anthony_wong

Hi Eric, <BR>

If weight and image quality were your only issue, then an old Minolta/Leica CL would give you excellent quality pictures for a very low mass (and reasonable price), but it sounds to me like you're trying to get the most versatility per oz and a fixed or short lens will not cut it. Have you considered carrying two point and shoot cameras? One wide/fast camera, and another that has longish zoom lens? Together, they would still be lighter than an SLR with one or two lenses - I mean, we're not even talking about backpacks here, we're talking about pockets or belt-clips (attached to the backpack?).

<BR>You mentioned in your follow-up post that you'd like more manual control over your pictures, and if you go the two-camera route (and if you have the means) I'd suggest you look at the Nikon 28Ti 28mm f2.8 with ability to use manual focus and aperture priority. I don't have a suggestion for the long zoom, but between a 28/2.8 and the 38 - 140mm, f/4.6 - 12.2 that you mentioned, you'd have a lot of options in many photographic conditions. Don't give up the tripod; it is, of course, what makes the point and shoot option viable for outdoor photography since these light cameras with slow lenses are more susceptible to hand movement.

Was this question posted before the <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/tam300.html">Tamron SP AF300mm f/2.8 LD(IF) Review</a> was written? Forgive me if I'm missing something, but did you find the unpredictability mentioned in the aforementioned article after writing this? Or did you find a better example of the TC-16 and then post this message?

 

Thanks in advance for clearing this up, Mr. Levanthal. Your information in this forum has been very useful to me.

David and Bob,

 

I'm glad you both got my point and understand that I'm certainly not saying that a 35mm camera can make an equal or better image than a medium format camera (most things except price being equal) - I mean, hey, prints from my crappy old RB67 system blow away prints from my current Leica M6 system even with much slower film in the M6. (I'm just re-stating that point in case anyone else didn't get it).

<P>

What I am saying is that, (in response to David's anecdote about people cheating in a 35mm photo contest by using medium format cameras), in most cases, cutting out the middle 24x36mm of a 6x6 slide will <B>not</B> get you <B>better</B> results than a 35mm format negative made with a <i>similar quality</i> lens. It will probably get you <B><i>the same</i></b> results. To me that means Zeiss or Schnieder vs. Zeiss or Leica, or Pentax vs. Pentax. This is not meant as an offence to the necessity of medium format, but as a comment on how it is silly to enter 35mm contests with cut outs from medium format slides. David's comment about the benifits of the leaf shutter is, however, valid, especially if the photographer was using fill flash, but I think you guys are mistaken if you think that medium format lenses generally outperform 35mm lenses <I><B>in lines per millimeter on the film</B></I>. Even when they do, it's probably not significant because it's really the grain that's holding decent 35mm lenses back.

<P>.

Forgive me if I'm getting nit-picky here, Bob, but I assume that you might like a good in-depth discussion here, and I want to clarify a few things, otherwise you can ignore this. If you tell me that a Hassy 2.8 has more resovling power than a particular 35mm lens of the same focal length, I will believe you, but in general, this is not true. Your statement that "Good medium format lenses DON'T have lower resolution than 35mm lenses" is erroneous. I was also wrong to say that the Hassy lens would be "<I>significantly</I> less sharp", because it's not a difference you'd notice on a regular sized print or with regular film (at the same magnification of the film), but good medium format lenses do not really equal <I>the best</I> 35mm lenses in resolving power, as you stated. It is true that they CAN have better resolution than many 35mm lenses, and it's completely true that in normal practice, modern medium format lenses always record more information to film and thus make much better prints when you factor in the lesser enlargement. I'm sure you know that.

<P>

When I wrote my last comment, I used the Hassy 80mm as an example because it's a well known top performer, and I happened to be looking at Zeiss's published MTF graphs for the 80mm Planar T 2.8 CFE for Hasselblad, and the Zeiss Sonnar T 85mm 2.8 for the Contax SLR, and the Zeiss Planar T 85mm 1.4 for Contax SLR that day, as well as some independant reports of the Leica 75mm 1.4 being able to outresolve any film but tech-pan which records 300 lpmm. The official Zeiss MTF graphs show that both of those Zeiss 35mm format 85mm lenses are better, even wide open at f1.4 vs f2.8. This comparison holds up more dramatically with wider lenses. This is why: The lenses are made by Zeiss to the best of their engineering ability, but the medium format lens is more retro-focus (because of the big mirror) and has to cover more area, which means more dramatic bending of light and more glass which means more chromatic aberration and stray light for the middle part of the film in order to cover the outer part of the film. The reason Medium format comes out way ahead of 35mm is because 20% less resolution at 50% enlargement makes for a final picture with 160% of the details and half the grain.

<P>

I will digress for a moment, however, for a number of reasons. One, the Hassy 80mm is an amazing lens and performs well enough to make great 35mm slides (it's not very far behind it's 35mm cousins). Two, you have to excersize excellent technique (as per Mr Kravit's comment) in order to see the difference, anyway. Three, David's comments about the other factors involved involved making a good picture have shed new light on my point of view, but I still think you'd be very silly to start using a 'Blad to make 35mm slides if you've got a comparable quality 35mm camera with the same focal length lenses. I'd pick up the Hasselblad instead of a Pentax, though. Sorry this has less and less to do with nature photography, <BR>

Err... Use medium format for nature photography, but don't clip out 24mm x 36mm rectangles and enter them into photo contests!

This is great info, but I'm wondering if mosquito repellants and other scents spook animals that you may be trying to photograph. I'm new to nature photography but my father took me hunting when I was young (I don't like hunting, but I went to be with my dad and I love the outdoors) and claimed that scent was an important factor in getting close to the animals. Any comments?

Maybe you can apply a bit of Loc-Tite to the loose screws, especially if the lens is gonna get jiggled in transport a lot.

Hi everyone. I wasn't sure if David was joking here, but I though I'd point out something potentially interesting.<BR><BR>

<BR>

### David Crossley wrote:

> Further to Johns comment about the Pro who relied on "the sheer <BR>

> size of the chromes". A judge at a local camera club complained <BR>

> of some of their members cutting down medium format slides to <BR>

> enter them into 35mm class contests, which at the time really <BR>

> shocked and offended me. Some of these people should concentrate <BR>

> on aquiring good technique as opposed to falsely relying on a <BR>

> larger format to hide their poorer ones. <BR>

<BR>

I don't mean to be finicky, but I thought that I should point out that if I make a slide with a 80mm lens on a 6x6 camera and then cut out a 24mm x 36mm square from anywhere in the frame, that square will be less sharp than an image that I made with a 35mm camera sporting an 80mm lens of similar quality. If you compare the sharpness of a Hasselblad 80mm 2.8 planar lens with a Nikon 85mm 1.4 or Leica M 75mm 1.4, strictly in lines per millimetre on the film, you will find the Hasselblad lens to be significantly less sharp. The design has to be compromised for wider coverage (this of course doesn't really matter to the Hassy user because that 80mm will still record more details to 6 x 6 cm of film than a 50mm would record to 24x36mm - especially since film grain is the real factor in that little game). It's a simple fact of lens design that more coverage means more glass which means more chromatic aberation, so these 'cheaters' weren't really cheating anyone by themselves.

<BR><BR>

Now the interesting point that brings this post back on-topic, is that this phenomenon of incomparable lens sharpness diminishes with greater focal length, so wildlife photographers may have plenty to gain by going 6x4.5.

You'll notice just by looking at specs that 6x4.5 lenses don't catch up to 35mm lenses in speed until you get into the telephotos. This is because the angle of coverage is not so different at these long lengths, so a very similar lens design can be used to optimally cover 35mm or 6x4.5. For example, a fast 35mm lens for 35mm is an f1.4, whereas the fastest 35mm for 6x4.5 is f2.8 and that lens will weigh at least twice as much. Take a look at the fastest 300mm for Mamiya 6x4.5 (2.8) and it's the same speed, and almost the same weight and size as the f2.8 Nikon or Canon or Minolta or Tokina or Tamron 300mm. It just covers a greater diameter circle. I would wager that the extra coverage of the 300mm does not cost the lens much sharpness in strict lines/mm on the film. Of course, a 300mm lens on 6x4.5 may not seem to have the same magnifying power as a 300mm on 35mm, but in fact, you get the same magnification on the film at the same distance (hence blow-up quality); you will just have more area around your subject - essentially you get the same 35mm image + more around it. Maybe not everyone likes to think that way, but the M645 is not much heavier than an F5, nor is the 645's 300mm lens much heavier than the 35mm counterparts, but the cost is over double and it's not even autofocus, and I think that's ridiculous. I think Mamiya is gorging for that lens, and I do wish that Tamron or Tokina would start making 6x4.5 telephoto lenses. I understand that Cambron makes a 500mm lens for med format and it sells for about $350 (even though the exact same lens for 35mm costs $130). Anyway, I'll stop babbling now.

<BR><BR>

ciao,<BR>

Anthony

-- Why this is not a succesfull MF system for landscape photography?

 

I agree with you that the VHR is ideal for landscapes, and even more so for architecture and those skew-focused people and product shots out there, but here's why it loses market share to rollfilm SLR/Rangefinder and 4x5:

 

As evidenced by some comments before this one, many people will buy a medium format SLR/Rangefinder of other types for its usefulness outside of landscape photography, and then use it for landscape photography because it's what they have and it doesn't seem worth buying a second camera and lenses, when your current wide lenses will do most of the tricks. The VHR does not make many peoples' needs in studio, product, portrait, candid or event photography (for many reasons outlined above), so it's not a first choice for most professional photographers.

 

I think another problem is the wide-angle lens selection. If you want a true wide-angle lens, you're limited to Rodenstock 35mm APO grandagon or Schneider 47mm both of which are expensive. If you buy that 47mm lens, it will be even wider if you use it on a 4x5, and a (cheaper) 65mm on a 4x5 would accomplish what the 47mm does on the 6x9. Also, since there are no cams for these lenses, the Horseman rangefinder is not a particular advantage in Landscape.

 

I think that the Horseman 6x9s beautifuly serve a small market (like this group?) who like its extreme versatility (for travel?), and don't need the convenieces either because of our patient shooting style or because we have other cameras for those fast shots.

 

Whew, sorry my $0.02 became $0.04 pretty quickly (in volume, at least).

The 980 is grey with rounded corners; 985 and VHR are black with more of a "Toyo" look to them. I noticed that the viewfinder on the VHR seems bigger and more bulbous on the front than the 985, so an improvement was probably made. Perhaps the range of lenses or the brightness or eye-relief was improved. Anyone know?