joseph_albert

An Olympus rep. told me the same thing-- that the need by digital

sensors to have the optical path be parallel to the lens axis was

a technical difficulty that would preclude building a digital OM

camera, and the reason for the demise of the OM system. Some of

the digital bodies that accepted nikon lenses had optical elements

in between the rear of the lens and the film to "straighten out"

the light. Do current Nikon and Canon digital cameras have these

as well?

<p>

Generally, I think Leica makes most of its money off lenses and as long

as they can sell as many lenses as they wish for film cameras, they

have no incentive to do a digital camera. At some point, they may

find they either have to offer a digital camera, or come out with a

new line of lenses (or abandon the interchangeable lens camera market).

Japanese collectors are not buying up so many Leicas these days.

It appears that folks who wish to sell Leica gear are not lowering

the price to adjust to the market, but instead taking the stance

that they are willing to wait longer for an item to sell. the time

limit on ebay probably is not ideal in such a situation.

There's a reason they've been promoting this so long without a

working product to show-- it is at best very difficult, if not

impossible to produce such a product. If the silicon device is

inserted inside the camera, how does the user interface to the

digital device get presented to the user on the outside of the

camera? It might work if a light sensor determined when the shutter

were open and closed, and just captured whatever image was there,

having the memory being a FIFO queue where the earliest image stored is deleted

to make room for a new image when a shot is taken with a full store

of images, or it just doesn't allow anymore to be taken once full.

But the user will have to keep track of what is going on as it won't

tell you on the outside of the camera, nor will you be able to control

it at all once it is inserted. Moreover, the thing, if it is

based on a light sensor, but distinguish opening the back of the

camera from opening the shutter only by the light coming through.

<p>

Leica should just build and sell digital, manual focus bodies to

which M and R lenses can be attached.

the FM3a combines all the advantages of an FE2 with all the advantages

of an FM2n, and were it not for the encroachment of digital imaging onto

the turf of photochemical film, the FM3a would have become Nikon's

most popular camera ever.

<p>

my only hesitation with the FM3a is that the hybrid shutter is a new

thing for Nikon and nobody knows how reliable it will be. that said,

electromechanical shutters have appeared before (eg the Pentax LX

had one) and many electronic Nikon shutters have a mechanical B

setting and one mechanical speed, so I'd not be inclined to worry

about it if the camera otherwise was suitable.

<p>

The FM3a and its price have had substantial downward pressure on

the value of used FM2's, which can be quite inexpensive these days.

I use Leica R but have never owned a piece of Leica M equipment.

but I don't use "only R". I also shoot a nikon outfit and a

mamiya TLR outfit, choosing the system that works best for a given

application.

<p>

Generally, I've found Leica R to be overpriced, but very nice

equipment. I had an R3 MOT and 50/2 summicron a number of years

ago, but sold it because a complete lens collection was too much $.

More recently, I was able to purchase a package of R equipment at a

reasonable price, and chose to do so. My primary interest in the

R system is to use the 180/3.4 APO Telyt. I might try to find someone

to convert this lens to Nikon mount and sell the rest of the Leica

R stuff at some point. Generally, I am now shooting Leica R for

macro and when shooting nature photography in 35mm, and am using

a Nikon outfit when I want fast lenses. My opinion is that Nikon lenses are better

optimized for wide-open aperture performance in general, but bokeh

is generally smoother with Leitz glass. Your mileage may vary, though.

The way I use a polarizer on a rangefinder or TLR is as follows.

First, I use a Heliopan polarizer that has a scale to show how it

is set. On the rigid ring of hte filter, I make small etchings

for each lens I will use it on. These etchings correspond to the

12 o'clock position when the filter is tightened into the thread of

the lens. Note that I've done this with a 3-lens TLR outfit, a

Rollei TLR, and a Fuji rangefinder, so I didn't have alot of lenses

to etch on.

<p>

then I hold the polarizer in my hand and look through it, choosing

the level of polarization I wish to have. then, while holding the

front (rotating) ring rigid, I rotate the rest of the filter so that

the etch for the lens I'm using for the shot appears on top, at the

12 o'clock position. then I read the setting on the scale that comes

engraved in the filter. this is the setting for the shot.

<p>

then I mount the filter, and set the polarizer to the same point on the

scale, and take the shot.

<p>

I can set a polarizer with accuracy rivaling my usage on an SLR with

this method. On the other hand, it is more clumsy.

<p>

Another method I'm just about to try is to get a 43mm Heliopan polarizer

for my Pentax spotmeter, and look through that to set it, read the

scale, then set the polarizer on the lens. I'd also meter through

the polarizer with the spotmeter.

<p>

Leica lenses have standardized threads so you should just need

a single etching on the filter for the 12 o'clock position (ie when

you install the polarizer on different leica lenses, the same position

ends up at the top position.

In terms of image quality, my Mamiya C220 TLR significantly outperforms

my Leica R4, for which I have a 28/2.8 Elmarit, 50/2 Summicron, and

180/3.4 APO Telyt as well as two Tamron lenses (90/2.8 macro and

300/5.6 macro). The Tamron 90/2.8 macro is sharper than the 28/2.8 Elmarit,

so being blessed in Wetzlar is not going to bring medium format quality to a

lens designed for 35mm.

Sal, take a look at the out of focus areas created by a mirror lens (rendered as donuts) and then explain how there is no such concept as bokeh.

<p>

Both optical design and diaphragm design have a large influence

on bokeh, which I define as the rendering of out of focus areas.

<p>

Part of why bokeh was not a term in the lexicon of past photographers is that it is a more recent phenomenon that optical companies have designed lenses that are fast enough and well corrected enough to have poor bokeh as a tradeoff.

<p>

The first time you have a shallow DOF image with a harsh background, you won't doubt that bokeh is a real property of a lenses imaging.

<p>

It is the case the optical design matters. If not, you wouldn't see differences in boken when comparing lenses shot wide open.

<p>

The shape of the diaphragm also matters. The so called circles of confusion in the out of focus areas of an image are really hexagons and octagons rather than circles on many lenses, and this generally produces harsher bokeh than circles. More blades are used in the diaphragm of some lenses to enable the disphragms to be closer to circles.

Doubtful. Minox uses 4-element Tessar lenses, and probably doesn't have the experience with wider lenses.

<p>

Ricoh makes the camera you are looking for. I think the model# is GR1, maybe the new version is GR1s or somesuch. It has an autofocus, aperture-priority camera with fixed 28mm lens and weighs only a little over 6 oz. Nikon also made the 28Ti which can be obtained used-- it is similar, more expensive, but sturdier in build.

<p>

I can't comment on the optical quality of these cameras firsthand,

as I've not used them.

David got it right. Before the advent of multicoating technology, there has been a tension between how well corrected a lens is, and contrast. The Planar is actually an older design than the Tessar,

but before the technology of optical coatings was in use, the 4-element Tessar was a tradeoff of some of the correction to get good contrast. Wide open, a moderate amount of spherical aberration is left uncorrected.

<p>

As coating technology came in, and gradually was improved, lenses began to have more elements. Multicoating has enabled such lenses as floating element retrofocus wide angles and zooms which can have anywhere from 8 or 9 elements for the floating element wide angle to as many as 17 elements in a zoom. Without modern multicoating, such lenses likely would suffer from mediocre contrast.

<p>

With the Planar for 6x6, Zeiss has sought to improve its performance during different re-designs, and, using the full technology available, has chosen to increase the number of elements. With modern multicoating, this can be done while still having a lens that delivers snappy contrast and vibrant colors.

Mamiya America (or the mamiya importer in the country in which you

live) will do a complete overhaul of the camera, replacing any

worn parts, calibrating focus, and getting everything in excellent

adjustment for about $125. After the work, it will be as good as a

new camera.

Everyone has focused on image quality of zoom vs. prime, but the

original poster was looking for an in-camera spot meter, DOF preview,

and auto bracketing. this is orthogonal to zoom vs. prime.

<p>

Why not just buy a Pentax PZ-1P and use the SMC-Pentax primes with

it, gaining the desired features with no new investment in lenses?

<p>

For the record, I don't particularly like in-camera spotmeters as

the spot area is too large for my needs and it varies with the focal

length of lens used.

Actually, on a lens for a Mamiya TLR, the viewing and taking lens are the same

optics, although I wouldn't be floored if the taking lenses are the

ones that passes the most stringent quality control requirements.

<p>

I don't see why a viewing lens would save you $. Whether you remove

the viewing or taking lens from a non-interchangeable lens TLR, you

render the camera unusable either way, and the same goes for a Mamiya TLR

lens assembly.

<p>

But if you want something that covers a 6x9 roll film holder, you'll

need a wider coverage. Since you wish to use Mamiya roll backs,

why not just use a mamiya press camera and lens and save yourself

alot of trouble. these cameras are inexpensive on the used market,

and they are fully mechanical, so you won't have to worry about a solenoid

draining your battery for trhe duration of a long exposure.

The 100/2.8 lens for these cameras is a planar-like design and should

be the best corrected wide open of the mamiya press lenses.

<p>

for 6x6 and 645 you can get f/2 and f/1.9 lenses, by the way.

The MAmiya 80/1.9 is the most cost-effective of these.

Hakuba is the importer of Velbon carbon fiber tripods, and the tripods

with the hakuba label are made especially for hakuba by Velbon.

they are the same as comparable Velbon tripods, but with 2 differences:

The non-carbon parts of the Velbon Carmagne tripods are magnesium.

that's where the name comes from, CARbon/MAGNEsium. The Hakuba

equivalent models use aluminum. Second, the Hakuba models are less expensive.

<p>

One other point is that there are some lighter duty velbon carbon

fiber tripods that are not imported into the US, but the hakuba

equivalent models are.

<p>

Generally, I think the Velbon carbon fiber tripods are a better buy

than the Hakuba's. this is because they are lighter weight for a given

level of sturdiness. After all, the whole point of forking out the $

for carbon fiber is light weight. If you want relative economy,

light weight, and sturdiness, the Velbon Carmagne 630 is the way to

go. it uses 3 leg sections. If you want more compactness folded up,

the carmagne 640 is also good. Keep in mind that these tripods are not

as tall as the Gitzo G1227 or G1228, so if you are over about 5'4"

tall and want a tripod that will hold a camera at eye level, then,

the gitzo's are worth the extra money.

<p>

I use a Velbon Carmagne 640 with a Mamiya C220F with waist-level

finder and it is rock solid. I don't extend the smallest legs

as with a WLF it doesn't have to be very tall. the tripod is

solid enough with the smallest legs extended to support this camera

though if need be.

<p>

For eye level work I prefer a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod.

Also, what is the surface on which the tripod is placed? if it is

a low friction surface like an uncarpeted floor, I'd expect the tripod

to move. My Gitzo and Velbon carbon fiber tripods are virtually worthless

at holding a camera steady when they sit on a finished hardwood floor.

Jim, if you are seeing color shifts in provia 100F with 1/2

changes in exposure, you should investigate whether the lab you

are using is capable of doing a good job with E-6 runs of fuji films.

<p>

If you think about it, a slide film is capturing material over

a 5 stop range. For a given exposure, you should have material

in the scene that is 1/2 stop brighter than the mid-tone of the

scene and 1/2 stop dimmer. Are these also color shifted in the

exposure that wasn't bracketed?

<p>

If any film is sensitive to a 1/2 stop shift in exposure, it will

always be an effect seen in the shadows or highlights. The reason

is that when you shift exposure by 1/2 stop, you are just taking the

5-stop window of tones the film captures, and shifting the whole

window by 1/2 stop. the scene usually has more than 5 stops of

brightness range, and the choice of exposure for a slide film is one about where

to place the 5 stop window captured by the film on the entire brightness

range of the subject. 2 exposures of the same scene in the same light

but 1/2 stop apart share 4.5 stops worth of tonal range with each

other as a result. It would be highly unusual if not impossible to

see noticeable color shifts in one and not in the other, assuming they

each had the same precise and correct development.

<p>

I find this whole discussion could be summed up as: I used film X

in situation Y and the results were bad. Therefore, film X is bad.

The reality is that if you do a careful test of Provia F under

controlled conditions-- for instance, you shoot a macbeth color

checker under daylight balanced illumination, and vary the exposure

from one that gives you a solid black slide to one that gives you a

completelyy blown own slide with uniform clear base and no density,

in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments, then you can get some idea of the

color balance and contrast grade of the film. I've done this and

found the film to be fairly neutral. Provia 100 had a smokey cast,

but this seems to have been completely removed from the images rendered

by Provia 100F. The film has normal contrast and color saturation,

about like E100S. Grain is finer than E100S, but both have very

fine grain. E100SW is warmer, but it is supposed to be. That's

what the W stands for. E100SW is supposed to have the effect of an

81B built-in to the color response of the emulsion-- and certainly

it is not supposed to be close to neutral, according to Kodak.

I haven't shot with E100SW, only E100S. Generally, I think Provia 100F

has more saturated greens than competitive ISO 100 slide films.

Agfachromes, or at least RSX-50 and RSX-100 have the richest reds.

<p>

If you want to get good results in the field, do your testing in

controlled conditions in your studio or home, then apply what you

learned to getting predictable results in the field. If you

insist on doing your experimentation in the field, expect to

have a few mishaps before you get it right. When this happens,

the film is not to blame.

Marking off a tripod center column only works if the ground glass of the

camera is perpendicular to the center column. It doesn't matter whether the column is perpendicular to the ground. Consider the case of

using a ball head. If you tilt the camera to one side, or forward or backward, then lifting

the center column by the appropriate distance will <i>not</i> place

the taking lens in the place of the viewing lens.

<p>

I used to own a paramender 2. With this tool, you have to mount

the paramender on top of the head of the tripod, and then the camera

to the paramender. Now it doesn't matter what orientation you have the tripod head,

but figuring out a system of quick releases for the paramender, camera,

and head is a bit of a challenge. Probably the easiest thing would

be to have a second body with paramender left on while carrying it,

and a quick release plate mounted under the paramender.

<p>

My impression before I had a paramender, and my impression after

I sold the one I had remained that if you want to do alot of closeup

work, an SLR would be much easier to handle. A TLR is an awkward tool

for closeup work, paramender or no paramender.

Open shade on a sunny day with clear blue sky is supposed to have

a blue cast. This isn't the fault of the film. The 812 warming

filter is a Tiffen-specific type, and in deep shade on a clear

summer day it may well not offer enough warming to fully remove

the blue cast caused by the excess blue light, especially at higher elevations. It would not be

unreasonable to need an 81C for that. One reason I avoid Tiffen

filters, aside from the fact that they sometimes don't use optical

glass in theri manufacturing, is that they have these propietary

types of filters, and don't advertise the spec of the filtration.

<p>

Velvia is warmer than Provia F, so you might find an 812 was adequate

for Velvia in the shade on a clear day with blue sky.

You don't need to retract the lens on a Universal Press. The retractable

lenses were the 90/3.5 and 100/3.5, and these were intended for

the earlier models that had back extension, enabling tilt and swing

movements to be used. But when the back was extended, you have

to retract the lens to maintain infinity focus.

<p>

The Universal Press does not have this feature, and the lens Mamiya

intended as the standard lens on this camera was the 100/2.8, which

does not have a retractable mount. There may also have been some

100/3.5's made without a retractable mount, but I've never seen

or heard of one.

<p>

The f/3.5 90mm and 100mm lenses are Tessar designs. they have some

residual spherical aberration wide open, so they should be stopped

down as noted above, except when you want to throw a background

out of focus, when the spherical aberration in the corners helps give

a creamy out of focus background rendering.

If Fuji would make a manual focus version, I'd buy it in a second.

It is amazing how much Fuji fit in such a small package, but the

user interface really suffers as a result. this is not a camera you

can figure out how to use without an owner's manual. the manual

focus is a kind of zone focus, making the camera difficult ot use

for landscapes. It has a hyperfocal focusing mode, but uses a

size of acceptable circle of confusion that is too large for my taste.

As far as I can tell, changing the f-stop caused it to re-focus in

hyperfocal mode so you can't fake it out by having it focus then stop

down 1 stop. I think the camera would work for scenic shots focused

near infinity, but near-far type shots, particularly with wide angle,

would require you to accept slightly less critical control over

DOF than is possible with a manual camera.

<p>

Still it's a very interesting camera, and I'd expect the fuji optics

to be absolutely 1st rate.

Steve,

<p>

It takes roughly 3000x4500 pixels to render the detail captured

in a fine-grained, high resolution piece of 35mm film. 1600x1200

is around 1.9 megapixels. I would think a 2.1 MP or 3.3 MP digital

camera would be the ideal tool if your goal is viewing images on a 1600x1200

monitor.

PS You don't need medium format if the goal is to view on a 1600x1200

computer screen. 35mm has more quality than you need for this, so

why give up the convenience? For that matter, an inexpensive

digital camera will work fine.

The area difference is irrelevant to the discussion. What is

relevant is the aspect ratio of your final images and whether or

not you plan to crop. Many small format users make the mistake of

trying to apply everything they know about 35mm photography to

medium format. In fact, once you have a larger negative, you have

the freedom to crop while still maintaining a quality image, whereas

in small format the mentality is usually to fine tune the composition

in the viewfinder so that the slide or negative might be printed

full frame. Of course, even 35mm is cropped to produce 4:5 prints.

<p>

The 6x8 format will only provide slightly better image quality in

situations where you would be cropping 6x7 in a manner that reduces

the vertical dimension (ie cropping along the long side to reduce the

length of the short side). If you don't plan to crop like this,

there is no quality advantage to 6x8.

<p>

For me, the biggest and only important advantage of 6x7 over 6x8

would be that I could plan to do 4:5 aspect ratio images full frame

and still have some cropping freedom with the 6x8 images. Don't

underestimate the advantage of fine-tuning the composition after

the fact when you have plenty of time to look at the image in the

comfort of your work space.

<p>

The biggest disadvantage of 6x8 is that it won't fit in a 6x7 enlarger.

I think Beseler makes a 6x9 enlarger, but they aren't very common.

Thus, you'll probably be using a 4x5 enlarger for 6x8. This will

increase the fixed cost of equipment if you own your own darkroom,

or increase the variable cost of having a lab do the work since

some labs charge more for prints from materials that are too large

for a 6x7 enlarger, and some labs don't do them at all.

Mamiya press cameras are quite heavy, although if you go with a

press Deluxe or Super 23 and get a ground glass back you can use

rear movements to correct converging verticals for architectural

shots.

<p>

Mamiya C220F is a fair bit lighter weight than C330, even lighter

than a hasselblad once you outfit it with 2 or 3 lenses.

<p>

Mamiya Press nad Pentax 67 are both excellent cameras, but they are

so heavy that neither one is very high on my list of cameras with which

to travel.

I think Bronica makes a 35mm panorama back for the ETRSi and

maybe their SLRs in other formats also. these would allow

interchanging mid-roll, unlike Mamiya 7.

<p>

of course, you don't need to use 35mm film but can crop roll film

to the same size. Thus, a camera like the Fuji GSW-690III or GW-690III

would enable to you print some shots full frame for 2:3 aspect

ratio or crop to 3x9 for 1:3 aspect ratio, or 4.5x9 for 1:2

aspect ratio. Since it is by cropping, you don't need to change film

mid-roll to change print format.