john_calafut

Hi Chris,

 

The most important thing I learned when I went from 35mm to medium

format was that in medium format you have to stop down the lens one or two stops farther to get the equivalent depth of field from the standard lens. Until I realized this, I always wondered why my MF pictures had soft areas compared to my 35mm photos of the same subject. Handholding is possible, but stopping down the lens means slower shutter speeds, and a tripod gives me my best results.

 

Best Regards,

 

John

Your father didn't move his head just as you took the picture, did he?

The one of you holding the camera looks pretty good.

 

I had a Seagull in which the viewing lens and taking lens did not come into focus at the same time. When the viewing lens was in focus on the subject, the taking lens was focused on the foreground. A quick test to see if they focus at the same time would be to put a piece of ground glass in the film plane and confirm that the image there is as sharp as the image in the viewfinder. If they aren't, I think there is an adjustment that can be made involving the lens mountings. With my Seagull, no part of your father would have been sharp. It developed other mechanical problems before I attempted any corrections, however.

Thanks for following up on this obviously controversial question. It's nice to hear that you did not have to resort to the power

grit-blaster. :-)

In the past I had done some searches on this topic and have seen suggestions ranging from distilled water, to applying adhesive tape and peeling the dirt off. There likely is more than one acceptible way, as well as unacceptible ones.

 

I'm not sure mirrors are so extremely fragile either. I've heard claims that even camel hair brushes left scratches. On a non-functional camera I've deliberately contacted the mirror with a blower moderately hard and saw no obvious damage. Even then, small amounts of dust (and probably scratches too) don't seem to make an impact on the image in the viewfinder. I think Paul Neuthaler's advice above is smart, and I would wait until the amount of dirtiness justifies the risk. If the image in your viewfinder is not unacceptible, I would leave it alone. But if you do decide to clean it yourself, whatever technique you use, it would be good if you have a junk camera to try it on first.

Did your lab make the contact print from negative strips while they

were in a Print File sleeve? When my lab contact prints negatives for

me they put three strips of four frames each in a Print File "transparent" sleeve to keep them together and make handling easier. The resulting contact print is ok to see your subject matter and judge exposure, but to evaluate sharpness, an enlargement made from the bare negative should be used. Why not select a favorite image and have the lab do a 5X5 or 8X8 inch enlargement?

The M synch always stuck on an 80mm lens I bought used, while the X synch has been working perfectly for 3 years running now. They are different mechanisms. I don't know how the self timer fits in. My guess would be that it is independant. Maybe you can ask at the Mamiya site where they have considerable expertise. This is their link:

http://www.macuserforums.com/webx?14@194.xfgNa8KTtt8.2@.ee707e6

I agree. I've found that with my C330f on a solid tripod I am able to recock the shutter without shifting the image any noticable amount. But it is 6X6...

Good one Isaac!

 

When I first got my Mamiya C330f, I hooked up my shutter cable, and not realizing I had accidently engaged the shutter lock, I squeezed and squeezed until I herniated the cable.

Try asking at the Mamiya site at the following address:

http://www.macuserforums.com/webx?14@135.cnMLaXebphq.0@.ee707e6

 

John

For question #2:

 

On the professional F model there is a knurled ring concentric with the lock/ unlock knob that lets you select which focal length you're using. I'm not sure about the other models. Mamiya has manuals available in pdf on their website at

http://www.mamiya.com/customerservice1.asp?id=3&id2=115

 

Regards,

Did they ask you how you made the image backwards? ;-)

Joe,

 

I agree with what Nadine said, but for rubbery material, I found that rubber tie down straps, like you can get at automotive stores, give me grip and are thick enough to provide better leverage also. I haven't used this on filters, but it did work on stuck lens assemblies.

 

Good luck, I hope this helps.

I think I've seen similar results on colonial stone buildings in the Philadelphia area with my Mamiya 80mm. My theory was that depth of field at wide apertures was not enough to cover the difference in distance from the lens to the center of the wall

(focusing point), and the lens to the points on the wall farther to the sides corresponding to the corners of your frame. If you focus on the center of the wall, the distance to points towards the corners of the wall is greater. Can you try another brand 80mm lens for comparison?

"The argument, that (all or most) professionals go for quality, is simply not true. They opt for low-cost and effectivity. Pros started switching to digital already some years ago, when digital cameras deliverd soft pictures with burned-out highlights, pink skin and greenish blonde hair."

 

Computer graphics input devices (digital cameras) have evolved to make photo-taking easier and more forgiving towards errors for general consumers. It's also a given that pixel count will continue to go up and prices will go down. This has resulted in the threat to film photography that is now evident. But what happens in a few years when digital becomes so cheap and easy that consumers can match the results offered by digital pros without excessive investment or expertise? What will be the point of hiring a pro when you can get great photos from a cellphone camera? If and when film becomes extinct I will lose a fun hobby, but maybe those pros who have led the charge into digital should consider where the ultimate viability of their profession is also headed.

I hate to think of the extinction of films I haven't even tried yet. I'm not looking forward to more situations like this involving Kodak, Fuji, etc.

 

Thank you Patric for your investigation.

 

John Calafut

"the Seagull is, was, and will always be a gigantic, steamy pile of defecation."

 

Bob,

 

I had been a Seagull enthusiast like you, and I got into some heated discussions with participants in this forum as a result. But then, earlier this summer, the shutter on my Seagull seized up, only two months after the 1 yr. warranty expired. I had hoped that with gentle treatment, I would beat the odds and have a good camera that would last.

 

During the time it worked, my Seagull took nice pictures - without lens flare or vignetting problems that I had read of. I think Seagull optics show some promise of having overcome some of the problems reported in early models. But mechanically, the failure my Seagull had is far to common among those who tried them, leaving unhappy customers who respond in this forum.

 

I personally would like to see Seagull continue to improve their product and offer an affordable quality TLR. The supply of out of production TLRs in excellent or repairable condition is finite and will shrink as things like lens fungus, wear, mishaps, or well meaning but clumsy repair attempts render them first to parts cameras, then discards. Rollei's current high end answer is admirable, but I think there is a void in the market for a new production affordable consumer grade TLR of decent quality.

 

I hope Seagull will make improvements and fill this niche. In the mean time, the used camera market has fine examples of TLRs at affordable prices, but caution and research are required, as Julian is doing in this thread.

 

Best Regards

My experience with the Seagull was that it is a good introduction to medium format because it makes you buy a better TLR when it dies. Hopefully you can avoid that step and consider one of the TLRs mentioned above. In my case, the versatility and modularity of the Mamiya was irresistible. Don't worry about weight too much... I think it actually helps steady the camera at slow shutter speeds - but for fine work a tripod is always best.

My Mamiya C330f developed a squeeky film advance that appeared to be the plastic film spools binding on the metal nibs that hold them in place. Using a toothpick, I applied a tiny amount of oil (too small to drip anyplace) to each metal nib, and the squeek has not re-occured for several rolls of film now.

>"I have at least four copies of every image I take - one on my dedicated 120 gig, one on my server backup drive, one burned on a CD, and finally one on a backup CD kept off site. In addition, I burn two copies of my final corrected and cropped print files."

 

Good God! That's an awful lot of overhead for a high tech equivalent of your grandfather's cardboard box for his negatives.

 

>"Few of my color negatives from the 80�s are in perfect shape. ALL of my digital images should be printable in 20 years."

 

Is your dedicated 120 gig going to last 20 years? How about your server backup drive? How much investment/maintenance/upgrading is this going to take?

 

>"Do you really expect today�s standards to be unreadable? MS Word will still read Wordstar files from 1983!"

 

Maybe the standards will be readable, but how about the media? Can you read Wordstar files that were stored on tape? How about files from the '70's stored on punched cards?

 

Maybe the limitations of film are not so terrible compared to a consuming rat race that will require your time maintaining files, formats and media.

You will certainly spend more money as you stay current with your storage equipment and strategies.

Donald,

 

I read with interest your post about repairing your Seagull's shutter. I have a 4B-1 with a shutter that does not operate at all, despite not having been abused by having the speed setting changed after cocking. In my case, my reaction was to try my luck with another camera - a Mamiya C330f. Having done that, I must say that at least at the level of 8X8 prints, I can't really tell which camera took which pictures. My Seagull did have a mismatch in the focusing between the viewing and taking lenses that required me to compensate when I took the photos, however. I guess my point is that I don't think optics are a problem on the Seagulls, and that good results can be obtained. I just wish that the camera wasn't prone to mechanical problems like you and I and too many other people have had.

 

Fixing it is very commendable on your part, and with the insights you gained in doing so you will probably get much usage and nice photos from your Seagull. Maybe on a slow weekend I'll get some lighter fluid, open up my 4B-1, and see what I can do for it.

I'm not sure if Mamiya will supply or fix bellows, but they're worth a try.

If not, maybe you can contact these people:

http://www.camerabellows.com

The heavyness factor in the Mamiya cameras actually doesn't bother me much, and seems to help me steady my hand held shots especially if I've been drinking too much caffeine.

I just replaced my Seagull with a used TLR. The Seagull took many great pictures, but two months after the warranty expired, it's shutter expired also. The Mamiya C330f I now have seems to have a more

smooth & precise feel to it and focuses more accurately. Those are good signs and I hope it indicates a camera that will last for the long haul.

Although I had been a Seagull advocate, based on this experience I have to suggest that used TLRs in excellent condition may be better choices than new Seagulls.

Why not start with 8X8 inches and see how you like it? That seems to be the standard step up from the normal 5X5 inch print, at least at the lab I use. For larger yet sizes the cost starts to go up sharply

- again - at the lab I use.

Even if the storage media lasts, technology evolution may make the data format or hardware to read it obsolete. Who knows what the prevalent storage media will be in 20 years? Remember card readers and tape storage? If you just stash it away and don't upgrade following the constant technological wave, your descendants may have nothing to look at in ... oh, say 2046.