tata_ghosh

Oh! Do you mean that there is no coupled rangefinder to aid focussing? In that case it must be a "guess focussing" variety. 105mm means its a 6x9 format camera. I can't imagine how a camera which is new enough to use an "Opton" does not have a coupled rangefinder! Also you mention "Tessar" AND "Opton" regarding the lens. Usually it would just say "Zeiss Opton" and nothing about "Tessar". The aperture of 3.5 ties up with that. If that was true, recent e-bay deals would indicate a value in the $300-400 range.

 

Cheers

If it is not a rangefinder, what is it? Anyone else hear about non-rangefinder models of this type?

Yes, its quite sad. I went there yesterday with a couple of rolls too and found the notice on the closed door. I use their branch on Clerkenwell Rd. EC1. Luckily there is Metro Imaging right next door and they did my job. But I found them quite stiff upper lip and felt that they only care about bigger account-based customers. Of course, their setup looked much bigger. Their prices are higher. And they do have a wider range of services (e.g. one can specify any chemistry for B&W; Joe�s did only the T-Max developer).

 

The papers quoted digital as one of the main reasons for Joe�s decline in business. Having recently invested in high-end MF gear, the combination of Joe�s demise and that Canon 1Ds Vs. Pentax 67 shootout article on Luminous Landscape, has been very discouraging. Unlike those who seem to like MF equipment per se, I hate operating it every bit. There is nothing in it for me apart from the end result on print (don�t care about the lightbox either).

 

All said and done, I shall miss the counter staff at Joe�s. Otherwise it is a pain for me to go to Clerkenwell Rd. Anybody know of a pro-lab closer to London Bridge?

 

Cheers

Yes, you need a PC chord. You could get one which has a PC socket on one end and a hot-shoe at the other. That way you can mount any flash, regardless of whether it has a PC socket of its own or not, on the hot-shoe end. The PC connector end of the cable needs to connect to the synch terminal on the lens. The �switch� needs to be on �X�, not �M� (you will find it near the PC synch socket on the lens).

 

Dedicated TTL flashes (primarily designed to be used with certain bodies even in their manual modes) might sometimes have a problem with this setup, because when they detect a hot-shoe they might disable certain modes; but actually this hot-shoe (one end of your PC chord) is not a full-fledged device and can only transmit the release signal. I face this problem with my Sigma EF430 Super and the particular PC chord I got. You will also find threads here which will say that dedicated Nikon flashes such as the SB-28 can get damaged by short-circuit when mounted on certain types of shoes that are not intended for their use (particularly cold-shoes, which are just plain pieces of metal). If you have a normal non-TTL flash such as the Vivitar 283 mentioned above or a Vivitar 285 which I use with the C330, that works best. Otherwise any flash which has an efficient manual mode will do.

 

I would also strongly recommend spending 2 hours understanding the manual setting of your flash using the GN number, film ISO and flash-to-subject distance. It is not cumbersome or complex at all. Really worthwhile just reading through it once in your manual. If you�re accustomed to TTL flash in 35mm, I can bet that you�ll be left unhappy with the �automatic� setting in most flashguns which uses the flash�s own sensor.

Miles,

 

A number of people have advertised here starting with "I know this is not the right forum for this but....". In my case you can rest assured that I will not sell to anyone on this forum. If I sell, I'll sell on e-bay only. And BTW, the indirect advertisement thru this forum is peanuts compared to an e-bay listing.

I am planning to sell a Mamiya Prof C330S and all 7 lenses (only the

65mm is chrome, the rest are black; the 180mm is Super and the 105mm

is 'D'), paramender, one lens hood, various filters and step-up

rings, a Hoya Pro close-up filter (8x) in 49mm, etc. So far the plan

is to put it on e-bay. The condition of the body (just CLA'd) and

lenses is very good. No lens has any scratch/fungus etc. A couple

have some light cleaning marks - they take very good spotless

pictures.

 

My questions are:

 

1) What sort of price expectation should I have for the kit. This

will help me set a reserve price.

 

2) Am I severely curtailing the demand for the items by bundling

them into a kit (only people ready for a significant investment will

now be able to buy)? Honestly, I don't have the time to really deal

with separate auctions, packing, shipping of the different

components. However, if people here think that it would make a BIG

difference, I'm willing to take note.

 

I guess the 'pro' is that someone looking for an entry into MF using

a TLR can straightaway buy an entire system without a long wait to

accumulate different lenses / components. The 'con' is that people

who are ready with that much money may not be interested in a Mamiya

TLR anyway.

 

Any views?

 

Tatha

I believe a 65mm becomes a 28mm equivalent of 35mm for a 6x9 camera -not a 6x7 camera. That is why the Fuji GSW690III is said to have a 28mm equivalent lens. The M7II's 65mm is a 35mm equivalent or so.

Eddie,

 

As Garvey has said before me, your price calculations are not right. A Bessa II with Heliar is not less expensive than a Fuji GW690III, if you include the CLA of the Bessa. Plus, instead of the GW690III you could prefer the GSW690III (wide version) for your purpose - that choice doesn't exist with the Bessa. Dale Photographic of the UK(www.dalephotographic.co.uk) is currently offering a NEW GW690III with warranty and everything at GBP 577 (+VAT : but VAT will not apply to exports if you order from the US say). So, the price of e-bay ones must drop in future (recently they have been a bit high).

 

But price calculations apart, I'm glad you asked the question and I'm glad to see that many have replied saying that the Fuji optics are superior (some have said that the Heliar could be as sharp - individual opinions; but importantly, there are opinions on the issue!). When I asked a general question about comparing these types of lenses a couple of days ago, most people pretended that such a question could never even arise in any real practical situation! Wonder why the guys who have compared the BessaII and Fuji optics here, didn't contribute in that thread. Of course, I was going for lens qualities apart from sharpness there....

For some reason, it is not possible to insert a reply in Kevin's

original post below. "Server could not be found" type messages keep

coming. So, apologies for continuing the thread in this fresh one -

it is of great interest to me too.

 

Kevin,

 

Have you decided that you need the finder and asking which model, or

are you still deciding? Going by earlier posts, I can tell you that

many would say that you don't need the finder for 150mm at all. I

agree partially. I can say that if I was 100% comfortable with

rangefinders in general, I wouldn't miss the finder. I have no

problems without it really. But 80% of my shooting is 35mm SLR and

that habit makes me yearn for a WYSIWYG view all the time.

 

Therefore, can I please take Kevin's permission to extend the

question to the following:-

 

apart from the designated finders for the M7II, are there any good

hot-shoe mounted zoom viewfinders in the market, which are

recommended by other users of the M7II? That way we can get the view

of whatever lens we may be using. The official Mamiya viewfinders

(apart from the built-in one) don't have any other facilities anyway

(e.g. parallax correction) - so its not as if they are uniquely

integrated with the bodies or anything. Maybe a good zoom viewfinder

would even have a focussing ring and distance scale, which would be

easier to focus and read than the 150mm...?

 

Any ideas?

 

Cheers

Earlier, I had bought a more recent version of the system (the ProSD body and K/L lenses) at less than $2000. There were 3 lenses, pola back and all. E-bay would be much more competitive....

When you say that a tele's smaller angle of view is what makes you think compensation might be required, there is no obvious link between the two. For the C330 its all about bellows extension as has been said above. But if you mean that your light meter is measuring a wide area whereas the lens is looking at a much smaller portion of the view and that might cause a problem, then you need to be careful about three things:

 

a) if the tele lens is singling out a subject, which has a peculiarity in terms of being dark/light, from a wide scene, then the metering has to be done up close to that subject, rather than of the entire scene. Spot-meters can be useful for tele work. On the other hand, if the portion that the lens isolates is just an average part of the scene, then no special care needs to be taken. Anyway, these are standard metering issues - nothing specific to the C330.

 

b) if you are used to 35mm then what qualifies as a tele (say, 80mm) is just a normal angle of view with the C330. So any discretion about whether the meter is reading off an appropriate area or not, is only required at much longer focal lengths.

 

c) One thing I have personally found crucial when using medium format and tele's, of course, is a good refresher on reciprocity failure of various films. Especially, if you shoot color slides of ISO 50/100 using MF tele's, you might find very often that the shutter speed required is 1 sec or slower, to give a certain DOF (using small apertures that is). And some films require compensation for this, that is not miniscule, but quite significant. And, these figures can't be derived in the field from theory. One just needs the spec sheets. The meter will be useless here.

 

Cheers

 

Cheers

Yes, I would strongly support such a sub-section. Not only would it represent a growing interest and be relevant that way, one must also remember that the amount of information being exchanged or available today, on these items, is the minimum among any MF variety - hence, everyone would benefit from greater coverage.

I am raising a rather controversial topic. But that�s fun! When we

speak of great lenses, a few names keep cropping up all the time,

beyond the usual Zeiss & Schneider glass for the Hassy�s & Rollei�s.

Within MF these are:

 

1. Mamiya 7

2. The Fuji 6x7 & 6x9 rangefinders

3. The 80mm Nikkor of the Plaubel Makina 67

8. The color Heliar�s

 

�and a few more. Part of the following for these is pure resolution

and sharpness based. But I get the feeling that there are also other

aspects such as color rendition and tonality, color palette, micro-

contrast, saturation etc. which contribute to their ratings. E.g. in

standard lp/mm tests, the M7 does as well as most Zeiss glass, but

the EBC Fujinons for example do a lot less well. But on photo.net

most people who own both a GW690III and a M7II say that the Fuji�s

optics possibly have an edge.

 

Similarly, in terms of used prices, an old Bessa II with a color

Heliar fetches almost as much as a modern mint GW690III. A Plaubel

Makina 67 fetches much more. I understand that these draw collector

interest. But from a user perspective, would one buy a PB Makina 67

or a Bessa II over a GW690III in terms of lens quality? Also, does

anyone with experience care to compare the characteristics of the

above types of lenses?

 

Tata

Thanks Ashley. I shall look at these.

 

Tatha

Hello everyone,

 

I have just obtained a Zeiss super Ikonta C 6x9 (530/2) model with

Tessar lens & compur shutter. Everything seems to be working fine.

Except, I can't seem to make the rangefinder focussing work. The e-

bay seller had mentioned that focussing was spot on - so it must be

actually working(although now I've written to him as well).

 

The rangefinder window on my model is to the lower left of the flip-

up viewfinder. When I look through the rangefinder, I see a circular

patch in the centre and I can see the overlapping images which have

to be aligned. But when I turn the corrugated wheel attached to the

right of the lens front element and the front element with the

distance scale on it starts rotating as a result, there is no change

in what I see through the rangefinder window. Through complete turns

of the lens from min focus to infinity and back, there is no

movement in the split images, no alignment or separation. The degree

of superimposition just stays constant no matter where I turn the

focus to.

 

Is focussing to be achieved in some other way? Am I doing something

wrong or missing a vital step?

 

Could anyone who has used this type of model please help with some

tips?

 

Cheers

 

Tatha

Thanks Miles. As you mention, it is a ProSD lens not a RZ lens. Thanks for the info.

Hello,

 

A quick question. I have just rented a Mamiya 6x7 SLR lens which is

labelled as "Mamiya MACRO K/L 1:4.5 f=140mm M/L - A". Is this lens

usable on the RB67 ProSD? That is what I had asked for, but now I

see this M/L - A label, which I seem to remember applies to the RZ67

Pro bodies. Is it a ProSD lens?

 

Cheers, Tata

Thanks Oscar for your comment. I use the black 105mm (not DS) and you're right - stopped down it is great. But I need performance wider open because portraits are definitely 80% of my C330's use. Anyway, I have fewer complaints about the 105mm. And, when you say "if you need more sharpness..." - it is not entirely about sharpness either. If you see the lp/mm test data for the Fuji GW690III rangefinder, it doesn't compare with Hassy Zeiss glass. But somehow the overall image quality seems tremendous (even on the web). I find the same with my Mamiya 7. So format-wise, I can't see why 6x7 is not big enough.

 

Thanks again, Tata

Well�.thanks so far everyone for your helpful comments. You see, at this point, it may be worth just re-phrasing my original question once more, so that I can emphasize again, what exactly I am looking for.

 

I have 3 camera systems and I enlarge mainly up to 8x10 (no more). If within that enlargement, I (or others) cannot detect, in a blind test, which shots were taken on MF equipment (versus 35mm), I would switch totally to 35mm because I find it really more convenient. I have limited time over weekends for photography and would not want the hassle of operating MF gear unless I can clearly see the quality difference within 8x10 enlargements.

 

Within this context, my own testing shows that it is worth it for me to keep using the Mamiya 7. It is also worth it for me to use the 180 super lens on my C330. But it is not entirely worth it for me to keep using most other C330 lenses (maybe the 105mm sometimes as well). This is not to say that these lenses aren�t capable of producing beautiful images by themselves. They are. And I don�t have a technical problem which is causing inferior image quality � the images are not sub-standard by any means. And true, if I was limited to this system, I could pretty well use it to produce very good results. So I don�t have a �complaint� about the C330 lenses as such. It is all about beating top quality 35mm lenses (e.g. the famed 80-200 ED Nikkor) in a 8x10 blow-up.

 

Also, realize that I am not raising this question about all the MF systems I have. If I am singling out the C330, there must be a reason (although unlikely technical because the same equipment with the 180 super is really fantastic as it is quite often with the 105mm). If I was using the RB67 proSD with K-L lenses and still thought I was not getting good enough bang, then I would look no further and keep using my 35mm gear more, because (not only) Jim Zuckerman uses those routinely in his published work. So that must certainly be as good as it gets (he can�t have a budget constraint)! But, as I noted in my first post, few published pro�s used the Mamiya TLRs. Why? Its not a problem with TLRs in general, because the Rollei�s have been used a lot.

 

And, my question is about absolute quality. Whether the C330 lenses are superb for their vintage / price or not, is irrelevant here. Similarly, the issue should be dealt with, �keeping other things constant�. For example, I am sure that someone with greater creativity can produce better images using my own C330 than I can with a Linhof 4x5. That is immaterial. Unfortunately, I am the one who will be using the C330 and I am the one who will be using the Linhof as well. I am not saying that I do not intend to work on other creative aspects in parallel to my equipment use � I do. But in a thread about lens quality, it is a bit unfair to assume that I am not working at all on that front! Other things constant please! Otherwise why, with my inferior shooting skills, am I satisfied with the Mamiya 7 quality? Can that lens offset bad shooting? And, I use Velvia, Provia, FP4 Plus anyway.

 

In summary, to re-phrase my question � what is the probability that I am questioning my C330 performance because MF really shines only with larger blow-ups and I am not allowing that. And what is the probability that, because MF lenses have to be even better to show a quality difference without enlargements, I should either try and get 1-2 super lenses of the Mamiya 7 quality or just stick to 35mm (that is because there is no other system whose lenses are significantly better than C330 lenses anyway and it would be a waste of time to try and find one)?

 

Apologies to those (e.g. Christian, Al, Dick, Graham) who have pinpointedly answered this question already. I am just trying to see how universal or �consensus� your respective experiences are, by getting more people to submit their own responses.

 

Tata

Thanks everybody. Geoff, I have run these tests with the equipment I have, which is why I could say that I was pleased with the 180 super and the Mamiya 7 in comparison to top notch 35mm even at 9x6 enlargement. But, rentals are quite costly here in London and instead of going off on a wild goose chase I was wanting some preliminary directions on equipment that I don't own. Of course, I am going to test each and every of these using rentals if I seriously consider them. But I can't start renting the entire Calumet catalogue. The useful tips would come from those users who own some of my current equipment (so they'd know what quality I'm talking about) and also own something they might actually think is superior. For them that "test" would be a first-hand one and the kind I'm looking for.

 

Tata

Hello,

 

I have a question regarding the quality advantage of MF without big

enlargements (i.e. advantages observable within 8x10 prints). I

currently have 3 camera systems � a Nikon 35mm system with a variety

of lenses; a Mamiya C330S system with all 7 lenses (180 Super

included) and a Mamiya 7 (43mm, 80mm and 150mm).

 

I shoot in 2 different styles: a) out with family or travelling, when

there is no time to �set up� shots using tripods, meters and the

like, for which I am very happy with the performance of my Nikon; b)

when I am actually �shooting� in a dedicated manner: posed portraits,

groups, landscapes, macro etc.

 

For macro, I�ve pretty much gotten used to using my micro Nikkor. But

for the others, I was looking for a MF system which would capture MF-

type detail, sharpness and tonality (e.g. individual expressions in a

group, single strands of hair, glistening of a distant eye�.). I do

get these details in 35mm sometimes also, but not consistently or

predictably. I chose the C330 because of its versatility (using the 7

lenses it can deal with almost any situation, unlike say, the M7

rangefinder which is limited). The finished product would be 8x10

prints from scanned digital files (Minolta dual scan multi pro /

Epson 2200).

 

I guess not doing big enlargements actually makes it more difficult

for MF to shine through in a comparison � the demand on MF lenses is,

in fact, higher because the main trump card is being taken away. But

I do see this quality quite often, especially with the 180 Super of

the C330 and the Mamiya 7 (and from a Fuji GW690III rangefinder that

a colleague uses). The advantage is visible vis-à-vis 35mm even at

9x6 prints. But for many of the other lenses of the C330, the

situation is a bit iffy.

 

Now, my question is as follows: given that I end up using only a few

of the C330 lenses, I could probably trade in the entire C330 system

with all 7 lenses and buy a system with higher lens quality but just

1-2 lenses (the focal lengths I keep using). Is that recommended? Or

is it actually the case that the C330 lenses are pretty much top

notch and that what I imagine I�m not getting from them, I won�t get

from any other system or lens either, apart from some one-offs like

the Mamiya 7 43mm?

 

I don�t know and would appreciate some feedback on this. I don�t seem

to find any major published photographs / exhibitions / books or pro

portfolios which were shot using the Mamiya TLRs (on the other hand

there are some using the Rollei TLRs). Why? What actually is the

quality of the Mamiya TLR lenses in the 6x6 world?

 

Just one final comment � some might conclude that portraits are my

primary use of the C330 and that super-sharp lenses are not necessary

for that. But that is not true. Besides, portraits are not

necessarily female / flattering ones � lines on a face could easily

be the theme as well�..so I would like to have a system which can, if

called upon, deliver that sharpness. What about large format 6x9�s

such as the Linhof Technika?