jim_chow

No problems. The external access makes is must quicker to change batteries. The pins in the body and battery contacts are gold plated (as are the contacts for the lens-body), so you need not worry about oxidation. If you're shooting in the a sandstorm, the battery is the last thing I'd be worried about! :-)

I'm still grappling with this problem. I have the 40mm and 180mm lens shades, but the 180's shade is too heavy (brass) and doesn't give as much coverage as it could (since it also works on the 110mm). One way is to go cheap and get the Lee bellows hood that holds one 4x6 filter (but this will likely vignette w/ the 40mm...can't verify it, though). I've seen Ed's setup w/ the adapted hasselblad proshade. I think if I pursue this further, I'd sacrifice the 180's hood to the machinist (have him cut off the end and use the Bay 104 mount) and have it adapted to the hasselblad proshade, along with getting a bay VI adapter made for the proshade, and then just using the proshade for the 90mm, 110mm, and 180mm lenses (they all use bay 104). I really like the bay 104 mount as opposed to threading a 95mm adapter to the filter threads (like with the Lee system). I think the 40mm's shade works fine as is (I lined mine w/ black felt...much better).

Another factor to consider is it's not as easy to get a top-quality scan from a negative vs. getting a 8x10; most scanners work better scanning transparencies. Also, since you'll be selling 8x10 and 11x14 enlargements to clients, I think they're only be willing to pay so much for a print...$25-30, not $50! (your break even point if you have a prolab do the work). So economically, shooting med format w/ neg film is still cheaper. If you want to do the scanning yourself, a high-quality scanner like the Imacon runs $10K, which is enough to pay for your 645 system. Then the Fuji Pictography 3000 printer runs around $20K, and don't forget the computer system, editing and color calibration software, special paper, and time to do the scans, edit them, etc. If you need to go big, medium/large format on transparency film w/ drum scanning and a lightjet print is the way to go. Otherwise, 8x10 enlargements from MF neg film is just dirt cheap and simple. To save money, I'd shoot all the formal shots on MF and party shots on 35mm since one seldom makes anything larger than 4x6's or 5x7's.

I believe the Schneider 90/5.6 XL has the widest image circle...259mm, which, I think, is a conservative spec. It's a big lens (not compact at all). For a 150mm, You might also consider the 150/5.6 XL super-symmar. Although large and heavy, this lens, along w/ the 110XL super symmar, are the two aspheric offerings by Schneider. I have used the 110XL and own the 90XL and 150XL. Since you intend to shoot landscapes instead of architecture, I'd get the 110XL over a 90mm. I find the 90mm isn't as useful as the longer focal length lenses for landscape. I typically favor the 150-300mm lenses. For architecture, it's usually 90mm and 150mm. BTW, all my lenses are f5.6 except for the 300/9 Nikkor, which is comparatively dark. A 300/5.6 apo symmar would be much easier to focus and is a lot sharper, but is massive and pricey.

 

If I were choosing between the 150/5.6 apo symmar and apo sironar S, I'd get the apo sironar S (slightly larger image circle..makes a difference since 150mm lenses have tiny image circles already. Since I sometimes take shots w/ radical amounts of tilt, like 20 deg, I use the 150XL). I have the 210/5.6 apo-symmar...very sharp lens, rivals anything in medium format.

In the manual under operations in cold weather, it says it takes about 3 hrs to get max. charge. The charger goes into a slow charge mode. I noticed the battery which came w/ my original body, which is marked "medium acting" (referring to the fuse), didn't last nearly as long as my newer batteries purchased in 1997-98, which are marked "slow acting." I deduced that the battery was made around 1995 or so (based on serial numbers, etc.), so it had been sitting around for 2 yrs before I bought it. I believe the batteries inside the cells are just like the cordless phone Nicads, except twice as many cells. I believe Nicads need to be used often, and you should try to drain them as much as possible before recharging for maximum charge. Two batteries should be plenty.

I use the schneider for the reasons Ed posted. Also, the 40/4 distagon requires a hood that uses 95mm filters (might be an oddball size instead now) whereas the 40mm SA uses standard 77mm non-bayonet filters. The MTF's of the 40mm super angulon are about equivalent to those of the 38mm biogon around f8-11, so that should be good enough. :-) Besides, how often does one shoot a wide angle lens wide open?

1. That's easy...I bought both! If I've planned the shot and it's a keeper, I shoot on 4x5 (and sometimes also on 6x6 in case I plan to project, etc.)

 

2. Only when I have the 4x5 with me and see a shot that either isn't good enough for the LF effort or requires the speed of a MF slr.

 

4. When you see the transparencies/enlargements, all the extra inconvenience is forgotten.

 

9. Read qtluong's LF home page, Steve Simmon's book on using the view camera (explains movements), Merklinger's articles on the DOF with tilts (available as pdf's on his webpage, linked to qtluong's LF page), and ask questions. Once you figure out a systematic method, you're set.

 

You might also consider the Ebony titanium/wood field cameras. Lightweight, strong, excellent workmanship. There are various versions w/ bellows extensions over 400mm available, or ones for architecture. Many architecture pros in Japan use the Ebony. The Toyo AII is fine for landscapes, but probably won't have enough movements if you ever plan to shoot architecture.

Since you can get 324mm of extension using the screw-on end inserts,

you don't need a long rail unless you plan to do macro work w/ the

210mm. You can use up to a 300mm non-tele lens or the 400/5.6 apo

tele-xenar HM (will focus to 15 ft w/ 324mm of extension, according

to Schneider USA). With the Toyo VX125, you can use a 72/90XL w/ the

stock bellows and get full rise (I've even done it w/ a 58XL). This

is impossible w/ the Arca or Linhof without the bag bellows, and the

Toyo's setup and takedown times are faster than those of either one.

You can learn just about everything necessary to expose the negs on large format at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/. Another good source is Steve Simmons' book on Using the View Camera, which demonstrates the movements and gives examples of photographs taken with view cameras and what movements/lighting techniques were used and why.

I would recommend against a close-up lens for additional magnification since inserting additional pieces of glass (that, incidentally, are not optimized for that lens) will degrade the optical performance. I'd probably go w/ an autobellows unit (you'll need about 80mm of extension to go to 1:1 since the helicoil on the 80/2.8 doesn't extend much). You could use a dedicated macro lens, but most still require the bellows to get to 1:1.

Although I find my 6x6 chromes to glow, I get a similar effect w/ 4x5 on RVP w/ the Schneider 150XL lens using sheet film loaded in Toyo holders shot on a Toyo VX125 w/ compendium shade. Film flatness is critical, BTW. Toyo holders, next to the Grafmatics, are supposedly the flatest. Ground glass calibration is also important (where you focus must correspond to where the film actually is). So many factors can go wrong w/ LF that it's tough to pinpoint the cause of a slightly soft shot. Is it because of GG calibration, holder flatness, MTF falloff at the edge of the image circle, focusing error? Insufficient DOF? No compendium shade? (excess light enters the bellows and bounces around, causing possible loss of contrast..more important in LF than MF due to large image circles)

I think Gassar's in San Fran rents a full line of Rollei lenses. And there is a Rollei dealer in Sydney near Sydney Tower on that same street (this is where I got my first Rollei literature). It's a major pro shop.

In the Rollei literature I saw somewhere, there's a photo of a technician wearing a lab coat in an optics lab who is inspecting lens elements on a tray. At least this corroborates with what Kornelius' eyes have seen. :-)

The story I've heard from Marc James Small, author of the "Zeiss Compendium," was that back in the early 70's or so, Zeiss more or less did not want to keep up with demand for their photographic lenses, as they could realize a much larger profit on commercial/military optics (submarine periscopes, etc.), so they licensed Rollei to produce several lenses according to Zeiss specs (I have the ref's for this if anyone's interested). Anyways, Kornelius should know more about this. :-)

 

BTW, Zeiss does produce some lenses for Rollei (50/4 FLE distagon, 60/3.5 distagon, 110/2 planar, 500/8 apo-tessar, 100/8 tele-tessar, maybe the 350/5.6 tele-tessar, if it's still made). To my knowledge, Rollei only produces the 50/4 EL, 80/2.8 (both EL and PQ/PQS), 150/4 (EL and PQ/PQS), and 250/5.6 PQS. My understanding is that Rollei/Hasselblad have to buy their Zeiss or Schneider-labelled optics from Zeiss/Schneider, so there's an additional middleman as opposed to producing it oneself. Of course, it isn't cheap setting up your own optics fabrication factory, either. Then there's the issue of licensing the designs, etc.

The 6006 backs will work, as John mentioned, but they default to iso 100 (no iso adjustment knob), so you need to compensate for the film by using the compensation knob on the left side of the body (e.g., dial to -2 for iso 400 film, etc.). The manual mentions this.

If you stop a lens down to f32, you're already down to something like 40 lpmm in resolution! With a view camera, you can apply tilt/swing to tilt the plane of focus to a plane other than vertical. This yields a perceived increased DOF (but clouds in the sky might be blurry since they are out of the region of DOF!), which allows you to shoot at a larger aperture, maybe 2 stops faster. However, keep in mind that a normal lens in 4x5 is a 150mm, which is a tele for MF/35mm, so that 2 stops gained by the movements merely compensates for what is lost from the longer lens! OTOH, you could shoot 6x7/6x9 on a view camera and use a shorter lens (normal is 90mm) to gain the best of both worlds. Tilts don't work well if there's a tall object in the foreground, like a tree...can't get enough DOF.

 

In general 35mm lenses are sharper than MF which are sharper than LF. Top-end 35mm are around 300 lpmm, while MF is like 160 lpmm and LF is 80 lpmm. Velvia gives about 100 lpmm resolution in the field (not USAF test targets). This means you end up getting about 75, 62, 45 lpmm on film. If you want 8 lpmm in the print (eyes can detect a max of 15 lpmm or so), that's about 8x, 7x, 5x enlargement factors (with some enlarger loss) for 35mm/MF/LF. Photodo has an article w/ comparison photos on B&W that show that resolution on T-Max is equivalent visually, but it says nothing about grain, which is terrible in the 35mm case. So the moral of the story is that you should shoot MF/LF for the reduced grain in enlargements not because of DOF considerations. LF is always a battle for DOF; the goal is to shoot as close as you can to f11-16, the sharpest aperture of most LF lenses. Movements help you accomplish this, but in reality, (unless the subject is flat w/ no trees, rocks, bushes in the foreground) with a 210mm lens and tilt w/ lens 5 ft off the ground, it's more like f22-32.

One point against the 6001 is that it doesn't accept the action grip, so handholding is a bit more awkward. The 6003 pro should be plenty enough, and with the built-in metering, you can even use it for non-wedding app's, land travel/landscape photography. I don't think it has rear-curtain flash sync capability, though, as it can't be programmed by the master control. If you want to save money/weight, you could also go w/ the 60/3.5 and 120 makro planar, as the focal lengths differ by a factor of two.

My guess is that it's partly a physical limitation. The more blades, the heavier the weight and more inertia, so you just can't move them as fast. Leaf shutter blades do get large (look at the copal 3 shutter...max speed is 1/125 sec while the copal 1 is 1/400 sec and copal 0 is 1/500 sec). I'm guessing MF manufacturers could make lenses w/ larger shutters or more blades, but the extra inertia might cut the max. sync speed down to 1/125 sec...not very good. I also believe this is why Hasselblad doesn't have the fast 110/2 planar w/ integrated leaf shutter. A fast f2 lens is kind of meaningless for outdoor fill flash if the shutter can only sync to 1/125 sec. :-) Rollei does make the 110/2 w/ a leaf shutter that syncs at 1/500 sec, but the blades are carbon composite w/ electronic timing rather than metal. Of course, there could be other reasons why there aren't more blades, like the manufacturer trying to save money?

 

BTW, I heard from a physicist that if there are an odd number of blades (say N), then light sources will have 2N points (look at how street lights are rendered) while if N is even, lights will have N points. (I might have this backwards) This might have some relation to having 5 blades. The pentagons also annoy me; I prefer circles, too.

Relating to film thickness, has anyone noticed the difference in thickness of velvia vs. other emulsions? On 4x5 (and I think, 120), velvia is definitely thicker and more rigid than astia, which feels about the same in thickness as neg films. Inspecting the transparencies, velvia is clearly sharper than astia (using a 5x Zeiss triotar loupe), but I'm convinced that it's from higher resolution rather than film thickness shifting the focus off by a minute amount (depth of focus should take care of that, at least at smaller apertures). If the film plane is in the back of the body (like w/ the Rollei or any 35mm slr), film thickness doesn't matter, as the emulsion surface is always in the same place. With my 4x5 or cameras with the film plane in the magazine like the hasselblad, it does matter, as the film isn't necessarily in the exact spot where you think it is. If the film is thinner than what the ground glass is calibrated for(say you're using a conventional 4x5 film holder), you'll be focusing closer than you think. Granted, we're talking about thicknesses on the order of 40 um (assuming the film is 80 um, say), but it might make some difference when shooting wide open w/ a f2 lens. My guess is that error tolerances on holders/filmbacks exceed film thickness differences amongst the same film size (velvia vs. astia vs. E100).

I've used my 6008i's for weddings. I use one body w/ 80mm lens, and the other w/ 180mm lens mounted. I also bring a third 6x6 magazine. It helps if you know exactly what will happen next so you're prepared with the correct lens. I have used my 90/4, but now, I use the 80/2.8 since it's slightly wider and there's more resolution in the focusing ring (macro lenses have DOF lines very closely spaced), so I can more precisely select the aperture (in theory). In reality, it doesn't matter, as I've been shooting at f5.6 w/ the 80mm and 90mm virtually all the time for portraits. The second lens I use is the Schneider 180mm (DOF is very narrow..1 foot at 30 ft away at f2.8). I think a 150mm would work better indoors, as the 180mm is a tad too long, but it depends on the size of the room. For outdoor portraits, I sometimes use the 300/4 apo tele-xenar wide open. For wide angle, either a 50mm or 60mm (you might be able to get the group shot w/ the 80mm if there's enough room). As I seldom shoot weddings, my wide angle is a 40mm...way too wide for weddings. If you handhold, it's nice to have an assistant to hold the flash up high pointed downwards to reduce shadows (roofs weren't white, were too high). I shoot everything off a tripod, as I prefer plenty of ambient fill, meaning shutter speeds are usually slow (1/15 sec at f5.6 on NPH 400 rated at 320).

 

BTW, I used the master control to reprogram the flash for rear-curtain sync. When you use a slow exposure for ambient fill (like 1/4-1/8 sec for a shot in a dim room), people think the exposure is complete when they see the flash. The result is a slight blur if you're using front curtain flash. The other way around, when they see the flash, the shot is really over. Same holds true for animal shots...they get spooked when the see the flash and lurch their heads. Just lock up the mirror beforehand so the sound doesn't startle them.

The enlargement quality will depend on the film used, too (besides the equipment). I've had a number of 16x16's made on ilfochrome classic from veliva transparencies. Under a schneider 8x loupe, the transparencies are tack sharp, but looking at the print, it's not as sharp...there's always some loss from the enlarger, type of paper used (Ilford R's suck...even 8x10's from 4x5 velvia chromes looked terribly grainy [it was paper grain, not film grain]; I had to have them redone on ilfochrome classic, and they still don't look as good as those Fuji RP type R's I had done in Japan). If you want tack sharp from a reading distance w/ no hint of grain, I would say 11x11 from 6x6, 16x20 from 4x5 on velvia. It all depends on your tolerance level for sharpness/grain.

I don't think there's any hard, fast rule. In general, PQ lenses have the window and PQS's don't, but my 180/2.8 and 300/4 are PQ and don't have the window. I believe the PQ lenses can be used with older Rollei's (which might not have a display that gives the aperture, hence the needle indicator is used) while the PQS can only be used w/ the the 6001/6003/6008.

My guess is that the market is too small, not to mention that the cost for a MF tilt-shift lens is enormous. Schneider makes the 55mm pcs tilt-shift for the Rollei 6000 series (one was also made for the Bronica SQ mount), but it costs $7000! (I paid less for a new, top-end 4x5 compact monorail w/ three Schneider LF lenses!) At $7K a pop, how many people do you know are willing to buy two or three of these in different focal lengths? Lens prices rise exponentially with image circle. Even the EOS tilt-shift lenses already cost as much as MF lenses.

I just tested it. It seems to give you the running average in the display up to 5 samples. However, if you shoot, say, after the 4th sample, on the next reading, it'll think it's still on the 5th sample. The way around it is to set flip the multi-spot switch to something else and then back to multispot to reset. Or you can just use 5 spots (I think this is the intent). Again, I never really use the multi-spot...the matrix metering is so surprisingly accurate, I never feel I need the multi-spot. Also, with 5 spots, the problem is deciding on what to take the spot readings of and how to weight them. If you look at the matrix pattern, the bottom corners are weighted more than the top corners, so you might not want to weight them equally by taking a spot off each. I know one guy who swears by the multi-spot. Now that I shoot 4x5 along w/ MF, if I have the time, I usually use a Pentax digitalspot to check scene contrast and to determine the exposure. I then cross-check w/ matrix. In tricky situtations (rapidly changing light), the handmeter is useless and I rely completely on matrix.

All the 90mm lenses have falloff. I think there's way to design to a

lens so that the falloff isn't as severe, but the design is likely to

be sub-optimal (i.e., not as sharp?). I have a 90XL and use the

filter all the time in daylight (I shoot velvia most of the time, so

darkening would otherwise be emphasized), and sometimes at night (if

the sky is dark, you won't notice; this is where the filter kills you

in speed).