warren_williams

<p>Wouldn't a Nikon F2 be in the running? No battery, interchangeable finders, built very well and no limit on older lenses. No autofocus but I think that is all you'll be giving up.</p>

<p>Help! I recently bought a A12 with the "flying V" on the release button along with a 500C. I ad had light leak problems with an earlier back which I had to replace the seal on (successfully) so I did a preemptive seal replacement on my recently purchased back. After running a roll of Ektar 100 through it there were leaks on about 3/4 of the photo. I tried to reinstall the seal figuring I had not seated it properly but the next roll of Portra 800 was even worse. I notice the spaces between he images varies a little - on actually overlap but come darn close ant the edges of the image don't form a nice crisp edge. I'm assuming I'm looking at a repair to cure the spacing but does anyone have any ideas about the leak. Do leaks happen other than through the dark slide slot. The back itself looks to be in very good shape and serial numbers match.</p><div></div>

<p>Nice. Having fallen in love with photography (again) with a SWC about five years ago I can really relate to one lens, one film, no onboard meter, no blinking lights and nothing to distract the eye in the viewfinder. Set hyperfocal distance, see the image and push the button.</p>

<p>If you can live with the limitation of a very wide view the SWC is probably the most compact, easiest medium format camera to use and gives amazing results. Set lens at hyperfocal distance and shoot away.</p>

<p>The PCE or any rising lens is less useful in interiors than exteriors. The point of using rise is to eliminate what is commonly felt to be less interesting foreground (usually about half the image on the average exterior shot at a distance) in favor of building coverage. You want the foreground in an interior shot since it's part of the building - it's the same as if there were interesting gardens in the foreground of an exterior shot. There are other uses for tilting and shifting lens in interior architectural photography but less prevalent in small format where inherent depth of field is larger. </p>

<p>A non-trivial consideration is that the Nikkor 14mm and the 14-24 won't take filters so the huge front element is vulnerable to damage depending on how careful you are. Both the Zeiss 15mm and the 16-35 take filters though large ones. The 16-35 also has vibration reduction though a lower max f-stop. I've been agonizing over this choice for while and there are no clear winners, in my opinion</p>

<p>Anyone who says inkjet prints are crap simply doesn't know what they are talking about.<br>

This is easy to prove. Take one of the transparencies and have it made "traditionally" (maybe through an interneg if no direct reversal process is available) and then have a quality scan and print made and see for yourself. The ability to fine tune contrast makes the scan - print process much superior to almost all "wet" processes. If you are really the compulsive type you can have a photographic print made from the scan but again compare a good version of both and you will find then indistinguishable.</p>

I believe tripods are one area that there simply isn't a good compromise choice so you really have to decide what's important to your shooting style. For example a compact tripod of any quality will require more time to extend when setting up. My own analysis led me to lever catches rather than collars and a 3 piece leg rather than a 4 or 5. I decided carbon fiber made a difference in weight that was important. I ended up with a Manfrotto with a Kirk ball head w/ an arca-swiss quick release. I'm sorry I didn't go with this system earlier as it fits all my needs and is a pleasure to use. This setup is several times higher in cost than your are looking for but both the tripod and head can be had used. OTOH a good tripod should last a lifetime and represents a very good investment. Things are hard enough in the field without fighing equipment. Lastly, in my opinion there is no such thing as overkill in a tripod until you get into the Linhof Monsters because the additional weight of a "medium" tripod over a useable light weight one is minimal when compared to the additional rigidity.

<p>I purchased a quick release plate assuming it was a Arca-Swiss style but it wasn't. It is 43.5 mm wide. It wasn't very expensive so I didn't bother returning it but would now like to find it a new home. Could anyone tell me what system it might be for. I don't think it's for the old Hasselblad system but not sure about the newer Hasselblad system. Any ideas anyone</p><div></div>

<p>I believe that Ansel Adams used a Contax system, a Hasselblad system and a large format system during most of his career. I don't believe he was that financially successful during most of his life so I assume he felt he need all three to do what he thought he needed to do.</p>

<p>Having learned photography in the film age I would tell you DON'T DO IT. Learn photography by getting an interchangeable lens digital camera and a single focal length lens. Place all the controls on manual and learn by getting instant feedback as you take photos of different things. Learn what a histogram shows and how to manually expose for the type of photograph you want. Don't change anything (no flash, no zoom) for 6 months. If you pay attention you'll understand exposure and depth of field pretty completely and everything else, like composition, you can experiment with for the rest of your life.</p>

<p>I have used both the Yashica 124 and the Rollei automat with a Tessar. The Yashica was nice but the Rollei felt a little better made. Both are very capable image makers and from all accounts indistinguishable in quality at f5.6 and smaller to Planars and Xenotars. One of the charms of TLR's are their light weight and that they take away lens swapping angst. The Mamiya's are high quality but with slrs like Bronicas so cheap why bother. Bear in mind most of these are over 40 years old so a cla (at least $150) is often necessary unless you get lucky and find a good user as I did.I replaced the screen in my automat but it wasn't a straightforward process. If you do buy one which needs a cla get a new screen then but it will add cost.</p>

<p>The biggest question is what you expect as a result. What size print do you want? How sharp do you like your results? What are you scanning (tri-x or Kodachrome 25)? In any case, unless you are willing to invest heavily, scanning will undoubtedly be the weak point in the system.<br>

I have an Epson 4990 and also use a professional service for the occasional special 35mm & 6x6 negative. I recently scanned a 35mm slide and then also got a professional scan done on the same slide and the differences at 8x10 were almost non-existent. I have to admit though that in the darkroom days, I was usually unhappy with anything beyond a 8x10 from a 35mm original which is why I went to medium format to begin with.<br>

My experience has been that given a decent 35mm original, getting a good 8x10 from it is pretty easy (with a little simple post processing) with a good flat bed. Getting up to 13x19 with medium format is also pretty easy and 4x5 will produce almost any size you reasonably want. I would go with the flat bed and focus on using it well and when you need those 16x20's get a professional scan. If you do much color work which isn't Kodachrome, don't even consider a scanner without Digital Ice unless you love sitting at a screen removing spots.</p>

<p>Charles<br>

I don't believe this is true with the mirror in the hood since the image has already been formed on the ground glass. The thickness or position shouldn't make a difference since you are using the mirror to view the formed image.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a K4/50. The viewing mirror is in ok condition but the auxiliary mirror in the focusing hood for eye level focusing is badly deteriorated. I assume these are as hard to get as the viewing mirrors - does anyone have any idea where I might get one?</p>

<p>So this guy walks into a Rolls Royce showroom and asks "What do you think of the latest Mercedes?"</p>

<p>I thought image circle and edge resoution are mostly a function of fundamental lens design and f stop. If I want to shift or tilt I need a significantly larger image circle so a tilt and shift for a 35mm sensor has to be a medium format image circle and a MF shift and tilt had to be a "large format" circle. The old LF lenses would often cover the next sheet film sizeup without any room for shift. The new LF digital lenses ae just highly corrected LF lenses without the excess image circle.<br>

I stand by my original statement: it is easier to design for a small imge circle than for a large image circle and you can more easily get higher resoloution for a small image circle than for a larger circle. The advantage goes to the 35mm sensor.</p>

<p>Why do you say physics gives the advantage to the MF lens. With their greater coverage area aren't MF lenses harder to design. I was under the impression a 50mm lens will almost always out reslove a 80mm MF or a 180 LF lens assuming all are good quality. This didn't matter when the resolving power of the film was the limiting factor but with digital that is no longer true so it will be much more expensive for the medium format lenses tokeep up with the higher resolution of the MF digital backs.Phyics will give the advantage to combined lens/sensor system but at a price<br>

Speaking of price, you are throwing an enormous amount of money at a difference that is very small (and getting smaller as the 35mm sensor market will develop more rapidly than the MF sensor market). Furthermore, if this difference is invisible in "normal" printing at less than 20x30 why are you spending money on it? Isn't it like recording sounds that speakers can't reproduce</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Theodoros Before I do too much revising some questions shoudl be asked. How big of an image do you want and how far will you be standing from it. Unless you are talking about more than 24x36 and standign closer than 3' (norma viewing is avout the diagional) you will not see a difference between the 35mm and Mf digital.<br>

Read the third comment from the physicist Dusan Maletic. He tries to make the arguement that on pure physics the MF will always have the theoretical advantage but the differnce doesn't show up because the "medium format leader is technologically lagging in sensor engineering behind 35mm leader..". Unfortunately given the economics of research investment and ROI this gap is just likely to widen not narrow. As MF equipment faces technical challanges not from newer MF equipment but from consumer priced 35mm equipment the prices will fall becaues the IQ will be worse than what is available from consumern oriented products. I sort of hppe so since I have a SWC I'd love to get a back for.</p>

<p>I had been a long time (over 40 years) large format shooter (4x5 field camera) as well as having owned numerous medium format systems. I take a lot of architecture (I'm an architect) and was always frustrated by the MF solutions to rise ( let alone tilt). I also always enjoyed using the 35mm and 28mm shift lenses on a series of Nikon bodies but was never satisfied with the image quality (once in a while on Kodachrome maybe).</p>

<p>I purchased a 800E and the 24 shift/tilt and have found the image sharpness to be at least as good as the MF film systems I used over the years. The 24mm is roughly equal to the 90 that lived on my field camera and the 28mm & 35mm are always there (but probably not the quality of the 24mm).</p>

<p>It depends a lot on what you want to end up with. I believe the Nikon will take me up to 20"x30" or even larger. I've resd the MF backs have an edge on shadow detail but actually lose to the 35mm systems on low light performance but for still subjects I can manipulate shadow detail with blending multiple exposures.<br>

If image quality is your thing and you don't mind tripods, then sheet film and a scan will still get you more than a MF digital back. If convenience and flexibility is key, then the Nikon or Canon systems give great results at a fraction of the cost and weight of the MF systems. I think the rationale for MF is fading for anyone but the professionals able to keep on the cutting edge and is increasingly representing a technological dead end for anyone with limited means. Be aware any investment in a digital back is going to fall in value (unlike a sports car). I will be able to buy a state of the art Nikon in two years for $3500 an sell mine for $2000. The numbers for MF are not as convincing. I've talked to a few professional architectural photographers who have come to the same conclusion. Some have invested in expensive MF systems just to impress the clients.</p>

<p>If you really need a MF back and can live with a limitation on no long lenses, the Cambo wide will give you LF capability and digital back options.</p>

<p>Sorry - that should be finder!</p>

<p>This is obvious probably, but is there any reason I shouldn't be able to use a Nikon screw in style right angle like the DR-5 on my x pro 1?</p>

<p>I think you will find the experience of using a D800 or any DSLR massively different from the M8 or X100 experience. I would rent one with two or three lenses in the ranges you think you'll need because the differences grow with a large heavy low fstop zoom on one of these bodies. You might find something like the interchangeable lens Fujis like the x Pro 1 a better fit, particularly being a little more inconspicuous in social gatherings.<br>

Mostly though I'm concerned that you like the M8 for photographing your art work and your "fun" pictures. If you ditch the M8 and you don't like the new camera as much for these two purposes I don't think you'll be very pleased with the exchange.</p>

<p>I've always been a fan of large format - I used 4x5 Graphics as a teen on occasion and bought a field camera about 15 years ago , mostly for architectural shots. On the plus side, using a large format makes me think more slowly and has made me a better photographer for the arranged deliberate style I tend toward. I think large format will have some real benefits for your photographic growth.<br>

On the negative side, Digital has gotten so good that for normal sized prints up to 20"x20" an 800E will yield indistinguishable results when compared to a 4x5 in terms of image quality. Many professional architectural photographers have gone to digital capture for work flow efficiency (rather than scan analog). Even the most compact field camera is a beast to carry, set up and use as compared to most digital. Before people cite weight comparisons, weight is only part of the problem - bulk, wind resistance, and fiddling with settings and adjustmens are all issues too. All these negatives equally apply to landscape work.<br>

Digital presents a lot of advantages and a lot of paths to the same destination. For example, you might want to look at the Gigapan <a href="http://gigapan.com/">http://gigapan.com/</a> "robot" which automatically takes a series of shots and with accompanying software will stitch images to yield infinitely detailed views.<br>

If you want to try the analog process to make you a better, or at least more widely experienced, photographer by all means try large format. If you are doing it for just the final image I would try more options in the digital world before going down the analog learning curve.</p>

<p>You've received a lot of very good advice but I'm not clear what digital camera you are taking and what you want the medium format camera to do beyond the capabilities of your digital, If you are just going after a film look and you are going to end up with a rectangular image then any 6x6 or 6x4.5 will do but don't expect a noticeable improvement in image quality over a good digital, especially without a tripod. If you want image quality a 6x9 format will be noticeably better in landscapes with small detail. The Fuji 6x9 range finder will get great image quality but you give up interchangeable lenses and they start around $400 (you have to decide between a slightly wide and a real wide angle ov view). One of the Mariya press cameras would give you what you want but are heavy (great lenses though). Heck even an old 6x9 speed graphic with a decent lens at f8 will give great images but take a bit of getting used to. Of your 6x9 option, unless you get a Fuji, become really familiar with the camera before you go - too many things to go wrong in the filed. </p>