daniel_kreithen1

It is chrome, and metal...no plastic to be found. Actually better built than an AIS Nikkor (but perhaps not the AI or earlier). I like mine better than the Nikkor 50/f1.4. It is not dead sharp wide open, but then again, neither is the Nikkor. It is very sharp one stop closed down (f2). It produces a far superior "look" than the Nikkor glass (IMO). Please contact me if you want an example picture shot with this lens at f2 with a D70 (my e-mail is different from that posted on the photo.net information - dkreithen *at* hotmail *dot* com

Talk to Jimmy Koh at Koh's Camera on Long Island, NY. Quite reputable, you will not get burned on an older Rolleiflex. I don't work there, as they say, just a happy customer. www.kohscamera.com

Then you owe it to yourself to check out the Olympus and Pentax offerings...much better.

I share the same problems. I would add to the list that the D100's successor ought to at least provide basic, centerweighted metering with manual focus AI lenses! Why this is difficult is beyond me. Stop down metering would even do. I can't see spending >$1000 and then still having to carry around an external light meter! The focus screen ought to make a stab at supporting manual focus as well. The D70 viewfinder is wholly inadequate for the task. That's why I'm taking a serious hard look at the Pentax offering. The *ist will at least stop down meter with any Pentax lens (screwmount, even), and the viewfinder, while a bit small as all digital SLRs seem to be, is wholly adequate for manual focus, has decent magnification, and is smaller even than the D70. I'll be very interested to see what Pentax puts out next. As far as lenses go, Nikon and Canon seem to have abandoned the market of fast (f2, that is), well built prime lenses in favor of slow, huge zooms. Check out the Pentax Limited lenses (there's only three, but they are supposed to be excellent performers, are AF and are METAL).

I have the RF645, which is a great camera with very good lenses. A rangefinder is a very different beast from an SLR. Most of the limitations you have concerns about are not a big deal to me, but a big one that you haven't mentioned is that the close focus distance for the standard lens is 1 meter. This may affect your pictures more than some of the other concerns you've already voiced. Before buying the RF645 I had had considerable experience with rangefinders (Leicas, for which some of the lenses have a close focus distance of 0.7m, which is much better). Realize that with the larger film format you will be able to crop somewhat and still do better than 35mm film - so this concern is somewhat mitigated. To address your concerns:

 

- f4 max aperture: well, it's not so fast, OK? But with the flash made for the camera, it's not as big a deal. Also, you can use faster film and still have it look very good. Not a big deal for me, and worth the trade-off of more weight and volume. Besides, with a few notable exceptions, f2.8 is the fastest medium format glass available anyway.

 

- long lenses: true, but you know this before you buy. If you can't live with it, then the answer is clear without a large up-front cash outlay

 

- portrait orientation: this is great, as far as I'm concerned. If you shoot mostly people and portraits, you probably will love it.

 

- left-eye: cannot address as I am right eyed. I find I have to move my eye around a bit since I'm a glasses wearer, though. It's a decent range/viewfinder, though.

 

You cannot do head shots with the camera, unless you're willing to crop somewhat. Then again, IMO headshots are sort of boring, much better to give an idea of the environment as well.

 

If you want an RF645 keep a close eye on eBay. They go used for incredible prices (relative to what you get). Sometimes you'll find a small dealer selling the outfit brand new as well. I ended up with the entire set (body, 3 lenses, flash) for about $1500 total after rebates. Be sure you get a body with a serial number starting with "1", otherwise it has the wrong framelines for the 100mm lens. Bronica will change them for you, but at a price, unless you buy new, in which case they will do it for free. Good luck in your decision.

I have the SprintScan 120, which is nowadays being sold as the Microtek 120tf. Other than the lack of ICE (no big deal if you're using it for black and white), it is a fine scanner. I scan and print from 645 and it shows pretty much all the detail there is on the film - certainly more from an APS-sized CCD sensor. If you're more familiar with 4000 dpi output from a 35mm scanner, just scale up the dimensions to get an idea of what the 120 is capable of - it comes close to providing the full 4000 dpi (unlike the flatbed scanners currently used for 120 format).

A great normal lens for a 6x9 is the 105mm / f3.5 Nikkor-M (not the Nikkor-W). It was produced for a few years in the 80s and can be found used with some effort. It's an excellent Tessar copy. A good example of this lens has excellent sharpness and good bokeh, and comes in a modern Copal 0 shutter.

Got it. I unfortunately have not done a close test of angle of view for the 40mm Ultron. All I can say is that I habitually use(d) a 35mm focal length lens as my standard (the 35mm / f2 AIS Nikkor, and also the 35mm Summicron-M), and I find 40mm to be a very similar focal length (whereas a 50mm seems a bit long). I'm not sure if this is what you're after.

 

I would think that any standard 50mm lens would be at least as sharp as the Ultron, as the shorter focal length is more difficult to correct. That said, the Ultron is plenty sharp, and is even quite usable wide open, something that I could not say for the 35mm AIS Nikkor (well, my particular one, anyway).

 

The Ultron may not be as small as the 45mm AIS lens (also Cosina produced, from what I've heard), but it is a stop faster, and is still small (but surprisingly heavy for its size). It is certainly smaller than the 35mm / f2 AIS, and is roughly the same size as the 50mm / f1.8 AIS.

As far as angle of view: it should be purely a function of film size and focal length, which is to say, all 40mm lenses (regardless of manufacturer) have the same angle of view. Or is your question regarding something different?

I own and have used this lens for the past year and a half or so. It's a great lens, well worth the price (get it with the compact dome hood). Very usable wide open, unlike the 35mm/f2 AIS Nikkor I had before it. I tested it out and it is sharper wide open than that lens, and it has more pleasing bokeh (if you care about such things). It's also more compact. It is roughly on a par with the older, pre-asph 35mm Summicron-M, although it is sharper wide open, but doesn't have the distinctive "look" of that lens. It is on a par mechanically with the AIS lens as well. If you have the money, and a 35-40mm lens is your standard, then I don't think you could do much better than the Ultron.

I have had exactly the same issue with the 2.8GX that I have. It came (used) with a grid matte screen that could be a bit easier to focus. Tried the Maxwell with focus aid...I cannot recommend it. The focus aid works well only if your eye is perfectly on axis, otherwise it blacks out. With the waist-level finder, this is a huge nuisance. I cannot comment on a Maxwell matte focus screen, but the issues with the one I had was enough to turn me off to the product. I've used the Hi-D screen in a Rollei 6001 - it's great on that camera, everything you could want in a screen except the gridlines, which I find useful. It's expensive though, and there's no iron-clad guarantee that you'll have the same positive experience when viewing through the less well corrected Heidosmat viewing lens on the TLR. In the end, I stuck with what I had - it's cheaper, anyway.

The play in the preview lever is perfectly normal. It's unique to the M5: the battery check is accomplished by pushing the preview lever toward the outside of the camera body.

Hey, now that you mention it, I've had pretty high levels of base fog for the 3 ingredient version (sodium metaborate, vit C, phenidone). I mix it in the order given. Is there a way of avoiding the base fog by mixing in a different order? I've been using 68 degree (F) water to mix, so that I can just use it directly at mixing time for development.

R is for roll film, S is for sheet film. If you're dry firing the camera, set it to S, otherwise - I assume you aren't using sheet film in this camera - leave it at R.

Since you mentioned the Mamiya 7, do have a look at the Bronica RF645. Sure, the negative is smaller, but you get more pictures per roll, and the 6x4.5 is still a big improvement over 35mm. Also, keep an eye on eBay and you can pick up a body and 2 lenses for very reasonable prices, even new. Keep in mind that there are massive rebates available for new equipment bought from authorized dealers. I've seen one or two new kits on the auction site within the past month as small dealers dump stock - the camera just has not been a big seller for all sorts of (bad) reasons (including the fiasco about the long lens), but it is a GREAT camera with very nice lenses. It is also LESS heavy and bulky than a top-of-the-line pro SLR these days.

Yes, if you develop B&W yourself what you give up by using slide film is the ability to manipulate contrast and control. If you study the density curves published by manufacturers it becomes clear that slide film can record 5-6 stops whereas B&W film can record considerably more. If you use color negative film, you come closer to what B&W can do in this regard, but what you give up is acutance. Also, B&W, often being a single emulsion - not multi-layered like color films, can be sharper. In addition to all this, B&W is incredibly cheap if you do your own development.

The 90mm/f3.5 is identical optically to the LTM Voigtlander/Cosina lens. It is an excellent lens, and the build quality of the SL lenses are definitely a cut above the LTM models (just about as good as Nikkor AIS in this respect). I have both the 90mm and the 40mm Ultron. I have found the 40mm to be much better than the Nikkor 35mm/f2 AIS (which is a mediocre lens, and plain not great wide open). I would say it gives the 35mm pre-ASPH Summicron a run for its money, certainly the Ultron is better wide open (not saying much here), and the "bokeh" is acceptable. It is not as good as that legendary lens at its best, but its performance is still excellent. With the domed hood it makes a pretty compact package, and is well worth the money in my opinion, particularly in Nikon AI mount. It is certainly a better offering than anything else out there available in this mount in or around the 40mm focal length. I hope Cosina decides to continue to grow this line. I'd be very interested in a 24 or 25mm retro-focus design using the latest aspherical technology. They're paying attention to a neglected market: fixed focal length, modest maximum aperture, metal bodied lenses. I wish more manufacturers did so. Most manufacturers' offering in the 24mm range is based on a late-60s innovation (which Nikon calls CRC, and other manufacturers refer to as "floating element"). I find it ridiculous that most lens makers have not presented revised versions of their fixed-focal length lenses based on the many developments that have occurred within the past 30 years.

I have a question regarding the 100mm / f4.5 lens that is offered for

the Bronica RF645 rangefinder camera. The filter size is 62mm, which

is different from the other two lenses available (58mm). Has anyone

tried a step-DOWN ring to mount 58mm filters on the 100mm lens? Does

this cause vignetting? Normally I would not try this, but it appears

as though this lens was designed using the barrel of the now

infamously cancelled 135mm lens (presumably as a cost-cutting

measure). If you look at a picture of the 100mm lens and the way the

front element is mounted, it appears as though it might be possible

to get away with this step-down ring solution, thereby allowing a

single filter size for all three available lenses. Thanks in advance

for any helpful responses.

Check with Ken Ruth: http://www.baldmtn.com/

I just did an informal test of the 25mm VC lens and the 24mm Elmarit-M. It was clear that the Leica lens was a better lens, but, surprisingly, not that much better. The VC is as sharp as the Elmarit-M in the center of the frame, but is clearly less good in the corners, at every aperture until at least f11. That said, the VC is vastly smaller, lighter, and less expensive. In addition, it will not intrude as much into the viewfinder if you use it on a 0.58x body without an auxiliary viewfinder. Since it is not rangefinder coupled, it's better used as a landscape lens. All this said, I've decided to sell the Elmarit-M and keep the VC. YMMV.

You should see the difference given the same film stock even on an 11x14, in terms of tonality and grain, if not sharpness. I would have the camera checked for alignment by someone familiar with setting up a Rollei. I would also make a point of sharpening technique. Did you bear down on the strap to steady the camera when you took the picture? I find that shortening the strap as much as possible, then pulling down on the camera before the shot will help to steady it. You can then realize the benefit of a TLR...waist level finder, no mirror slap, etc. Also be careful to squeeze the release, and if it's not mechanically smooth, the repair-person who will set it up properly should also CLA the shutter and adjust the release. I think you will be impressed when you get everything right.

Yes. I have the 40mm/f2 and the 90mm/f3.5 (which is the same as the rangefinder mount lens). The 90mm is excellent, even wide open, but a bit slow (obviously). The 40mm is a significant improvement over the 35mm/f2 AIS manual focus lens that I had been using as my standard, both in terms of picture quality (sharpness, bokeh, etc.) as well as being smaller and lighter. It's fairly priced, I would say...better than the current Nikon 35mm focal length offerings, none of which I have been impressed with. It's build quality is on a par with AIS lenses in my opinion.

The less expensive alternative is to have a CPU and contacts installed in the AI (or AIS) lens so that it will at least meter with the D100. Check out the following link:

http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm

 

It cannot be done for all lenses, though.

You should be aware that it is possible to have a CPU chip installed in some manual focus AIS Nikkors. Check out the following website:

 

http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm

 

It may or may not apply to the lenses that you already own. If it does, it's considerably cheaper than most other options. Nikon is making a big mistake by disabling even center-weighted metering using AIS lenses for some of their new camera bodies, if you ask me.

My own tests show slightly more conservative results. I have the 2450, and have scanned 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5" black and white negatives with it driven by Vuescan. In short, 6x4.5 could be called at best marginal for prints at 13x19". The most I have been able to enlarge with a 6x4.5 negative and produce an acceptable (meaning, really sharp) print has been around 11x14 or so. Cropped 6x6 is, of course, similar...and 6x7 and larger is certainly capable of 13x19. FYI, I have been printing using the Epson 1160 with Piezography inkset. I use NikSharpener Pro for sharpening just prior to printing. I don't claim to have wonderful scanning or Photoshop skills, however.

 

My anecdotal evidence based on these tests tell me that the real resolution of the 2450 is probably closer to 1800 to 2000 dpi, but it's quite an impressive scanner for the price.