joseph_albert

I assume by the "50's look" Christopher means the look of Kodachrome II.

<p>

Overexposing negatives by around 4 stops will just lose highlight

detail asn the densities of highlights in which there was some

variation and thus detail in the image are now rendered as a

homogeneous tone.

<p>

I wouldn't know how close one could get to the Kodachrome II look

by leaving prints in the sun.

<i>Just review any landscape photography book to see what's being used</i>.

<p>

OK, I grabbed the 3 books I own that have lots of landscape photography

off the shelf. In one, all the images used 35mm format Nikons (John Shaw's book). Another

has images all of which were taken either with 8x10, 4x5, or Hasselblad (Ansel Adams).

The third book as images from lots of different photographers. All of

the images are very effective. The equipment used is quite a range: 35mm (Nikon, EOS, Maxxum, Contax),

Pentax 645, Mamiya 645, Hasselblad, Pentax 67, Mamiya RB67, Fuji 6x9, 4x5.

<p>

I think getting a system one feels comfortable handling and carrying

the distance one will take it are what matters. don't forget to factor in

weight of tripod. Generally, I think 1 lens is a limitation, but if I could

only afford a 1-lens outfit, I'd just get a Fuji 6x7 or 6x9 rangefinder

and save $. Mamiya is offering some deals on the 645E presently (free 55mm or 150mm

lens with purchase of 645E with 80mm lens). A 3-lens outfit is

about $1800 new. the original poster might not even need anything

different, but when more funds are available, the body could be upgraded

to one that interchanged backs.

I've not used the Arc-body to take any pictures, but I have handled

one long enough to form some preliminary impressions, which were

that it is very expensive, and perspective control movements are

fairly limited. The same goes for the Flexbody, although it was

more impressive to me overall-- that it uses regular hasselblad

lenses and backs is an advantage since you have a wide array of

lenses available (if you can afford them), and can use the SLR bodies

also. The arc-body does use hasselblad backs.

<p>

I doubt these Rodenstock lenses for the arc-body have 4x5 covering power.

Rodenstock makes a lens line for 6x9 medium format also. this lens

line is used by Linhof for their 6x9 medium format field cameras,

and mount in the large format style with lens boards, so I imagine

they would also work well on 6x9 view cameras such as the Arca-Swiss

or other 6x9 monorails. I would almost bet dollars to donuts

that these 3 Rodenstock lenses for the arc-body are the 35mm, 45mm,

and 75mm lenses from the rodenstock lens line designed for 6x9,

but I suppose it is possible that Rodenstock designed some special

lenses for the arc-body.

<p>

To compare focal lengths between different formats you have to decide

on an aspect ratio for your image. The arc-body uses hasselblad

backs, which, when loaded with film, can capture a 56mm x 56mm

image. If you wish to produce square images/prints, then the largest

square you can use for 35mm is 24mm x 24mm. By properties of similar

triangles, you'd then need to multiply a 6x6 focal length by 24/56

or 3/7, to get the equipvalent 35mm focal length. But you probably

don't want square images. If you want images in 4:5 aspect ratio,

then 24x30 is the largest such rectangle that can be inscribed in

a 35mm format piece of film, and (rounding off to whole numbers)

44x55 is the largest such rectangle that can be fit in a 6x6 format

piece of film. In this case, the multiplier to convert a focal length

for 6x6 to 35mm is 24/44, or 6/11. In the cases of 35mm, 45mm, and

75mm, you would get (rounding off to whole numbers) 20mm, 25mm, and

41mm respectively. If you want images in 2:3 aspect ratio, then

the multiplier is 36/56, or 9/14. In this latter case I've used

ratios of long dimension instead of short dimension to avoid ending

up with a fraction when taking 2/3 of 56 to get the short dimension of

a 2:3 rectangle that embeds in 6x6.

<p>

If you are serious about the money involved in buying into the

arc-body system, you might as well just get a Linhof 6x9 field camera.

You get rear tilt and swing, and I think the front movements are just

rise/fall/shift, but I may be wrong. You also get a rangefinder for

focusingand framing when shooting handheld, and Rodenstock lenses

will fit.

<p>

If you want to get a roughly similar camera on the cheap, a Mamiya Press

camera with movements is only several hundred $US. You get rear tilt and swings,

a 6x9 camera that works as either a rangefinder or field camera with

ground glass focusing. The only significant downside as far as movements

are concerned is that only the 90mm and 100mm lenses have retractable

mounts that are needed to maintain infinity focus when tilt/swing is

used on this camera.

<p>

Hope that helps.

No. if you re-read it, you'll see he said that the longer focal

length needed by medium format reduces DOF, and then the larger

magnification needed reduces it even more. This is false. If you

are shooting a macro shot at some magnification M then the f-stop

chosen and M determine DOF. The longer focal length lenses will

make out-of-focus backgrounds look closer than they really are,

which can make the resulting image look like it has less DOF,

a property that tends to seduce their users into the expectation

that DOF should be thinner. I've made that same mistake in the

past, so I know it is easy to do. But it is wrong. It is

the increased magnification that leads to thinner DOF. To achieve

the increased magnification without changing the composition, you'll

need a longer focal length.

<i> You're right about the DOF "double whammy", but i think you did not

read Mel's reply careful enough. There it says: "using the higher

mags required to fill the larger film frame will further decrease

DOF for a given aperture".

</i>

<p>It is the increased magnification,

and nothing else that leads to decreased DOF at a given f-stop when

moving to a larger format. Thus, it is wrong to say the increase in magnification "further decreases" DOF, since

it won't be decreased at all except from the increased magnification.

Historically, Robert White marketed to the UK market. It is only

more recently this dealer started to have an int'l presence when

the gap in pricing between US importers and UK importers got

so wide. This gap is so huge that the potential for int'l customers

became quite large, and the internet made it possible for such

a business segment to work, that Robert White began to pursue this

business. To do this, it makes no sense for him to include VAT

in the prices.

<p>

Bob, do Rollei dealers in the US include sales tax in the quoted price

in the vast majority of states that have sales tax????

<p>

Didn't think so.

Bob,

<p>

robert white does not charge less for int'l sales then for sales

made inside the UK, which are fully supported by the official Rollei

importer of the UK. all the costs you discuss for doing business

in the US are legitimate, but I don't see it any different in the UK.

robert white's prices are significantly less than B&H's for many medium format cameras, which is the

fair comparison in terms of level of service. both B&H and robert white

have a similar cost of doing business, but Robert White doesn't

have to pay prices inflated by the US distributor. local camera

shops in the UK, I am talking about full-service shops, also charge

a fair bit less than full-service shops in the US.

<p>

I remember when, about 8 years ago, the dollar took a big nosedive,

dropping to about 90 $/yen. Official US camera importers used this

to justify large increases in camera prices in the US, which is reasonable,

given the equipment is not made here. But when the $ recovered all

of that ground and a fair bit more, the prices never came back down.

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of the camera wholesale busines,

but I have a well-founded inkling that it is the distributors who

are making that windfall on the resurgence of the dollar without the

corresponding lowering of the prices from those set when the dollar was

quite low.

Mel,

<p>

It is false that DOF takes a double whammy, once from a longer focal

length, and again from larger magnification. in macro situations,

DOF is determined by aperture and magnification, and that's it.

A 200mm lens at 1:1 and f/16 has the same DOF as a 100mm lens at

1:1 and f/16 or a 50mm lens at 1:1 and f/16, as an example.

<p>

with medium format you lose DOF if you keep composition constant,

since the magnification is higher, and that's it. going from 35mm

to 6x7, you lose just over 2 stops worth of DOF, ie you will need

to stop down just over 2 stops more to maintain DOF.

<p>

I have used a Mamiya Press with 6x9 and 6x7 backs for macro work

with the 150/5.6 lens chrome Tessar-type lens Mamiya made for it.

I used a Mamiya Press Deluxe, which has back extension where each

corner extends independently of the other corners. this enables

the photographer to get a modicum of tilt and swing movements. Mamiya

copied took this idea from some of hte Linhof field cameras, which

have a similar back extension mechanism. The Press Deluxe has enough

tilt to get about 2 stops worth of DOF in landscape and macro situations,

that is, you will generally be able to stop down 2 stops less and

use tilt to get adequate DOF in the subject material.

<p>

But you know, it was still fairly clumsy to work in the field. The

magnifications were high enough that light loss to bellows factor

was fairly significant, making the image too dark to focus easily. Working distance was generally pathetically small, too small for living things, and shutter speeds were always too slow to freeze movements of flowers from air movements unless tilt was used, when it was ok sometimes. I think

It would work pretty well in a studio shooting tabletop, but you might

as well use 4x5 if you are going to be focusing on a ground glass with

a dark cloth in a studio.

<p>

the Fuji 680 cameras have front tilt, and the Rollei SL66 has some

limited front tilt at close focus (ie it would work ok for macro work,

but probably only slightly helpful for landscapes). The SL66 would

be manageable in the field, but the Fuji 680 SLRs are 9 lb behemoths,

not counting lenses or prism finder.

<p>

Although I might in the future do some macro work in larger formats, I generally stick

to 35mm for macro work in the field. The advantages are numerous

and substantial and 35mm macro lenses are some of the sharpest

photographic lenses made, so if you use really fine-grained films

and tripods and good technique, the quality can be excellent, with

grain by the limiting factor in enlargeability. I am satisfied with

11x14's made from 35mm pieces of Velvia or Provia 100F. Although

645 or 6x6 would be more convenient for macro work, I'd probably

go with the larger negative if doing it in medium format, and keep

your 35mm equipment for when you want convenience.

Bob,

<p>

While you are busy pointing out the perils of purchasing grey market

Rollei equipment, perhaps you can explain the justification for your

firm charging grossly inflated prices by Int'l standards for the equipment

you distributed up until 7/1/98? The cost of doing business in the UK is comparable

to that in the US, so I've never understood why, for example, Mamiya

America chooses to jack up their prices and constantly offer rebates

of other equipment that the buyer may or may not need. All the US

medium format distributors, except maybe Pentax participate in such price-inflated strategies.

<p>

And what about the poor folks who unwittingly purchased a camera while

travelling abroad after the camera they took with them bit the dust.

I take it you think they should not be entitled to service after they

return home?

Your best bet is to send it to Mamiya America (or the mamiya importer for your country if you are not in the US) and have them to a complete overhaul. It wwill only cost a little more than a repair to the frame counter/winding mechanism, and they'll replace any worn parts.

<p>

With a production cycle of nearly 50 years, I don't think you can make a case that Mamiya dropped the TLR product line because it was unreliable. In fact, these were workhorse cameras. Mamiya dropped the line because the tooling used in their manufacture had worn out, and they weren't inclined to pay the fixed cost of re-tooling for

production of the camera.

There are lots of E-6

and lots of C-41 films. For a given application, you'll weed out

90% of them as inappropriate. For instance, I don't think you'll

consider Velvia or Ultra for wedding formals, unless it's a

wedding of extra-terrestrials.

<p>

Why not just consider both C-41 and E-6 and for a given application

choose the film that works best for the application, be it E6 or C41?

<p>

I don't think the need to remove the orange mask is a good reason to

discard using a C-41 film.

<p>

My own decision procedure is that I will shoot a slide film unless

there is a compelling reason to use a negative film (and it is not an infrequent occurrence), and this is because

the slide can serve as its own proof. When slides are printed, I

still would adjust the color balance if necessary though, so this

is hardly a step that gets skipped because the image was capture on

a transparency.

I found it interesting that the original poster had already made his

mind up about getting a hasselblad before even shootinga single roll

of 120 film.

<p>

Some people really like square format, and some people feel strongly

that one of hte so-called ideal formats, 645 or 6x7, that are in

4:5 proportion are to be preferred, but it is the minority of photographers

who are neutral on this issue.

<p>

It makes absolutely no sense at all to commit serious funds to a

medium format system before one has any experience with the format.

<p>

Final point, since someone above commented about 6x7 being "much larger"

than a 645 crop of 6x6. This is true in terms of area, but it is

the ratio of linear dimensions that are in proportion to the ratios

of degree of enlargement needed for a fixed size print. If you

enlarge a 6x7 negative full frame to make a print that is 4x larger

than the negative, you'll have to enlarge a 645 cropping of 6x6

5x larger to make the same size print, ie just 25% more.

<p>

<i>

I have read comments that old filters suffer deterioration (was

that you, Roger? :-) I haven't experienced any such degradation,

myself, however.

</i>

<p>Over time, defects to the inner and outer surfaces of the filter,

even ones that might require a loupe to see, gradually degrade performance,

especially contrast and flare control. Because it is a gradual degradation,

it isn't something you notice unless you compare a new one side-by-side.

<p>

when I had a Rolleiflex, I never did find a polarizer for it for

less than $100, new or used. And I several times found I needed

something for a trip or shoot and had to buy it new as there wasn't

time to look for a clean used one. When the filter set was complete,

I had $250 invested in 5 filters. Of course, for a Rolleiflex 2.8E,

that wasn't totally prohibitive, but if you set out to spend $125 on

a cheap TLR, you probably aren't doing it because you are drooling

over the prospect of sinking double that into filters for it.

<p>

Allan,

<p>

if you half the 6x7 focal length, you'll get a rough approximation,

but not an accurate comparison. Many people make the mistake of

using the ratio of the diagonals of the formats as the ratio. If

you use this ratio, you'll find the focal lengths with equivalent

angle of view. But to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you need

to decide on an aspect ratio of the image.

<p>

Since the most common aspect ratio for making prints is 4:5,

I chose that for the calculations. If you make square prints, or

2:3 aspect ratio prints, you'll get different equivalences.

<p>

For 4:5, the largest usable rectangle in a 35mm frame is 24x30,

that is, 24x30 is the largest 4:5 aspect ratio rectangle that can

be fit inside (inscribed in is the technical geometric term) a 35mm frame.

6x7 is typically 56x68 and so I used 56mm as the length of the side,

but in fact, I should have used 54mm as 54x68 is the largest 4:5

aspect ratio rectangle. Thus the ratio is 54/24 = 9/4. A 43mm

lens for 6x7 thus can make the same 4:5 aspect ratio image as a

19mm lens for 35mm format (43 * 4/9 = 19.11111). Your 45mm lens

for a Pentax 67 is equivalent to a 20mm lens (45 * 4/9 = 20).

<p>

Perhaps you aren't used to looking at a 35mm viewfinder image with

the outer 3mm on each side ignored to get the same view? That's

the part that is cropped away when printing 4:5.

In some cases, the optical formulae may have been updated, but that

doesn't mean the C lenses are bad. The situation is akin to Nikon

AI vs. AIS lenses-- the AIS ones are the latest (manual focus) designs, but that

doesn't mean the AI ones are bad. The C lenses have a cooler

color balance, and some (all?) of them are single-coated,

whereas the N lenses are multicoated. I don't think the wide angles

were updated other than coating, but I think the 80/2.8 was re-designed.

The N version of the 210/4 was discontinued early in its production

cycle, so that most 210mm lenses on the used market are the C variant.

<p>

Currently, Mamiya America has a promotion that if you buy the 645E kit

(645E, 80/2.8N, 120 insert), which sells for $1200 at the mail-order outfits,

you get a free 150/3.5N from Mamiya as a rebate. But some people

are likely to prefer the 645-1000s since it can accommodate things

like right-angle finders, interchangeable finders, and is a little more robust.

<p>

I used to own a 645-1000s. It was a great camera. The most common thing

to break on them is the frame counter, so check that carefully on a used one.

I just wish Mamiya would follow Pentaxes lead and put a tripod mount on the side

as well as the bottom so the tripod head doesn't have to be rotated for

verticals. Trying to shoot a vertical with the 210mm and 645

hanging over the side of a tripod requires a heavier tripod than

shooting a horizontal with the 80mm lens attached. It would have been

a great addition to the 645E since this is a light weight body that

would be attractive for landscape or travel. There are brackets that

rotate the camera while staying over the center of gravity of the tripod,

and these work well I'd imagine, but they also add about 500gm to the outfit weight.

If I could only have one format, it would be 35mm and I'd just have

to live with the limitations on enlargeability. Medium format isn't

better than 35mm, it's just bigger. It means you can enlarge your

slide or negative more while maintaining smoe arbitrarily chosen

standard of print quality.

<p>

35mm will always be superior for some applications-- you can get

longer telephotos and/or use them more conveniently; the equipment

is smaller and lighter to carry and pack; shutter speeds are faster,

which may be important in some applications (sports, action, wildlife, nighttime work handheld for instance).

I also feel that 35mm is superior for macro work in the field since

you don't have to work at as large a mangification level for a given composition. Hence I

use 35mm for macro work, nighttime street photography, and when I want

a lightweight package. Even when I travel with medium format, I take

a Konica rangefinder with me for nighttime work shot in 35mm.

<p>

That said, I do about 2/3 of what I do in medium format. Half of that

work would likely have best been shot in 4x5.

Take a full length pic of a bride in white dress and reflective

metering like TTL flash AE or a flash with auto-thyristor will

set the exposure to render it closer to middle grey if the white dress

dominates the subject area. This would especially be a problem if

slide film were used, but few wedding shooters use that. Even with

negatives, underexposure latitude is thin, so exposure compensation

would really be called for. Manual flash is more akin to incident

metering in that you don't have to worry about the reflectance of

the subject.

<p>

Each type of flash calculation has a place, and ultimately, it's

the technique of who's behind the camera that matters.

Alex,

<p>

If you plan to make images in 4:5 aspect ratio as your final goal,

then the following equivalences of focal length between 6x7 and 35mm

apply:

<p>

43mm .. 18mm<br>

50mm .. 21mm<br>

65mm .. 28mm<br>

80mm .. 35mm<br>

150mm . 65mm<p>

I've rounded off the focal lengths for 35mm (which obviously appear

in the right column) so that they would correspond to lengths for

which actual 35mm optics exist.

<p>

You might prefer a Mamiya 6 if you want some semblance of capability

for telephoto work, as 150mm for 6x6 is roughly like 85mm for 35mm format.

I would only get the 65mm lens in lieu of the 80mm lens if you

only have 2 lenses, whence the 65mm and 150mm would be a nice pair.

But if you are going to get a wider lens, either the 43 or 50, then

the 80mm lens would fit better between that and the 150mm lens.

<p>

Thus, it seems there are two decisions: get a 2-lens system or 3-lens system,

and if the latter, you need to decide between the 50mm and 43mm lenses.

<p>

For my own taste, neither Mamiya rangefinder system has enough telephoto

reach for urban/travel photography. Perhaps I'm a little shy with

some subjects, but if I travel with medium format, it's a C220F with

55mm, 80mm, and 180mm lenses. I could live with a mamiya 6 with

150mm lens if that lens focused close enough for a headshot, but

it doesn't (nor does the 150mm lens for a M7). I've also travelled with Rollei TLRs. Don't underestimate

the benefit of ground glass focusing with a waist-level finder when

you want to be unobtrusive. A waist-level finder also means you

can get away with a shorter (and thus lighter) tripod.

Do Seagulls have enough consistency from sample to sample to draw

any conclusions from the testing of one sample? I don't know the answer

to this, but I wouldn't assume a priori that they do, given the price.

<p>

In the past, I would have recommended a Minolta Autocord or Rolleicord

as the ideal starter camera for medium format, and I still think those

are fine choices. However, because of the bayonet mount filters and

shades, you can end up spending as much on filters as for the entire

camera just to acquire a minimal collection. Polarizers in particular

are usually well over $100 new, and even an 81B or colored filter for B&W

will be around $40 new IIRC.

<p>

As a result, I think the best starter camera for medium format is a

lower end Mamiya TLR. A C220 and 80/2.8 (black) can be found for

around $200 +/-. You can always sell it when you are ready to take

the plunge and go "deep pocket" into a current system, as the original

poster described it. Or, you may like the TLR design and just get

more lenses for the Mamiya one at considerable savings compared to a new SLR outfit.

The lenses take common and comparatively inexpensive

46mm and 49mm filters (at least the black lenses do). The C220 and C220F

are the lightest weight models.

Superia 100 would not be a bad choice for use on overcast days

where the contrast would punch up the image some.

<p>

If you like more tonal range in a C-41 film, and want a fine-grained,

sharp film with nice color saturation, I think the best three are

Konica Impresa 50, Agfa Optima II 100, Fuji Superia-Reala 100.

<p>

I do like Superia 800 for night scenes shot handheld, though I don't

think it is available in 120. NHG-II 800 is though and is a better general purpose

film in any case.

In terms of resolution, it really doesn't matter whether you use

tubes, teleconvertors, or closeup adapter lenses to get closers since

in macro situations you are going to be stopped down to an aperture

where the combined optical system of these parts hooked together

is diffraction-limited anyway.

<p>

the biggest advantage of auxilliary closeup lenses is that they don't

exhibit the effective light loss inherent in tubes or teleconvertors.

Up really close it is, in fact, often easier to focus by moving the

camera rather than by adjusting a helicoid. Just use the extension

tube you already have, and get a Bogen Micrometric Focusing Plate

to focus. Note only can you fine-tune the focus more effectively

this way, but when you focus by adjusting the lens extension, you

also change the composition at these closeup positions. It is easier

to set the composition/magnification first, then focus by moving

the camera. A standard focusing rail would also work fine, although

I think the Bogen focusing plate is superior for most cameras, and even moreso

for 6x6. You can read more about it

<a href = "http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Zuq">here.</a>

<i>Where is the spot meter?)<p></i>

In your hand, where it belongs.

<i>

Just to set the record straight: focusing (using a rangefinder or a

screen) has nothing to do with format. In the case of a

rangefinder, a 135mm lens is as difficult (or easy) to focus

regardless of the film dimensions.

</i><p>

Nobody said otherwise. However, a larger format means you need a

longer focal length to hold composition fixed, and the longer focal

length requires a longer rangefinder base. Thus, to achieve the

same composition as using a 50mm lens for 35mm format you'd need

roughly 115mm in 6x9, and it is precisely because of your observation

that 115mm is as hard to focus for 6x9 as for 35mm that we can see

it remains harder to focus for 6x9, ie going from 50mm to 115mm demands

a longer rangefinder base regardless of format, so the fact that the

format is now 6x9 with 115mm doesn't help.

Weights of popular medium format camera systems can be found

in

<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00178s">this thread.</a>

<p>

Note the reference to the Bronica RF 135mm lens is a bit moot since

that lens is not going to be marketed.