mag_miksch

and for a given lense

<p>Maybe you have to set the rangefinder to this lense, look for a manual<br> eg. <em>http://www.polaroid-passion.com/manuel/manual-polaroid-600SE.pdf</em></p>

<blockquote> <p>If you can do without VC, the previous non- stabilised model of Tamron SP 17-50 f/2.8 is available for less than that Sigma price. Optical quality is superb and almost equal to the overly big and heavy Nikon 17-55mm zoom (also non- stabilised).</p> </blockquote> <p>its better than the sigma</p>

<p>Sorry, you are right,<br> I use a 360/5.6 on a 30x40 (12x16) camera on a Sinar shutter, this lense is real huge,<br> the lenses you mentioned are f=9 and 8,5, so they are much samaller and fit copal 1, copal 3 will be just too large to fit a fotoman camera.<br> http://www.ground-glass.net/large-format/copal-shutters<br> copal 1 is M39, copal 3 M61</p>

<p>beside all other questions is the image circle of a Schneider 300mm f/5.6 Apo-Symmar L too small for 24cm</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>maybe 4 or 6 weeks later will be a better time to sell camera equipment, the spring is nearer</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em><br /></em>Downunder spring is not coming, so sell it soon,<br> and as you noticed, maybe its better to sell the 80 with the cam, </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>the viewfinder on the Mamiya body is 80mm</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em><br /></em>yes<br> <em> </em></p>

<p>maybe 4 or 6 weeks later will be a better time to sell camera equipment, the spring is nearer</p>

<p>and you are sure you shot exactly at a right angle?</p>

<p>There is also a very good 50/2, maybe the sharpest of the 50s gang</p>

<p>its the same with all shutterspeeds, and the shutter is set to 1st curtain? Flash used? Syncspeed?</p>

<p>In the old days I used the 105/1.8 on my F3, outstanding lens, much better than the 85/1.4.</p>

<p>and alltogether, Polas were not used to compose shots for 6X7 film but to controll exposure before shooting the film so some differences in framing arent important</p>

<p>nice dog^^</p>

<blockquote> <p> <em>the pola backs for Pentax 67 or Fuji Rangefinder's were after market and not system integrated like a Mamiya RZ or Hasselblad kits.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>and Polas are the histograms of old days, they were used by pros to check lightning and not focus.</p>

<p>what I remember the polaback is attached without the revolving back directly to the cam so there is another framing.</p>

<p>checked some pics I shot some time ago at trot racing, at 1/800 bodies are fairly sharp, but faster moving legs and manes are not, so I think at least 1/2000 is necessary to get all over sharp sharp pics.</p>

<p>"helicoid" means that you can focus a lens made for bellow focusssing</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>Look into DSLR scanning of 120 film materials</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em><br /></em>IMO dont do so, DSLR use Bayer sensors, Scanners not</p> <blockquote> <p><em> </em></p> </blockquote>

<p>soon we are at the basic question CCD vs CMOS</p>

<p>To shoot sports its wise to use a monopod,<br> for soccer 200mm is to short,<br> but if you want to stay in that range look for a 180/2.8 Nikkor, IQ is at least on par with best Zooms, its not that heavy and very cheap second hand.</p>

<blockquote> <p>my focus at that time was soccer video from a wide angle. Had a 24mm 2.8</p> </blockquote> <p>An interesting point, you intend to shoot soccer fotos that way or how its done? For second you need at least 300mm if you want to track the action.</p>

<p>Tamron 17-50/2.8</p>

<p>the perfectionist doesnt shot APS-c with f16 or f22, this apertures are used in medium format, </p>

<blockquote> <p>Then your statement should have been <em>DOF is a matter of magnification, which depends in part on focal length, and f-stop. </em>I wouldn't question Steve Parrott's original statement, which you quoted only in part.</p> </blockquote> <p>magnification is a known word and so doesnt need explenations, next I have to write to which things the word f-stop depends and so on, regressus infinitus,^^<br> and I quoted him "for shallow DOF you need a moderate telephoto lens" and I said its not the lenght but the magnification.^^<br> I dont find my statement uncorrect or unfair.</p>