markbristol

<p><br />Recently some discussed why we shoot medium format (namely Mamiya 6x7). Someone mentioned that "size matters". I wholeheartedly agree and that is why I still shoot with a RZ. It was mentioned that digital can't compare to our film cameras. Years back I tried to avoid 35mm because trying to make enlargements from 35mm film was disapointing due to film grain. That is why in the 1990's I invested in RZ gear which cost an arm and a leg at the time, so much so, that I have never been able to purchase any equipment new. (Now the story is different-check KEH or auction prices.) I paid a grand for a 50mm ULD 10 years ago. But times have changed and now many think the holy grail is digital. Well, it may be if you got 40 grand to spend on a 61 megapixel medium format back. But if I had 40 grand to spend I would buy a 4 wheel drive SUV to get me to all those places I love to take pics and a lifetime supply of drum scans. But getting back to size and throwing in some high quality, I made a comparison of my two main picture making machines. I went up in the hills near my house one morning recently with my RZ and my EOS 1ds MkII. I shot the first photo with Velvia 100 and a 110mm f/2.8 lens on a tripod with a cable release in the mirror up socket. Then I shot the same scene with the DSLR. I used a 60mm focal length on the Canon which gave about the same framing on the horizontal axis. The lens I used on the Canon is, strangely enough, a Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8. The reason is that this lens is brutally sharp closed down. This can be seen if one zooms in on the cropped inmages. So I scanned the Velvia chrome with my Minolta Scan multi Pro at the max 4800 dpi which is interpolated from 3200 dpi but shows the possibilities esp. if one were to do a drum scan of the same shot. I cropped both images very close to the same and dropped them next to each other for size camparison. Neither image was rezised in photoshop or any other resizing software. I did not try to adjust color to match and the lighting was constantly changing as clouds kept blowing paste through the scene. The only thing I tried to demonstrate is the far greater ability to enlarge from the film based photo. I do not haved digital phobia or hatred. Recently I went to Death Valley and had great fun with my digital slr doing some HDR shots but the trueley awesome shots were done with my RZ and Singh Ray grads and polarzers. So this is why I still shoot film and will for years to come.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Hi Jim M.<br>

The printer in Jersey is Elco Color Labs. Their internet special pricing can be found at:<br /><a href="http://www.elcocolor.com/poster_special.htm">http://www.elcocolor.com/poster_special.htm</a><br>

I live in California and I usually get my prints in about a week.<br>

Mark.</p>

<p>The reason I have been shooting medium format for 11 years is just as others have stated: BIG ENLARGEMENTS. My standard size for printing is 30x36 or 30x40. Scanning with a scan multi pro and then uploading the images to my favorite printer in NJ I get beautiful prints that, as has already been said, blows digital away and for 26 bucks for a 30x40 on metallic paper I'm in paradise. I have made many comparisons to my DSLR which just a few years ago was 7 grand for the body only and now can be had for less than half that. 30x40s made from my RZ have much more detail and sharpness than my dslr at 20x30. BUT if you are contemplating selling you RZ kit, maybe you can sell the whole kit for enough to buy a lens for a 35mm sized digital body or maybe a couple of 64gb CF cards. When people who don't know much about good photography see my prints, they almost always prefer those made from with my RZ. Also I am my own customer in that I shoot what I want, where I want and when I want (unless I am shooting someones portrait). So if your business success demands it do what it takes to stay alive.</p>

<p>I have had the same problem with one of my backs and it was easy to tell the offending part because I put on another back and it worked fine. I just keep my eye on the frame counter and if it does not advance all the way I just do it manually with the knob. I guess I should just throw it out but being a cheapskate it never have. </p>

<p>I have the same lens and find the only practical difference between this lens and any other RZ lens is the floating system for correcting field curvature. It works well after you learn to use the floating system with the correct extension tubes. I use mine as I would any other lens and use my 250 and 350 with extension tubes for closeup work much more often due to the narrower field of view. Also the Canon 500d close up lens that screws onto the front filter thread works great with those lenses too. I think Mamiya's web site has info on the use of the floating system.</p>

<p>I have 2 pro bodies and use pro II backs on them. The pro II backs have added a second frame counter on the side so it is visible on the top when rotated. Tim is correct in that the inserts cannot be swapped. The have a different kind of light seal. The Pro II has a baffle system and the Pro uses foam seals.<br>

Mark.</p>

<p>I would have to do a lot of digging as I moved 2 months ago and have not gotten everything unpacked. But I have the 210, 250 and 350 lenses for the RZ. The 250 works well as it has very shallow dof. I have the apo version and it is very sharp wide open but one needs to focus very carefully to make sure the eyes are really in focus. I also use it for small group shots and either way it delivers good bokeh. I have not tried the 210 up close but the difference might be just a bit wider and less oof background. BUT you can probably find a used 250 on KEH or at auction for quite a bit less than a 210 as the 210 is apo only and there is a non-apo 250. I used to have a standard 250 and only wide open is there any discernable difference in sharpness and from my experience it is not really too much different. If you want to go really tight and have super bokeh the 350 apo is awesome. I don't know if this helps but I thought I would express myself anyway.</p>

<p>Ella,<br />If you are shooting landscape the AE finder is (imho) the way to go. This is my experience. You have scouted your location, you know where the sun is setting, you find 2 or more possible compostitions, you don't want to use up your quickly fading sweet light messing with a hand-held meter and then figuring out exposure compensation for your polarizer and nd grad filters. If you use the proper grads then everything in the frame will be within the exposure lattitude of your slide film if you use CWA metering. I have done this many times with complete success using Velvia which really needs accurate exposure. The attached photo was shot on velvia with a polarizer and 2 stop nd grad. The AE finder nailed the shot. If you are shooting portraits or some such using a flash get a incident meter that has flash metering capability.<br />Just a thought.<br />Mark</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Andre,<br />Here's one more opinion if you want it. These are the lenses I currently own. 50mm uld, 65mm LA, 75mm l, 110mm, 140mm la, 210 apo, 250 apo, 350 apo, 500 apo. My 210 apo has some visible dust, the rest are really clean. I have some canon af lenses that have more dust than my 210 does and in none of them the dust makes any difference on the photos I take with them. I am a detail junkie and print REAL big so if the dust is any problem it should show up then but until now-no problem. My worst lens is the canon 100-400. When zooming to 400mm the lens has to draw in a substantial amount of air and any dust goes in. Yet I have never seen any of it make a difference. The only problem I have with dust is on the sensor of my dslr. Now that's a pain. I absolutely love the sharpness of the RZ lenses. That is why I still shoot film. Don't let a non-issue keep you from enjoying a truly precise photographic system. <br>

Mark.</p>

<p>Hi Beth,<br />If you plan to shoot film only the RB is the way to go. The neg size makes for extraordinary enlargements. If you plan to use a digital backs in the future the 645 is the logical choice. The reason is that sensor sizes of digital back come closer to the full-frame 645 size than the 6x7 size whick means that wide angle lenses are still wide on the 645 and closer to normal on the RB. The best 645 system is of course the AFD. Later bodies were designed with digital in mind. Keep in mind too that the 645 AF system will probably carry it's value longer but the RB system has rock bottom prices on auction web sites. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Hi Tim,<br />Another consideration is if you are using the AE finder the knobs are on the top of the finder in the pro II version. On the Pro they are on the side and far easier to access. The 1/2 stops are nice but the AE finder on the pro allows 1/3 stop adjustments. Currently I have 2 Pro bodies and AE finders and the total cost would come to about the same as one Pro II body and finder. Also when I shoot macro I rack the bellows all the way out and use a macro slide to adjust the focus. What I find most helpful is an eyepeice magnifier for critical adjustments. I shoot landscape and macro with mine and this is the ideal setup IMO.</p>

<p>Hi JD,<br />I have used a ULD for about 8 years now and it is critically sharp center to corner. When I shoot at or near hyperfocal I simply set the floating element on infinity and put a piece of gaffers tape on it to keep it there. If you turn it to the other end your corners will be totally soft. It is useful for adjusting field curvature when you are shooting at larger f's. I have made enlargements from chromes made with the uld up to 30x36 and they blow away anything I can do with my 16.6 megapixel digital. By the way there are at least 2 listed on the auction site right now.</p>

<p>Hi Anthony,<br>

For years i have used a rz pro with the ae finder shooting mostly chromes with exceptional sucess. I shoot landscape and find that the ae prism frees me to concentrate on compositions and not worry about exposures. If you use nd grads putting the finder on center weighted metering works well as the grads will put all parts of frame in the lattitude of slide film.<br>

Mark.</p>

<p>My finder is every bit as bright as my DSLR finder and seems to present a bigger view. It is also latterally corrected. Years ago before I could afford the AE prism I just used my handheld spot meter and later when I could afford it got the prism. I found my shots were just as well exposed with the prism and it was quicker to use. In the shot above I took a spot meter reading on the grayish rocks. The read the sky and it was about 3-4 stops brighter. I put on my polarizer and a 2 stop split nd over the upper half. I bracketed +2/3 and -2/3 stop and the best one was the first shot with no exposure compensation. If you want the very best color and finest grain use Velvia or comparable slide film. This shot above enlarged to 30x36 has more detail by magnitudes than any I have taken with a 16 mp digital. That is why I still use my RZ. </p>

<p>Hi Lee. Here is a different view. I have been using an RZ for more than a decade for landscape work with Velvia 50 and 100. I always use a metered finder. It is much faster and simpler to work with. I set it on CW most of the time. If you use split ND filters properly all the highlights and shadows will be well within the latitude of the film and center weighted metering works very well. The metering finder had 1/3 stop compensation so bracketing your shots is straightforward as well. I will also use a spotmeter to analyze a scene to figure how much light to hold back the the split nd's. When the magic hour comes which is usually more like half that or less and you want to get multiple compositions quickly the metering finder takes care of much work for you. When the finder is "on" it will be drawing power from that little battery but I have turned off the power on the finder and left it in that state for days and have not experienced battery drain as long as the shutter button is not being partially depressed.</p><div></div>

<p>Neil's suggestion is actually quite good. I had a 360 at one time and is was quite sharp and due to the light weight could be used with the short tube without bending the front of my camera off when racked out all the way.</p>

<p>Hi Norbert,<br>

I have and use the 350 apo for the rz which is essentially the same but for the electronic shutter vs. mechanical shutter. I use this lens more than my 250 apo. I use it often with extension tubes and it works superbly. BUT I am a toolmaker and have designed and built my own extendable lens holder that will allow either or both tubes to be used. I don't think it would be a good idea to use tubes without some kind of support though I have often used the 350 with no tubes and no support without any ill effects. The reason I use it is that the longer focal lengths narrower depth of focus wide open and narrower field of view which works well for limiting distracting elements from the frame. If you hare handy with tools I could give you some ideas on how to extend the lens support bracket so tubes can be used.<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Here is a different perspective. Handheld meter is essential for studio work. For outdoor work the AE finder is essential. I have been using the RZ for about a decade now mostly for landscape and occasionally for wildlife. When the sweet light comes you do not want to take the time to figure out exposure. An AE finder on cw works perfectly for this. Proper use of nd grads will bring all highlights and shadows into the exposure range of velvia and other chromes. This allows you to work very quickly when the light is perfect and fleeting. I occasionally do protrait work for friends and this is when I use an incident meter. If you can afford it get both AE finder and handheld meter.</p>

<p>Yes the previous comment is correct. I have put tubes on my 50mm rz lens and you can focus just in front of the lens but there is not much use for such. I find the tubes work on 110mm and longer lenses. I even use tubes on the 350 and 500 mm lenses with good sucess. I have made a special lens mount bracket that extends so that I can put both tubes on the 350 and 500 lenses to let them close focus and they are incredibly sharp even with both tubes. The comment about the 80mm above does not seem to make sense in that there are no 80mm lenses for the RB or RZ. Also there is no fosucing rail for either system as well.<br>

Mark.</p>

<p>I have the 250 apo and it is amazingly sharp. I have never used the zoom but I have considered buying one. I will look and see if I can find any scans of photos taken with the apo and jpg it and send it. Also the 250 is heavy but I have never used a lens bracket with it. Sometimes when I am in a rush I shoot the 350 apo with no bracket as well and there seems to be no adverse effect. <br />Mark.</p>

<p>Do you have another lens to try it with? If you try another lens and the same happens it is probably the body. I had a similiar situation some years back and it was one of the wires on the contacts on the rear of the lens had broken. I was able to solder it and everything worked fine after that. The contacts on the body and lens have flat ribbon cables running to them which can be hard to solder. But trying is usually cheaper than buying a new lens or body or paying a technician. If you live in the San Francisco bay area you can use one of my lenses to check.</p>

<p>New Lab in SF ca is excellent. <a href="http://www.newlab.com">www.newlab.com</a> good price too.</p>

<p>KEH has not had too many RZ bodies as of late. Your camera should last longer than some of us will. I have used second hand or third hand or whatever hand RZs for years and had few problems with these old clunckers. Reliability is comforting.</p>

<p>I have owned the RB lens and though it did distort a bit it was quite sharp at all apertures except wide open where I rarely used it. I do use the ULD and the lens is amazing. Go for it when you can. Added benefit: I will work with AE finder.<br>

Mark.</p>

<p>I have worked on some RZ and RB lenses without using the manuals. As you know most disassembly starts at the front of the lens. The first few times I just videoed the entire process and did it in reverse. The hardest was the 75mm shift. Also getting the pc flash mechanism was a pain as it came apart out of veiw of the video camera and I just had to treat it as a puzzle. Also as you take the lens apart the front elements are usually in a group as a unit. Make sure you save any washers as these are shims that impact focusing. These days I just get on ebay and buy another lens or from KEH as my patience does not seem to be what it once was. I also cannot find some of the spanner wrenches I made to remove the various locking rings. I have seen some 180 W-N lenses in good shape go for just over a hundred bucks on ebay which seems vastly more appealing than the hours it takes to repair them.<br>

Mark.</p>