joseph_albert

<i>Using your logic, the short side of a 6x6 negative is the same as the short side of a 6x7, therefore there is no quality difference in making an 8x10 from either since your ratios are the same! You forget that you have to take both dimensions into account.</i>

<p>

No, that would not be using my logic. If you wish to make an 8x10 out of a 6x6 negative, the short side of the crop you enlarge to 8x10 is <i>not</i> the same size as 6x7. You'll be cropping the 6x6 negative to a 4:5 aspect ratio which will then be the same as 645.

<p>

Of course, if you wish to have a square print, then 6x7 offers no quality advantage over 6x6. I was taking both dimensions into account by insisting on a fixed aspect ratio for the rectangle on the final print.

<p>

I'm in no way criticizing the mamiya 7 system. although I haven't used it, I have used a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder, and the Mamiya 7 seems to be just as good, but with interchangeable lenses. One reason these cameras are so good is that their optics are as sharp as optics for 645 and 6x6. For landscape images, 6x7 without tilt has the primary advantage over 645 and 6x6 of less grain. Without tilt movements, depth of field requirements and lens diffraction limit image resolution so that you get about the same resolution on the final print with 645 or 6x7, all else being equal. Grain is a limiting factor for acutance however, and so the finer grain of 6x7 makes it possible to get landscape prints with a little better acutance.

<p>

Another way to look at it is that all of the cameras in question are sharp enough, and grain is the limiting factor of degree of enlargeability. Thus, with 6x7, you can produce a print that is enlarged about 27% more than with 645. If you are happy with a 16x20 made with 645, you probably would be happy with a 20x24 made with 6x7.

<p>

Ever wonder why digital resolution is reported in dots per inch instead of dots per square inch? Or why the mangification power of a loupe is measured by what it does to a single dimension?

<p>

The original poster wanted a camera that could be used with waist-level finder and be fitted with a wide angle lens. that greatly narrows the field:

<p>

hasselblad SLR, Bronica SQ series SLR, Mamiya TLR, possibly older cameras like Kowa SLR, Bronica S series, maybe a Kiev.

<p>

Last I checked, no rangefinder had a waist-level finder.

<i>

Certainly, I like the fact that the M7II gives me 50% more film area than a 645 camera.

</i>

<p>

True, but don't be seduced into thinking a 6x7 print is 50% sharper or 50% "better" whatever "better" means. To make, say, an 8x10 from either 6x7 or 645 you need to enlarge each piece of film to the print size. The short side of a 645 might be 44mm (I say might because on some cameras it is 42mm or 43mm or whatever) and the short side, whereas 6x7 is 55mm or 56mm on the short side, I'll use 56mm. To magnify that to 8 inches, which is 8x25.4 = 203mm (with rounding), each will need to be enlarged as follows:

6x7: 203/56 = 3.625x enlargement

645: 203/44 = 4.614x enlargement

How much more does 645 need to be enlarged?

4.614/3.625 = 1.27. Said another way, 6x7 is 27% larger than 645. That is, you can expect the quality of a print from 6x7 to be about 27% "better" whatever "better" is.

True, medium format camera manufacturers like to tout the difference in area because it makes for impressive marketing stories. And that's ok, just don't be seduced into thinking that is commensurate with the gain in quality. If it were, we'd all be shooting 4x5, and 35mm never would have happened.

My medium format travel outfit is a Mamiya C220F camera with 55mm and 105mm lenses. I also take a 180/4.5 Super on trips, but only carry it when I'm not carrying it very far (ie usually not when hiking).

<p>

The C220F + 55/4.5 + 105/3.5 DS weighs 4 lbs. 1 oz. if you use a waist-level finder. I also carry a pentax digital spotmeter and Velbon Carmagne 640 carbon fiber tripod (tripod and ball head are 4 lbs total).

<p>

Be sure to consider tripod weight when choosing a camera. I've also used a Rolleiflex TLR and Fuji GW-670 as travel cameras but, superb as they are, I prefer interchangeable lenses.

<p>

If you plan to carry 2 or 3 lenses, the lightest weight medium format cameras for a 3 lens kit are, in order of increasing weight:

<p>

Mamiya 6

<br>

Mamiya 7

<br>

Mamiya C220/C220F

<br>

Pentax 645

<p>

For a 2-lens kit, the Mamiya 6 only saves a 5 or 6 ounces over the C220/C220F, and I find 55mm and 105mm a more useful working pair of focal lengths than any set of two Mamiya 6 lenses (chosen from 50mm, 75mm, 150mm).

Mamiya 7 requires a beefier tripod (to rotate the camera for verticals) so once tripod is factored in, it probably moves to the bottom of the list, but it is notable in being so light while shooting 6x7 with lenses reputed to be fabulous. All of the above cameras offer first-rate optics, however. Pentax 645 has two tripod sockets, one for each camera orientation, so the camera is always over the center of gravity of the tripod, and of course you don't have to rotate 6x6.

<p>

Mamiya RB67 would be out of the question for me for a travel system. the tripod alone for that camera or Pentax 67 as well would be more than I am willing to deal with.

<p>

Don't discount using a waist-level finder with a 6x6 camera for travel-- you can be much less conspicuous when you don't have to hold a camera up to your eye.

Not only would I second the recommendation to take teh Rollei 2.8D, but also, leave the 35mm at home!

<p>

A TLR is a fine camera for street photography and candids-- not having to hold the camera up to your eye and the silent shutter being major advantages. With a Rollei TLR, you have everything you need in a single package to make a quality image. Spend your time getting in tune with the emotion of the places you visit, experience it in the present with your family, instead of fiddling with a bag of assorted camera equipment. Plus, the camera stays with you all the time, so no need to worry about theft of the system you aren't using that's back at the hotel etc.

<p>

Just some thoughts.

<i>

You can buy and use digital music and appreciate its accuracy, but nothing sounds as smooth and full as a decent table and a clean vinyl disc.

</i>

<p>

90-100 years ago, a well-heeled family would not have had the option of buying a stereo system. but they could purchase an expression piano that played piano rolls that captured the performer's nuances. There were even pianos that could cut the rolls, eg the Brinkerhoff pianos. One could sit down, play a piece of music and have the piano cut a paper roll that subsequently could be fed back into the player mechanism of the piano to reproduce what was played. Purely mechanical, they were wound up to store the energy for playing a roll.

<p>

No vinyl recording of a piano, I don't care how audiophile the equipment used to produce the master, produce the vinyl, and play back the vinyl comes at all close to the sound of the live expression piano, or if you are able to play it yourself, to a live performance. The difference between a CD and vinyl is trivial compared to the difference between a speaker cone and a live acoustic instrument. That's why so many serious musicians don't care about having high end audiophile stereo equipment.

<p>

In the past, people took music studies more seriously and a much larger fraction of society was musically competent. That's because those who could afford to have music in their home had a piano or other instruments, not a stereo. The development of radio and stereo recordings has had a tremendous suppression of musical studies in the culture. Today, how many people can sit down a whip out a Mozart Sonata on the piano?

<p>

We will see a similar effect with images and photography. Darkroom work will be a skill only a tiny number of people have in the future, not to mention exposing film.

<p>

But digital photography can only kill your film photography if you let it. If you do photography as a hobby, you have the luxury of doing it how you like for your own amusement. If you do it professionally, then this discussion is moot-- you'll just be doing what maximizes your income.

My wife uses a digital camera professionally. She is a real estate agent, and her Olympus 1.3MP camera is still working splendidly for her application, which is to email images of houses to clients or upload them into listings. Viewed as small images on a computer screen, the images have no detectable noise or grain, so this little camera the size of a pack of cigarettes is the perfect tool. No film camera could ever match it for convenience nor would quality be detectably better given how the images are viewed.

<p>

On the other hand, I do not use cameras professionally, although I have sold images before. I plan to shoot film until 120 E-6 processing is no longer readily available, and at that point, I will either: 1) switch to digital; 2) do B&W and do my my processing and printing; or 3) give up photography as a hobby. The film camera I am keeping for posterity is a Mamiya C220F with 3 lenses (55, 105, 180). I think option 3 may be a little more likely to happen than option 1. I just can't see spending my hobby time fiddling with photoshop, calibrating monitors, buying higher end computer equipment etc. etc. Of course part of the problem with that is that I am a computer scientist professionally.

<p>

I think it is sad that our world is turning into a disposable culture. Fortunately, my acoustic piano is still holding its own against the electronic keyboards that have failed miserably to replace it.

<p>

Joseph Albert

<i>The 2.8 weighs more. I guess it could depend on how important a 1/2 stop of light is worth.</i>

<p>

Actually, f/2.8 is 2/3 stop more light than f/3.5. 1/2 stop between f/2.8 and f/4 is f/3.3.

<p>

At B&H, the Rollei 2.8 GX anniversary edition is $1000 less expensive than the 2.8FX camera ($2695 instead of $3695). I can't see why anyone would want to buy the FX model.

<p>

That's about $2000 more than a 2.8F model. For your 2000 semolians you get multicoating, TTL flash AE, and a new camera that won't need a CLA, updated Maxwell screen etc. I wouldn't assume the image quality will be noticeably different, but with multicoating it ought to have slightly better contrast and be slightly more resistant to flare.

<p>

Joseph Albert

For handheld shooting with a TLR, head over to your neighborhood hardware store, and purchase a short, 1/4" bolt. by short I mean about 1/4" long as well if possible. Tie a string to it, and thread the bolt into the tripod socket of the camera. For Mamiya C330 series cameras the screw is 3/8", but the principle is the same. When you are shooting handheld, let the string drop to the ground or floor and step on it lightly so the string can slide out from under your foot. Position the camera, and then step down so the string is fairly taught. To shoot, hold the camera so the string is very taught. it will give you an extra 2 stops of handholdability. You should be able to shoot things that don't require critical sharpness (eg portraits) at 1/8 sec. this way, and you can get sharp landscapes at 1/32 sec. the low level of vibrations inherent in the TLR design, and use of a waist-level finder makes this technique possible.

While not modern in design, a TLR camera is a wonderful tool. In fact, I've just put my last 35mm film camera on consignment to sell, and presently every camera I own is a TLR.

Cheers,

Joseph Albert

Did you have a specific question? For general info try searching the archives

on this site. A good book you might like is: "The Medium Format Advantage"

by Ernst Wildi. The best general advice I would give is already too late since

you've ordered a camera, and that would have been to start out with a cheap

used TLR or other inexpensive camera. Probably the most common

assumption about 35mm that doesn't hold with medium format is the notion

that you have to compose the final image tightly in the viewfinder. In fact,

medium format has enough real estate to crop while still maintaining a quality

image. This is more true of 6x6 and larger 120 formats, but still applies to

645.

Cheers,

Joseph Albert

Consider that you can carry two formats if the cameras are well chosen:

Fuji GSW690-III for landscapes or other wide-angle shots.

DSLR with 50/1.8, 100/2.8 macro, 200/2.8 + teleconvertor for everything else.

The Fuji is supportable on any tripod that will hold a DSLR + 200/2.8.

Pentax 67 is a superb camera, but it needs a much heftier tripod than a

Fuji 6x7/6x9 rangefinder on account of vibrations.

If your wide-angle needs are just for moderate wide-angle, a Mamiya C220F

with 55/4.5, 105/3.5DS, 180/4.5 Super might be had for around $600. If your

favorite lens for 35mm is a 20/2.8, this probably won't be satisfactory, but if

you can shoot all of your landscapes in 35mm with a 28/2.8, it might work.

Cheers,

Joseph Albert

imho, 120 will outlive 135 because it will take longer for digital imaging to match the quality of 120 at reasonable cost.

joseph Albert

Well, had the loss of detail been an artifact of the scan/display, I'm guessing Peter would have said that rather than that the lens was at fault. Moreover, the rendering of the flower has the classic blocked up look that is normally produced when imaging a flower in bright sunlight with a high contrast film.

<P>

Cheers,

<p>

Joseph

I already to pretty much ignore ebay except for the occasional look for a small hard-to-find item. 60% of my camera purchases from there have bene unsatisfactory (3 out of 5 cameras purchases there were not as represented in some material way and there is no return recourse generally).

Joseph Albert

<i>The viewing lens on a TLR is often a simpler lens design</i>

<p>

That is true. Mamiya TLRs are an exception, acccording to info I've received multiple times from folks at Mamiya USA. Their claim has been that the only difference beween the taking and viewing lens of a Mamiya TLR is that the taking lens has a shutter and aperture.

<p>

cheers,

<p>

joseph albert

Peter,

<p>

The rendering of the flower without much 3-D modeling and blocked up detail is a result of the lighting and the film. had you used an expensive pro lens, the effect would have been the same.

<p>

Joseph

if you want an interchangeable lens medium format camera that isn't pricey, you probably want to avoid Mamiya 6, 7, 645 AFD, hasselblad, rollei SLR.

<p>

Pentax 645 (especially manual focus) and 6x7, Mamiya TLR, 645 manual focus (especially those without interchangeable backs), RB/RZ 67 are all inexpensive these days. Bronica SLRs are also plummetting and probably could be found for fraction of what they sold for a year ago.

<p>

I wouldnt' worry about reviews. any medium format camera made by mamiya, pentax, hasselblad, bronica, contax, rollei, or Fuji made in the last 30 years or so is a quality camera system. even 50 year old Rollei TLRs can produce image quality that holds up next to current models.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Joseph Albert

in response to Kelly... in the 1950's, medium format meant 4x5.

Joseph

On Mamiya TLr lenses I'm familiar with, the viewing and taking lenses are the same production parts. It is possible that ones that failed quality control testing became viewing lenses, but I've heard a mamiya tech. say that the parts are interchangeable. I don't know why remounting the lens would change its focal length unless the relative position of lens groups were altered, which of course would be bad all around.

cheers,

Joseph

<p>

The problem is not with the film, or its post-processing. <p> 1. If you are not going to maintain depth of field in the background, don't use a short focal length that includes so much distracting out of focus material in the image. Get a tripod and shoot at a smaller f-stop to put the background within acceptable focus, or use a long lens to crop it out-- 200mm would likely be good for 35mm. Then you can fully blur the background into a smooth texture. <p> 2. Try shooting on an overcast day with even, low contrast lighting. Here the sun is so bright that you have flare and bright hot spots reflected off the leaves and petals. if you are shooting on a clear, sunny day, don't do it at high noon. Wait for the golden light of the sunset and shoot perpendicular to the light so you get long shadows that add to the interest of the image if handled artfully. Or shoot in the pink light of dawn. in fact, for flower photography, I prefer the light of dawn because the air is more still. dusk always seems to have unstable air and the flowers won't hold still. if you want a luminous image that gives the effect of a sunlit flower, shoot on an overcast day and use a small flash with diffuser to brighten things up. <p> hope that helps. <p> Joseph Albert

Also it is well known that grain is a limiting factor of acutance in a print (see Ansel Adams' "The Print" for one discussion of this). Larger formats require less magnification of grain, and hence produce prints of higher acutance. Moreover, acutance, and not resolution is usually what makes a print look sharp and crisp.

Joseph Albert

Good film, but too contrasty to maintain detail or 3-D modeling in the rose in the image above taken in bright, contrasty sunlight.

Try it on overcast days where it will punch up the colors. NPH or Reala are C-41 films that would have captured more detail in that sunny, high contrast scene above.

Joseph Albert

imho, the Mamiya 55/4.5 is clearly sharper than the 65/3.5. As far as the technical spec. questions-- Mamiya USA would be able to answer those questions.

in terms of a matched pair-- you should just use the the viewing lens and taking lens from the same lens assembly as the two taking lenses, and the viewing and taking lens from another assembly as the two viewing lenses.

in terms of matching versions keep in mind that even the so-called "black" TLR lenses had two distinct verions-- an earlier one with sand colored coatings and a later one with purple coatings. The latter also had a later version shutter-- one other way to distinguish them is the older black lenses had no click stops on the APERTURE ring. There may be differences in optical formula between these in some cases.

I think the 80mm lens formula changed many times throughout that production run of the system. The 55/4.5 probably just had updated optical coatings going from the older black to newer black versions. As such, it probably is your best bet on a wide lens. For the 80mm, just stick to the 80/2.8S version and you'll be sure you have the latest one.

Joseph Albert

Mamiya has a new 22MP digital SLR that takes ther 645 AF lenses. Thus, your friend could get a Mamiya 645AF and use the lenses later with a digital body. I think digital sensors larger than 35mm format will remain very expensive for a long time, and full-frame 35mm sensors will be the "medium format" for digital, btw.

Cheers,

Joseph Albert

To clarify some of the problems you will face... suppose you are making an image of a flower and wish to fill the frame horizontally with soem flowers that are, give or take a little, close to being in a horizontal row. Suppose that the flowers are 4-5 cm tall. To approximately fill the frame, you are working at 1:2, that is 0.5x magnification. Light loss to bellows factor gives an effective aperture of 1.5X aperture set on the camera. if you have an f/2.8 macro lens on a 35mm camera, the wide-open aperture is now f/4.2. So you have viewfinder illumination of an f/4.2 lens which isn't as bright as you would like, but not horribly dark. Keep in mind, that a bright sunny day will give harsh shadows and block up fine detail. These types of images usually look best with low-contrast lighting. I have done this type of work with Velvia on overcast days. Alternatively, you can use fill flash or reflectors to fill in the shadows, but you'll still get less 3-D detail on teh surface of the petals on a bright sunny day. So you have the viewfinder brightness of an f/4.2 lens.

<p>

Now lets look at the Pentax 6x7. The image now has to fill 56mm instead of 24mm. that's an increase of (7/3)x the magnification. instead of working at 0.5X you are now working at (0.5)*(7)/(3)X which is 7:6 or 1.17X. Now the bellows factor is 2.17. If you are using say a 135/4 macro for P67, your wide open aperture is now 8.7, so you are focusing an f/8.7 lens on an overcast day. Shooting in the early morning of a clear day is also possible, and also is dimmer than sunny-16 conditions. Using tubes on the 105/2.4 will help-- you'll now be at an effective wide aperture of f/5.2.

<p>

The other problem you'll have is controlling vibrations-- DOF considerations will but your shutter speeds right in the danger zone for vibrations, and the high magnification will make them visible in terms of loss of sharpness in enlargements.

<p>

Lastly, the lack of depth of field in larger format means you will have way stopped down, to at least f/32, possibly f/45. Now your shutter speed can't freeze action (a tripod may hold the camera still, but it won't hold the flower still). You may find you need flash to freeze action.

<p>

Good luck. I love shooting medium format. I do macro work in 35mm.

<p>

Joseph Albert

The main risk of using 120 in a camera configured for 220 is that the pressure plate is exerting more pressure than it should. Normally, it is exerting enough pressure to hold the thinner 220 flat. With the extra paper backing, the 120 is thicker and so doesn't need as much pressure. Extra pressure should still hold the film flat, but it may lead to scratching of the film as it slides across the gate.

Of course, this is theoretical, and you probably should just test a few rolls first to see them work.

It isn't hard to find inexpensive TLRs that are configured or are configurable for 120 (most of the less expensive ones only shoot 120), so I have to wonder if there is any reason to insist on running 120 through a yashica 24.

Cheers,

Joseph Albert