jim_chow

I think many guys who use wide lenses w/ view cameras (e.g.,

architecture) shoot w/ the 72XL, 58XL, and maybe 47XL. These

lenses cover 4x5.

Bill has the most precise answer. It's basically a summary of

Merklinger's articles. The DOF is a cone/wedge-shaped region

about the plane of sharp focus. It opens up to infinity at infinity, as

has a size of +/-J at the hyperfocal distance (measured along a

plane parallel to the film plane), where J is the distance from the

lens to vertex of the wedge of DOF (below the lens). Once you

understand the theory of DOF with tilts, the application in the field

becomes elementary. Two things I might add. One is to inspect

the stuff in the foreground w/ a loupe, around 4x (say, maybe your

subject is a group of rocks) plus anything tall like mountain/tree-

tops in the foreground/background. Nothing is more annoying

than having the top of a mountain or tree go soft. Second,

sometimes, you need to set the vertex of the wedge of DOF

underground so that it intersects the ground in front of the

camera at the foreground subject. This becomes important if the

foreground subject matter is very close to the camera and you

still want to use tilt to ensure infinity is sharp.

I'd side w/ Kornelius. I think it's the brand of filter you're using

(assuming your lens is the Canon L series...no idea about the

quality of the non-L coatings, as I hear some lenses only

multicoat on the outer front/rear element). I had a problem with a

Tiffen polarizer and warming filter on a W. German Zeiss 50/1.4

planar (multicoated, perfect glass, circa 1970). The filters would

leave large overexposure streaks across the negs across the

center of the shot when the shot was into the sun. With no filters,

no problem. Nowdays, I use B+W filters only...no problems.

Their multicoated filters are excellent.

PQ lenses often, but not always, have a clear window w/ white

needle that indicates the aperture (say, when using MLU). My 40/

3.5 super-angulon PQ has this, but my 180/2.8 PQ doesn't. I

believe non-PQ lenses can be modified by Marflex to become PQ

(in this case, it would be a modified lens, not an original factory

PQ). I think the PQ lenses draw more current than the non-PQ

lenses (such as w/ the 6006). That is, if you try using a PQ lens

on a body not intended for that lens, you might blow the fuse. It's

certainly the case w/ the PQS lenses.

Macro lenses aren't necessary for closeup (up to 1:1) work

unless you plan to shoot stamps/coins on a tabletop. The main

advantage of a macro lens is the flat field. You won't be able to

take advantage of this flat field unless the film is always parallel

to the subject plane and the subject is flat. I think a view camera

with a normal lens like a 150-210mm is going to be the best

choice for macro work. The amount of bellows extension is still

reasonable at 1:1 (300-420mm), and pretty much all the latest

LF lenses are corrected down to 1:1. If you want to go more

macro, a dedicated macro lens will be optimized for larger

magnifications.

I'm a sharpness nut with top-end MF and LF glass. I also have

the 300/9 M, my only non-German lens, and it just doesn't

compare in sharpness to my 150/5.6 super symmar XL and 210/

5.6 apo symmar. If the 300/5.6 apo-symmar and apo-sironar S

are as sharp as the 210/5.6's, they'll blow the Nikkor away. The

penalty, of course, is carrying the huge 300/5.6 not to mention 4x

the price. The 90XL isn't as sharp as the 150XL or 210AS, but

still easily beats the 300/9 Nikkor. If you look at the chromes

taken by the 300/9 (I use velvia for landscapes/architecture), they

look sharp by themselves, but compared side-by-side to shots

taken w/ the big plasmats and you'll easily see the difference. My

sharpest LF lenses rival my MF lenses while the Nikkor can't

come close. Bottom line is you get what you pay for. With the

300/5.6's, the MTF's are very high at the center of the image

circle, and if you're shooting 4x5, you're using only the sweet spot

of the lens. I haven't seen any MTF's for the Nikkor M. Still, I use

the Nikkor 300/9 due to its diminutive size. If there were a

300mm lens the size of a 210/5.6 apo-symmar and equally as

sharp, I'd buy it, even if it were 3x the money.

I've successfully used the Lee 4x6 soft fade 0.6 grad ND filter on

a Fuji 617. The filter is such that the bottom third is clear, middle

third is about 2/3-1 1/3 stop, top third is 2 stops. I find that 2/3

stop compensation does the trick (also verified by my MF SLR's

matrix metering system). The problem with using this filter on

the Fuji GA645zi or most cameras is the lens is too small in

diameter, so the middle third of the filter will cover the entire lens,

hence almost no graduated effect.

Rollei DOF charts indicate that the DOF of the 300/4 wide open

is slightly less than that of the 180/2.8 wide open, but barely. At

3.5m, the DOF of the 180 at f2.8 is 10cm (4 in), the 300 at f4 is

8cm (3.2 in). Owning both lenses, I think the 180mm is more

useful (with a 150mm even more useful than a 180mm, or both

a 180mm and a 120mm) and better as a portrait lens (I suspect

a little more spherical abberration, giving the bokeh a very

dreamy quality?). In many cases, you just can't back up far

enough to use a 300/4. The 300/4 has slightly better MTF's. On

film, it's hard to say (I'd say in some cases, it's slightly better).

Other options would be the 110/2 combined with the 1.4x

teleconverter to give a 154/2.8 (don't know how good that combo

is, but the 180/2.8 or 150/4 tele-xenar would be sharper).

Nope. If you want to use a LF lens and shoot MF, you need to

use a MF rollfilm back on a LF camera (the Rollei XAct-2 bench

monorail can accept both Rollei MF lenses or LF lenses in

copal shutters using a special adapter).

When I was living in Japan for a few years, I saw the yen range

between 102 and 146/dollar. US prices don't fluctuate much; a

weaker yen merely means profits, when converted from dollars

to yen, will be greater. One thing I learned is that market share is

very important to Japanese companies. No manufacturer wants

consumers to think it's raising prices...they'd rather absorb a

loss than lose marketshare if it means profits in the long run (>>

a fiscal quarter or even fiscal year). I think set US prices have a

large cushion for currency fluctuations. You tend to see frequent

rebates when the yen is weak to pass some savings along, and

fewer rebates if the yen is strong to recoup for exchange rate

losses. Yet, the listed price (say at B&H) is almost always

constant. It gives the perception that prices aren't rising (a great

way to scare off price-conscious US consumers), even when the

yen strengthens and news bulletins say to expect the prices of

imports to rise.

When I was living in Japan for a few years, I saw the yen range

between 102 and 146/dollar. US prices don't fluctuate much; a

weaker yen merely means profits, when converted from dollars

to yen, will be greater. One thing I learned is that market share is

very important to Japanese companies. No manufacturer wants

consumers to think it's raising prices...they'd rather absorb a

loss than lose marketshare if it means profits in the long run (>>

a fiscal quarter or even fiscal year). I think set US prices have a

large cushion for currency fluctuations. You tend to see frequent

rebates when the yen is weak to pass some savings along, and

fewer rebates if the yen is strong to recoup for exchange rate

losses. Yet, the listed price (say at B&H) is almost always

constant. It gives the perception that prices aren't rising, even

when the yen strengthens and news bulletins say to expect the

prices of imports to rise.

If you shot transparencies, look at them w/ a loupe on the

lightbox for any corner falloff. I doubt you'll see any (if you didn't

shoot positives, then test a roll of positives and shoot something

like blue sky, which will easily show any falloff, at similar

apertures; wide open should give you a smaller image circle).

This means the culprit is the enlarger lens used by the lab.

Either the lens doesn't have the coverage for 6x6, or the lab is

trying to save time in making your prints by using a larger

aperture for the enlarging lens. A large aperture will yield smaller

image circles (not to mention worse MTF's = reduced

sharpness), meaning you're 6x6 chrome will be on the threshold

of vignetting. I'd request a reprint.

I would shoot one of the better iso 100 films (E100S/SW, RAP,

RDPIII) pushed two stops and shot wide open, at least until it's

bright enough that you can stop it down a tad and still have a

sufficiently high shutter speed.

A KR1.5 filter doesn't need any compensation. You'd barely be

able to see a 1/6 stop difference let alone any difference in

warmth. As Diego mentioned, I find that when warming is really

needed (dry climates w/ lots of UV light, high altitudes, snow), a

KR3 is often necessary. I often find myself using a Kaseman PL

and KR3 (PL by itself is often too cold). A 81A can be left on all

the time.

One friend of mine had reoccurring problems w/ Contax/Zeiss

100/2.8 makro-planars. The problem was a creaking helicoil. He

sold it, purchased another one, but that also had the same

problem. He sent it to Zeiss in Germany for repair, and they

overhauled and relubed it. However, it still had the same

problem. He sent it in for repair once again, and they ended up

replacing one of the barrels in the helicoil. He was by informed

by CZ that there was a bad "batch" of makro-planars made (and

these were distributed on the world market [but not recalled]).

One thing with high-end camera goods (this goes for any

brand....hassy, rollei, mamiya, etc.) is that quality control is

typically not as good as that of mass-produced, el-cheapo point

and shoots. In the former case, volume is relatively small and

goods are sometimes hand-assembled, so the company can

make a repair or adjustment here and there. In the latter case,

we're talking about millions of units produced, and any mass-

recall is going to cost millions of dollars. I'm not saying quality

control is shoddy, just that the probability of failures (mostly

small things, like rangefinders not calibrated correctly, etc.) is

higher though it can be still very small.

If bending the film for even a few minutes effects sharpness,

doesn't this imply that the exposures at the beginning of a roll of

film would be less influenced by the bend from being wrapped

on the spool for months/years prior to use?

Even cameras with pressure plates can't keep the film

completely flat, as they hold the film down only at the edges

against the film rails. If the shot is 6x9 or 6x17, one would think

there's a greater chance for the center of the film to bow inwards

or buckle (towards the lens) as compared to 6x4.5 or 6x6. When

you receive your uncut but sleeved 120/220/35mm chromes

back from the lab, ever notice, more than often, they have a warp

in the center running down the length of the entire film?

I have the model G617, which is a standard copal 0. I believe the

GX617 uses some kind of electromagnetic shutter like on the

Mamiya rangefinders, as it requires a battery (while normal copal

shutters don't). The center filters are used depending on the

aperture and format. If you're shooting 4x5 or 6x9 w/ a 105mm

lens, you don't generally need a center filter. In general (at least

w/ the Schneider 90XL lens), the lens needs to be stopped down

a couple of stops for the filter to be used. I just leave the center

filter on mine all the time (except for evening shots) and

remember to compensate for the 1 stop. Last, the only way to get

everything from 1m to infinity in sharp focus is to tilt the plane of

sharp focus, and none of the panorama cameras will allow one

to do this except maybe the Silvestri (6x12?); the Horseman

SW612 pro will give rise/fall/shift, but still no tilt. You don't want to

stop down to f45 if you don't have to...resolution is diffraction-

limited.

In reality, 4x5 is the true budget format and allows the most

flexibility...full perspective control and control of the plane of

sharp focus...ideal of landscape and architecture. For the price of

one or two MF or pan camera lenses, you can buy a complete

4x5 outfit w/ several lenses and accessories. Never mind the

film costs more per shot, as you don't machine gun film...it's just

not physically possible given the setup time. :-)

The 90/4 is large since it has a massive helicoil which allows for

1:2 macro. I also feel the larger barrel diameter makes is easier

to focus. With the 80/2.8, I always find it awkward in focusing, not

to mention that the focus of the 90/4 zeros in from infinity to 3 ft

much quicker when shooting portraits. Despite the large size of

the lens, it is surprisingly lightweight. An additional advantage is

if you shoot nature/landscapes, being able to stop down to f32

instead of f22 in the case of the 80/2.8 can save the shot.

The "10% at the most" deviation in the MTF for any random sample is

also incomplete. As other posters mentioned, there is an occasional

lemon. Of course there is! It's IMPOSSIBLE to claim that ALL lenses

will deviate by at most some amount. Most manufacturers use a

probability model to tell them the tolerances are within so much for

some number of samples. It might be something like you get 1 lemon

(MTF's are off by more than 10%) every 1000 units or 10,000 units.

I used to occasionally shoot pro baseball games at night from the

dugout area w/ my Rollei. For that, you need (1) long, fast glass f4

or faster for long teles >= 300 mm (300mm isn't very long in MF when

the action is 100+ ft away) and (2) fast film (iso 400 or faster). A

prism would help if the action is unpredictable. Since you have no

AF, you have to zone focus and guess the approx. exposure. This is

where auto-exposure and an auto-winder are worth their weight in

gold. Without AE, I'd use neg film since you're almost guaranteed

something printable regardless of exposure. Finally, try to

anticipate the action (where it'll occur next, so you can be pre-

focused and ready). This is the key to getting sharp shots since one

can't focus along with the moving action. If the subject is a long

train of horses w/ cowboys along the sides like at cattle drive,

panorama would be a better format than 6x6.

The format you select should be dictated by the type of photography

you plan to do. I find that for 95% of the shots, the square or

slightly rectangular (4:5 aspect, not 2:3!) format is sufficient. For

the other shots (virtually all landscape, in my case), you need 2:1

or 3:1 panorama. I solved the problem by buying a 6x6 format camera

as the workhorse (landscape, macro, portraits), and getting a Fuji

6x17 for the pan shots. Why the 6x17 and not 6x12? I got a better

deal on a 6x17. :-) Otherwise, I would have bought the Horseman SW612

(they also make a SW612 pro w/ rise and shift for architecture) w/

65mm grandagon (this gives about the same angular horizontal field of

view as 35mm format w/ a 25mm lens, which is about a 40mm in 6x6 or

105mm on 6x17 or 90mm on 4x5), rodenstock center filter, ground glass

adapter, with 6x12 back. Keep in mind that if you buy a pan camera,

you'll likely need a center neutral density filter (not cheap...$300-

$500 or more, depending on the lens!). The advantage of the Horseman

SW612 over the Fuji and Linhof pan models is the use of

interchangeable backs. It accepts 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 Horseman rollfilm

(120 only, not 120/220) backs, so although you only have 1 lens, by

using two backs, you effectively have two lenses (65mm on 6x12 is

like a 25mm lens in 135 while the same lens on 6x7 is more like a

35mm lens, a semi-wide angle). Like the Fuji/Linhof models, the

Horseman has no coupled rangefinder, so you guess at the focus

according to the helicoil setting. There is also a ground glass

adapter available (Fuji also offers them for their 6x17, but Linhof

doesn't, to my knowledge).

Of course, I could have cropped my 6x6 shots w/ the 40mm lens, but

why bother looking at tiny, sub-6x4.5 chromes when you're paying for

the medium format lens coverage and carrying the weight.

According to Marflex, they will (this was in a posting on the Rollei

digest a couple of years ago) repair equipment purchased overseas if

it's from the authorized importer from that country AND the original

sales receipt accompanies the product. I know of one person who had a

lens repaired on a body/lens 6008i combo purchased in Japan from

PROSYS (at that time, the authorized importer; now, it's Komamura).

From what I've deduced, Rollei GmBH gives an unconditional 1 year

international warranty. This DOES NOT mean that any service center

must perform the repair (as was my case in Japan since I originally

purchased a gray body)! It means that Rollei in Germany will repair

it. Extended warranties like what you see offered by Wall St Camera

are done on contract between Marflex and the shop (i.e., the shop

pays Marflex, which is an independent company from Rollei). In fact,

if you purchased the product in the USA under USA warranty and

Marflex repairs it, they, I believe, send the bill to Rollei in

Germany, which reimburses them (at least this is what happens in

Japan).

I did have a lens that I purchased used repaired in Germany (had to

pay for the shutter repair). If you have anything repaired in

Germany, send it FedEx, as they have their own customs facility.

Otherwise, Deutsch post is notoriously slow (takes 1 month in the

queue to get processed!). In fact, it took exactly 2 months when it

arrived at my door. I figured 1 week for the airmail to Germany, 4

weeks for German customs, 1 week to fax me the estimate and have me

approve it an to wire the money over, 1 week to perform the repair,

and 1 week to send it from Germany to Yokohama. I'm told by Bob Shell

that FedEx just takes a few days including customs if you specify

that it is to be returned to America and will not be sold in Germany.

The bottom line is that you know you can always get it repaired in

Germany, and they do excellent work there and perform a full check on

all functions (not just the one repaired). With the correct method of

shipping, you can have the repair done promptly. Given that you can

find a much lower price overseas, the savings can buy lots of

repairs and accessories. The situation is no different than if you

had purchased camera equipment in Japan and required repair in the

US. The US importer will either require payment (eventhough it might

be under Japanese warranty or international warranty) or might refuse

to repair it altogether. This whole thing of having to pay a 100%

premium on officially-imported US merchandise for the "service" is

ridiculous except for those who make their livelyhoods from

photography and can't go a single day without it. Of course, most of

them buy backup bodies, too (if you're in the middle of the Outback

and your equipment fails, it doesn't matter if your dealer is a full

service dealer that will lend you a body and repair your equipment in

24 hrs). If you want the closest to 100% reliability while being in

the middle of nowhere, get a 4x5...almost no moving parts.:-)

One advantage of the 90/4 over the 120/4 I forgot to mention is that

if you plan to shoot landscapes/scenics, the 90/4 has an internal

floating element while I'm almost certain the 120/4 does not.

Similarly, the 150/4 tele-xenar has a floating element whereas the

150/4 sonnar does not. Without the floating element, MTF's will

suffer at infinity. I believe most MTF's for macro lenses, unless

otherwise specified, are NOT at infinity. Of all these lenses, the

90/4 will be the easiest to handle, IMHO. It has a large barrel

(104mm) and zeroes in much faster for portraiture than my 80/2.8

planar (requires hunting around a bit).