brian walsh

It's not difficult for salespeople or consumers to find the answer. The replacements for NPS and NPC (Pro 160S and Pro 160C, both RMS 3) may reach the shelves by "spring 2005", along with repackaged NPH and NPZ, according to this press release:

 

http://www.fujifilm.de/engl/aktu/presse_bericht.php?press_index=200409171117422150

I've found over the past seven years that it doesn't take much to hold the Mamiya 7. There may be valid reasons to use a heavy support with that camera, but stability doesn't seem to be among them.<P>

 

The lighter weight, three-section Gitzo 1127 seems at least as strong as the heavier, four-section 1228. (I compared them side by side, before I sold the 1228 that I'd enjoyed for several years.) I did modify the leg angle of the smaller tripod, which Gitzo produces with a shallower leg angle than the rest of the "performance" series tripods: A few minutes with a file made the tripod seem less tippy than the 1228: I made the leg angle approximately 25 degrees, compared to the 24 degrees for the 1228 (and the other Gitzo performance tripods) and the 21 or so degrees that is standard for the 1127. The modified 1127 is only about one inch shorter than the 1228 (both unextended), more stable, and quite a bit lighter than the 1228--and using the 1127 requires tightening only six leg locks. <P>

 

My folder <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=213439">"Which ballhead for a Mamiya 7?"</a> contains sections of 4,000 dpi scans of shots made with the Mamiya 7 and ballheads ranging from 23 ounces to 3.7 ounces in windless conditions. I can't see a difference. Although I generally use the 8-counce Leica ballhead with the Mamiya 7 when I don't mind carrying it, I have used the miniscule ballhead plus the 1127 set up successfully in windy conditions in the mountains; however, I don't have direct comparison shots made using a heavier kit in those conditions. Using the legs out wide and weighting down the tripod helps when it's really blowing.

<I>So if we were all little people, say, like 2.5 to 3 feet tall maximum. Would our 35mm cameras have the same tonality and "quality" as MF cameras do in reality?</I><P>

No, Tony, its all relative. Although I see the logic of your suggestion, my experience with photographing small subjects with a camera that dwarfed me suggests otherwise. Although your 35mm rangefinder is handier than the scanning electron microscope I used (it filled a room), the 6x9 glass plate negatives resolved very fine detail indeed, perhaps even beyond the ability of your best lenses. It must be due to the greater emulsion area.

<I>There is ONE viewfinder for the 43mm AND the 50mm lenses. </I><P>

 

Well, then I've owned the same viewfinder in two different types: one came in the gunmetal finish that matched the Mamiya 7, while the finder I have now is marked for the 50mm lens and seems to come only in black. B&H sells them both.<P>

The 50mm viewfinder has "50mm" written on it. If yours doesn't have anything on it to indicate the focal length, it likely is the 43mm viewfinder which required no identification prior to the appearance of the 50, as it was the only wide angle viewfinder during its early release. The newer versions, as indicated above, must be marked to differentiate them from the 50.

<I>MYTH: X-ray machines for hand luggage can fog film. Films faster than ISO 400 require hand inspection. <P>

 

FACT: An X-ray scanner for hand luggage gives a dose of around 1 uGy (= 0.1 mR). This is an extremely small amount of radiation. A roll of film will obtain a similar dose of background radiation in Paris in 8 hours, in Denver in 4 hours, and in an aircraft cabin at cruising altitude in 20 minutes. The amount of cosmic radiation received on even the shortest flight outweighs the X-ray dose from an airport scanner. </I><P>

 

 

"<a href="http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1248.xml">TSA on "Transporting Film and Photographic Equipment"</a>" <P>

 

The equipment used to screen checked baggage will damage undeveloped film. Pack your undeveloped film in your carry-on bag. High speed and specialty film should be hand inspected at the security checkpoint. To facilitate hand-inspection, remove your undeveloped film from the canister and pack in a clear plastic bag. <P><P>

 

 

 

<a href="http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?content=09000519800a59a7">TSA on "Traveling with Film"</a> <P>

WARNING: Equipment used for screening checked baggage will damage your undeveloped film.<P>

Never place undeveloped film in your checked baggage. <P>

Place film in your carry-on baggage* or request a hand inspection.<P>

 

* Carry-on screening equipment might also damage certain film if the film passes through more than 5 times. . . .<P>

 

You should remove all film from your checked baggage and place it in your carry-on baggage. The X-ray machine that screens your carry-on baggage at the passenger security checkpoint will not affect undeveloped film under ASA/ISO 800.<P>

 

If the same roll of film is exposed to X-ray inspections more than 5 times before it is developed, however, damage may occur. Protect your film by requesting a hand-inspection for your film if it has already passed through the carry-on baggage screening equipment (X-ray) more than 5 times.<P>

 

Specialty film ** <P>

 

Specialty film is defined as film with an ASA/ISO 800 or higher and typically used by professionals.<P>

 

At the passenger security checkpoint, you should remove the following types of film from your carry-on baggage and ask for a hand inspection:<P>

 

Film with an ASA/ISO 800 or higher . . . <P>

Highly sensitive X-ray or scientific films <P>

Film of any speed which is subjected to X-ray surveillance more than 5 times (the effect of X-ray screening is cumulative) <P>

Film that is or will be underexposed <P>

Film that you intend to 'push process' <P>

Sheet film <P>

Large format film <P>

Medical film <P>

Scientific film <P>

Motion picture film <P>

Professional grade film . . . <P>

John, please consider placing a proper classified ad, rather than continue to place your thinly-disguised ads within the forum. You said you would be "prepared to sell [your] M7 kit <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006FQP">in October</a>, that you "would prefer to sell [the 43mm lens] within the UK <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007KX9">in February</a>, and that you were "very tempted to sell" the 43 and 80mm lenses <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007arK">in March</a>; you later mentioned that you <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007qET">sold the lens</a>, but now here it is back again, in another veiled ad in April.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004LWx">Here's</a> a thread that demonstrates (a) bokeh can vary with focus distance and aperture, (b) bokeh can influence a photograph (does anyone <I>not</I> find this background at least a little distracting?, and © choosing a brand based on bokeh can have it's downside, as even good lenses can produce bad bokeh if they're used carelessly. <P>

 

Bokeh may not matter to some people. Some people, of course, may judge wines by their alcohol content, and opine that other qualities don't matter--or don't exist.

The different aspect ratios make comparison a bit problematic, but it might make the focal lengths seem more familiar if you compare them based on 4:5 aspect ratio prints. (That is, compare an 8x10 print from a negative exposed using a 28mm lens on your Leica to an 8x10 made using the 65mm lens on the Mamiya.) On that basis (and calculated using the diagonals for the printed 4:5 ratio film areas), you'll see that the corresponding focal lengths are essentially: 150=65; 80=35; 65=28; 50=21; and 43=18 for the Mamiya and for your Leica, respectively. That seems to encompass a rather common Leica range, albeit with the replacement of the Leica's 50mm lens with a focal length that is a bit farther from the popular 35; in the Mamiya range, that would be the 150mm lens, which, BTW, not "everyone aknowledges" is difficult: I use it and enjoy it, although I understand that it has minimal depth of field at close focus.<P>

 

I don't mind the progression at all. I happen to own the 150, 80, 65, and 50mm lenses. (I replaced the 43 a couple of years ago with the 50, as I couldn't manage the 43mm as well as some others (e.g., Jeff) seem to.) If I could have only one lens, it would be the 65.<P>

 

Also BTW, it's interesting in light of Bob's comment (The 80 is said to be a little better performing than the 65...) that the two replies (the total at this moment) to

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007avo">this thread</a>: "It's a spectacular lens, possibly the sharpest lens in all of Medium Format photography" and "This is really one of the best lenses around." <P>

�I have to mount the camera on the ball head at an angle of 90 degrees . . . and I am aware it reduces the stability.�<P>

 

While an L-bracket might be convenient, you can stop worrying if your concern is stability. The ball head you�re using is certainly beefy enough to hold your Bronica, regardless of the camera�s orientation. The concern with mirror and shutter vibration expressed by SLR users (and amplified in the �mass coupling� argument put forward at Really Right Stuff) is essentially just theoretical with respect to the RF645, which uses leaf shutter lenses. In practice, I found that even a <a href= http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=213439> wimpy ballhead </a>can hold a beefier rangefinder than yours�a Mamiya 7�in either portrait or landscape mode.

Digital Outback also features a review of Noise Ninja, which seems to have a significant speed advantage over Neat Image:

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_25/essay.html

 

Apparently, a Photoshop plug-in version of Noise Ninja can be expected....

I may use an 85mm lens on my 35mm SLR on those rare occasions when I want what Jeff terms "head shots"; that focal length can provide the perspective I find appealing with that subject matter. If I use the 80mm lens on the Mamiya 7 and crop to the same 24×30mm film area I'd use for a 1:1.25 aspect ratio print from my SLR, I can work at my preferred subject distance to have the same perspective, and use a lens that is likely as sharp as the lens for my smaller camera. If I choose to crop less agressively, I can still shoot from my preferred distance and have both more of the subject <I>and</I> more film area than small format can offer for portrait use. <P>

 

It seems, though, that many people think of the 150mm f/4.5 lens for the Mamiya 7 when they think of portraits. That lens can focus only to 6.8 feet; at that distance, a 150mm lens will fill the 24×30mm area usable in a small-format 1:1.25 aspect ratio print of a subject 15 inches high�about a "head plus top of shoulders" shot of an adult.* If you need tighter framing, the lens might not work for you�but, then, the 80mm lens might. However, either lens can aproximate or equal the results from a 35mm kit for what you might consider "portraits". Notably, if you care to include more of your subject, you can still crop very liberally and still use more film area than 35mm film can offer. IMO, that's where the Mamiya 7 shines.<P>

 

*Calculated using the formulas in the Kodak Professional Photo Guide <P>

I can't comment on travel with the 1227�but I do travel with the slightly smaller 1127, which replaced my 1128. I fly once or twice each week with the 1127 as part of my carry-on baggage, and I haven't had any problem on US domestic flights since TSA took over airport security. I've seen a an elderly blind woman and her guide dog searched searched extensively (the harness apparently has a metal insert), and I wouldn't try to carry nail clippers on board, but my carbon fiber tripod and a Leica large ball and socket head haven't caused any difficulties.

The square Mamiya 6 should be even easier to support than the 6x7 Mamiya 7, which was held adequately by the 3.7 ounce Gitzo 075 when flopped on its side with the 150mm lens mounted, as shown in my folder

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=213439">Which ballhead for a Mamiya 7</a> <P>

 

The Gitzo 1077 looks like it should work. Perhaps barely, but....

Many responses above indicate a dissatisfaction with the new format related to the font size. Andrew Lee suggested increasing the font size, but you can also <I>change</I> the font to something that you find more comfortable. There are very signficant differences in the readability of fonts on various monitors�why don't you try to find one that you'll like? On the MS Internet Explorer, you can choose fonts via Tools/Internet Options/Fonts. OTOH, it's not surprising on a Leica forum to see so many individuals who prefer things the way they used to be....

As I recall, without modification, the column can't be reversed. The hook on the bottom end is too large to pull through, and, of course, the platform can't make it through, either. Since I removed the platform and cut my 1127 column in half to save weight (to maximize stability, I refrain from elevating the column, in any case) and removed the hook, I now have two short columns, which both can be reversed; that actually helps, since I can reverse the column to store the Leica large ball and socket head down between the tripod legs to make the total package more compact in transport.

Actually, the shutter speed indicators serve as a useful check that your eye is properly positioned in the center of the finder. Some people seem to habitually have trouble doing that, and, as a result, find the the rangefinder patch doesn't line up vertically�usually an indication that one's eye is too low relative to the finder, the same reason that you wouldn't see the shutter speed indicators.

 

I've used a Mamiya 7 or 7II for the past six or so years. IMO, the shutter speed indications are equally bright in either version, regardless of whether I'm wearing glasses or contact lenses. If you can't see the indicators, correct your position.

If by "viewfinder" you mean the bright frame lines, you should understand that those lines approximate the field at close focus. I believe the coverage is about 82-83% of the field at infinity.

Of course the bokeh will vary with the focus distance and with the distance of the out of focus object from the plane of focus, but here are a few examples of

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=183770">Mamiya 7 bokeh</a> for several lenses.

Michael K. Davis has posted a very useful Excel spreadsheet that is <a href="http://home.globalcrossing.net/~zilch0/tools.htm">Not Just Another Depth of Field Calculator!</a>. You can use it as posted, or download it and alter it to specific CoC, crops, etc., and also use it to establish depth of field according to your desired resolution on the print.

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/datasheet/163AR093A.pdf

<I>May be subjective, but inspecting my negs over time caused me to sell the Contax. I have no rational data analysis, just my badly aging eyes.</I><P>

 

Ah, I thought your perceptions might be biased by brand loyalty, but apparently it <I>was</I> a blind test....<P>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=526277">Emil Schildt</a>, who has posted some arresting light-painted images on photo.net, includes this <a href="http://www.98981010.dk/emil/teknik%20-%20PAINT%20WITH%20LIGHT.htm">tutorial</a> on his <a href="http://www.98981010.dk/emil/">web site</a>.

<I>It's only natural, that after dominating the digital 35mm market for so long, that they should move on to MF.</I><P>

 

Pentax does, at least, have a much larger share of the medium format market than Nikon or Canon. The new Pentax digital 35mm SLR is due in a few months, so this is a natural development that may not be worthy of derision.

I made direct comparison shots using the Mamiya 7 mounted on ballheads ranging from the oft-recommended Linhof Profi II (23 ounces with Arca-Swiss-style quick release) to a bumble bee-size Gitzo 075, which weighs less than the Kirk clamp on my Linhof. I described the mini-test <a href="http://205.197.82.147/webx?128@88.tJDmauR7cfY^2@.ee73cfc">here</a>, and here's a link to a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=213439">photo.net folder</a> with unsharpened example scans at (4,000dpi) of about 1/10th of one per cent of the film area exposed using each of three different ballheads, visible at actual pixels resolution. My conclusion: It doesn't take much to hold a lightweight, virtually vibration-free rangefinder.<P>

 

I use a Gitzo 1127 with a Leica large ball and socket head, along with the smallest Kirk QR platform and the RRS plate. I think that's a good combination that's quite stable with the camera.<P>