jim_chow

The dust is probably particles from the leaf shutter blades. I wouldn't

worry about it. I have shutter blade particles in all of my lenses, just as

anyone else on the MFD is going to have w/ leaf shutters assuming the equipment gets healthy use. It doesn't affect the image quality unless you have a LOT of dust. Any qualified lens technician should be able to clean it.

 

<p>

 

--Jim

Okay, I found this info...it's made by a joint venture between Hasselblad and

Fuji. List: 3,200 DM. Fuji certainly makes the lenses. See http://www.photodo.com/news/

 

<p>

 

--Jim

Now a MF rangefinder that can shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x8 w/ TTL metering,

spot metering, TTL flash, leaf shutters, and auto parallax correction in the viewfinder would be very nice. The only thing I know that can shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 on the same roll with no wasted film is the variable roll film back by Sinar. Now if this XPAN is supposed to be marketed under the Fuji name in Japan, it might mean it'll cost a lot less, as most cameras in Japan cost less than the same US-imported item. I imagine its price won't be anywhere close to matching that of the Contax G2.

I usually bring a phototrekker AW pack filled w/ a Rollei 6008i, spare magazine, schneider 40/3.5, 90/4apo, 180/2.8 lenses (the latter two are over 4" in diameter), a 1.4x teleconverter, accessories, a Fuji G617, and gitzo carbon tripod. There's nothing more frustrating than telling yourself, "If only I had brought my

xxx, I could get a great shot!" This is my standard, overseas travel setup (I walk or take public transpo).

 

<p>

 

When I go somewhere that I've been before (and know what lenses to use), I can leave some equipment at home. I've packed this combo up a 9000 ft mountain (my concession to weight savings was to leave the gitzo 410 at home :-)). If I'm hiking in an area where fantastic landscapes are expected, I leave the 180/2.8 at home and take a 300/4 and they weigh nearly the same. For parties, I go w/ a zeiss 80/2.8 w/ schneider 180/2.8.

 

<p>

 

I haven't really encountered a really compact MF camera that's really fast (ie, basically P&S) and is larger than 6x4.5. The Mamiya 7 is still way to bulky, a TLR doesn't fit well in one's pocket due to its awkward shape, etc. The Mamiya 6 would probably work, but it's no longer manufactured. Right now, the leading contender is still a Fuji GA645i for speed/size/lightweight, but I'll wait to see what Kyocera (Contax/Yashica) introduces this fall, as I hear they are introducing a 120 format camera. This might be the ticket.

Keep in mind that MTF charts don't tell the entire story! There are more subjective attributes affecting image quality than what can be measured by today's scientific standards. Take for example, the "boke." Two lenses that are identical in sharpness for high DOF shots can look very different for low DOF shots. After all, would one decide between a tube or solid-state audio amplifier by relying on the total harmonic distortion, output power, and frequency response curves (sadly, many people do), or decide between buying a BMW vs. a Mercedes by reading specs? If one lens has a bump here while another doesn't, will your eye decipher the difference? To some users, one thing that's bothersome to one can be unnoticeable to another. The only way to know is to use both lenses in real-life situations for the type of photography you prefer.

Has anyone tried the new E200 120 size yet? I heard that pushing it +3 is equivalent to ISO 1000 (instead of 1600). Does anyone know what ISO it should be rated at for a push of +1 and +2? (I only remember that +2 is less than ISO 800).

I bought my G617 used in mint cond. (counter on 4) w/ leather case, cable, center filter for 240,000 yen in Japan this past March. I think the G617 is a much better deal than the GX617, in that you get everything (filter, case, etc.) for one price. For me, a 90mm or 105mm is just the right focal length, so I wouldn't have bought more than one lens if I had a GX617. The G617 is also lighter and smaller than the GX617. Panorama cameras seem to be in high demand these days. I use mine as a supplement to my wide angle 6x6 lens, so I wasn't willing to pay a lot for a 6x17. BTW, the GX617 requires a battery (!) to trip its electromagnetic shutter. The G617 is purely mechnical. The G617

has no lines in it's viewfinder, so it gets a little tricky to frame a shot if you wear glasses (I just remove my glasses). I do find that I use my 617 more than I originally expected (and my 40mm wide angle lens less often),

partly because it doesn't take anymore work to get a chrome that's three times larger and that shows a lot more detail.

I've ordered from RRS on two occasions from overseas. Both times,

I received exactly what I ordered and also the change in cash. I think Kirk tends to copy the RRS plates, and doesn't have the ballhead quick release adapter plates like RRS. It takes much longer to order w/ RRS, as they don't accept credit cards.

 

<p>

 

To order a lens plate for my MF tele, I had to trace the lens plate onto a sheet of paper and mail that to them. They, in turn, mailed me back a catalog telling me which plate to use, with the price. Their recommendation works well, I have to say (any MFD readers who want to know what plate to use with a schneider 300/4 APO tele-xenar for the Rollei 6000 series, feel free to email me :-)).

Their catalog is mostly tailored to 35mm users. I do use their

focusing rack for macro work,which works well and is light years less expensive than the manufacturer's focusing rack.

I recently received a response from Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>, who's currently reviewing the CB series, regarding the optical quality...

 

<p>

 

>I have the 60 and 160 CB lenses in for test right now.

>

>The 160 definitely is not as good as the 150 CF. It is a very good

>lens, but it just doesn't have that "sparkle" in the chromes.

>

>Can't say anything about the 60 just yet since the only other Zeiss >wide angle I have to compare it to is the 40, and that's not a fair

>comparison.

 

<p>

 

OTOH, as a response,Joachim Hein <jhein@physics.gla.ac.uk> writes:

 

<p>

 

>If you look at the MTF at the Hasselblad web page, you could see,

>even CZ holds the Tessar 160 not to be up to the Sonnar 150.

I bought a 6008i back in March of 1997 gray market (new) and it

developed problems w/ a pc board after 5 months; the electronics were replaced under warranty by the factory. Later, I discovered that the serial number on my body corresponded to being manufactured in 1995 or earlier, so perhaps there was a problem with an earlier production run, or maybe the gray market models were of a lesser quality. Since the repair, it's been working flawlessly. I've used it in weather conditions from snow and rain (of course, shielding the camera from the elements, but it was humid) to blowing sand/salt on a dry lake bed in Death Valley.

BTW, I only use the scheider glass (have 4 lenses). If image quality is number one regardless of price, this is my recommendation over zeiss. Having built-in matrix metering and a winder makes it much more productive, so I use mine for overseas vacations/photo shoots (also have a 6x17, and it's comparatively slow).

 

Before deciding on the Rollei, I almost bought the hasselblad, but

there was no model with built-in metering and leaf shutters...not much to ask in a $1800 aluminum shell with no lens/film back. Considering there are so many hasselblad models available now, why doesn't hasselblad produce a model with the metering capabilities of the 203FE with the leaf shutters of the 500 series for a price that's a little higher than a 503CW?

In general, MF lenses supposedly have a higher resolution than LF

lenses, while 35mm lenses are higher in resolution than MF lenses.

Now why is this? Is it more of a coverage issue (ie, solid angle/

lens diameter vs. film area covered)? Certainly, the film's is

identical except for the size. I presume there's a tradeoff in

coverage versus resolution? It seems there are always exceptional

MF/LF lenses that at least equal or surpass the best 35mm lenses, so

it seems this argument really isn't pertinent anymore.

You should look at the new Pentax 645N before buying anything. Of all

the Japanese MF cameras, I think this one feels the best, plus the optics

are really good. I wouldn't expect any promos on it, though. As far as

lenses go, every manufacturer has an x mm lens that better than someone

else's x mm lens and vice versa, so buy the camera that you enjoy using;

if it's a chore to use, you won't use it often, and that's a waste of $$$.

I almost bought a Hasselblad 203FE but went for Rollei 6008i, which is

a real joy to use.

In a follow-up about the sekonic 408's calibration, I finally have

it adjusted so that the exposures match those taken by my Rollei slr,

which gives accurate exposures. Interestingly enough, my sekonic was

underexposing by exactly 1/2 stop, which is exactly what the other

commenter discovered with his.

There's a promo going on in Tokyo now whereby for every 10 rolls of

Fuji 120/220 film you buy, you get a free Fuji hardcase that holds

5 rolls of 120/220. To my knowledge, one cannot buy them separately

(at least yet), but this is just to let MF users know that they do

exist. They're made of rigid, gray plastic, and are thick enough to

avoid shattering if abused.

 

<p>

 

Fuji also has new archival slide sleeves that blow anything Print File

has away in terms of accessibility. One side "peels" back, exposing

the slides which sit in individual sleeves. You just reach in and grab

the one you want. They're due to be released in Tokyo around July,

according to the Fuji rep I spoke to.

I recently purchased a barely used (counter on "4") Fuji G617 and

have run about a half dozen rolls of 120 velvia through it. I've shot

at the aperatures ranging from f16-f45 (but not larger, yet). Despite

what people say about Fujinon lenses (this is a 105/f8), this one still

doesn't match my schneider's for my Rollei 6008i in sharpness. Contrast

and color look very good using a schneider 6x6 loupe, and distortion

is very low. They're slightly softer than my tele-xenar lenses in

sharpness, but can't touch the 90/4 APO symmar (neither can any lens

I've used/seen, including the zeiss 80/2.8 planar).

I have my ciba's "hinge" mounted, which is basically taping the top and

bottom edges down using an acid-free archival-quality tape. It's the

recommended method of mounting for expensive art, as I used to collect

lithographs/serigraphs and had them mounted in this manner (recommened by

all the galleries I talked to). I wouldn't mount it on a foam-board or

anything like that, as the ciba will pick up the texture of the board.

Mamiya does make a 55mm lens (maybe it's a 50mm, I forget) for the M7.

I saw it at the Mamiya booth at the International Pro Photo Show in

Tokyo a few weeks ago.

I'm a color (reversal) photographer (6x6) who's interested in trying my hand at black and white portraiture. What types of filters do I need (if any), assuming outdoor portraiture with available light and indoor portraiture with artificial lighting? I prefer not to buy many filters (just any "critical" ones, if there are any). What are the highest resolution films available (how is TMAX 400 vs Neopan 400?)

The Rollei 6003/6008 use an insert whereby the film goes from the film spool to the takeup spool directly, just like in any 35mm slr, which is one reason why the camera is tall. It doesn't wind around extra times as in other MF cameras that use magazines. When you open the drawslide, the pressure plate juts forward quite a bit, tensioning the film. The film inserts can be interchanged between backs.

I recommend you read my article entitled, "Buying a Camera in Japan" at

http://www.photo.net/photo/japan-buying.html. In a nutshell, Mamiya is about

60% of the price in NYC, Pentax is about the same price, Fuji is a little less, Rollei is a lot less, Hasselblad is a little less.

 

<p>

 

--Jim

Actually, Fuji still does make Reala Ace in 120/220. I can buy it just

about anywhere in Japan, even at the local grocery/dept. store. They

don't sell NPH-400 here, though. There's only Reala Ace, Super G 100/400,

NS-160 ("short speed"), NL-160 ("long speed"), and NC-160 ("commercial").

I haven't used any of the 160 speed films, nor do I know how it differs

from NPS sold in the US.

Yes, to my knowledge, the barcode is merely a DX code with a different

name. IMHO, it's pretty silly. It appeared in Japan late last summer. The

only major difference I can detect between the provia RDPII and velvia from

the non-DX code is the increased price. A box of 120 velvia skyrocketed

from 395 yen to 505 yen, a 25% increase!! The other minor difference is

that the plastic spool has a tab that catches in the hole punched in the

end of the paper leader, but that doesn't warrant that price increase.

Other than the Fuji GA645 series, I have yet to see any camera that uses

it. Fuji shouldn't assume that velvia users are going to shoot it at

ISO 50 automatically.

When I looked this past tuesday (Feb 3) at Yodobashi Camera, the price

of the M7 with 80mm lens was about 192,000 yen. The body itself is about 125,000 yen, the 80mm lens about 67,000 yen. These prices include the

5% consumption tax, plus if you have a Yodobashi Gold Point card, you get

an additional 5% (of the pre-tax amount) credited for a future purchase

(any item). In other words, for about $1500 (at 125 yen/dollar),

you can get a new M7 body with 80mm lens and about 15 boxes of 120 velvia film.

 

<p>

 

I've seen used ones at camera shops in Tokyo for only about $100

less, so you may as well buy the new one.

I read something on bellows extension that is far simpler. Take the

example above where one uses an 80mm lens. Focus on the subject. Say

there is 40mm extension. Then, in cm, the original focal length is 8cm

while with the extension, it's 12cm. The difference between f8 and f12

is a little over 1 stop, so it requires one stop compensation.

THere is one quirk I discovered regarding lens quick release plates. I just swicthed to the Arca-Swiss compatible plates and bolted my plate onto the body with a large 3/8" allen bolt, cinching it really tight. After that, I discovered that the lenses wouldn't quite mount as easily as before, and the extension tube wouldn't mount at all! After some fiddling, I managed to mount the tube and the macro lens, but switching the power on resulted in nothing!

Trying out my two other lenses also resulted in nothing! I changed to a fresh battery with the same result. It took a while to figure out what was going on. Basically, the contacts on the lens were not making full contact with those on the body. The reason is that cinching the quick release bolt really tight (like what you'd do on a car/bike) will flex the aluminum chassis a little. The chassis behind the front plate of the camera is about 1/8" thick, which will flex inward a little since it's all one piece with the bottom. Mounted on the front chassis is the button which released the lens. Connected to this button inside the lens mounting ring is a small, metal plate that latches the lens in. This plate must be parallel to the lens mount! So that plate wasn't parallel and was, instead, rubbing on the inside of the lens mount and not allowing the lens to fully seat and/or electrical contacts to fully contact the body's contacts. What led me to the problem was that the red, spring-loaded button sometimes wouldn't pop back out when releasing a lens. I finally tried loosening the screw to the quick release plate and after that, everything worked as normal, lenses mounted easily, etc. If this isn't the source of your problem, I figure I'd post it anyways in case someone in the future falls into the same trap.