dan_brown1

Indeed, great stuff...

There is something wrong here. The M7/80 is a better lens than the H'blad 80/2.8. You should get razor sharp results with that lens, and no noticeable affect on color. Creaminess, that comes from film, negative size and printing technique.

 

However, the bigger things to consider in helping you make up your mind are rangefinder v. SLR, 6x6 v. 6x7, size, bulk, handling, big systems v. limited system, etc., etc. Lens difference are way past the point of diminishing returns here, they are both outstanding! If you aren't happy with your results from an M7, getting a 'blad isn't the solution, look elswhere.

I have used many filters and have finally settled on the Hoya 'HMC' multi-coated filters. I believe they are the sweet spot in value. In comparing a Hoya HMC with a standard B+W, the Hoya seems superior in terms of flare resistance, and I cannot detect better optical performance with the B+W Schott glass. Granted, a B+W multi-coated would probably be better, but the price difference is so great and the gains so slight, if at all. It is kind of like comparing Hasselblad lenses with Mamiya lenses. Are they really better, or just mythical? Hard call, for sure.

Sure. I use a Contax Aria with a 135mm lens when a want a tight spot meter. My Mamiya 7 only has a, well, sort of center weighted meter and my handheld meter is a incident meter. The Aria does a fine job and I can use the exposure compensation dial to compensation for my yellow filter.

I guess this is going to seem like a 'vote' for my brand, but, have you considered the Mamiya 7? The 43mm and 50mm lens are both stunning in terms of sharpness, color saturation, and lack of distortion. And, the lack of a mirror box and accurate leaf shutters make the 7 virtually vibration fee. To top it off, the used market is pretty well developed, so you can get this gear at prices substantially below B&H 'street' prices. Only downside is that it isn't an SLR, so special filters aren't so easy to use.

Thanks for all these responses. I think I'll attempt to talk the

dealer down in price. He has 3 D-2's in stock, plus several other

beasts of various sorts. This one is the nicest of the three.

 

<p>

 

The lens is an Omegaron-Rodenstock (Says "Rodenstock" on the

barrel). It seems nice in that the lens aperture is illuminated by

the enlarger lamphouse such that the selected aperture appears in red

and the adjacent higher and lower aperture values appear in green.

Looks neat!

 

<p>

 

The lens question is academic in that I think I'll just buy the thing

without the lens and carrier for now (to keep the price low).

Initially, I will use it for 6x7 (there are several 105 Nikkoers up

on EBAY), then when I get a field camera, I'll get a glass carrier

and suitable lens.

 

<p>

 

I'll post back here after my next discussion with the dealer.

I just got back from a local shop, after looking at an Omega D-2 enlarger. It is in very nice condition. It has a formica base board, two black 'C'-channel vertical rails. The condenser door flips open so you can move the top element up and down to match lens focal length. It commes with a 4x5 glassless carrier, regular condenser head, and a 135/4.5 Omegaor/Rodenstock lens. The lens is mounted on a pan that extends the bellows length about 2-3 inches. The aperture setting light up in green and red. Everything seems to work fine. There is no rust, and I couldn't detect any light leaks.

 

<p>

 

He wants $475 with the lens, $425 without. I would need to add a 6x7 glass carrier and a 105mm lens. I almost bought it, and may go back shortly to get it.

 

<p>

 

Is this a good buy?

Thank you all for such excellent information and thought provoking

posts. I think I will migrate to LF gradually, rather than spending

money quickly (recklessly?). I will make all my future acquisitions

consistent with a migration to LF. For example, I recently got a

heavier tripod (the Boben 3021 just wasn't stable enough for me at

full exension). I got the 3036 which will easily handle a 4x5. My

enlarger is an Omega C700, which is mostly a hobby enlarger and it

stuggles to handle 6x7. Only does 11x14 and no glass carriers are

available for it. My next enlarger will handle 4x5.

 

<p>

 

In the interim, I will rent a Horseman F(?) and a Polariod back from

Light Tec in Dallas and try some LF that way.

 

<p>

 

Thanks again ... I'll be lurking out here for sure.

 

<p>

 

Best regards;

Indeed, check out the Bronica web site. With a student ID, you can

buy an ETRSi set up at 35mm prices. Maybe they offer discounts for

Toyo as well?

 

<p>

 

BTW, it seems to me that taking a photography class at you local

junior college would qualify you for the discounts from Bronica.

Thank you all for your suggestions. I have purchased the 3036 and it

seems very solid indeed. I did not feel that the 3021 I had was

solid enough for MF when the camera was at 70+ inches. The 3036 will

have no problem at that height because of the leg braces and the

center post will not need to be extended.

 

<p>

 

I have another post running about getting started in lf. I think the

3036 is consistent with both MF and LF. and edges me one step toward

the inevitable.

I have several years of serious photo hobbitry behind me, including 35mm and MF. I have decent darkroom skills, but my recent reading the Adams� trilogy, The Camera, The Negative, and The Print have me yearning for more.

 

<p>

 

I use MF frequently with the camera back vertical and then �shift� the image on the enlarger baseboard to avoid convergences and so forth. I am a sharpness freak (I use TechPan in 6x7!).

 

<p>

 

I have way too much camera gear as it is. 35mm with 4 lenses, MF with 3 lenses, and a darkroom with a 6x7 enlarger.

 

<p>

 

Still, I think I must try LF.

 

<p>

 

Here is the question �

 

<p>

 

Assuming I am not going to mortgage the house, or pedal all my other gear (an idea I have seriously contemplated), how can I get into LF without wasting too much money (which I definitely did getting into serious 35mm)?

 

<p>

 

I have thought about a Wisner Traditional-S in 4x5 with a single lens (maybe a 135/5.6 or 150/5.6). I have thought about a Calumet Cadet (they sell the trades for only $299) and a cheapo Caltar II lens. I have thought about a Canham DLC. I am pretty sure I will want a long lens eventually (perhaps 300mm). I am not so sure about a really wide lens (anything wider than 28mm in 35mm format is undesirable to me). I think I will stick with LF for the long term, but I will shoot the format relatively infrequently (perhaps 12 or 18 serious attempts per year). To me LF means B&W photography.

 

<p>

 

Of course, I realize that a 4x5 enlarger and suitable lens must be on the horizon, and that that may well be the most expensive end of this venture.

 

<p>

 

I love to shoot my town, Fort Worth, Texas including vistas, buildings, and architectural details. I will shoot some portraits, and some landscape and wild flowers as well. Maybe some table-top stuff, but not much.

 

<p>

 

So, I want to put my toe in the water, knowing I may end up swimming at the deep end. What approach do you recommend?

 

<p>

 

Thanks, in advance, for your thoughts.

Has anyone used the Bogen 3036 (also known as the Manfrotto 075) with a 4x5 field camera? I was thinking this would be a nice, solid support. Also, there is a new head called the 3410 (Manfrotto 329) that might be a nice match. The latter being so new, perhaps no one has used it yet.

 

<p>

 

Thanks, in adance, for your comments.

Bob, on what basis do you set the standard for veracity of posting on

photo.net? Take a look around, get real.

 

<p>

 

You expect people to check the assets of privately held companies to

determine if they could, in fact, file bankruptcy before passing

along a rumor? That is ridiculous. Besides you don't have to be

devoid of all assets to file bankruptcy, just insolvent. In fact,

you don't even have to be insolvent, just unable to service your debt.

Domke F3-XB. Mine holds and Mamiya 7 and a spare lens rather nicely. Your Fuji, meter & accessories will fit fine. Very discrete, I highly recommend it.

 

Dan Brown

Try this perspective, David. It is the year 2025. You reflect back on your younger years as a photographer, thinking about how energetic and creative you were in college. Great memories indeed! You thumb through your binder of old images and thinking that some of this was your best, most creative work. Some 35mm stuff, maybe some 645 and 67. Do you think you will ever look at a 6x7 neg, wishing you had shot it in a smaller format? Do you think you will ever look at a 35mm or 645 neg, whishing you had shot it in a larger format? Do you think you will, even for one moment, think about your economy in film purchases back in those days?

 

Go with bigger negs, whenever possible.

John, I don't use the panramic adapter, so no first hand experience. I would point out that the Mamiya America weg site has a pretty good Q&A discussion forum, and there is a Mamiya rep., Danny Cicerello (SP?), that is pretty good at getting answers to this kind of stuff. Obviously something is wrong. MAC charges us a lot of money and one thing we get from them is pretty good support. I'd contact them straight away and get their help. Even if you are outside the US, the web access is certainly available to you.

I use the 75/4 Nikkor with 6x7. Usually, there is some cropping so I use it within the 6x6 format negative area. I have been trying to improve print sharpness and I can't seen to get where I want to go with this lens. I use a glassless carrier, so this is a factor. But I do notice some softness in the corners with the Nikkor. No experience with the Rodenstock lens, but I have researched these lenses recently, and I find nothing but favorable comments on the Rodagon 80. I don't know about the older vintage, but as long as it is coated (probably multicoated) my guess is that the Rodenstock will be a better lens.

With respect to skies, Tech Pan seems to behave like regular film (Tmax) with a medium yellow filter on it. The clouds stay white because white light has red in it, but the blue skies darken a bit because the have much less red. I like the effect Tech Pan has on skies, and for this reason it can be a good choice for landscape/cityscapes.

A big congrats on the M7-II Paul! As noted above, scan a point light source and you will quickly become familiar with the meter coverage. I suggest you focus at infinity and choose a distant light source. This way, you can reference the meter coverage to the rangefinder patch. Then, in the future, set focus to infinity and think of the rangefinder patch as the metered area indicator (plus the nearby peripheral area you identify), and you have a pretty accurate metering system that becomes very predictable. Since you are selling the M6, I suggest you not spend too much time comparing, try to forget the M6 meter and learn the M7 anew.

I have to admit, I am scratching my head on this 210/8 lens? Maybe it would be OK for architectural details. Not really long enough to use for telephoto compression. Too long a focus for portraiture. Still, the Mamiya engineers make pretty good products. I must be missing something here. Focusing would be a challenge, maybe the viewfinder has a focusing function or something. Are you sure it isn't rangefinder coupled? Geez? I guess I'll reserve judgment untill I can mess around with omne at the store.

Thanks for coming back and explaining. Hummm...

 

I can get MF processed at about $1 per frame (5x7) at a local camera shop. They have a mini-lab that handles 120/220 and they have 5" roll stock paper so 5x7's are available.

 

I'm concerned about the shutter lag, but the half-way solution is at least something to mitigate that. I guess I need to find a shop with one in stock and go try it out.

 

All in all, as mentioned above, the GA645Zi is the closest thing to an MF point and shoot, and that isn't a bad thing in my book.

Frank, I hope you come back to this thread, perhaps I should e-mail you privately, but I hope all can benefit from these discussions.

 

I am thinking hard about the Fuji GA645Zi as a general purpose camera that would replace a 35mm set-up. Really, it would be for my wife, who perfers auto-everything. She very much relishes the sharp images of my 6x7. The Fuji seems like an MF that she could handle.

 

Questions 1: I have heard the AF misses the focus point frequently. How bad is this problem, in your experience?

 

Question 2: You mentioned that long lag time from firing to exposure. How long is it? What cameras does it comare to? Is it like the Yashica T4 (way too long lag)? Can the user press the shutter button 1/2 way, thereby focusing, then press the rest to take a picture, eliminating the lag?

 

Problem is, my wife will want to photograph the kids, and that means lots of "decisive moment" shots. Is the Zi a bad camera for this kind of shooting?

 

Thanks, Frank, for your comments.

With the 50mm lens on the Mamiya 7, you can forego the external finder and use the in-camera finder as a reasonable approximation. Basically, if you can see it in the finder, it will be on the film. Ignore the frame lines (65mm will be visible), but for close focus, you have to anticipate the paralax error (or just use the accessory finder).

I agree that for landscape, more film is better. So if you are thinking 645, you should really bite the bullet and go to 6x7. While 6x9 would seem even better, remember that this means going to a 4x5 enlarger, as opposed to a 6x7 enlarger, which is much more expensive. Since you like the 28mm focal length, I suggest a Mamiya 7 with the 50mm lens (equals 26mm horizontal angle if view in 35mm format). Being a range-finder, the lens design is not parafocal, so there is no telephoto group at the back to bridge the mirror box gap necerssary in an SLR. This affords less distortion and less optical trade-offs. The M7 is light, quick, and the lenses are perhaps the finest MF lenses in the world. I find the M7 can be hand held at 1/60 second, and even 1/30 second at times.

Maybe what the world needs is a panoramic camera discussion forum. I guess that would be cameras that have an image aspect ratio greater than 1.5:1, regardless of film format.