paul.droluk

<p>If you are going to be shooting with transparency film, you may indeed want to get a CF. Fall-off will be noticeable in skies (some accept this, some don't). The fall-off will be much less noticeable when shooting negative films (color or BW). All 90mm lenses will exhibit fall-off on 6x17 format. I would peg it at 1.5 to 2 stops at the very corners. That said, I have a suggestion...</p>

<p>sell your Nikon 90/4.5SW and replace it with a Nikon 90/8SW. Optically, the 90/8 is as good, if not slightly better than the f4.5 version. The f8 is a lot smaller and lighter, and uses 67mm filters. If you've checked... a 67mm CF is MUCH cheaper than the 82mm CF. And you'll probably come out ahead on the lens trade, which will help finance the CF purchase.</p>

<p>I contacted MAC for this exact problem about a year ago... they seemed familiar with this problem and I had replacement strips in a few days.</p>

<p>I think you would be hard pressed to find any definitive differences in the results from either camera/lens combo. I have heard mention thru the years of Japanese lenses being "warmer" than their German equals, though I have yet to observe this personally.</p>

<p>I have used both the Linhof and Fuji 617 cameras, though I own the Fotoman 617, with many different lenses... Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider. Results are uniformly excellent, assuming good technique.</p>

<p>There is one Horseman 6x9 camera that is a lot smaller AND lighter than 4x5... the Horseman VH, which lacks the viewfinder/rangefinder mechanism of the VHR. The VH plus 3 lenses and 2 film backs fits in a bag I normally use for a D3 with normal and 24-70 zoom lens.</p>

<p>Your images look just fine, at least viewed as small web files. Only you can tell (with a 10X loupe) if the images will hold up to being printed at a size that would do the subject matter justice. I find landscapes require fairly large prints to bring out the awe factor, and the larger the better. To me 12x36 inches is a bare minimum to really appreciate 617, which is only a 5.5x enlargement.</p>

<p>Exposures seem correct, as does focus. No noticeable distortion or sloping horizons, so you got the camera level... that's good. Focusing close to infinity worked for these images, as there was no foreground to speak of. I can't tell on screen if the boat is in sharp focus, but the lower corners of that image look suspect.</p>

<p>I would try focusing using the hyperfocal distance for the lens when the fore-ground contains important detail. And generally speaking, it is best to HAVE a fore-ground with important detail. Here's a link to a good depth of field calculator... <strong>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</strong>. I would use the 6x6 film size to be on the safe side. Assuming you shooting the 105mm lens at f22, this gives you a hyperfocal distance of 35.9 feet, which would render everything from 18 feet to infinity in acceptable focus.... OR if you focussed at say 15 feet, everything from 10.6 feet to 25.5 feet would be in acceptable sharp focus, with the background slowly blurring away.</p>

<p>Fotoman Camera China still produces and sells HFM's, which are calibrated to a specific focal length. They can be reached via email... fotomancamera@yahoo.com.cn (attn: Sally)</p>

<p>I think this might represent an example of sample variation. There are at least a couple of reputable reviews/resolution tests of these two lenses, all of which show the 28/2.8 to be the superior lens of the pair.</p>

<p>The 24mm was my favorite WA focal length on 35mm format, but I wound up migrating to the 28mm for FX digital as the CA exhibited by the 24 was just too pronounced. I can't really say I noticed a resolution difference, though the 28mm <em>feels</em> is a bit sharper to me... could be contrast though.</p>

<p>For me it would boil down to weight versus rigidity. If weight is of <strong>primary</strong> concern then a wood 4x5 camera would be preferable. On the other hand, if rigidity is more important, no wooden camera ever made comes close to the 45AII.</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer metal cameras. I have a Chamonix 5x8, which is a fine camera, though it has it's shortcomings... I wish the rear standard would zero to detents, and that some sort of infinity stops could be employed. Net, net, it takes a lot longer to set up the Chamonix than the Toyo.</p>

<p>There is a solution to your quest, and that is to use a camera that allows control of the focus plane. This is why large format cameras have been, and remain, the very best tool for landscape photography. In all of the examples shown above, a simple adjustment in the plane of focus could have rendered fore and aft subject matter with equally sharp results.</p>

<p>Additionally, by changing the focus plane to match the subject you are able to shoot at larger apertures where most lenses perform at their best. Chris Perez tests of the Mamiya 80mm clearly indicate it performs best at f5.6, with resolution dropping by half when stopped down to f22!</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez//test/fourcameras.html</p>

<p>Every model of 90mm lens has a different FFD (flange focal distance) and even within the same model, FFD can vary +/- 0.5%. Due to these variations, you will need a method of spacing the lens from the film plane in a very precise manner. Typically this is done with a Cone and a Helical Focus Mount, which is referred to as a Cone Assembly. The Cone Assembly needs to be within about 1mm of the FFD, with the final 1mm being adjusted with the HFM using a ground glass... this is how the Fotoman system works. You could also use a collimator... this is how Horseman, and Linhof set their lens distances.</p>

<p>FFD is measured from the film plane to the front of the lens board (or HFM). Remember too, the film plane will be some distance behind the back of the body... from your drawing, I assume you're considering a roll film back of some sort. Similarly, the GG must be spaced from the rear of the body to the exact depth as the film in the holder.</p>

<p>You can get a better idea of how this all works by downloading the instruction manual for Fotoman Roll Film Panoramic Cameras... http://www.fotomancamera.com/technical.asp</p>

<p>I had both of these lenses, which are equally suitable for portrait work. Sold the 180 and kept the APO 210 primarily for its additional length... and the 210 is supposedly sharper (though you couldn't prove it by me).</p>

<p>I don't understand all the emphasis being placed on the performance of this lens <em>wide open</em>... this is, after all, a wide angle lens (at least on full format). With an angle of view of 64 degrees, how often would you actually be shooting with it wide open?<br>

As a street lens, shooting at f4-f11, the 35/2.0 is a more than adequate performer. If for some reason you envisioned shooting at f2.0 <em>often</em>, then you might want to investigate the 35/1.4.</p>

<p>A lot will depend on subject matter. For portraits and subject matter where fine detail is not of primary importance (<em>sunset shots, etc.</em>), 20x30 from the D700 is not a problem. However if your subject matter requires the reproduction of copious fine detail, often the case with landscapes, then 20x30 would be pushing things.</p>

<p>I can vouch for the Mamiya RZ Pro II. I always shot transparency materials with it and the exposures were spot on. That said, when possible I prefer an incident meter.</p>

 

<p><em>"The vast majority of Chinese photo products are rubbish. I'd recommend getting a nice used camera from a reputable manufacturer."</em><br>

Our Fotoman cameras are excellent [Chinese] cameras... as are the Nikon, Cannon, Fujinon and assorted others that are made in China. Such will continue to be true as long as Western Governments are sucking up to the Chinese, and not demanding a fair playing field.</p>

 

 

 

<p><em>"The vast majority of Chinese photo products are rubbish. I'd recommend getting a nice used camera from a reputable manufacturer."</em><br>

Our Fotoman cameras are excellent [Chinese] cameras... as are the Nikon, Cannon, Fujinon and assorted others that are made in China. Such will continue to be true as long as Western Governments are sucking up to the Chinese, and not demanding a fair playing field.</p>

 

 

<p>The short answer is yes. The CF is designed for the lens, not the lens/camera.</p>

<p>See if you can find a Fujinon 105W... it has an IC of 162mm. Even better the harder to find 105CMW has an IC of 174mm. Both better the Schneider offering by a good margin, and are excellent pieces of glass.</p>

<p>On the WA side, I would chose the 58mm, as the 65mm is only like a 28mm in 35mm format... not terribly wide nowadays.</p>

<p>I can't comment on the Bronica, but I have owned the M6 & M7 and shutter noise is virtually the same. I ultimately sold the M6, complete with all three lenses for the following reasons;</p>

<p>(1) I never really embraced the square format, even though I do crop to square occasionally, and</p>

<p>(2) lens choice, and quality of the standard lens. I started shooting 35mm, where the 35mm and 24mm focal lengths were my favorites. The 50-75-150 range of the M6 is like 35-50-100 on 35mm... <em>using horizontal coverage</em>. The M7's 43-50-65-80-150 equates to 21-25-35-40-80, duplicating my favorite 24 and 35mm lenses. With the M7, I use the 65mm most often, followed by the 80 which I think of as a<em> less wide 35mm</em>, then the 50 and 150, in that order. I had the 43 for a couple of years, but found it too wide for my liking and replaced it when the 50 became available. Also, while the M6 75mm is a very good lens, it is not the equal of the M7 80mm, particularly the contrast.</p>

<p>I do however wish the M7 lenses collapsed into the body like the M6's did.</p>

<p>I have this outstanding lens, and just checked... it's silent when shaken.</p>

<p>Unless someone tampered with the HFM, it should never need to be re-calibrated. That said, the Horseman uses either Schneider or Rodenstock HFM's, which are both calibrated in the same manner as the Fotoman HFM. Directions for calibrating the Fotoman HFM can be found here (on page 5)...<br>

http://www.fotomancamera.com/download/200682823413FotomanPanoramicCameras.pdf<br>

You will need to have the Horseman Ground Glass Unit, and a loupe. But before plunging in, be sure that your HFM is out of calibration. Horseman uses an optical collimator which allows for more accurate calibration of lenses that may exhibit focus shift when stopped down, or those with considerable curvature of field.<br>

You can always send the lens/cone assembly to Horseman... I doubt it would cost much to have it re-calibrated. </p>

 

<p>Benny, my eyes <em>ain't what they used to be</em> either, I use cheapy 1.5x glasses for reading, but I have no problem using the Angle Viewer... I'm assuming the GG in mine is the factory one (gridded), but images clearly <em>snap</em> into focus.<br>

 

<p>My VH is in pretty good condition... not mint, but very nice. I just found four sets of infinity stops, so I'm waiting on the next full moon to index my lenses.</p>

<br>

I use the following lenses on my VH; 65 Horseman, Schneider 80XL, 105W Nikkor, 105M Nikkor, 150 Rodenstock, 180A Fujinon and 270T Nikkor. I use all of the same lenses on my Toyo 45A as well. The Toyo is fitted with a lens board adapter, so all of these lenses are mounted on Horseman 80x80 lens boards... neat, because the boards are so small.<br>

I used to have a recessed board for the 58XL, but movements were near impossible. The 65mm is quite limited in this regard as well, but what movements are available are helpful. I generally move to 4x5 for really WA stuff anyway.</p>

<p>Benny... I haven't used the standard GG back, not once, since acquiring the Angle Viewer. The difference in viewing ease is like night and day.</p><div></div>

<p>The 60 degree Angle Finder (Reflex) does have its own ground glass screen. It attaches just like a film back, and the eyepiece is rotate-able. It's a marvelous addition to the VH.</p>

<p>The Linhof backs can't be used on any cameras but there own... not sure about the Arca Swiss.</p>

<p>The VH is an excellent camera, very well built and with enough movements for most subject matter. As for the GG... shy of 4x5, all VF camera GG's are less than ideal. I don't think this is as much a problem with the GG, as it is the fact that a 6x9 GG simply isn't large enough to begin with. Do yourself a big favor, and acquire the Horseman 60 degree angle finder that was made for this camera. They come up fairly regularly on eBay. It is a brilliant accessory, that will provide far superior viewing than any replacement GG, <em>and likely be cheaper</em>.</p>

<p>The only downside of the VH is the inability to use very wide (short) lenses.</p>