greg_lawhon

Stewart:

 

<p>

 

It would be interesting to give them a call and check on the current

status of that message. Earlier this year Robert White had a similar

statement with respect to Mamiya products, and the word at that time

was that Mamiya America Corporation had notified RW that it couldn't

ship Mamiya products to the USA. Interestingly, it seems that RW is

shipping Mamiya products to the USA again (based on numerous happy

purchasers posting on the Medium Format Digest). I don't know whether

the message still is found on the RW website with respect to Mamiya,

but it doesn't appear they are following that policy.

While I agree that the cost/quality equation of digital capture doesn't come close to traditional film-based MF imaging now, the more interesting current debate for me is this: can the print output from 35mm film, scanned on a high-end drum scanner, properly prepared, and printed on a Lightjet printer, rival the quality of MF in the 11x14 to 16x20 inch print size range?

 

I haven't yet done tests of my own, but I've read a lot of posts that suggest there is a one-format jump in final print quality from the process I just described. If I could get 16x20s from 35mm that look as good as the "analog" 16x20s I get from MF now, I'd be interested in the greater lens choices, flash capabilities, and speed of 35mm. I doubt I'd give up all my MF gear (especially because if this is true I could get even better or bigger prints from my MF transparencies too), but I'd probably use 35mm again for some things (something I haven't done for 10 years since I discovered the MF difference).

 

I guess I just need to have some prints made by one of Lightjet labs!

Jay:

 

Very close guess! CLA usually stands for "clean, lubricate and adjust" or "cleaning, lubrication and adjustment."

David:

 

<p>

 

That URL didn't work for me. This one did: www.foveon.net

Daniel:

 

The Linhof Technorama 612 is, as it sounds, a 6x12 panoramic format camera. It is a scale focusing ("guesstimation") camera with 3 available lenses: 58mm, 65mm and 135mm. The 612 with the 58mm lens goes for $8,299 from B&H, while the 65mm and 135mm lenses are $4,340 and $3,866 respectively. The viewfinders for each of the lenses are about an additional $1,200 apiece.

 

In short, the suggestion of using the Linhof 612 for wedding and portraiture work was rather flippant and useless (C'mon, Pall - Marcy asked for advice comparing the 75mm Pentax to the 45-85mm Pentax zoom, and she currently had the funds for one Pentax lens. Do you think she was going to spring for the Linhof, even if it was suitable for her wedding and portraiture work?).

 

Sorry, Marcy, but don't be discouraged. Most of the people here are better than that. You're on the right track with the P645N. I would echo the positive comments about the 45-85, and agree that it is the more versatile choice if you'll have only one lens for a while.

Raymond:

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I generally like dials better, but in this case it's easy to use the buttons and...more importantly -- I'm used to it. I do like the logic of setting program, aperture priority or shutter priority as I understand you do on a 645N. It sounds very intuitive and simple. I just like being able to make exposure changes quickly as I can with the 645's buttons. Someday I'll surely replace one of my 645 bodies with a 645N!

Douglas:

 

Thanks for starting the club! So many people have extolled the virtues of the new dial controls on the 645N that I've been too embarrassed to admit I like the buttons on my "old" 645s. I too would have expressed a vague preference for the big dials over small buttons - generally - but here those little buttons fall right under your index finger to the side of the shutter release. I can make shutter speed or aperture adjustments without taking the camera from my eye. Even on a tripod, it's so easy to tap the up or down button to make an adjustment that I think the dials would be a step back for me. The data imprinting feature is the most attractive new feature from my standpoint (probably because I have popped for leaf shutter lenses already and don't mind the 1/60 flash sync with the others).

Rick:

 

I don't know that Fuji or any other manufacturer could make a spring-loaded device that would add drag AFTER you close the back tht would help. I think the closed back and pressure plate add all the drag you need at that point to keep the roll tight. The point is that all is won or lost by the time the start mark of the film appears. You have to get those first few turns of the spool tight to get a tight roll.

 

I think you are being a little too tough on Fuji here. It's just not that big a deal. I use Pentax 645s, Rollei TLRs, and the Fuji 645Zi. Each has a different loading technique, but none of them is hard to load successfully. I just don't see a need for a manufacturing fix.

Rick:

 

Whoa, take it easy on Fuji. It's not their fault! This is a fact of life in any roll-film camera with a straight film path (you know, from spool to spool straight across the film gate, just like in a typical 35mm SLR). I've experienced the same phenomenon in a Pentax 67 and Mamiya 7, as well as the Fuji 670/690 series and the Fuji 645s.

 

Medium format cameras with a winding film path (Hasselblad, Pentax 645 and other common insert/interchangeable holder types) provide enough of their own "drag" on the initial wind up to get the roll started tight on the take-up spool. The straight-path types need a little drag - supplied by you - to get the roll started right so that it will end up snug on the spool. No big deal once you know about the right way to do it.

I think some of Ellis' pricing information is out of date. A few

years ago B&H sold the VX125 for $5,995 (yeah, that is hard to

understand), but now it's listed on the B&H website for $3,999.

That's only about $500 more than the Linhof Technikardan and

Arca-Swiss F-Line Metric. But of course if you've read this forum for

long you'd get your VX125 from Robert White Photographic in Great

Britain, which sells the VX125 for $2,400 (1,600 pounds).

Craig:

 

I haven't had any trouble with my "old" technique with the pressure on the supply spool, but if Fuji thinks the other side is better with the Zi I'll try it! Thanks for passing along the Fuji tip.

I've used manual focus (670III, 690III and 645S) as well as autofocus (my current 645Zi) Fuji cameras, and my film loading and winding experience has been the same with all of them. You should use the technique often repeated in posts here for fog-free, tight rolls: apply resistance to the film as you start the roll on the take-up spool. If it starts on the roll snugly my experience has been that you'll end up with the roll just fine.

 

By the way, I also had to use that technique to get fog-free rolls on the Mamiya 7. And you'll see similar posts on Mamiya's user forum for new Mamiya 7 users. It's a function of the straight film path models, not something exclusive to Fuji.

I don't know about parts availability for that problem, but Fuji's USA website lists a number of independent repair shops (about 8 I recall) that still service the GS645, GS645S and GS645W. As a previous poster pointed out, Peachtree is on that list.

Lucas:

 

You'll find the work of some of the folks I mentioned on the Photo District News Online website (www.pdn-pix.com). Check out the links on the home page for the Masters Series and Legends Online. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has a lot of Herb Ritts portraits on its website, if I recall correctly, and a good search engine like Google ought to turn up other sites where you can see the work of a lot of the folks named in this thread. Enjoy!

Tough question Lucas! Here's my start on that list of ten, with the MF equipment I've read (or think I've read!) that these photographers use. I've limited this list to currently living and working photographers, although I'm not sure that's what you were after. And I've emphasized people photographers, although the first seven of these are fashion or editorial photographers rather than professional "portrait" photograhpers. Ketchum and Wolfe are nature/editorial photographers. Here we go:

 

1. Annie Leibovitz (Mamiya RZ67)

 

2. Herb Ritts (Mamiya RZ67)

 

3. Albert Watson (???)

 

4. David LaChapelle (Hasselblad)

 

5. Patrick Demarchalier (Pentax 67)

 

6. Gregory Heisler (Hasselblad)

 

7. Greg Gorman (Contax 645)

 

8. Robert Glenn Ketchum (Pentax 645 and 67)

 

9. Art Wolfe (Mamiya 645)

 

 

I know I'll kick myself later when I think of other obvious choices....

Bruce:

 

<p>

 

Some, though not all, of the information you are looking for is on the

F Stops Here website: http://www.thefstop.com/equipment/new/fuji.html

Roger:

 

Is parallax compensation not working in your GS645S? I have that camera too, and in mine the upper frame line moves down, and the left-side frame line moves to the right, as you focus closer. Perhaps that's happening and you're still not getting the accurate framing you expect, but I thought it was worth asking the obvious question first.

Gary:

 

I don't blame you for not wanting to spend the money on a leaf shutter lens so close in focal length to your 150mm, but I thought one bit of information should be corrected.

 

The close focusing distance of the 135mm leaf shutter lens for the Pentax 645 actually is 4.1 feet, not 6.6 feet. While Pentax uses 6.6 feet on its USA website, I think that is a typo. All lens brochures I have, as well as the P645N camera brochure, use the 4.1 foot minimum focusing distance. More importantely, I knew from experience that the lens focuses much closer than 6 feet. I've got the lens in front of me now, and the focusing scale indeed goes down to 4.1 feet.

Eric:

 

The prior posts had some information that was correct and some that was wrong. None completely answered your questions, so I'll try to fill out the information already provided and correct the misunderstandings.

 

As far as I know (and I've owned and used various Fujis for about a decade) there were three versions of the manual focus Fuji 645 cameras (all three are leaf shutter cameras with shutter speeds from 1 sec to 1/500, plus T, so flash syncs at all speeds). All have portrait orientation (a vertical frame is standard rather than horizontal), and all have meters with simple "plus/zero/minus" LEDs on the right side of the viewfinder. There are no automatic settings (such as aperture priority, shutter priority or program).

 

Those are the features that all three cameras share. Now here are the three models with their differences:

 

1. Fuji GS645. This is the only folding model with bellows and clamshell cover that protects the lens and bellows mechanism when folded. When folded it is very thin (2-3/16 inches), being the only easily "pocketable" model of the three. It came with a 75mm/f3.4 lens. Rangefinder focusing.

 

2. Fuji GS645S. This is a non-folding model with a 60mm/f4 lens. It is 3-9/16 inches front to back. This is the model with the circular metal "brush guard" that permanently protects the lens and shutter elements. Again, rangefinder focusing.

 

3. Fuji GS645W. This too is a non-folding model with a 45mm/f5.6 lens. It is 3 inches from front to back. No brush guard on this model, and no rangefinder. Scale focusing (guesstimation) is used, with click stops at 6 feet and 16 feet. With the greater depth of field of this focal length and maximum f stop, Fuji probably concluded that scale focusing could be accurate enough without the expense and complication of the rangefinder system.

 

As for repairs, I've heard that Fuji and several independent repair places still work on these cameras, and even replace the bellows on the GS645. Check the Fuji USA website for a list of those independent shops and the models they work on. The last time I looked there were quite a few who worked on these models.

 

 

I hope this helps.

David:

 

I prefer the Metz 40MZ-3i for the Pentax 645. It's a shoe mount flash with good power and the feature that most attracted me: automatic operation that you may set at any stop over a 12 f-stop range (f1 to f45 at ISO 100, for example). Of course, the functional range for the Pentax is f2.8 to f45, since no current P645 lenses are faster than that. Compared to the typical two to four f-stop choice of most flash units, the Metz gives you greater flexibility and control, particularly in fill-flash situations where you are balancing ambient light with flash. I like to be able to set any aperture I want, not just f2, f5.6, f11 or whatever the other combinations are on certain flash units.

 

You can use the standard module for automatic operation through the flash's own sensor, or use an SCA 372 module for TTL control. Metz of course also makes cords for off-camera use.

William:

 

<p>

 

Check out the website of Silverprint in London

(http://www.silverprint.co.uk). They appear to be

similar to our Bostick & Sullivan, selling materials for alternative

photo processes. They have a paragraph describing Centennial

printing-out paper that should help (there's a link to the Centennial

POP on their home page).

 

<p>

 

'Centennial' Printing-out Paper

 

<p>

 

 

Printing-out paper, or POP for short is one of the

transitional materials between Fox Talbots original

paper and the modern enlarging materials we use

today. It uses a silver/gelatin emulsion, but is not

designed for developing; instead, an image is formed

simply by exposure to light, being reinforced

by an excess of silver nitrate carried in the

emulsion. Very slow, it needs exposure to sunlight or UV

light, using a negative the same size as the required

image.

The rewards of the process are the subtle qualities

of the image, both in well separated tonal scale

and colour. Printing-out results in self-masking,

that is as the shadows increase in density, so this

acts as a filter to light, slowing further shadow

build-up, while the highlights print in. The image

colour initially is a reddish purple. This is

unstable,and although it can be kept for a long time if only

occasionally inspected in low light, it is usual to

want to permanise it. A slow sodium thiosulphate

based fixer can be used on its own, resulting in an attractive amber

colour, but for best effect gold toning should be used, which

will preserve most of the original colour, tending only to shift it to

a more cool purple.

Jim:

 

Sorry, this one isn't directly on point either, but close. I use the 1.4x with the 200mm lens, but all manual focus versions on a 645 body. So I can't tell you anything about focus confirmation.

 

I can tell you that the combination is very sharp at all apertures. Probably a bit lower contrast than the 200mm alone, but still very sharp and a very good combination overall.

Pete:

 

<p>

 

Interesting idea. For a similar solution, I wonder whether you could

use your stock ground glass and have the back side coated by one of

the folks who re-coat lenses? The reduction of reflections as you

described might be enough to make folding focusing hoods (of the kind

I am used to on a Toyo 45AII) really useful in more conditions. And

the fresnel on the Toyo is in front of the ground glass rather than

behind, so that shouldn't prevent you from coating the back. Hmmm....

Jon:

 

<p>

 

Two US retailers import Fuji lenses (others might know of more): The F

Stops Here in Santa Barbara, CA (http://www.thefstop.com/menu.html),

and Badger Graphics in Wisconsin (sorry, I don't have its URL handy).

Joe:

 

Two US retailers import Fuji lenses (others might know of more): The F Stops Here in Santa Barbara, CA (http://www.thefstop.com/menu.html), and Badger Graphics in Wisconsin (sorry, I don't have its URL handy).