frank_sheeeran

Ooooh, I hit a nerve 8-) <p>

This generated so much mail I'll just clarify once here. <p>

Say "Mommy Yacht" without stress (or the "cht") and you've got it...

Hi Cats, <p>

If you happen to care, Mamiya's name is slaughtered by most English

speakers, at least here in the midwest. Japanese has a pitch

accent (which foreigners might as well forget about) but no stress

accent. So, go ahead and give those syllables as close to equal

stress as possible. Or, keep talking like a Kansan and keep

saying maMEEEya 8-) <p>

Since the vowels are the same as Italian, its "sounds right" to

Western ears to go ahead and use the standard heavy second-to-last

Italian stress accent, so it's an obvious pitfall. <p>

BTW, yes, the 35mm firm is knee-cone. Even if you say it 1000 times

it probably won't sound right though 8-) <p>

Just a trivia fun fact... Frank

Hi Cats, <p>

I assume the barcode stuff is basically DX-style encoding? Why

the heck don't they just say so? Fuji, as a

maker of both film and MF cameras is in a position to release

technology like this unilaterally. <p>

Are they licencing (or making it an open standard) so we can get

barcode backs for other cameras? I've only heard about it on the

GX-680, and Fuji films. I've experimented around but ended up

shooting my normal films as rated...<p>

Of course, what I *really* want is MF film in APS cartridges. I

wonder how many of the system cameras could take new backs for

new film canisters. (All of 'em, probably 8-) <p>

Frank

Hi Dan, <p>

You math is not quite correct. In terms of <em>square</em> millimeters, a

6x6 image is about 3.6 times bigger. Resolving power is in terms of

<em>linear</em> millimeters. It is also often stated in terms of line

<em>pairs</em> per millimeter.<p>

Also, lp/mm is measured on film. To another responder that hinted it was on

the subject plane: consider you take a picture of the moon, something like

15,000km across, and of a soccerball 3 meters away, the same angular

diameter. I don't think you think the lens provides millions of times higher

resolution for the moon! <p>

Since the 6x6 and 35mm frames are wildly different shapes, to take the same

photo you have to crop one or the other by 33% or so. But ignoring that, you'd

want to say sqrt(3.6) * 50mm (MF) = sharpness comperable to 95 lp/mm (on

35mm). <p>

To take ratio into account: if you want a 3:2 ratio print, you'd crop the square MF

to 37x56. If the MF lens was 50lp/mm, the 35mm lens would have to be

75lp/mm to render as sharply. If you want a square print, the 35mm lens would

have to be 50 * 56 / 24 = 117 lp/mm. <p>

However, for equal weight, complexity, cost, etc., lenses on different formats

will have about equal resolution accross the target. It that target is 8x10", the

lens will have much lower lp/mm resolution; if the target is APS, it could be

much higher. Or more to the point, expect a 50mm/35mm format lens to be

1.5-2x sharper than a comperable MF lens: in other words, if the standard

MF lens was 50 lp/mm, expect the standard 35mm lens to be 95 lp/mm. <p>

So why shoot with MF? Why not always APS? Three great reasons: <ul>

<li> More film. As pointed out, enlarging a 35mm, MF, and LF transparency of

the same scene will give the <em>same</em> sharpness more or less, but

the grain of the 35mm will be hideous while the LF is still butter-smooth. <p>

<li> More lens. a $100 50mm/1.8 would be vaguely as sharp as a MF's

$100 80mm/2. But if you spend $3000 on a Schneider 80/2, you can expect

some of that money went into better quality control or optical engineering and

will in fact render more lp/image than any 35mm lens. <p>

<li> More personal camera. The MF to suit you is probably already being

made. Only about 2-3 kinds of 35mm cameras, and they may not suit you.

If you want the benefits of a TLR design, or a Fuji 680, MF is your only option.

<p> </ul>

Last note: no lens has a simple resolution figure like this. Any lens in the world

will give 100% contrast (you hope) given a target yielding .05 lp/mm on the film,

and will give no scientifically detectable contrast for targets yielding 10000

lp/mm. Each lens, from a kids magnifying glass to the Hubble telescope, will

yield some kind of curve going from that 100% to 0% as lp/mm increases.

However, the curves aren't smooth, and vary incredibly from center to corner

of a lens. So, don't forget that this entire discussion is <em>very</em> "in

theory."

Frank

I've saved about 30% over B&H prices by shopping in Japan

(http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/camera/jshop.html) for EOS

stuff, but I've never looked at European cameras there. <p>

Any idea if Sweden would have the best prices on Hasselboxes?

In Japan you can get avoid sales tax by showing passport and

return ticket. Maybe there's a similar way to avoid taxes

in Sweden (which I assume would be fairly high)?

Frank Sheeran

Hi Paul, <p>

I hope you've read Phil's Rollei review at http://www.photo.net/photo :

"Is any camera system worth $20K?" <p>

And my decision of MF equipment (though I haven't gotten one yet) is

the Fuji GX-680. If you crop your 6x6 a bit, you've suddenly got

a bit more than half the 6x8. The 680's back rotates quickly

giving instant portrait/landscape shots. It is automated enough via

full electronics that it keeps you from doing many stupid things

(In otherwords, its like a big Rollei.) <p>

More importantly, though: After using your TK, how the HECK do you

think you can take a serious picture without tilt and shift? The

680 has about 15mm rise (not massive, but) and all the tilt you'd

want. <p>

And if you want something lighter than this beast, without tilt and

shift, why not go for Mamiya 7 or Fuji 6x9s? Ideally I'd have both

6x9s for wide angle, and normal to tele on the 680. (Partly because

wide angle optics on RF are better than on SLRs.) <p>

Lastly, the 680 is more economical: camera, 2 backs, 3 lenses, finder,

etc. for USD 10K. This is a comparative steal - and I doubt you are

getting poorer quality here. (Anyone hear complaints aobut the 680,

besides weight?) <p>

Frank Sheeran

Is there any way to project 6x8 transparencies? <p>

And more importantly, is there a better loupe suggestion than using

a Schneider 6x6? <p>

(Yes, still figuring out whether I deserve a GX-680...) <p>

Frank

1) WJM, I wonder why you didn't bother following up to the existing

thread on this topic, from Nick:

http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0003cw

With a title like "The 'Subject' line in mail messages" it could

have caught your attention 8-) Of course since your thesis is

that the current system sucks, I'm not suprised you can't be

bothered to use its threading features. <p>

2) Any time non-computer professionals have an e-mail-based list,

the S/N ratio drops massively, thanks to huge quotes and huge sigs.

The fact that this system threads for us and doesn't promote quotes

and sigs makes it READABLE. The EOS mailing list I met WJM on

was so clogged with crap I couldn't make time for it. <p>

3) What is taking you 10 minutes, anyway? In fact, I always have

netscape and ppp running on my Linux box; I can get web pages

immediately but actually have to log in to get mail! <p>

4) How about some constructive comments about the current system?

Would you like the option of selecting your own prefix (MFD or

whatever) for incoming mail? Do you want a mail address to post

to (so you can bury us in your huge sig and quoting)? These

features could be added fairly easily I'm sure. If not by Phil

then by me, for instance. My personal peeve is that it needs a

flat-text<->html converter, allowing either input to read well on

both mail and the web.<p>

5) And lastly, if you can't read mail fast enough to avoid it clogging

your inbox, try the digest version. Filter on sender to put it in

a folder, or just count on 1 mail a day or a week. Trivial. <p>

Hi Fritz, <p>

I wrote up a tutorial of macro photography, that has the clearest

chart I know of showing all of the close-up pros and cons. It uses

Canon EOS as examples, but you'll have no problem with it at

<a href="http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/photo">

http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/photo</a>. <p>

On SLR cameras, whether 35mm or MF, the sharpest, "cheapest"

(considering their power) lenses are the range of normal to about

3x normal focal length. Wide-angles, zooms, super-telephotos, etc.,

all will be poor in comparison. I'd expect that you'd get better

images with a 35mm prime short tele than an MF normal+TC, especially

if you shoot with superlow grain film like Velvia (where the lens

resolution, not the film grain, is the bottleneck to huge

enlargements). <p>

Frank

Hi John, <p>

I have the same interest, and I have decided on one of two cameras:

the Fuji GX-680, and the Linhof M679. <p>

The Fuji is basically an 8cmx8cm SLR, cube-shaped like a Rollei or

Hasselblad on steroids. It has rotating 6x8 backs for roll film,

that autowind and take the ISO setting and count exposures. It also

takes sheet-film and polaroid 8x8. It has bellows with alot of tilt

and limited rise/fall/shift (1.5cm). Fuji has about 14 lenses from

50-300mm, and it can use lens mounted on a linhof board (the

standard). The viewfinder masks to match the back (hor. or vert 6x8

or square 8x8). A system with 2 backs and 3 lenses may run about 10k.

<p>

The Linhof M679 is not an SLR, it is a modern bellows camera that

makes other belows systems look practically antique. It will take

practically any back from any MF system, as well as having its own

new backs, and will take most lenses/lens boards for MF and LF

systems. There are no electronics or mechanical automation. You

do everything manually. The M679 is only sold in Europe (until

now) but it shouldn't be a problem to import one yourself. <p>

The working speed of the automated Fuji SLR has really convinced me

that it is the right camera. maybe only a minute or so from pack to

composition to bracketted exposure. And I expect its lenses from

standard to tele to be excellent. (A Fuji 690 rangefinder will

probably be sharper for wide-angles, lack of mirror allows better

lens design.) <p>

The Linhof looks very cool, but given the amount of time it would

probably take to operate I'd rather end up with a 4x5 image.

Have fun,

Frank Sheeran

I was able to try out a Mamiya 7. I liked the focusing and viewfinder

alot, but found the price a little steep. <p>

I think the Fuji 690 (on paper) sounds good - cheap, bigger image, and

cheap. <p>

If you have handled both cameras, can you comment on comparative

view/focusing, handling, apparent sturdiness, etc.? I'm sure both

deliver great images, but (besides price) to you have strong reason

to suspect the 7's lenses will outshine the 690? <p>

Especially interesting would be tails of envy: any 690 owners dying

to trade to a 7? Any 7 owners kicking themselves for not settling

for a 690? <p>

One last question: in the 35mm SLR world, quality drops dramatically

once focal length falls below about standard size (leaving room for

the mirror compromises lens design). I'm still hoping to get a Fuji

GX-680 (MF SLR) in the next year, but also expecting that an MF RF

will get better wide-angle pictures -- so I'm thinking that a 690 RF

would be preferable to a wide-angle 680 lens. Am I naive in trying

to apply 35mm experience to MF in this way? <p>

Thanks alot, <p>

Frank

Hi Kent, <p>

Check out my <a href=

"http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/camera">"shift lens tutorial"</a>. <p>

Feedback tells me its one of the clearest explanations of <em>exactly</em> what a shift lens will do for you in real-world terms: with a given film format, focal length, and shift amount, how

far do you need to get from a subject X meters tall, for instance. <a>

All the examples feature 35mm format generally and Canon TS-E

lenses specifically, but just substitute 6cm and 7cm (or exact sizes)

for the math and you are set. <p>

The critical number you need is the "maximum shift amount" for the

lens you are considering. Maybe you can get that from Pentax or someone else on the list. <p>

Have fun! <p>

Frank

Hi Chester, <p>

I think you have another option without buying anything. <p>

Simply place your subject off-center, in such a way that the reflection is not visible to the camera. You still keep the camera perfectly square to the subject, as it was before. Then, crop the resulting image to achieve the framing you originally wanted. <p>

(I'm assuming the elevator glass is flat, not drastically curved.) <p>

If you don't want to crop, you'd probably want to use a shift lens or a bellows camera... probably not options though 8-) <p>

Have fun, <p>

Frank <p>

<a href="http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/camera">Canon Articles</a>

Hi Andrew, Steve,

<p>

1) Thanks for your assitance!

<p>

2) Sorry that was so hard to read; I didn't realize I was to type HTML.

<p>

Weight: the GX-680 with 135mm is "only" about 2x heavier than my EOS-1N w/28-70L. I wouldn't mind carrying the 680 w/3 lenses. But,

I wouldn't be able to walk far if I ALSO had the 1N w/3-4 lenses...

<p>

SFX: I use shift on just about every shot with the 35mm TS lenses, and wish every lens I own was shift... hence the attraction to the 680. I

don't use tilt much, as it is "impossible" to focus with only a central split prism. It sure seems like this is what the 680 screen

with two focus aids is for; I assume the second can be top, side, or

bottom depending how the screen is inserted.

<p>

4x5: I realize these are lighter and (for small image circles) cheaper. But, the film/ground glass routines simply don't sound like

me. Once I lug gear to a good location, I'll burn through film (different exposures, focal lengths, framings, hor/vert) and for me this is always a race against light conditions. I definitely think

the 680 would work fast enough that I would get better shots than with a slow-working LF.

<p>

Other MF: If I were to accept a non-bellows system, I'd opt for the

Mamiya 7 over an MF SLR. The only appeal of the non-bellow MF SLRs would be 1)bigger apertures, 2)longer focal lengths, for which I'd settle for using my current EOS. I don't think the existence of a

single shift lens would make the sale for an SLR. OTOH, what is this

Hasselblad flex-body? Is it basically a smaller 680? I assume the

shift ability would be on the order of 10-15mm? If so, I'd just as soon crop 6x7. The 1.4x shifting TC sounds great, except I don't have

faith that it would render such high quality.

<p>

Rent: I live in Kansas most of the time, with trips to Tokyo fairly often. I've looked at the hardware there, but haven't negotiated an actual test-drive in Japan, yet. I will do that after I am sure that the 680 is one of 2-3 cameras I am really interested in.

<p>

Final Application: I'm building stock in several subjects. Until and unless I quit my day job, you'd have to call it "hobby."

<p>

Well, thanks again. Still interested in projector and loupes for 6x8.

<p>

Frank

<p>

<a href="http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/camera">Canon Articles</a>

I shoot landscapes and cityscapes with Canon 35mm tilt/shift lenses

and Velvia. I use extension tubes, etc., occasionally as well. <p>

Given the time I sink into this, I'd rather end up with an MF-sized

image. I'm considering getting a Fuji 680 and 80, 180, and 300mm

lenses (about 35, 70, and 135mm on a 35mm). <p>

My questions are many, but:

o I am tempted to try ordering complete docs for the entire system

to peruse before buying. Is this resonable/done?

o Any experience with this camera that turned anyone off?

o Any metering available? (With the SLR, I get incident light by

metering my hand, and don't own an accessory meter, one less gadget)

o how attractive is the 6x8 color slide format to stock photo buyers?

does it help stand out from a crowd of 35mm slides, and is it easier

to work with for them?

o is the handling of film phenomenonally easier than an LF camera?

(my main fear of LF)

o on test slides with the 35mm, it seemed like the lens sharpness was

more of a bottleneck to ultimate resolution than Velvia; are the

Fujinon's sharp enough to really use the extra film area? Or will

I get better grain than now, but with no better resolution?

o how attractive is the lens-board option for the 680? I assume this

lets me use any Schneider or Nikon LF lens I run across. Will these

be any sharper than the Fujinons? Will the bellows of the 680 allow

the full image circle of the super-wide LF lenses to be used? Since

there is probably no market for used Fuji 680 lenses, should I favor

buying board lenses more or less exclusively?

o what other systems should I be considering? I *think* I want

rectangular roll film with bellows. Isn't there a new Linhof that

looks more like a traditional bellows camera? Any 680 owner wish

they had the Linhof or vice versa?

o how heavy would a 680 body, belows, rail, and three lenses in a bag

be?

o is the waist-level strap they sell completely nuts, or can you

really use this camera as an 8cm Hasselblad, handheld?

o 6x8 loupes?

o 6x8 projectors?

o 6x8 -> Photo CD?

o what luck will I have getting prints made of poster size?

Cibas from RVP, etc.

o what films will I miss most if I switch to roll film?

o how many of you have an MF sitting at home, while you travel with

35mm and a tripod? What are the major regrets?

o how many of you have an MF sitting at home while you use an LF

system often? Should I really be considering a 4x5 system?

Thanks in advance for all your help. Obviously I'm floundering around

here...

Frank

http://speedcore.com/usr/fs/camera