christopher perez

The only challenge with older lenses are dodgy shutters. By the

time you CLA them into reliability, you're approaching the costs of

a nice used modern lens.

 

OTOH, I know people who've purchased nothing but older barrel

lenses for around $100US. Then use their hat, or lens cap as

the shutter. This works well in cases where the exposure tends

to be long (which it does in some 8x10 and ULF work). If you

needed some shutter control, pick up a cheap used old Packard

shutter and mount it behind a lensboard. Then you could use

just about any barrel lens you wanted and still come in fairly

cheaply.

 

If the Goerz you have on the camera now is operational, use it.

Your contact prints should be beautiful!

Ron, I live in near-in SE Portland. I work in a few too many formats for my own good and enjoy wandering about town with one strung over my shoulder. I'm not sure about what you mean by "mentoring"? Hum a few more bars about what you're looking for.

<i>...Ultimately I doubt you will see much difference among modern lenses from the major brands...</i>

<p>

Well said.

<p>

I think any newer 75mm lens will do very well. Fuji makes some wonderful optics, as do Schneider, Rodenstock, and Nikon. Someone suggested an 80mm SuperSymmar XL. That might be a good way to go. But do a bit more research to figure out what might work best for you considering cost and weight.

Jan, your image from Mt. Abu is quite nice! Thank you for sharing it. It illustrates the use of the 43mm very well.

<p>

Given my preference for shooting large format, my comments about using the 50mm instead of a 43mm is due to the 43mm's angle of view. If I had taken the following using a 43, I feel it would have "pulled" at the edges a little too much for my pleasure. I haven't scanned the image I took of sadhus at Belur (just up the road from Halibeedu), but the following should demonstrate my point. With the 50mm, the edges don't "pull" as much as the 43mm.

<p><center><img src="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/india/images/halibeedu1.jpg">

<br><i>Temple carving details, Halibeedu, Hassan, India<br>

Mamiya 7, 50mm f/11, 1/60 (on tripod), TMax 100</i>

<p>

</center>

It can be difficult to get the verticals aligned with a 120 camera. So my next trip to South Asia may see me attempt to haul a super light weight 4x5 camera with 3 tiny lenses. The above image was taken at eye level. But many beautiful carvings are much higher than this and I could really use front rise to correct the key stone effect. But that's a topic for another time... :-)

<p><center><img src="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/india/images/halibeedu3.jpg">

<br><i>Temple carvings, Halibeedu, Hassan, India<br>

Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar 75mm f/8, 1/250 (on tripod), TMax 100</i>

<p>

</center>

The winner for "futziness" would be the Hasselblad. Sure, they've been around a long time. But they never engineered the quirks out of them. Even today I know I can cause one to fail without blinking an eye. Yes, users will tell you their's never fail. But I must have been Mr. Fumble Fingers.

 

I sold my 'blad and bought an RZ. It has never failed me. The interlocks work. The protection mechanisms make sense to me. And the lenses are quite good. Oh, and they are cheaper in many cases than a 'blad. :-)

I have a SuperTech III and have enjoyed using a Schneider 305 GClaron on it.

 

The lenses you list (Fuji 300 C, Rodenstock APO Ronar) are both good optics. Add to your list of possibilities a Nikkor 300M and any of the 300mm/12inch Artar-like four element airspace designs and I think you'd have a good list of lenses to choose from.

 

I typically shop price, then performance. I'm cheap that way. Some people aren't so cheap. And everything people have mentioned would work well on your camera (except any lens mounted in a #3 shutter - they don't fit the TechIII).

I agree with the comments about the 50mm being chosen over the 43mm. In my case the best combo has turned out to be the 50mm and 80mm. No need for the 150mm (which was a little difficult for me to use, for some reason). Based on my large format experience, there is seldom a case where walking toward a subject wasn't possible (as a means of filling the frame using the shorter optics).

 

Good luck. The Mamiya 7 is a wonderful system.

These are amazing photographs.

 

Maybe its just my wishful thinking, but his images have a sense of depth, clarity, and detail that's d**n hard to beat using anything but 4x5. :-)

Many thanks for the good guidance. It looks like I'm in for a new 545i holder. :-)

<i>If you are removing the packet for later processing, the procedure as described by Polaroid for their current holders is to: 1) Remove the holder from the camera 2) Leave the lever set to "L" 3) Press the release and while holding it in. use the thumb of you other hand to slide the envelope until the clip shows. Then pull the envelope from the holder.

<p>

In other words, pressing the release alone is not enough.</i>

<p>

Ah. This is explains things a bit further. Indeed, I am attempting to process the film later.

<p>

Any chance that in using this technique that the sleeve will begin to move, leaving the clip behind, thus exposing the film?

These are some very good responses. Thank you.

<p>

<i>...after sliding the sleeve back down, I remove the holder from the camera. And then, while I hold down the release, push the packet up slightly to disengage the film from the clip in the holder. Then pull the packet out as normal...</i>

<p>

Steven, when you say "push the packet up", which way is up? Toward the rollers? Away from the rollers? Or perpendicular to the rollers?

<p>

The film I used was not cold stored. It was purchased from a local camera store. And yes, I had trouble with three boxes from the same source. I believe they were from the same batch. The metal clips all failed to disengage in the very same manner.

<p>

About a potential worn back, how to verify this? What to look for? Mine is an all metal (pre-i) version.

<p>

Has anyone had similar problems using Kodak Readyloads or Fuji Quickloads when using their Polaroid 545?

I have a Polaroid 545 film holder. I went out yesterday with a small

stack of 55P/N film and remembered some of the issues I've had with

this in the past. Yesterday I had the following two problems and am

soliciting feedback on what I could do differently:

 

1) After exposure, the film sleeve does not engage the metal end

strip. When I push the release and pull the film, many times I can't

feel the chemical packet and know that the metal endclip is still in

the film holder. I re-insert the paper jacket and try again.

Sometimes it takes a dozen tries to catch the metal end strip so that

I extract the film properly sleeved.

 

2) As a result of #1, the film holder sometimes lifts off the camera

slightly. This causes fogging. I think I can correct this by

wrapping my darkcloth around the back of the camera while attempting

to extract the sleeve.

 

These two "challenges" left me with a 50% success rate. This was

rather disappointing. Ideas? Comments?

Xenar is a simple tessar-formula optic and should be relatively inexpensive. If you want really cheap, it could be a good way to go. But be aware that coverage is limited to less than 60 degrees. OK for 4x5, but not much room for movements.

 

Symmar is a plasmat-formula optic and provides 70 degrees of coverage or more (depending upon the model). These can be nearly as inexpensive as Xenars. Given a choice, I would choose a Symmar. Unless, that is, weight is most important to you. Then the Xenar might win the day.

 

I hope this helps.

So... you're the guy who won the teak 10x12 camera from India? :-)

 

I smile because I just heard from the gent who won the 6x15. Small world, eh?

 

The images circle needed to cover your format is something in between 8x10 and 11x14. One thing to consider is if you need lenses in shutters or not. Barrel lenses are widely available to cover the format, are cheap, and may work for you. Particularly if you use long exposures (which ULF typically demands).

 

Here's a list of 11x14 coverage optics that'll most certainly do a good job for you. Then I'll list the lenses I have and like.

 

150mm Schneider Super Symmar XL

 

210mm Schneider Super Angulon

 

210mm Schneider SuperSymmar XL

 

240mm Computar f/9

 

240mm Germinar-W f/9

 

some 240mm Kowa Graphics

 

240mm Zeiss Dagor (not the Goerz version)

 

250mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar f/6.3

 

270mm Computar f/9

 

270mm Goerz Dagor

 

300mm Computar f/9

 

300mm Fujinon-A

 

300mm Goerz Dagor

 

305mm Schneider GClaron f/9

 

305mm Germinar-W f/9 (not the APO f/8 version)

 

355mm Schneider GClaron f/9

 

355mm Schneider Symmar

 

360mm Fuji A f/10

 

360mm Germinar-W f/9 (not the APO f/8 version)

 

450mm Fuji C f/12.5

 

450mm Nikkor M

 

The lenses that I use in 7x17, like, and might look for again include a 305 Schneider GClaron, 355 Schneider GClaron, and a 250mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar. I haven't had much chance to try the 150 Super Symmar XL. If it does cover, I'm still tempted to sell the lens and buy more cameras in different format (like 11x14).

 

I hope this helps. The list is compiled from many sources, some of whom contribute here. :-)

If you want 6x6, consider a Mamiya 6MF. If you are curious about 6x7, then look at the Mamiya 7.

 

I have used Hasselblad, Mamiya (7 and RZ), Rolleiflex TLRs, and the Mamiya 7 is just terrific. As you can see, others here weren't quite as impressed. Comparing my "7" images with 'blad images, the Mamiya are sharper and contrastier. But not by much.

 

Having said this, if you really like 6x6, why not look at a Rollei TLR with a more complex lens design (Planar or Xenotar)? One would make a nice compliment to your 4x5 kit.

<i>C. Perez, would you be kind enough to give us the list? The newbie photographers would appreciate it.</i>

<p>

Going from memory (I sold my beautiful 'blad several years ago out of disgust at its lack of reliability, so keep this in mind):

<p>

<ul>

<li>Attempted lens mount or removal with either the lens or the body not cocked correctly - see this thread about training in this area :-)

<p><li>New or used, if your body and lens are correctly cocked and the camera still fails to fire, check the pin alignment between the body and lens (there's a really small pin on the lens that can easily wander out of spec).

<p><li>New or used, the shutter spring can fail. I've personally seen, and have heard several stories from a local photo shop that sells 'blad gear, that springs snap. Now try to remove the lens from the body. Good luck. This, even with the newest series of lenses.

<p><li>If you bump the camera body (in my case, <b>not</b> very hard at all), the event can cause what the repair person referred to as a "double fire". That is, some of the springs and links are relaxed as if the shutter had gone off, but didn't. When you trip the shutter release on the front of the camera, the upper curtain spring bends. You may, but probably won't, notice this fact until your film comes back from the developer. So you may have an entire shoot down the drain if this ever happens to you. I've seen this with new and old bodies, CLA'd and well used. I'm told that its a rare event. But some of my friends who use Hassy equipment have experienced it.

<p><li>If you are neurotic about lens resolution and use the mirror lock up mechanism, make sure you trip the shutter before advancing the film. If you trip the mirror lock up, forget to trip the lens shutter, and advance the film, the camera's whimpy lock-out mechanism will not save you. I have never seen a body where the lock out worked correctly (and I've seen more than a few 'blad bodies in my day). The upper curtain spring bends. You may, but probably won't, notice this fact until your film comes back from the developer. So you may have an entire shoot down the drain if this ever happens to you.

<p><li>When purchasing any 'blad lens, make sure the mount plate is tight and does not move. I've personally seen several new, and some old, lenses that worked on some bodies and not others. In a few cases when it wasn't the firing pin alignment, problems with movement in the mounting flanges were observed.

<p><li>When inserting darkslides into film back, regardless of new or old, take care that you don't snag the light trap with the darkslide. If it rips, pieces of material can wander through the camera and, in rare cases, cause malfunctions for film advance. In the least, and if you're working out of doors at the time, you'll loose images due to film fog. You may, but probably won't, notice this fact until your film comes back from the developer. So you may have an entire shoot down the drain if this ever happens to you.

<p><li>New or used film backs, if you begin to see frames one and two overlap, send the back in for an easy repair. The failure is not catastrophic, but is a pain since you will be without your film back while its in the shop.

</ul>

<p>

I'm sorry I don't recall more of the repair person's list. It went on for awhile beyond my short listing here.

<p>

I personally experienced, know people who experienced, or have spoken with repair people who have direct experience in these areas. The failure rates are indeed higher than with other camera systems. The fact that new equipment needed to be looked over and verified prior to use was a surprise to me. Many other cameras that I have owned and used did not require this level of attention.

<p>

I wanted to say that Hassy's are like Ferraris. But that's not right. I love Ferraris. Fiats and Ducatis and MotoGuzzis too! So my experience with Hasselblad cameras leads me to think of them as Saabs. Lordy lord, there have been some fabulous work turned out by photographers who use Hasselblad equipment, and rallies have been won running Saab cars. If you pay proper attention to them and are neurotic about how you approach your tools and equipment they can be reliable and help you create wonderful images or to go a long ways. But my experience leads me to think of it as too high a price to pay for the pleasure of using one. Or the other, for that matter.

I use my 200 M for portraits. Coupled with a pair of Alien Bee monolights, the lens give me pleasing results. Its not too contrasty for my purposes. But you should check it out first.

 

I think the 200 M is usable from wide open down to f/32. But, again, you might want to check it out first to see if it fits your needs. Shooting anything wide open in 4x5 invites focusing errors. Sometimes this can be a Good Thing. And sometimes not.

Hasselblad has deep history and boatloads of accessories and lenses.

Couple this with the fact that the 'blad legend is kept alive through continued sales (both new and used) and that photographers continue to crank out wonderful images.

 

If the community of photographers who talk amoungst themselves, write in the popular press, and spread the tribal knowledge of such things were to discuss Mamiya RB/RZ, Mamiya 7, Rolleiflex TLR/SL66/600x cameras in the same glowing terms, then more people would perhaps be equally vocal about their choice of non-'blad photographic tools.

 

Hasselblad was first to market by several decades. And their reputation grew thereby. When it was the only game in town, it was difficult to beat.

I was thinking about this last night. Went to my collection of St. Ansel Adams books. Flipped through one. And there it was. To paraphrase "<i>... once I figured out how to use the Hasselblad, it proved to be a very nice camera...</i>". I wonder how many times he fumbled and broke something to come to this realization?

<p>

Some devices a person can pick up and simply use. Other devices, it appears, require additional knowledge to operate.

<p>

There is a 'blad repair person here in the city I live in that has cataloged the various ways a Hassy can jam. He went through it one day when I was visiting him. We laughed after his recitation. It was a longer list than any of us realized.

<i>Maybe a 203mm F7.7 Kodak Ektar will fit? They're very small. Maybe Chris Perez knows?</i>

<p>

Gosh. How could I forget? <b>Yes</b>. The Kodak 203mm f/7.7 Ektar would fit the MT with room to spare. Its a wonderful, if not a little old, optic.

<p>

Still, I'd suggest the Nikkor 200 M. Modern coatings and shutter.

<i>It seems that many Hassleblad users defend their machines with the fervence of a mother defending her delinquent child to the judge. I'm hoping there must be a good reason for all this passion.</i>

<p>

The good news is: There are reasons some people are so passionate about their 'blads. Back in the day, Zeiss was only one of perhaps three manufacturers of optics who could build a sharp, contrasty lens. The other two companies being Schneider and Kodak.

<p>

Fast forward a couple decades. The Japanese figure out how to mimic the good designs (Biogon, Tessar, Plasmat, etc.). And then they worked to make design and production improvements. After awhile, they caught, and in some cases surpassed, the Germans in their optical design and production abilities.

<p>

So you see a number of people tied to good Zeiss histories and who remain passionate about their tools of the trade. Your camera is no slouch. As long as you can avoid the ditches, its capabilities are still outstanding.

<p>

BTW, the OS analogy was wonderful!<br>

I kicked Microsoft Windows out of my office over a decade ago. Talk about buggy software that the vendor SWEARS is user self induced! I replaced it with Linux (difficult for some users to learn) and Apple Macs (truly the best computer appliance known to man). Alas, The Powers That Be dictated Microsoft on the desktop.

<p>

Now I get to experience at least one system crash a day. Followed by the occasional email outages (while they scrub the system for virii, worms, and other "user induced" nasties). And that's with the latest version of uSoft's OS! Don't tell my boss, but I have Linux running everywhere I can, like all my servers, development environment, photo editing (the Gimp rocks!), etc... :-)

<i>So you may think I'm wrong but I'm still thinking I've bought a temperomental and unreliable camera! coz, so far for me, that's the way it's been. If I use it for 10 years without a hitch, I too will be chastising novices on this site and defending design flaws ;-)</i>

<P>

After my 'blad saw the repair shop four times in six months for various things <u>unrelated</u> to my knowledge (or lack thereof) of the camera, I sold it. There are other 120 format camera systems that can be more reliable. I use Rolleiflex TLR, Mamiya 7, and RZ equipment. Never a problem. Never a failure of any kind. Even when I'm (literally) 1/2 way around the world. YMWV. :-)

I know of only one answer: Nikkor 200mm M f/8.

 

It fits nicely inside my much older SuperTechIII. But check around. There might be other options.

<i>...And it is a design fault? Yes, it is. A design fault of the same magnitude as putting a steering wheel in a car: people who don't know how to use one could do serious damage...</i>

<p>

Isn't the analogy more like:

<br>

A person who knows how to drive (after all, they've been driving for many years and have sported about in many different vehicles) jumps into a used, but still very stylish, Swedish car for a quick spin. They've heard for years just how special these cars are. Much has been said about how brilliant they are engineered and how well constructed they feel. Only to find out, as they're driving down the road, that the steering wheel can lock under certain conditions. Suddenly they end up out of control and into the ditch. Ouch.

<p>

Yep. Great feature. Wait. Someone said its a Design Flaw. Hmmm... which is it? Regardless of one's outlook on life you're still in the ditch waiting for the tow truck.

Gads! If only I could spell. Stereo. There. I said it.