ellis_davison

I have a 500c and a Rollei T - I consider the Hasselblad primarily a tripod camera: a lot happens when you fire a Hasselblad - mirror comes up, front shutter and diaphragm close, rear baffles open, then front shutter fires. It's not that you can't hand hold it, but it is dicey under 1/250th or so. It is also a bit complicated to operate, and does not tolerate mistakes. I have hand-held the Rollei down to 1/15th or so, with fair reliability, and it is much easier to load and operate, also much lighter. So the Rollei for a walk-around camera and the Hasselblad when the noise, weight and tripod are not an issue. I also vote for both, but it may be easier for me to spend your money than it is for you. (Both are very capable, well-built cameras.)

My father bought a Leitz Prado in Germany in the 50's - took both 35 mm and 6x6. There are two medium format versions up for sale on eBay right now, so I guess they are not completely scarce. (My sister got the projector, but I got his Contax IIa outfit, so I can't really complain.) Like most Leitz equipment they are built to last.

Ken Ruth has done a good job on a number of cameras I have sent him, but none of those has been a Contaflex. One was a Contax II, which like the Contaflex has a reputation of being hard to work on. (Shutter tapes failed soon thereafter, but I am not blaming him for that.) His turn-around time is slow, but I think that is a function of being versatile and, therefore, busy.

See the post about six down from yours - some actual photos from a reflex with a Heligon. Can't tell sharpness from small image files, but some mighty nice-looking photos. It is likely that the big difference in price is rarity - nothing much wrong with the Schneiders either.

A starting point: http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/r_history/index.html (cut & paste into your browser). This site has photos and may help you identify the model. If you are new to medium format it may be a bit difficult to operate and you will want a manual. Good cameras - a bit more lightly built than the Rolleiflex, and many came with three-element lenses that need to be stopped down a bit for good results. As with any older camera, particularly with leaf shutters, the shutter is probably the weak point and may need a "CLA" (clean, lubricate and adjust) to function properly. Shutterbug magazie usually has one or two ads under "Service" for Rollei techs. Ken Ruth, "Photography on Bald Mountain" can fix anything that does not take a battery (including Rolleis) although his turn-around time is a bit slow.

As stated, Exaktas don't bring much. In your kit, the 50mm Biotar has a good reputation, but they are fairly common. The 40mm and particularly the 400mm are unusual and may bring a fairly good price. The waist level, if it is the same one I had back in the dawn of time for my first SLR (a VX) has one of the best screens I have ever seen in an SLR - no focusing aids, but a good bright ground glass. Rather awkward for verticals. It may also bring something of a price since they are getting rare. In general, I second the notion of just using it - nice camera if it is in good working order.

Don't own either one, so I do not know how much help this will be. What I found going from 6mp (D60) to 10.1 mp (XTI) is this: The XTI picks up some things in landscape work that are fairly visible at 13x19 - texture in grass at a distance, texture in sand on the beach, better texture in brick and stonework, much better texture in distant foliage. In general, I remain interested in moving up to a 5D mostly because it is just a better camera (rear control dial) and particularly a much better viewfinder. What I suspect you would find is that, from a normal viewing distance there will not be enough diffrence between the results to justify the higher price, but there will be a noticeable difference if you walk right up to the print. The larger the print, the more difference. It is probably not necessary to emphasize that optics and technique make a big difference in large enlargements - in many cases a 5D on a tripod will beat a 1DS hand-held.

A suggestion would be to take the camera to a well-supplied retail store and try the lenses on it. From the sound of it, the Canon EF 28-105 might be a good choice. It should be in your price range and has a solid reputation. It also gets you into a nice "portrait" telephoto range, which may be useful. Some questions to be answered:

1. How wide do you want to go? 28mm on a film camera take in a fair amount of real estate without getting into some of the "distortion" issues of a wide angle. Getting wider on a zoom probably gets out of your price range in Canon lenses, but there may be "third party" lenses such as Sigma that are in your price range.

2. How much "speed" do you need? I am primarily talking about light-gathering power, and lower "f" numbers are better. For example, if you are taking picutures in dim light without a flash, you might want to look at a fixed lens such as the Canon 35mm f/2. Should be in your price range, and an excellent lens for the price though an older design. (I have one in the older manual focus "FD" mount and I understand the autofocus is basically the same lens.) 35mm is not very wide. The Canon 28mm f/2.8 and possibly the Canon 24 mm f/2.8. (Again, mine are the older mount). More wide-angle reach, and very good lenses for the price.

 

You asked about the Sigma 28-70 and no one has answered you. I have no experience with this one, but it seems to have a spotty reputation, particularly for durability. Sigma also has a reputation for quality control problems, so it would be best to get it from a source that allows easy return/exchange if you get a bad one, and you need to test it thoroughly and soon. (Nothing exotic is needed - take the kind of pictures you like to take and see if they meet your expectations.) Canon lenses are a safer choice from a reliability point of view.

If you buy precut mats, check the size of the opening - they are usually a bit small. For example, the mat for a 5"x7" print in a 8"x10" frame may have an actual opening 4 1/2" x 6 1/2". Your print should be slightly larger than the opening to make it easier to center without showing white.

Preliminaries - to look as natural as possible, the "sky" shot should be shot at more or less the same angle and focal length as the ground. Not an ironclad rule. It needs to be in the same color space (usually RGB) and bit depth (preferably 16 bit) as the ground shot. If not, convert one or the other to match.

1. Working with the ground shot, select the sky area you want to discard (sometimes the much-maligned magic wand will do this, other times you have to use the lasso) and "delete" it, leaving a blank area where the sky used to be.

2. Create a new empty layer, and place the ground shot on top of it.

3. Go to the now separate sky shot, select enough of it to overlap the ground in the final picture, and copy it.

4. Paste the sky shot in the empty layer on the ground shot. Since the ground layer is on top, it will mask the unneeded area of the sky layer.

5. With the sky layer selected, create a "levels" adjustment layer and a "curves" adjustment layer. (They are now between the sky layer, which is on the bottom, and ground layer, which is on top.) Fiddle with these to get the sky where you want it to be harmonious with the ground. You may also need a "hue/saturation" admustment layer.

 

This is where "simple" and "best" part company, if they haven't already. It is now going to be tricky to adjust the ground layer without messing up the sky. This involves masking, which definitely gets beyond "simple."

 

I recommend a good book - Martin Evening's "Adobe Photoshop for Photographers" has worked well for me, and there is an edition for CS2 that may still be available. You seem to be getting to a level where you need to learn the basics of layers, adjustment layers and masking to be satisfied with what you are getting. The learning curve is a bit tedious, but the results are worthwhile.

 

The photo I am appending is not necessarily one of my all-time greats, but replacing the uniform grey sky of the original with the pilfered sky you see here improves it. Could still use some work - selection error visible in the right-most chimney.<div></div>

Durability: I am still using a 2200, bought when they first came out, and it is a tank. It is my fifth Epson photo printer - in the past they obligingly croaked in about a year and a half, just about in time to force me to get the newer and better printer. I think the 2400 is probably just as well built.

Another consideration (other than larger print size) would be how much you use it. The 4000 has a reputation for getting cranky if you do not use it often enough - print heads getting clogged, etc. Perhaps users of the 3800 and 4800 could comment on whether this is the case with the newer printers.

You might want to take a look at Philip Greenspun's review of the 40D on this very web site. He makes a brief comparison. He comes to a similar conclusion to many of the other responders - its not about image quality. I have an XTI and a D60 (now converted to infrared) which is the same series as the 40D and it boils down to two factors:

 

1. Focusing - The XTI viewfinder is OK for pointing the camera, but next to useless for manual focusing. I was with a group of potters (who were learning how to shoot their work) over the weekend and my XTI had the same problem their point-and-shoots had: Depth of field is critical, and the camera would tend to focus on the front and leave the back out of focus. Frustrating. If you are not in a situation where depth of field and focus control are issues, this will not be a problem.

 

2. Control. I shoot in manual exposure control about 90% of the time, and, after the D60 (and 1N film camera) the lack of the rear control dial is really annoying. If you shoot in one of the automatic modes and are happy with the camera's exposure choices it would be less of an issue.

 

I must admit that at the price (about half what I spent on the D60) I toy with the idea of a 40D just because of these issues, but am not likely to make the move because there is functionally no increase in image quality.

I bought Elements version 5 because I was teaching a course at a local community college and felt that the students would not want to spend more for the image processing program than they spent for their cameras. It has become a very capable program, particularly for the price. Better 16-bit support, a somewhat limited "curves" capability, better control of image resizing, etc. I tried an earlier verson that came free with a scanner, and got frustrated with it very quickly. Version 5 is a much different, much better program.

The Contax IIA question - filter size for most lenses is 40.5, and B+W makes them. B&H has them, but they are hard to get to. The filter section has gotten a bit random - one on page 5 of the Infrared Filters today.

The issue is the "baffle," the primative rear shutter that closes when you release the button no matter what the lens shutter happens to be doing. When the lens shutter is through doing its thing you can release the button. (Advice on holding it in for longer than 1/15th or 1/25th (haven't seen 1/25th on a Hasselblad shutter yet, though) seems solid.)

Patrick Dempsey's idea is certainly the starting point. Ken Ruth, "Photography on Bald Mountain," is another possibility. baldmtn@pacbell.net. (Has ads in the Shutterbug magazine service directory.) His turnaround time has not been the greatest, but he works on about anything that does not have a battery involved and does fine work. In the past, I have taken out lens elements, flooded the shutter with spray electrical contact cleaner and lubricated (sparingly) every likely spot I could find. Usually requires a lens spanner, a good set of jeweler's screwdrivers and possibly as soft (plastic or rubber) jawed pliers. And a fairly steady hand with tools.

The main issue will be focus shift. Infrared focuses on a different plane than visible light, so autofocus will not be entirely accurate. Almost all lenses used to have marks on the focus scale to indicate how much to shift, but they are getting away from that. I do not have your lenses: Checking my inventory, my 28-70 L has marks for 28, 50 and 70, but the 17-40 L only has one for 17. Worst case is you will have to focus-bracket to find the sharp focus, but they will work. (Most digital cameras have an infrared blocking filter over the sensor, but that is a body issue not a lens issue, and will certainly not be a problem with a 1N.)

Replying on distortion on the 15mm C-V: It is a "rectilinear" lens, which means that it is designed to minimize barrel or pincusion distortion, the bowing in or out of straight lines. It probably has some anyway, but I have not found it to be an issue. ("Fisheye" lenses of the same focal length take in more of an angle, but have barrel distortion in spades. As with any extreme wide-angle, it will have apparent distortion (keystoning) if pointed anywhere but straight at the horizon. I am appending a picture taken with my Cosina 107 SW & the 15mm today - not great art, but illustrates the latter point. Ilford Pan F developed in ID-11, scanned on a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite at 2900 ppi.<div></div>

Little bit of background - the mount is the "Leica Thread Mount" commonly abbreviated as "LTM." It was originated by Leica back in the dawn of time, but last used by them for the Leica IIIG which was discontinued in the late 1950's or early 1960's. It was adopted for the Canon rangefinders: the last model was the Canon 7S which was discontinued in the late 1960's. It was revived by Cosina, which bought the (German) Voightlaender name and has produced a number of fine lenses, which can now be bought new. This leaves you with two theoretical choices:

 

1. Original Canon and Leica lenses in the thread mount, which are scarce to non-existant as wide as you want.

 

2. The new Cosina-Voightlaender (sometimes seen as "C-V" in these threads) lenses which offer excellent value for the price. I agree with the previous poster about the 15mm, which I have and works well on your camera model (which I also have). They also have a 21mm which is well regarded. I believe the 21mm works better with filters. Going wider they have a 12mm which is well regarded but a bit more expensive. Going longer they have a 25mm which I also have and is an excellent lens.

 

Cosina-Voightlaender also has cameras and lenses using the newer Leica "M" bayonet mount, which lenses will not work on your camera. I suggest you visit Stephen Gandy's site, www.cameraquest.com. He sells this stuff, and also includes a lot more information on the system. The lenses can also be bought at most or all of the big retailers, like B&H.

I think I may see a little confusion of concepts here: "Zoom" changes the size of the image by changing the focal length of the lens. This is the control on the lens with something like "17" or "18" at one end and some larger number like "50" at the other end. The smaller number is "Wide Angle" which takes in more of the view, closer to what your eye perceives. You see more of what is there, but individual stuff (like the kid's head) is smaller. You would use this end for a group, but typically not a portrait of an individual. The larger number is the "Telephoto" end, where the lens is acting more like a weak set of binoculars, better for a portrait.

"Focus" you may not be thinking about much, because the camera be default takes care of this itself. There is also a control for that on your lens, but you probably will not use it much. One reason why this may be difficult to follow at first is that many of the less expensive lenses do not have a footage scale showing where the lens is focused. To get a larger image using focus, you merely move closer, and the camera and lens adjust to keep at least part of the picture (usually what the sensors perceive as closest) in focus and sharp. If your lens does not have a footage scale, just keep moving closer until it seems like the image is not getting sharp. Your lens will probably allow you to get fairly close.

With adults, head on, you do not want to get much closer than five feet, or there will be apparant distortion (noses get bigger with respect to the rest of the face, etc. With small children, this effect is not so pronounced - smaller faces, smaller noses. Your camera is a marvelous machine, capable of making all sorts of decisions by itself that will make your pictures better. The down side is that it makes it a lot harder to understand what is going on and take control yourself, which you ultimately are going to want to do.

Echo Dan Mitchell on the 70-200s, by reputation. I don't own one. Echo Andrew Robertson on the old 100-300 L, which I do have. Focus is not USM, so slow & noisy, plastic body, push-pull zoom and no tripod collar, but it is sharp. Based on my experience with the 100-300 L, push-pull is out for astrophotography - it will creep at high angles unless you have it all the way back (short end) anyway. Two points:

1. If you are using it on a tripod, IS is probably not worth paying extra for. If you are hand-holding it is essential.

2. Think about what maximum shooting aperture you want, rather than concentrating on sharpness wide open. The lenses that are demon sharp wide open are not on your list (except for maybe the 70-200 f/4) - long 300mm+ primes. If f/5.6 is what you are using, you are better off with an f/4 or f/2.8. Brighter image, faster and more accurate focusing, and the sharpness, particularly in the corners, has started to pick up.

By "super performance" I assume you mean Super B (12" x 18") that you can walk right up to, or significantly larger at normal viewing distances. I only have one of the lenses you list, the 17-40 L. I also have the 28 - 70 L, and if the 24-70 is better (as is its reputation) it must be very good indeed. Between primes and zooms, the biggest issue at the wide end is still barrel distortion, which can be processed out and may not be a factor in your photography. If you are doing architecture, it will add a step to your work flow with a zoom. Nothing new in the following, but if you are going to operate at this level, you have to observe the following:

 

1. Tripod. Really. It makes a difference at this level.

2. Mirror lockup and remote release (wired or otherwise)

3. Focus. In the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth they compared manual and autofocus, and manual always won. A focusing screen with a split image is one possibility, the angle finder (with 2.5x magnification) is another, but it is expensive and a pain to use.

4. Depth of field by either scale or preview will not tell you what you need to know. Anything you want to be really sharp has to be really in focus. Particularly a pain in the butt because you do not even have a solid infinity stop for distant landscapes.

 

The worst of the lenses you list (and I don't think there is a bad one in there), following these established techniques, will significantly outperform, on the average, the best of them hand-held and autofocussed.

 

(Since you are obviously looking at adapting lenses that will not autofocus on a Canon anyway, you probably knew all of this already.)

Hi Paulo - I bought the Angle Finder C when I got my first autofocus camera (EOS 1n) specifically for wideangle lenses. Have not used it much because it is a bit difficult on the 1n - at 2.5 it requires the eye to be precisely centered over the finder, or it blacks out. Just tried it on my XTi and can offer the following observations:

1. Better than with the 1n as far as the eye centering issue.

2. Seems to be genuinely helpful in focusing.

3. Focus on the unit itself (twisting the eyepiece to adapt to different eyesight etc.) shifts radically between 2.5 and 1.25, meaning you have to refocus the unit to view the overall scene at lower magnification, having done fine focus at 2.5.

 

Not a setup to use if you are in a hurry, but seems effective.

Not sure much help this is, but there is probably a way to hack the printer into printing longer lengths. My daughter (without much help from the Epson rep) was doing 30-foot panoramas with a 2200, supposedly limited to 44". (Don't ask me why - she's a little crazy.) I don't think she used the roll holder - getting the paper to run straight for 30 feet was the big trick.

I am interested in the ink savings thing. My 2200 (which has been a tank) developed a fault - won't recognize black ink cartridge - and I have been thinking of a replacement. Ink cartridges for the 2400 are 13 ml and $12 or so, for the 3800 $60 or so for 80 ml, for the 4800 $70 for 110ml and $112 for 220ml. For the 3800 and 4800 with the smaller carts, there is a savings but not a lot. It seems like the savings really kick in with the 4800 and 220 ml cartridges.

 

One factor with 3800 on up is the fact that you lose less ink in cartridge changes because you do not need to do it as much. I don't have much of a handle on how much of a factor that is. The 3800 has the advantage of not having to swap blacks for glossy/matte, but that would not be much of a factor.

 

Interested to know others' thoughts on ink savings with the bigger printers.