jim_chow

In the B&H catalog, there is one company that makes a 4x5 slide projector for $3K (single sheets only). One friend of mine gets Duratrans made, which is like a giant transparency (used in airports in ads, etc.) illuminated by an equally large light panel. He has Duratrans made from 8x10 chromes into approx. 5x7 ft enlargements.

Although I shoot primarily nature/landscape, I've done a few weddings w/ my 6008i. I typically use either a 80/2.8 or 90/4 apo for closer shots and the 180/2.8 for a tele. With TTL flash metering, matrix metering, and the autowinder (critical, IMHO), you have it all. Don't worry about slr noise...it's not like the camera is low-key. :-) BTW, there's a new Zeiss 110/2 planar PQ w/ leaf shutter that would be ideal for weddings. I hear it's in such high demand that there's a waiting list in the US.

I think it's just the ciba paper. It can't maintain the vibrant colors in velvia. I had similar results. A velvia enlargement looks like it was shot on Astia (pale colors), and sharpness is way off on the medium contrast paper. You're only hope is to use the high contrast paper and one or more contrast masks, which will drive the price of a 8x10 up in the $60 range (guess). Otherwise, go digital.

 

Because of this, I've pretty much abandoned ciba and use the Fuji RP crystal process introduced in Japan a few years ago. So far, it's the only method I've seen that can maintain the vibrant velvia colors. Most of the pro landscapers here (Japan) use this method. As almost all nature/landscapers here shoot w/ velvia, it wouldn't surprise me if this process was designed w/ velvia in mind. I don't think it's available in the US. An 8x10 runs me about $12 (does not use contrast masks). Of the dozens of prints I've had made, I've only had one that didn't print well. For the money, it's hard to beat.

BTW, I fly United and the Phototrekker AW fits the templates. Recently, I've noticed that the templates have been removed in Chicago and Washington/Dulles but not SFO.

I always use a Lowe Pro phototrekker AW. It's pretty much the largest bag that fits in the overhead of a 737. You can't overstuff the outer pockets, though. Inside, I can fit a complete 4x5 folding monorail system or a 6x6 system w/ 4 lenses+accessories and a 6x17 panorama. One bag I've been recently considering is the Lightware 1420 MF, which they claim is the largest airlines will accept.

No way to view the DOF of a rangefinder unless is has a ground glass. If you want DOF viewing, the only rangefinders in MF that I know of that offer an accessory GG are the Fuji GX617, Horseman SW612/612 pro, and Hassy 903swc, and you'll have to mount them on a tripod so you can hold the GG up to the filmplane and use a darkcloth or hood to see the dark GG. Otherwise, get a MF SLR if you want DOF preview.

Just out of curiosity, how much does this S-orthoplanar 105/5.6 cost? Or need I ask? How much resolution is it capable of compared to the Rodenstock?

Like David, I tend to see in squares since I shoot mostly 6x6. Either that or panorama (6x17)...not much in between. 35mm seems to have so much wasted space. This year, I added 4x5 (w/ 6x7 back) to my arsenal and find that they compose similarly to 6x6, as they are close to square. I went w/ a 6x7 rollfilm back for the 4x5 since 6x9 has the same aspect as 35mm, giving me the same compositional difficulties. Of course, one can always crop, but I prefer to compose precisely as much as possible when I shoot.

If you're serious about landscapes, I'd go w/ a superwide (maybe a 903SWC over the 40/4), a 60, 100, 150 or 180, and a 250 w/ 2x tc. This will keep you covered for 95% of all shots. One word of caution. I have a 40mm wide angle for my 6x6, but often find that the square just won't work for certain compositions. Either you have to crop down the chrome (and end up with a 6x4.5 size or smaller...not worth lugging all that weight around for a tiny chrome or spending all the $$, IMHO), or get a dedicated rectangular format MF camera like a Fuji rangefinder. In my case, I went with a panorama camera as a supplement to the 40mm. For shooting in places like the SW US, a panorama can be a life saver.

 

I wouldn't bother w/ the ARC body, either. If you need the movements, get a used, lightweight 6x9 or 4x5 LF field camera like the Horseman field cameras. There is no single camera system that's perfect for everything. If you want to have optimum camera/format for each shot you might encounter, you'll have to buy several cameras and bring the equipment that you think you'll need for a particular shot you'd like to take. I have a lot of gear (two 6x6's w/ 5 lenses, 6x17 panorama, 4x5 monorail), and there no way I can carry all of it at any one time. And I strenuouly exercise regularly. As someone else mentioned, you can have the best equipment available, but you still have to carry all the stuff to the shooting location (or hire a sherpa or llama :-) ) If you can do the latter, then shoot everything in 8x10! :-)

I use both B+W (MC UV, MC 81C, FL-D, Kaseman PL) and Heliopan (UV only)...haven't tried the Contax yet. Optically, I certainly can't decipher any difference except when the sun is directly striking the filter. Both heliopans I have (95mm, 77mm) will get a 'hot spot' at the edge near the rim, especially if you're shooting early/late in the day and the sun is low. The only way to avoid it is to keep the lens well shaded, or if the sun is in the shot, remove the filter. I don't have this problem w/ my B+W's. If you keep the lens shaded well at all time, either will do. Both have brass rims (I prefer the B+W filters, as their rims are a little smaller in overall outer diameter, meaning my hoods slide on easier).The B+W multicoated filters are outstanding. I have recently been special ordering mine from the factory, as 95mm multicoated filters other than a skylight 1A or UV are rarely stocked. Whatever you get, I would recommend spending the extra $$ and getting multicoated filters (heliopan also makes multicoated filters). I suspect the Contax filters are of high quality, too.

I think you can get the stuff cheaper in Asia. In Tokyo new 503cw kit w/ A12 and 80 cfi can be had for 330,000 yen (about $3100),plus you get a free UV filter. If you have a tourist visa (I don't), there's no tax (at this particular shop). This is about $1300 less than B&H.

I doubt you could make the same amount of money. One thing I've noticed is that there are usually two groups of pro photographers. One is the type with budgets/profits that allow for the purchase of all the latest and most expensive equipment; money is no object vs. image quality. The other is the type that buys used equipment, often the previous model. Most pros I've talked to fall into this group. One thing about MF is that the price for top-end equipment is so astronomically expensive (vs., say 35mm or LF). Of course, you can make decent money without having to buy the top-end stuff, but clients do like to see expensive, fancy equipment and feel like their getting more of their money's worth, everything else (ie, technique, processing) being equal. Also, the prices your charge (and equipment you use) may be dictated by what your local market can support. I have a friend who shoots weddings on weekends as a supplemently income source and uses only older 35mm Canon equipment, no AF/L lenses. The area where he lives is mostly rural, so people aren't willing to pay thousands of dollars for a photographer like those downstate in NYC...more like hundreds.

 

Another thing I discovered is that regardless of the hobby, sooner or later, either the monotony or fact that you have to get results for money get to you and takes the fun out of it. Hey, I was once a sailing instructor! Didn't pay jack-squat, and the monotony made it dull.

There are two types of rollfilm backs for 4x5's. One is the slide-in type which works like a film holder. The other is the graflock type, which requires one to remove the ground glass to mount the holder. This type is shorter than the other type, so the film spools do not sit on either end of the film plane, so it's more compact. OTOH, the film has to wrap around a tighter angle. It's said (http://HTTP.CS.Berkeley.EDU/~qtluong/photography/lf/matos-begin.html) that the slide-in type of holder keeps the film flatter for this reason. I use the slide-in type.

I've seen the Alpha (they have a website, too). The workmanship is excellent, but you don't get anything more in terms of image quality/features than with a Horseman SW612 at a fraction of the cost (except you can get the Alpha configured with the Zeiss 38 biogon). The Alpha body w/ schneider or rodenstock lens and viewfinder is on the order of $10K! You can also try a cambo wide (less $$$ than the Horseman), which is basically a 4x5 with no bellows (very thin/compact) and shoot quickloads (I think you can use a rollfilm back, too).

Martin, all the pro panorama cameras have shutter cocking and film advance as independent operations. Ditto on the Linhofs and Fuji 617. It's more like a LF camera with no bellows. I always advance the film to the next frame after each exposure. Besides, on the Fuji 617, if you use the shutter release on the body, it will not permit you to double expose. For that, you have to use the shutter release directly on the lens. I do the same thing with my roll film back for my 4x5...advance the film immediately after every shot. The added benefit is that after the last frame, you won't accidentally open up the filmback before winding up the entire roll!

The XPAN is made by Fuji. In Japan, it's called the Fuji TX-1. Everything is the same, except it has wood grips and and a natural titanium finish...oh, it does cost hundreds of $$ less because it says Fuji rather than Hasselblad on it. :-)

If you're referring to the Rodenstock lenses they currently use, you should be able to find this in the current Horseman catalog from Komamura (I have the Japanese version if it helps any).

Spacing is non-uniform (increases for the last 6 shots compared to the first six). This is because of the built-in drawslide. They should not overlap, though. I was told by an ex-Rollei mechanic that the magazine spacing is mechanically determined. When the film advances, there are rollers on either side of the pressure plate that turn when the film rolls over them. These rollers, in turn, turn a wheel that has notches along the circumfrance, When the next notch stops against something, the motor stops winding. To sum it up, he said that if there's a spacing problem, it's usually because the rollers and/or the wheel need regreasing/cleaning. Since you're in Germany, it should be easy to have the magazine serviced by Rollei service.

For LF, most people set the focus to (Vnear+Vfar)/2, where Vnear is the distance from the film to lens when focused on the closest object and Vfar the same for the farthest object. This formula is basically what the Sinar DOF calculator does and is what setting to hyperfocal according to DOF scales on most lenses does (or very close to it). When Dfar is infinity (distance from lens to farthest subject), Merklinger ("The ins and outs of focus") has showed if you focus at infinity, you can theoretically (discounting diffraction effects) resolve objects the size of the aperture or larger (e.g., a 80mm lens stopped down to f4 can resolve objects 20mm or larger at infinity when the focus is set to infinity). Some LF guys claim that they've empirically verified that when Dfar=infinity, you should set the bellows at Vfar-(Vnear-Vfar)/3. Since my monorail doesn't have a scale, I have to use a measuring tape and measure the distance between the standards for Vnear and Vfar and set the focus half way. This is not easy to do for short lenses, where Vnear-Vfar might be 1mm (so you have to focus at 0.5mm accurately).

 

When it's dark and you can barely see the image on the GG, I look at the DOF tables to determine which aperture gives enough DOF and focus on an object at the hyperfocal distance.

You can easily compute the extension/magnification tables yourself just like you would in 4x5: V=f(m+1), f=focal length, m=magnification, V=lens to film distance (total extension). Thus, for 1:1, you need a total of 270mm of extension (additional 135mm over what is required to focus at infinity), while for 1:2, you only need a total of 203mm extension (additional 68mm). One way to do it is to mark the point of infinity focus on the bellows rail (135mm). You then know that from this mark to the film is 135mm, and use it as the reference for any desired magnification. I'd recommend that you compute the DOF tables for whichever macro lens you buy (you can do this by first computing the hyperfocal distance (H=f*f/(A*C), A=aperture, C=CoC). Then for any subject to lens distance, D, you can compute the near and far boundaries of the DOF as Dnear=D*H/(H+D) and Dfar=D*H/(H-D) (when D>H, Dfar=infinity.)

 

In the field for LF, one typically sets the focus to (Vnear+Vfar)/2 and just stops down the lens until the DOF is sufficient (using a 3x-4x loupe on the ground glass). In addition, I look at the DOF tables as a reality check.

 

Don't forget about exposure compensation. For every doubling of extension, light drops off by the inverse of the square (ie, factor of 4), so that's 2 stops for 1:1. This issue,as well as what extension tube to use, has been a topic on the MFD before.

Kornelius,

Would you be able to share with us some resolution figures on the new 110/2 planar PQ at f2 and f5.6 in both the center and corners? I've seen the MTF's on the Zeiss webpage but am really wondering how noticeable is the corner falloff between 35mm and 40mm?

 

Two other question I have:

 

(1) What is the typical variance between sample to sample for maximum lens resolution (at least tested at CZ)? That is, if one lens randomly selected tests to 160 lp/mm, the next lens off the assembly line could be 140 lp/mm or 180 lp/mm, right? (and the typical consumer would never know.)

 

(2) Finally, as was addressed in the Hasselblad vs. Contax thread recently, why is it that there aren't any f2 medium format lenses (ie, in the 80-120mm range) that perform like, say, the 100/3.5 planar wide open (or better, at all apertures)? I presume it's possible to build a lens like this (hey, if you can send a man to the moon, it should be :-) ). Is it just a price issue?

As Chris points out, just looking at MTF's doesn't tell the entire story. The bottom line is that you have to shoot the lens under real-life conditions, and under these conditions, it's difficult to achieve all the sharpness possible, whether limited by the resolution of the film or some other weakness in the system like a slight breeze, etc.

>Whoooaw! Uncomparable to my old Hassy-feeling >(Meter-meter-meter-focus-re-meter-re-focus-Scrrlap-Rick-Rack-oh, >what a pitty, the object has gone...) in terms of speed, handling, >meter read outs and metering (multi spot is a joy...), smooth!

 

I have the same things happen when shooting 4x5, but it's usually that the good light has disappeared by that time. :-) Sometimes I cheat and use my Rollei with a similar focal length lens to determine the point of focus and aperture if no tilt/swing is used, and to meter the scene, especially in tricky backlit situations. It speeds up the 4x5 process immensely. :-)

 

The 80/2.8 xenotar is supposed to be sharper than the 80/2.8 planar, but the planar is still a sharp lens. I would recommend the 90/4 apo-symmar over either of them; not only sharper, but you have 1:2 macro capability with no extension tubes.

You can try www.gitzo.com and look at the carbon models. One note though. Specs always tell you how tall it goes with the column fully extended. This is deceiving, as I certainly never use the column since it merely adds instability. While there are models available that have no column, they are only the series 3 (and larger) gitzos. I have the 1228 carbon (series 2, perfect for my Fuji 617 and Rollei slr). If I were getting one now, I'd get the 1227, as it has one fewer leg section meaning quicker setup (wasn't on the market when I bought mine).

Depends on the viewing distance and CoC that is desired. I'd say go 8x10, as a 2:1 perspective cutout is 5x10, meaning 8x enlargement for a 40x80 inch print. 6x12 is still nearly half of 4x5 or 18x enlargement. I think you can get by with 6x12 if you get the best (ie, $$$) pro printing available.