christopher perez

I'm not sure which site you referred to, but the one I found was devoted to sterio camera case repair. Following their instructions I was able to repair four or five Rollei TLR cases myself. Didn't take all that long either.

 

You might try Google to see about stitching camera cases and sterio cameras to see what comes up. The process was actually quite simple.

1. Has already answered, 5 and 6 element lenses only.

 

2. No practical working difference between Planar and Xenotar. Both are sharper than you can ever imagine. :-)

 

3. Some like Maxwell (I do) and others Beattie. Both will improve things vastly.

 

4. I've paid as little as $400US and see some go for more than $1300US. Depending upon the year of manufacture, typically between $600US and $800US YMWV.

Its a contact print kind of thing.

 

After you inspect an enlarged print and then look at a contact print, everything becomes, er, um, well, clear. There's no other way to put it. :-)

The Graflex can handle a wide variety of optics. You might consider a 200mm Nikkor M f/9 or 210mm Schneider GCLaron or 203mm Kodak f/7.7 Ektar. Match it with a 135mm or 150mm Fujinon W/EBC or Schneider Symmar-S/MC. Then follow up with a 90mm Schneider Angulon or 100mm f/6.3 Wide Field Ektar. You have too many options perhaps?

<i>...Wait for a cheap 617 and you will impress the neighbours.</i>

<p>

You mean something like this?

<p>

http://www.fotomancamera.com/pro_617.htm :-)

For travel, I'd have to also vote for a Mamiya 7. Mine, with both the 50mm and 80mm lenses, has circled the globe several times. I don't use a separate finder with the 50mm, and thus save space and time by using the std. viewfinder. Both lenses are brilliant. And there's enough image area that if you needed to crop to 6x4.5 it would be no problem.

 

The "7" makes such a great travel camera that I seldom leave home without it.

You might try scrounging around your local area photo swaps. Over the past several years I have regularly come across complete working "systems" of 8x10 gear for around $300US to $500US.

 

Typically the cameras are Ansco, Kodak 2D, Burke and James, or Korona and tend to be in surprisingly good condition. Film holders, carrying case, and 300mm lens in shutter included. The lenses are typically of tessar formula. I bought one such system that came with a mint 12 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar. For contact printing, just about any half way decent lens will do.

 

Taking such an approach might ease the entry fee and allow you to try it out before you moved on to more expensive gear. Some photographers I have known felt no need to "move up". YMMWV. :-)

The standard 110mm is perfect for nearly everything.

 

But if for some reason that's not enough, try a 180W-N and 65L-A. The 180 might work well for tight cropped head shots. The 65 could be good for groups of people.

 

Just an idea and its worth perhaps $0.02... :-)

If I understand correctly: You are asking about the use of non-Mamiya mount lenses on a RZ, right?

 

If the lens has a shutter, then I could see where you could put the RZ body on manual (like when one mounts up RB manual shutter'd lens) and trip the body, then the shutter of the lens. Focusing would have to be within the limits of what the RZ bellows could handle and/or offer extensions to allow the use of longer optics. But I have not see such a setup.

 

I would love to hear if someone makes a RZ lensboard that can take standard Copal shutters. Where to source them and what would such a thing cost?

With moderate movements, Schneider's 150mm Super Symmar XL.

 

For straight on and no movements, Schneider's 110mm Super Symmar XL.

 

For something similar to a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera, there are LOADS of 240mm-250mm lenses that'll fit the bill and provide ACRES of room for movement (OK, so I exaggerate, but only a little :-) Short list: Schneider 240 GCLaron, Kodak 250 Wide Field Ektar, Fuji 250 f/6.7.

<i>...I've been thinking about a Rollei for quite some time, but I'm a sucker for available light so I thought the 2.8s were the ones to look for. Are there any other difference in optics/performance between the two?...</i>

<p>

There is no difference in optical performance. Both are brilliant cameras. The 2.8 weighs more. I guess it could depend on how important a 1/2 stop of light is worth. :-)

If someone can show me a real world example of differences between Schneider and Xeiss lenses on Rolleis, I'd love to be educated. "Whiteface" is simply a different front plate. Thus far, and having owned several of each variety, I can't tell any difference between any of them.

 

In your case, I think it comes down to finding the best trade-off between price and perceived value. Its really that simple. Rolleis, like your subminiature 35mm cameras, are wonderful to use. :-)

These are wonderful cameras. Let us know how you like your images after you've shot a roll or two.

 

If you can, use a lens shade. I could have used one on my 3.5F recently. And I was in lighting conditions that I thought there was no way I would be affected by side lighting. I was wrong in a few cases. So shades can be useful.

 

I have found no difference in optical quality between 3.5 and 2.8. The 3.5 is a lighter camera. But that's about it.

I own several '60's vintage Rolleiflex. All came with original screens. All have been replaced with Maxwell. The difference is indeed dramatic.

 

You can replace the screen yourself. Just follow any instructions for which side of the screen gets pointed toward the mirror.

 

Both Maxwell and Beattie offer various models. I have the split image with surrounding microprism. They are useful and quickly focus. They are also available plain or with microprisms.

 

I squinted through my original TLRs after using a bright-screened 'blad and std. screened RZ (both of which were/are very bright). My screen update really increased the enjoyment of using these wonderful cameras.

 

I hope this helps.

A 'blad would be a bit smaller and lighter. But not by as much as previous comments might indicate. The more compact size of the 'blad makes it "feel" lighter.

 

If you get a chance, take your RZ down to a local photo shop and handle it and a 'blad side by side to see if the differences attract you to the Swedish camera.

 

I find the 'blad "fiddly". The RZ is much a more straight forward implementation with "lock outs" that actually work (thus keeping you out of trouble). But such things are beyond simple size and weight comparison.

Either a RB or RZ might do well for you.

 

I have a similar challenge. My wife doesn't like standing around waiting for me to work in 4x5 or ULF while we're on vacation. So I've taken to carrying 6x7 Mamiyas. If you can't afford a "7", then a RB or RZ are priced "right" these days. Complete kits can be shockingly inexpensive.

 

When I work with a RZ, even with a light weight tripod (which is advisable) I barely break my stride and bliss in marriage is maintained. :-)

For many people "raised" on SLR's in their youth, the Mamiya 7 can take some getting used to. But if you train yourself just a little, its a great camera.

 

If you tend to work more like Henri Cartier-Bresson used to, then the "7" is probably perfect. If you work more like a National Geographic photographer who ships one of _everything_ wherever they go, then the 645 or even a RZ or RB 6x7 could work for you.

 

Cut yet another way, ask yourself if you need or want telephotos. If you do, then a SLR might be the way to go.

<i>The 127mm F4.7 1941 uncoated Kodak Ektar of mine that shot the digital image above was measured as 85 and 90 line pairs/mm on film; radial and tangential numbers; at the best f stop...</i>

<p>

This underscores the original comment that 35mm, MF, and LF optics in general return equal performance.

<p>

Anyone remember when Modern Photography performed various lens tests? Remember what the "sharpest" 35mm lens resolved to Panatomic-X souped in Microdol? Recall that they used to set the camera on a tripod, turn out the lights, trip "B" on the camera, turn on the lights to expose the film... all this to get around those flopping mirrors that SLR's require, just to see what a lens/film will return in "performance"? Well, none of those lenses ever exceeded 110 lpmm at any aperture.

<p>

That MF and LF optics can do as well as they can (60 lpmm to 120+ lpmm), in my mind, puts to rest any comment that says 35mm lenses are "sharper". They aren't. 35mm lenses might be well made. They might give good contrast. They may seem "sharp". But there is nothing in the design or implementation that makes them "better" or "sharper" than lenses which cover larger formats. The limiting factor for well designed and implented lenses, as I am understanding now, is the resolution limits of film and digital arrays.

I use Alien Bees and have one each 800 and 1600 heads. The 1600 is so powerful that if you go this route you probably only need a pair of 800's or one each 400 and 800. The Alien Bees softbox and umbrellas are great. Never any problem and they do what they're supposed to do. I have photographed large groups and individuals. I have used 120 format (where the 1600 head is "over kill") through to 8x10inch format (where the 1600 comes in handy).

 

For backdrops and backdrop stands, there's a group on _that auction site_ who sell such things. Prices seem reasonable. I think they're called J and K. But I could be wrong.

<i>Anyone have any suggestions for a wooden field camera that could fold up? Price range- 400-900 dollars possible.</i>

<p>

Burke and James 8x10 view cameras can be rather inexpensive. They fold up and are fairly portable. I paid $350US for a complete kit, including camera, film holders, case, and 12 inch Commercial Ektar that was in pristine condition. YMWV, but such deals are not once in a lifetime events. I've seen several such deals over the years.

I'd suggest shopping around a bit more. Both the Rollei and 'blad prices you mention are high considering current market conditions. The "X" should be closer to $200 and the 'blad should be closer to $700.

For me, your question breaks three ways. One is what the lens will do. Two, what is inherent in a lens design. Three, what will a digital array be capable of.

 

First, true lens resolution of 35mm, MF, and some LF optics are largely equal in well implemented solutions. Contrast, to the human eye, is also perceived as resolution. Take care how you define optical "resolution".

 

Considering one extreme position, if you look at the 101mm Kodak Commercial Ektar, or 203mm Kodak Ektar LF lenses that cover 4x5 (from the '40's and '50's), center resolution, even wide open, is quite outstanding. Few modern lenses can exceed them. In general, Zeiss designs are very good indeed. The Germans tend to be quite neurotic in their implementations.

 

Second, any SLR optic (35mm or MF) will require compromises on the part of it's shorter focal lengths to account for the flapping mirror (lens mount to film distance being greater than the focal length of shorter lenses).

 

For any 35mm or MF SLR optic, you could check such things as barrel or pin-cushion distortions. For me, it doesn't matter what the resolution or contrast is. I was shocked by what I experienced after shooting MF, LF, and ULF. The lack of precision for distortion control in 35mm really put me off.

 

Third, absolute optical resolution probably only matters if you're using film. In those cases, many MF optics will return greater "resolution" than 35mm, in part due to the larger image area. For digital, its another matter. Your resolution is limited by the size of each node in the digital array. Period. So calculate the "resolution" and "contast range" of a node and you'll get close to your answer.

There's one currently in a photoshop that's listed at $499. I took a look at it last weekend and it sure looked nice. But... I think it'd be a more appropriate value at $225 or $250 at the most.

 

Just as a gauge, I picked up a c.1966 Rolleiflex T with case and strap in 9+ condition for $275 at yet another local area camera shop.

 

The Automats are very nice cameras. But for the price you mention, you could pick up a very fine E or early F (Planar or Xenotar).

I took a deep breath and purchased a 50mm L that came without its viewfinder for my Mamiya 7. At first I was concerned about no having the aux. finder. But I was thrilled with the price I paid for an otherwise mint condition lens.

 

Over the past several years that I have used the 50mm, I do not miss the extra finder. The std. finder is close enough for me. I compose out to the edges of the field of view. It all seems to work.

 

In fact, when I was recently in South Asia, I took the "7" and a Rolleiflex TLR. The 50mm stayed on the Mamiya throughout the trip (and I had the 80mm with me, originally intending to use it too). The "7" and TLR setup was a wonderful combination. In photographing architecture, only a couple times did I fail to align the horizontals or verticals when using the "7" with its 50mm. Everyting else is great. I'm having a fun time printing the resultant images in prep for a show.

 

In short, if you get the 50mm with an aux. finder, try it for awhile without the finder and see how you feel. You'll probably never mount up the extra goodies.

<i>hey chris... how would a late 305 g-claron compare to the fuji 300-c that you're recommending? multi-coated vs single coated flare issues aside, as a good shade can take care of that!</i>

<p>

Funny you should mention the 305 GClaron. Its the optic I use in 4x5, 8x10, and sometimes on 7x17. Its sharp. Its light. Yes, its single coated, but I've never had a flare problem of any kind. Mine turns out to be a brilliant optic (v.sharp, excellent contrast). This 305 GClaron is the only reason I don't own a 300 Fuji C. If you get my meaning.

<p>

Back to the original question: While there is a very long list of good to outstanding used lenses for 8x10, here's my short list of fav's (some affordable, some not so affordable):

<p>

<ul>

<li>150 Schneider SuperSymmer XL

<li>240 Schneider GClaron

<li>250 Fuji f/6.7 W

<li>300 Nikon M

<li>12inch Kodak Commercial Ektar

<li>305 Schneider GClaron

<li>355 Shcneider GClaron

<li>14inch Kodak Commercial Ektar

<li>450 Fuji f/12.5 C

</ul>

<p>

Keep in mind that for contact print work with 8x10 (and larger), almost any lens you find that'll cover the format will produce nice images.