possible now to gain some experience before you commit more funds and you do not need for it to hold its value especially well. The market is basicallly glutted, with the 3.5 having very little to recommend it over the other two short tele options as a portrait lens. I don't think I have used mine in 5 years, but the prices they were going for when I got the 2.8 were so low I've kept it as a back up.

 

The 135 LS if you think that you will be expanding your lens selection in the future with a longer tele, the ability to do balanced flash is important, and you're willing to give up a metering choice or two.

 

The 150 2.8 if you can spring for the extra few bucks for a lens that offers both a larger maximum aperture and a closer focus distance, together with AF and the liklihood that it will hold its value better than its smaller (but not that much lighter) brother.

 

Nix the 200 if the comma in your second sentence indeed indicates that magnification is not as important as portraiture. Even if magnification is of equal importance, keep in mind that you can crop a good 150 shot to the coverage of a 200, but not vice versa.

 

I hope this helps.

You do need to compensate for bellows extension for more than minimal amounts.

 

There is a scale that becomes visible on the right side of the body as the bellows is extended. The curved lines correspond to lens focal lengths. There is a scale on the body that indicates how far away the lens is focused as well as the amount of exposure compensation.

 

I have the manuals in PDF format for both the Pro-S and Pro-SD. If you you want me to email you one, post to that effect, including of course which one.

 

If it isn't clear how the distance and exposure compensation works when you look at it, the best thing to do would be to get the manual, which has both illustrations and instructions.

You can download a program that will calculate depth of field from http://tangentsoft.net/fcalc/.

 

The four inputs are focal length, subject distance, aperture, and the circle of confusion. The first three are susceptible of objective determination.

 

The program suggests a maximum circle of confusion (and thus the maximum depth of field) for various formats based on average viewing conditions and the same absolute enlargement size (i.e., 8x10). Thus, MF, with lesser enlargement to attain 8x10 than 35mm, can afford a larger circle of confusion.

 

However, if enlargement ratio is the same, so that MF is used to attain a larger finished print to be viewed at the same viewing distance, then the circle of confusion would need approximate the same value as the smaller format.

 

The selected circle of confusion should therefore depend on enlargement size (which is determined by the creator of the image to be viewed), and viewing distance, lighting conditions of the viewing location, the sensibility of the viewer with respect to both the sharpness and impact of the image, and other such subjective variables (which the image creator can only predict).

 

The circle of people confused by the circle of confusion may find this link, in addition to the above posts and sources, a helpful source of information to remove as as much subjectivity as possible: http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/dof.htm.

 

A final caveat is that lens design and quality, which also affects sharpness, may be a factor as well if one is attempting to determine depth of field to 6 decimal places, as provided by fCalc, notwithstanding the huge influence of the subjective factors that must be determined in order to select the acceptable circle of confusion.

Was the paper side out, so that you advanced the film until you saw an arrow to index it before closing the back (i.e., line up with the "starting mark"?

 

If so, the film was facing forward. If all you saw was black and didn't know how far to go before you closed the back, then you would get the result you got.

 

It is also possible that the leader didn't catch in the take up spool.

 

Did you see "exposed" on the paper backing when you took it out? There should also have been a small strip of paper to glue the free end down if it transported all the way through.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

I have never used the NII, so I was trying to say that I am fairly sure that it would wind to the end like the N, but that I do not know for certain and didn't want to pass on any misinformation. (I think that I wrote rewind before, which of course is not what actually happens.)

 

I didn't know how much you knew about the NII other than the manual information and I was trying to shed some light on the situation since no one with a NII had stepped in to share actual experience.

 

I'm actually curious how many people are making use of the 15 frame option, and whether and in what circumstances people have found that it makes a difference.

 

Cheers!

 

David

I hope I'm not telling you something you already know.

 

The instruction manual has the following caveat:

 

"If you try to rotate the Bayonet Ring

counterclockwise without first depressing

the Cocking Lever of the camera body, the

movement of the ring will be blocked,

making it impossible to remove the lens.

This safety feature assures that the mirror

must always be lowered whenever the lens

is removed, thereby assisting the Light

Baffle in shielding the film from light."

 

If you have fired the shutter but not recocked since you put the lens on, this could be the problem. You will probably need to put the R-M lever on M in order to cock the shutter and then remember move it back to the middle position.

 

You should be able to tell from the pressure on the lever whether you are cocking it or if it is already cocked.

 

If you haven't tried this already (gently, of course, to avoid more damage), it would be worth a try before making the trek to a repair station.

I would have thought that by now someone with a NII would have provided the simple yes or no answer you are looking for .

 

(I apologize if I the below is something you already know.)

 

The only light I can shed is that the N takes 16 frames per roll. Pentax was very proud that they got one more frame per roll than some other 645 cameras but some people feared that, if film were left in the camera, the extra frame might be at the expense of film flatness.

 

The NII provided the user controlled function to allow the choice.

 

One might therefore suspect that "on" would mean override to the normal, i.e., 15 exposures, but of course it could well mean "extra frame" i.e. 16.

 

One would think that the NII, like the N, automatically rewinds after the last frame.

 

Therefore, you should be able to find out one way or the other with a test roll. I normally shoot one with a new camera anyway to check out shutter speeds and apertures for apparent consistency, focus alignment, etc., to make sure nothing is obviously wrong before I shoot something important.

 

If you are concerned about the film flatness issue, wanting 15, and you guess wrong and get 16 on your test roll, you haven't really lost anything if you're just checking the camera out. If you want the extra frame, and you guess wrong, you've only lost the last frame in the test.

 

It's still not too late for someone who knows the answer to come to the rescue.

An afterthought about the use of the tilt/shift lenses: the shortest RZ is a 75mm, which would create about a 1.5 "crop factor" on a 36x48 sensor. That would make the 75 coverage equate to the 110/2.8 on film, which I would think would put the architectural shooters out of the picture.

For me, the only advantage of putting a sensor that doesn't fill the coverage area of a 645 lens on my RZ would be to have the benefit of the rotating back and bellows focusing, at the expense of a lot of bulk and weight (of both camera and lenses). In addition, the lenses are very slow by 645 standards, optimized for a much larger coverage, and with even more limitation (from the so-called "crop factor") at the wide angle end of the coverage range.

 

Moreover, I don't think I'd be inclined to buy a back for a Contax if I didn't already have a Contax kit, which would really limit the reasons I would want to adapt it to the RZ.

 

I suppose if you are shooting a lot of film and digital and want to use the same camera for familiarity reasons it would make sense, if the disadvantages aren't important, or maybe if you want to use the RZ tilt/shift lenses and larger coverage circle as a substitute for a view camera. It's hard to say how big that market is. Someone familiar with the tilt/shift lenses would have to tell you whether the range of movement is enough to take advantage of the excess coverage.

 

As I recall, there was a post not too long ago by someone complaining about having bought a RZ Pro II D, only to discover all of the limitations of the sensors available that cover much less than the RZ's native format.

If one tripod is going to do double duty, consider a Bogen (or Manfrotto) dolly for the studio. It does a decent job of making a tripod substitute for a camera stand at a fraction of the cost.

 

The flip down stabilizer feet are a little too low and tend to drag if you move the contraption too fast. I have not done any tests with and without them, but my sense is that they don't really make a difference and the next time they bother me I may take them off.

 

I also use 3021 legs on the outside. If I didn't already have an ancient Quickset for the dolly duty, I'm sure the Manfrotto setup would work equally well on the dolly, but with very much back and forth it makes sense to have a horse for each course.

 

I have the version with a center column that can be mounted horizontially.

 

I keep the Manfrotto 410 compact geared head on the 3021 and blissfully use it with the Manfrotto quick release plates, in part because I can get compulsive with composition for subjects that hold still and in part because I don't know any better.

 

I should add that the RZ spends far more time on the Quickset and that the 3021 spends way more time under a 645 where it needs to be able to handle 400mm. My experiments with a ball head weren't very satisfactory with either camera, but I know that for others they are just the thing.

A lot of people have wondered the same thing. When the question came up on the Mamiya forum, Matt Hill of Mamiya posted the following, which says exactly what you have already found:

 

http://www.macuserforums.com/webx?14@66.qQnPa2rQtPd.8@.ee7279c/0.

 

You may not be be able to pin down the difference any more than that.

 

My sense is that the usefulness of half stop marks (they aren't detents) on the lens for portrait photography isn't much different with the RZ than it would be with any other MF kit--it would depend more on whether or not you are using studio lights, on the film you are using, and on how well you can judge the distance between the two whole stop marks, in any event probably not much.

 

I also suspect that no significant difference among the three is likely to show up much in portraiture, being more likely to come from the same market forces that cause later model cars to sell for more regardless of milage and improved suitability.

 

Better someone who has tested both side by side for portraiture take it from here, which I haven't.