christopher perez

Just another data point: I took a Canon PowerShot A640 to India with me, along with two sets of NiMH batteries and 7 GB of SD flash. At 10mpixel this allowed me around 1,400 images. I came home with 1,200 full sized 10mpixel photos.

<i>...but my experience is that the T* Muticoated Planar is contrastier than any TLR Rolleiflex I have ever owned (and I have owned many).</i>

<p>

I was puzzled by the results I experienced. So I checked my Rolleis against two newer than the CT* I had. They were 80mm CF and CFi modeled 'blads. Same results. The difference in actually in the 'blad body type. They've reworked the internal baffling on the newer models.

<p>

Now it's important to note that I was looking and comparing a 15 zone range. So it's unlikely that some (many?) folks would even be able to tell a difference in normal 6:1 contrast ration scenes.

<p>

<i>Just as, by your own admission, you didnt "get" Rolleiflex TLRs immediately I suspect the same is going on for you with Hasselblad...</i>

<p>

Well, my mint like new 500CM was in the shop 4 times in 6 months for various reasons. I'd never experienced anything like this before. And I've been through a TON of camera gear in my day. So I sold the fetid beast and bought a Mamiya RZ. What I didn't "get" about 'blad was it's lack of reliability under kind but rigorous use. Wedding photographers I know in my home town used to keep a pair and a spare so that they're never out of action. This before they all went digital. The b*st*rds! :-)

<p>

Tools. That's what we're talking about here. Some prefer Craftsman. Others prefer Snap-On. Similarly with cameras I suspect.

<i>sharpness is a much overrated quality in images IMO</i>

<p>

Indeed. The resolution differences I saw were visible at 160x magnification. The contrast differences were apparent on the contact sheet - and are most likely related to 'blad's internal light baffles (or lack thereof).

<p>

At normal working image sizes, who could tell the difference? It's really a matter of one's own vision. Right? :-)

<p>

The point I was attempting to make was counter to what people said earlier on: That someone said early Rolleis aren't as good as 'blad gear. To which I heartily disagree. By the 1950's it looks like everything worked out just fine between Rollei and Schneider and Zeiss.

<p>

Oh, and don't count the Schneider Xenar (on MX-EVS and 'cords) out of the running. Have you seen how SHARP and CONTRASTY those lenses are wide open? OK, so it's a center weighted kind of thing at those apertures... still, these are brilliant! By f/8 I would challenge anyone to show me the difference between a Xenar and Planar. Seriously. :-)

A nice Rollei might help you concentrate on making images. Hassy's are nice, but a bit "fiddly" as there are many parts and things and bits and... well, you get the picture.

 

I did a study of a c.1956 and c.1966 Rolleiflex E and F and compared these single coated Xenotar and Planar optic cameras against a 1980's vintage multi-coated Hasselblad 500CM and a Mamiya 7 (also multi-coated).

 

Believe it or not, I found the Rolleiflex'n to be sharper than the 'blad Planar 80mm T* as well as being contrastier too. The Rolleis weren't quite as outstanding as the Mamiya 7. But the shocker for me was the performance of the Rolleis compared to the 'blad, not that a 'blad can't help you make exceedingly fine images, thank you very much. :-)

Ah, Grasshopper. But what if you built a versatile kit from a 6.5 x 8.5 inch format base? Goodness you may have. Peace you may achieve. :-)

For a short time I too used a Hasselblad with their Zeiss lenses. Since that time I have been using Mamiya 7 and RZ in medium format. The resolution and "fidelity" you talk about seem to be common amoungst that group of cameras.

 

In large format, everything I have seen leads me to believe that if you shoot at f/16 or f/22 that your work should equal the feelings you have regarding medium format.

 

One thing to check: The accuracy of your groundglass with regards to the actual film plane in your holders. Sometimes even the slightest variance can return unpleasing results. This, particulary when shooting LF at wider apertures.

 

Regarding LF optics, just like your MF system, you may see more lens to lens variation within a product line than you will between manufacturers. For consistancy in modern times I feel that Schneider and Fuji have done the best job. But Nikon and Rodenstock are nothing to sneeze at.

I've taken a close look at a whole lot of lenses. Rodenstock Sironar-S are quite nice. But the equal in terms of resolution and contrast are Fuji's NWS/EBC, Schneider's Symmar-S/M and APO Symmar. Rodenstock's Sironar N in 150mm is quite spectacular too.

 

I've taken a look at images taken with all these lenses (and more) and inspected them in various ways, including image inspection at 160x magnification.

 

The only differences between any of these fine lenses is really in how they render color. Even there, the differences are subtle.

 

My conclusions are these:

- It's far better to have a lens than not.

- The sharpest lens you will ever own is a tripod.

- MTF design data isn't as good as real world comparisons (due to manufacturing variability).

- When working with one's own artistic vision, the lens will most times _not_ be the limiting factor to creating wonderful images.

 

I hope this helps.

 

So go out and buy a lens. OK?

I've been looking at classic and modern lenses wide open. In 150mm, I very very seriously doubt you'd be able to tell any difference between your current Linhof Select and a more modern optic.

 

Want to be neurotic? That's easy. Throw money at the problem and buy a different lens.

 

Want to be pragmatic? Shoot what you currently own.

From what fertile a mind springs forth such eloquent words? Brother Dagor77, speak unto us!

I own both Mamiya 7 and RZ.

 

The "7" is great for travel. I take mine nearly everywhere. When I want to get "funky", I take one of the old Rolleiflex TLRs.

 

Portraits with the "7" are fine, but remember that with the 80mm you can only get to 3 feet. Close focusing to 6 feet with the 150. The optics are brilliant on just about any of the lenses. But the 150 not really useful to me due to the gap from 80mm to 150mm and the lack of close focusing.

 

The RF on the "7" takes some getting used to. Particularly if you want to align the verticals and such things. The eye is sometimes easily fooled by the direct look through the RF system at the subject. It's too easy to misunderstand the frame lines and too easy to forget what they really refer to.

 

The "RZ" is so versatile. I have three lenses (65/110/180) and several backs. But due to weight, I don't usually carry it with me overseas. Around home, the "RZ" is more fun than a Hasselblad. I can actually work very quickly with the "RZ". But I understand that some folks out there might not have the patience to sit and wait for the camera to be set up.

 

Rent a "7" first. Then see if you can use it or not. While you're at it, rent a Rolleiflex TLR or 6000-series SLR.

There is one camera store in Bangalore which might have what you are looking for. But I'm getting old and can't remember the name. It's rather famous amoungst local photographers. So it might be worth asking around Bangalore.

 

Alternatively, there is a seller on eBay who goes by "lexim2k". He is located in Kerela State, I believe near Cochin. You might try contacting him to see what he might have.

With the possible exception of slight differences in how they behave at the limits of their published fields of coverage, all the lenses you mention are generally equal. Noticable differences will be limited to the way each lens renders color. Even here, the differences will be slight.

 

If someone in the real world could illustrate differences between APO Sironar-S and Fuji 210 W (or any other lens listed above) I think I would need to buy them a beer. I have never been able to detect any meaningful difference between them.

 

YMMV.

Is there anyone here from Karnataka state in India who can help answer a

question for me?

 

I have heard that to use a tripod for photography at certain locations that I

need to contact the Department of Archeology to apply for a permit. However,

when I look at the list of deparments, secretaries, and ministers for this

state, I cannot find such a department.

 

So the question is: Whom do I contact for a permit to use a tripod when I visit

Karnataka locales that require such a permit?

 

Thanks for any and all direction/comments/suggestions.

I was surfing the web looking for Fotoman 6x12 when I stumbled upon

Gaoersi 6x12, 6x9, 6x17 cameras ( http://www.focus-dayi.com/main.php ).

 

Does anyone have direct personal experience with the 6x12? If so,

what do you think? How's it's build quality? Any light leaks? Any

issues?

Michael, thanks for the clarifications.

 

I had noticed a "trend" when shooting with various lenses. The first thing I noticed is that all my plasmats required more bellows than any of my tessars. And that my Heliars require less bellows than the tessars. I didn't realize Nikkor plasmats behaved differently than my small sample set.

 

I see that I had too few data points. Thanks.

 

To the original poster, in my case, the 300 Nikkor M focuses on my Anba to around 10 feet. And the 75mm Rodenstock Grandagon f/6.8 fits with plenty of wriggle room. If you have different lenses than I, please check to make sure they will work in your intended manner.

When I travel I use your Nagaoka's sister camera, the Ikeda Anba. They are nearly identical, except for wood choice and metal parts finish.

 

My camera handles a 75mm Rodenstock Grandagon with ease (enough rise to make it useful). I would have no problems mounting up a 65mm super wide either. On the other end of the spectrum, my camera handles a 300mm Nikkor M and APO Germinar to around 10 feet.

 

Keep in mind that plasmats take more bellows extension than tessars. So if you have a plasmat 300mm it might not work well except at infinity.

<i>OK. Hands up everyone who's shelled out for brand new 360mm Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider and Fujinon lenses, just so's you can do a side-by-side comparison. Not many I'll bet, and certainly not me.</i>

<p>

I can't confess to having purchased new just to see how they perform. But I can confess to having had a close look at other people's lenses and put them in front of a USAF Resolution Test Chart.

<p>

Prior comments are correct: There's really no difference between the lenses listed. All should perform quite well to the enlargements previously mentioned. Some people believe in the new Rodenstock Sironar-S lenses. Other people believe in Schneider's new Symmar-L. Yet other people love Fuji.

<p>

Lenses of this kind won't stand in the way of creating a wonderful image.

The three lenses you list are all excellent, even when single coated (which the Schneider and Fuji might be if they are early in the product series).

 

I very seriously doubt you would be able to tell much if any difference between them.

James, your photo is fantastic!

 

A friend lives in Surry and suggests several days can be spent in and around this area. I can't wait to head over and check this stuff out for myself!

 

Such inspiration.

Thanks to everyone who posted replies to my question about the number

of aperture blades in Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses. Now on to the next set

of cameras.

 

How many aperture blades do the lens systems for the following cameras

contain?

 

- Rollei SL66

 

- Mamiya 645

 

- Pentax 645

 

- Pentax 67

 

[i have Mamiya 7 and RZ on-hand so I know what they contain. But I

don't have access to the cameras listed above, hence this follow-on

question.]

<i>Chris - this is not a flame, but I'm surprised you ask this sort of question when you yourself have "tested" Hasselblad lenses...</i>

<p>

What I "tested" had to do with in-focus areas and had nothing to do with the influence of aperture shape on out of focus areas. At the time it didn't even occur to me to ask this kind of question. I made certain assumptions that had no relevence on the resolution of something, but more impact on the out of focus areas than I would have ever have guessed. :-)

<i>...But does the shape of aperture, or the number of blades make a difference in how we capture an image?</i>

<p>

Yes. Significantly.

<p>

I will be publishing an on-line article about the influence of aperture shape on out of focus areas shortly. My article will be related to large format lenses. After seeing what I've seen I was very curious about how apertures are implemented in medium format cameras. So I thought I'd begin with Hasselblad (and try and wriggle in a question about Rollei 6000-series).

<p>

Thanks to everyone who responded with the answer.

Mamiya upgraded the gears and bushings on the film advance starting with where the lever enters the camera body.

 

I have an old RZ that was upgraded after bushings failed at that point. But I've not heard of this happening often and the camera I have had been used for wedding photography (ie: heavy use).

 

I hope this helps.

How many blades are there in Hasselblad mount lenses? Does the number

of blades vary between lens styles (ie: C, CF, CFi)?

 

Last question: what is the shape of the aperture as it's stopped down?

Truely round? Or some other multi-sided shape?

 

OK, really Last Question: how does Rollei implement their aperture

shapes in the 6000-series cameras?

I don't know where Kerry Thalman finds this stuff, but all he has to

do is show me an item or two and I'm hooked. I'm a financially poorer

man for it. But happier, I might add.

 

The most recent Madness revolves around Docter Optics lenses. I have

taken delivery of a 150 Germinar W f/9, 210 Tessar f/4.5, 240 Germinar

W f/9, and 300 APO Germinar f/9.

 

The 150 and 300mm lenses are brilliant. I just love 'um for their

resolution and contrast. In the process of doing a real world "test of

200mm-ish lenses, I found the 240 Germinar W to also be brilliant from

wide open all the way down, and the 210 Tessar to be shockingly good

starting around f/5.6.

 

I have started compiling a page of Docter Optic goodies at:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/Germinar.html

 

I believe Kerry still has a couple of the 150 and 300mm lenses, and

perhaps more than a few 240's. It might be worth looking him up. The

Germinar W lenses are what Schneider could or should have produced

with the GClaron series of lenses; the Germinars are multi-coated and

provide similar 80 degree coverage when stopped down to at least f/22.

And the APO Germinar is such a delight that I don't care that it's

only single coated.

 

Stay tuned for my 210mm "real world" Big Mash-Up test. Already there

are a few surprises (to me at least, this from inspecting the

negatives under a 10x loupe). I am feeling more confident than ever

that lens aperture shape strongly influences the "texture",

"rendition", and "smoothness" of out of focus areas. But more on that

after I have had a chance to spend a few hours in the darkroom

printing the results.

 

I thought y'all might like to know. There are some really great optics

out there. Just wait until you see what a $165US Schneider Xenar f/6.1

can do! :-)