randall cherry

I used 6x6 in the form of a TLR. I loved the TLR, but grew to dislike the 6x6 format. I usually ended up cropping out a lot

of the image, and thus did indeed waste a lot of that square negative.

 

Reluctantly, I switched to a different camera to get a 6x7 format. I love the 6x7 format! I ended up cropping less and

using more of the negative.

 

I feel that 6x7 is a huge improvement over 6x6.

<p>Hi All,<br /><br />I am thinking about switching from my Mamiya 7ii medium format film cameras to digital for landscape photography. In order to achieve high image quality with the digital system I'm considering the Sony A900 and the Zeiss lenses. I have some previous experience with Zeiss glass, and I think a good Zeiss lense can really add to image quality (assuming the camera/sensor is up to the task, which I think the high end Sony camera/sensors are).<br /><br />The Zeiss lense selection for the Sony Alpha cameras is a great feature of the Alpha cameras, but is very limited. My concern is that the range of Sony/Zeiss lenses won't be expanded anytime soon. Does anyone know if Sony plans to expand the Zeiss lense offerings for the Alpha mount cameras in the near future? (By "near future" I am thinking somewhere in the next year or three). I am especially interested in prime lenses and wide angle lenses.<br /><br />(Please note that I am not trying to suggest that the Sony G lenses are not good lenses. I've heard that some of the Sony G lenses are actually very good. Its just that I know Zeiss lenses tend to be <em>outstanding</em> lenses.)<br /><br />I am also considering the Canon 5DMKII, due to its large selection of high quality L lenses. But I am under the impression that the Canon L lenses, while generally very good, do not compare to the Zeiss equivalents.<br /><br />TIA.<br /><br />--Randall</p>

<p>About Kiron lenses:<br>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kiron-Klub/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Kiron-Klub/</a></p>

<p>Personally, I think viewfinders are way over rated. I never use the viewfinder on my Canon G10. Why squint through a little peep-hole when you can view the image with both eyes in a manner similar to viewing a print? <br />Olympus' bold decision to save weight and space by losing the viewfinder is brilliant.<br>

<br />JMHO.</p>

In terms of image quality, the Mamiya 7 system has the best glass. The Mamiya optical engineers really took advantage of the inherent optical benefits of the mirror-less rangefinder system of the Mamiya 7 to produce the best lenses, when judged purely by image quality. Each lense in this is system is spectacular. Plus, the lack of mirror vibration further improves the image quality.

 

For ease of use, however, the rangefinder system has more than one inherent short comming. The main short commings include: 1) hard to precisely focus; 2) hard to frame close-up; 3) limited long focal length capability.

 

For landscape photography, the short commings of a rangefinder system can be accommodated and the Mamiya 7 is the best medium format camera for landscape work. For in-studio portraits, the limitations of the rangefinder system outweigh the advantages of the high quality lenses and the user would become very frustrated with a Mamiya 7.

 

JMHO.

 

--randall<div></div>

the proverbial rule of thumb that "size does matter" is inescapable . . .

I shoot all my landscape images with a Mamiya 7II, and I love it.

 

However, since it is a rangefinder, it comes with all the rangefinder advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages have been mentioned above and include being hard to focus, hard to use ND filters, imprecise framing up close, minimal telephoto options, etc. The advantages including no mirror slap and a quieter shutter cycle.

 

One advantage of the rangefinder design that does not get mentioned often is that there is no mirror interposed between the rear element of the lens and the film plane. This allows for an inherently better lens design because the lens can sit closer to the film. And the Mamiya 7 series cameras take advantage of this feature to produce the best lenses in MF!!

 

By "best," I mean high resolution, good contrast, and minimal distortion (especially with the wide angle lenses). Consequently, the Mamiya 7 series cameras produce absolutely outstanding and stunning images.

 

If image quality is highly important to you, AND you can live with the disadvantages of the rangefinder design, then the Mamiya 7 series cameras are a great choice.

 

JMHO, FWIW, etc.

 

--randall<div></div>

I bought a new M7II and lens kit from David White in the U.K., and had it shipped to me here in the U.S. a few years ago. I saved a ton of $$.

 

Camera arrived with the rangefinder out of alignment. I sent it back to David White and got a new replacement kit with no problems. David White paid the shipping on the new camera, too. Absolutely no problems on the return experience, and it only took a few days.

 

Since most people don't live within driving distance of a suitable repair shop for the Mamiya M7 cameras, all repairs have to be done through the mail. What difference does it make (except for a slight difference in shipping fees) when you box the broken camera up and send to the repairer whether they are in the U.S. or the U.K., as long as the shop is relaible? I would say the only difference is that you write a U.K. address on the box rather than a U.S. address.

 

JMHO.

 

--Randall

Any room for a MF photographer?

 

--Randall

I am impressed and appreciative of Ilford's commitment to B&W film. Consequently, I will staunchly support Ilford by exclusively buying their products (unless they get crazy-stupid with their prices).

 

I just look at it as part of the implied "mutual survival agreement" between B&W film users and manufacturer.

 

--Randall<div></div>

Thanks for all the input, everyone! It seems that many people share my philosophy that it is better to learn one film well, than to be constantly changing to a different film. But, I see that others feel that it should be "the best film for the job." I guess as one's experience grows, both methods may come into play.

 

Since XP-2 is generally considered a good film, and since XP-2 scans well for my printing purposes, I'll be sticking with XP-2 for the foreseeable future.

Hi All,

 

I have been a confirmed XP-2 shooter for the last 1000 odd rolls. I shoot

with a deep yellow filter and a final ASA of 100 (in other words ASA 250

without the filter factor) doing mostly landscape images. I arrived at this

combination based on word-of-mouth and my own experimentation. A photo lab

does the development.

 

I like the results of XP-2. Good sharpness. Good contrast. Scans and prints

well. I get beautiful 16x20s from my 6x7 negative. The prints can have a

slight green cast (which I honestly can't see but others have commented on)

when my lab uses a color printing process, but I think this is more an error

of the lab than a fault of the film.

 

As some background; after spending the first part of my photo hobby being a

film testing junkie, I had decided that except for some subtle variations,

most films are pretty good. I felt that switching from film to film was a

waste of time because the majority of variation in film results was how one

used a particular film. To really get good results, you gotta work with a

film for a long time to learn how to maximize its performance. It's not that

one film is much much better than another, its that a user must really know

how to make a particular film sing. (I am not saying all films are the same,

I am just saying that user technique is a more important factor to good

results than the technical details of a particular film's design, etc. And I

also don't include the special purpose films such as Tech Pan, etc. in my

conclusion).

 

In other words, I am saying that a final result in a print is based 90% on

user technique (and methods, etc.), and 10% on film type choice. To get good

results, it is better to focus on the technique portion rather than the film

type portion.

 

Anyway, on my last photo trip to Colorado, I ran out of my trusty XP-2, and

the local pro lab did not have any in stock. I was forced to roll the dice

and try another B&W film without any research, testing, experimentation or

other pre-knowledge of how the film behaved. The great expanse of Rocky

Mountain National Park beckoned, and I was armed with an untried film.

 

I choose Delta 400. I continued to use the deep yellow filter (on the theory

that the spectral response of the film would be similar to XP-2. I exposed at

320 ASA (before applying the filter factor) because the counter people said

they always exposed it at ASA 400. Its been a long time since I have used a

silver-based B&W film. I bracketed judiciously, and dropped the film off at

my highly regarded photo lab.

 

I was pleasantly surprised with the results when I reviewed my negatives. In

fact, I think the Delta 400 had better tonal gradations in many of the scenes

than what I was used to seeing in the XP-2.

 

Do people feel that XP-2 or chromogenic film in general is good but "nothing

special." Is Delta 400 really significantly better than my trusty XP-2?

 

--Randall<div></div>

I love digital, especially for its quick turnaround potential and instant feedback. But in terms of dollar per imaging area per image quality, I believe film is still the best choice.

 

IMHO, FWIW, YMMV, chill out, blah blah, etc.

I use a Mamiya 7II and have been stopping down 2 more stops from the markings on the lens, but calculating my own depth-of-field table sounds intriguing.

 

What size circle-of-confusion is a good starting point assuming a 16x20 print from a 6x7 negative?

I have put thousands of rolls of B&W, slide and color negative film through my Mamiya 7II bodies doing landscapes, and rarely have an inaccurate exposure. It is true that the metering system is simple compared to a modern camera, and I do carry an external light meter, but I never use it because:

 

For me and my landscape shooting, any shot worth an external light meter is worth bracketing, and the on-camera metering system works perfectly well for such bracketing.

 

YMMV, etc.

 

--Randall

I love the longer film length, but even after 100's of rolls through my Mamiya 7II I still have trouble with fogging the edges of 220 film.

 

I tend to shoot mostly 120 just to avoid loosing images due to such fogging.

I have bought a total of 3 Mamiya 7II bodies:

 

#1 Was purchased used through ePrey, and arrived with no problems;

 

#2 Was purchased new from Robert White in the UK, and arrived with a misaligned rangefinder (the split image would not coincide at infinity in the vertical direction). Robert White quickly replaced it (and paid for shipping the new body), and checked alignment of the replacement body before shipping;

 

#3 Was also purchased new from Robert White, and arrived with no problems. Robert White happily checked rangefinder alignment before shipping.

 

#1 (with 50mm lens) and #2 (with 80mm lens) have traveled across the U.S. and to Europe, and bounced around in the back of a Jeep on dirt roads in the Utah desert with no misalignment problems developing. #3 has yet to see extensive use pending purchase of a 43mm lens.

 

BTW, the Mamiya 7II is a great camera!

 

--Randall<div></div>

Ross Yerkes is one of the reputable Kowa gurus. He's never repaired a Kowa for me, but he CLA'd one of my Rolleiflexs with great results.

 

Ross Yerkes Camera Repair, 342 Kirby Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042

Telephone (323)256-1018.

 

--Randall

Thanks for the links. It sounds promising.

 

I am looking foreward to seeing Red River's comparison with the Epson 4800.

 

--Randall

I want to upgrade my Epson R800 to a larger model, and I am eager to hear how

the new Canon 17" printer actually compares the Epson equivalent.

 

--Randall

Also, the Mamiya 7II will be of more recent vintage than the Mamiya 7.

 

A consideration that is so obvious that it might be overlooked, however, a consideration that may be important if (or perhaps "when"?) the venerable Mamiya rangefinder no longer receives factory support.

 

--Randall

The ease of digital does dramatically outweigh that of medium format film. However, the cost of the Canon EOS-1DS Mark II ($6,700 at B&H) also dramatically outweighs the cost of a good film body ($1400 for a Mamiya 7II at Robert White, for example).

 

Equal, if not better image quality for a fifth the costs - the choice is an easy one for this amature photog: film!

 

IMHO, YMMV, FWIW, blabla, get a life, etc.

 

--Randall

"I went thru and found the camera has a mixed set of taking and viewing lenses . . ."

 

Kelly, I buy Rolleiflexes on Ebay regularly, and I am interested in learning how one can tell when lenses have been swapped?

 

Thanks!

 

--Randall

True story:

 

Typically, I leave the lens cap off my camera when I am shooting and save the lens cap for storage only.

 

While out testing a newly acquired Mamiya 7II with 80mm lens, I walked under a tree and watched with horror out of the corner of my eye a bird-poop go ker-splat on my upward pointing lens. And it was big watery one, too.

 

Thank god I hadn't gotten around to removing the protection filter used by the previous owner of the camera/lens.

 

Until that day, I was a firm believer in relying on the hood for protection rather than a protection filter.

 

Even though it was a freak occurance, I was so disgusted that I am now completed invested in B&W MRC filters for each of my lenses.

 

FWIW, etc., blabla...

 

--Randall

I have the 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm, with the 50mm and 80mm mounted on their own dedicated bodies (for me, swapping lenses impedes the creative process). All three lenses are outstanding performers - I love the audible gasps when I show my big prints to my friends.

 

The 50mm gets the most use, followed closely by the 80mm. I almost always shoot the 50mm at f8 and f11, and have not had noticeably vignetting. I first tried using the 50mm without the external viewfinder, as some have suggested, but I found the framing too imprecise. I now use the external viewfinder with the 50mm, but find that there is still some imprecision with framing (although much better than w/o the external viewfinder), and thus try to leave a healthy margin of error around the frame.

 

I do use the 150mm which requires a little extra attention to focus, but not nearly to the extent that I use the 50mm or 80mm. That being said, I do consider the 150mm to be an essential component for a well rounded system. In other words, just because I don't need the 150mm as often doesn't mean I am willing to pass up the shot when I do need the 150's perspective or extra reach.

 

I find the 50mm to be a great focal length for the 6x7 format, but sometimes I would like a little more width. Consequently, I am currently on the hunt for the 43mm (and a body for it as well). Some say you need a center filter with the 43mm, others say you won't notice the vignetting in "real world" shots. With the help of e-prey, I'll try it both ways and decide for myself.

 

IMHO, YMMV, FWIW, blabla...

 

--Randall<div></div>