lightminer

Mamiya has published the specs on the lense - Ray has it, 17mm.

 

http://mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2284&id3=2285

 

And I did look up the formula, looks perfect. On the digital lense it goes down to 94 degrees which results in 20mm - perfect!! That is awesome for MF digital capture.

Bakker - you did the same thing on another thread I started

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LUZ8

 

where you got into an inflammatory argument with someone else, and you were wrong there as well! Dude, seriously, put the photo stuff aside and think about life for a bit. Relax. Meditate. Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living - seriously, I'm not trying to put you down or be angry at you or whatever, but you seriously have to think about how you interact with other people. Do you take landscapes? Go enjoy the wilderness and find peace. Okay, enough said. Too much probably, but there it is.

QG Bakker - I don't know what is in your past that makes you talk to people the way you do, but you should spend some time meditating on it. But back to the topic at hand:

 

I worked in a lab at Stanford for 2 years on anti-reflection coatings in solar cells and I know the calculus of multi-layer transmission systems, so..... Not sure what you mean.

 

Also, logically, saying that the last layer is not coated has no direct logical correlation at all to understanding such systems, (the first is a historical fact, and the second is a set of concepts in optical physics) they are quite independent, so your statement is implicitely false without any defense required.

 

Tell you what - I'm interested in 'discussions' not arguments. I leave my links as they are and you can go argue with Schneider and all the other lense companies who have changed their designs to minimze final reflections from the sensor.

 

Enjoy your inflammatory arguing - its not for me!

Remember that if you don't have an intense light source in the picture (i.e., the sun) then this probably doesn't matter toooo much.

 

 

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2005/mar/gb_lenses.shtml

 

"Another difference between film and digital is the relatively mirror-like surface of image sensors. In some cases, the sensors? smooth face can reflect light back through the rear lens elements, where the beams bounce around until re-exiting the rear glass and striking the imager as flare or a ghost image. The Canon series of ?/2.8-speed, L-series zooms, such as its EF 70-200mm ?/2.8L IS USM, have optimized lens element shapes and anti-reflection coatings to minimize or eliminate these ghosts. Unlike the special small-format digital lenses, this lens series is a part of the regular 35mm lineup and provides outstanding image quality on both film and digital cameras.

 

The Tamron Di and Di-II-series lenses, such as its SP AF17-35mm ?/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF), feature improved multi-coating and interior light baffling to combat off-the-sensor reflections. The lenses offer improved resolution, contrast and freedom from flare with film SLRs as well. This also is true of Sigma?s new Super Multi Layer Coatings now used on allSigma lenses.

 

Canon and Nikon also have taken care to subtly curve the protective front filters on their super-telephoto lenses. The filters? new meniscus shape disperses the reflections from the image sensor that would otherwise bounce off the rear of the filter and straight back onto the sensor?s face. The curved filters now are standard on all Canon fast IS super-telephotos, like its EF 500mm ?/4L IS USM; Nikon has introduced a curved filter on its 300mm ?/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor"

I think the answer to the main point of the thread is found here:

 

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/knowhow/digfoto_e.htm

 

Go down to "The highest line pair number Rn, which a sensor with a pixel dimension p can transmit is equal to:" and there is a formula there.

 

It continues: "This is 33 Lp/mm (for pixel size 0.015 mm) and 40 Lp/mm (for pixel size 0.012".

 

Various lenses can get up to 120 lines/mm - I've never been sure if lp/mm is exactly the same as lines/mm (might one be 2x the other? If you count 'line pairs' instead of lines there would be half as many, but probably I'm being too specific). Assuming they are the same, various medium format lenses have different ratings and some go as high as 120 (Mamiya 7II), and most of the Mamiya stuff I have is in the > 60 and > 70 range in its best f-stop.

 

If the sensor can get to 0.006 mm then you would need 80 lp/mm, and that would start to outdo all but the best lenses.

 

So, until digital sensors get to 0.006 mm we are fine!

QG - I agree with your specifics 100% but perhaps am not sure about the conclusion. Lets take a lense with 5 elements. Lets assume it is coated. Now, what I thought was the difference between the more modern 'digital' lenses and previous ones is that the 5th element, the one facing the sensor/film typically was not coated as for film this makes litte/no difference to film, while with digital coating that last inner side of glass does help. The film was less sensitive to the strays from diffraction at that level as the intensity is so low, but with digital it effects the sensor a little bit. Or - maybe does the sensor itself bounce more light back at that interface while film wouldn't? That could be.

 

Anyone know if I'm on the right track here? I've actually personally done this scientifically in building solar cells (we have multiple layers in solar cells and anti-reflection coatings help - and some people are even working on purposeful reflections as well to keep light in the system and not bouncing off of the first junction and back up and out!), but don't know the details on that last layer in the film/digital issues.

To get into it at a decent price right now *including the digital back* I might suggest the Mamiya 645afd and a used Kodak DCS Pro back. That is the cheapest ways I know of and you can go all the way immediatedly and upgrade backs in a year or two/three. Of course, compared to current backs the DCS Pro is flawed, but still very competent.

 

I agree with a couple of contradictory points from above posters:

 

1) The Hy6 might be the future, so Rollei6008 or directly into Hy6 with film back could be good right now

 

2) Since prices have come down so much on used equipment, if could be very fun to get Hassy stuff

 

However, don't misunderstand, Mamiya does seem to be alive and kicking!! The ZD back is shipping as we speak!!!!! For a while, we weren't sure if they were going to make it at all - maybe 3 months ago, but as of today they may make a huge impact on the market with the new back and relatively inexpensive 645afd lineup. At 7k, it will be very interesting to see how the next year is and what that does to the market. It might, for example, sell pretty well for a while but really just cause Phase One to come out with something similar, and then Mamiya slowly dies from there. Or they could again become the most-used camera by professionals. (Between RZ/RB and 645 at one time, don't know which eyar, they were the #1 camera by count of camera's (not dollar market share, just count of cameras) used by pros for at least 3-5 years, could be longer, can't remember).

 

If I was getting into it all now and money didn't matter I think I'd go Hy6. As it is, I seem to get 95% or more of the quality of Hassy/Zeiss with my Mamiya at 1/10th the price. So I'm a happy-camper Mamiya guy considering the 7k back and currently shooting film. Maybe when it gets to 5 or something... I have a high-quality, low velocity shooting style so film suits me for now. Very few pics per year compared to people who live off photo income.

 

The thing to think about - and I almost bought the 6008 system, and decided it was the best system at the time and the one I wanted (exlcuding breakdown issues) before eventually choosing the mamiya system - assume you want 8 lenses. Add up the cost of 8 Zeiss/Schneider Hy6 lenses - I just couldn't live with that number. At the time the Mamiya lenses were going for 500 - 1000 each on ebay, and that sealed the deal. They are going for more now, there is a revitalization going on with Mamiya, but compared to the others mentioned, they are still super super super cheap. That being said I still ocassionally drool over that page at the end of the 6008 system PDF with the little black and white outline of all the stuff you can buy for it........

Oh - and if you do exterior architecture and want to use the trick where you hold the camera length of film up and down, and level the camera itself horizontally so there won't be any converging lines, and the building is tall and because you are at the base of it half the negative is the ground in front of you and all that - you'll definitely need the wides that the 645afd offers. Tell me if you don't know what I mean and I'll include a link. That trick is super-important to good architecture pics when you don't have movements. Architecture is much harder without it and in requires super wides to accomplish.

Its all about the wide angle. Are the RZ lenses wide angle enough?

 

If you already have the RZ then you are fine with the lack of autofocus. I use the 645afd and the autofocus is 'fine'. I don't shoot people like Sharapova during a game and given that have never even come close to having an autofocus issue. Should be able to keep up with a model if they are not dancing too quickly - or if they are at least ask them to stay equidistant from the lense. Put tape on the ground in an arc perhaps :).

 

Can't you get it so that you could use it on both? Is the adapter plate something you buy it with and then you can change the adapter plate, or is it permanent? If you can go back and forth, then of course the answer is to do that, and use the 645afdII for wides. Especially with the new lense that just came out, 28mm!

 

Also, check your specific RZ version with the whole RZIId or whatever. Make sure the *exact* one you have plays nicely with the back.

 

Have you seen the Mamiya back? Would that work - perhaps it will go between the 2 systems more easily? Then you have the best of both worlds. Just get the 645afdII with 2 lenses: 28 and 35.

 

I've heard the RZ lenses are better thing many times go back and forth - the problem is that the 6X7 film is so darn good, its hard to tell if you are evaluating film or lenses. And if you put a digi back on, then you are looking at sweetspot only. I am not convinced if either are better than the other, but 6X7 film is truly amazing.

 

Note that the 645afd lenses do test equal to or only a tiny tiny bit less (and sometimes better!) than the Hassy/Zeiss counterparts. If you don't believe me, ask and I'll up the references.

 

I would suspect that in the end if you are going to do landscape/interiors, etc. you'll have to get the 645afd.

 

Hey - Mamiya - if you are listening, come out with a 35 or at least 40 for the RZ and you will revitalize the whole line!!!!!!! Really!!! Do it!!!!! It will make it a 1-stop camera in the digital age for those who can live without autofocus.

Would the Arsat 600mm work with the 2X lens converter?

While they are a little pricey (you can rent them it seems) these can help with ariel photos.

 

http://www.ken-lab.com/

 

And, yeah, definitely don't get the 2X thing because of what it does to minimum f-stop PLUS the fact that it won't work with the 80mm lense from what I understand, only the 150 and over because of protruding glass that needs somewhere to fit into.

Great. 102.4 - that feels better. 112 is really, really wide. Interesting that, in terms of film, on the RZ67II the widest lense is only 82deg (unless there are older lenses I don't know about that still work). Because I would love that 102 deg splattered across 6X7 film rather than 6X45, but for now it will do!! (I know, I know, 43mm on Mamiya 7II is the way to do that... I haven't done rangefinders yet, but that 7II w/43mm always nags at me...)

 

For wide angle, I would think RZ67II is bad choice if going digital because the crop factor for that 50mm really really gets you (and it isn't so wide to begin with), while in 645 it is not so big a crop.

 

Now we just have to see when they start showing up on shelves and when we can get one!

 

It will be interesting to see how it compares to the Hassy in the space it does cover.

 

Hey - on the 28mm Hassy lense, people say you can't use it for film. There are actually three possibilities: 1) it literally doesn't cover the extra few mm on the edges, and you really can't use it and/or you'd have to crop, 2) it gets more distorted and isn't up to normal Hassy standards but really is probably fine for most folks on the edges, or 3) it all of a sudden gets so distorted that most would find it unacceptable.

 

I just say that because I suspect it might very well be #2, and not so bad at all. Maybe if someone has one, put some film in there and try it out! (Or, actually, thinking about it more, I've heard with some of the newer digital-focused lenses there can be autofocus/fstop determination and stuff like that that actually won't work without communication with a digital back. I guess that would be a 4th option.)

 

Just some musings in lieu of being able to see/use the Mamiya yet.

 

If someone has one, post a few pics from film or digital!

Hmmm... That assumes linearity, if you apply that to the 45 to get the 35mm deg's you get the wrong answer, i.e., 45/35 * 74 = 95 which is not 90.

 

That being said, 112 would be absolutely awesome! Spitting distance from the 120 degrees of the 6X17 cameras.

 

Oh - and I think it will be on the expensive side...

So, for one thing, on film the 35mm is 90deg, I wonder how many deg the 28 is on film? Can it be calculated just with math, or do we need to wait for Mamiya to tell us?

 

Also, the obvious other question is how distortion will be...

Rob,

 

This is probably obvious, but with RAW you can avoid all those problems. I am a MF shooter myself, but have gotten several friends to buy the P880 as their camera and I use it with them with great results.

 

The real reason to get a P880 is the wide angle, with is rare at this price range - only 2 other cameras that come close (a Samsung and Nikon).

 

The main thing dpreview says that has changed (i.e., no longer true) is the shooting speed which is greatly enhanced with firmware updates.

At the bottom of

 

http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2281

 

they mention 2 new lenses, one of which is *very* wide angle:

 

28mm f/4.5 D Aspherical

 

Its probably too early, but anyone have one and have any comments?

In terms of resolution, wouldn't we just look at MTF charts or resolution testing? For example, in center, PopPhoto tested the following two MF wide angle lenses:

 

 

ZEISS DISTAGON T* 40mm f/4

 

4.0: 74___5.6: 74___6.0: 74___11: 59___16: 59___22: 52

 

and the 35mm from Mamiya:

 

3.5: 70___5.6: 74___6.0: 62___11: 62___16: 60___22: 49

 

 

So, for the Hassy we would say that there is no advantage of the first three stops over eachother, and resolution has significantly dropped by f22, for the Mamiya lense 5.6 is defintely the best?

 

 

I have had lots of pics with distnat landscape objects be 'soft', and used to tend towards the smaller holes. Now I use whatever the lense tests indicate is best and balance that with DOF requirements for the pics.

 

One thing - I think something I don't hear about a lot but think could be true, distant objects will also be suspect to haze and other atmospheric resolution-ruining issues. Right after a good rain is best time to take pics of distant objects.... I've had 'soft' landscape pics of distant mountians at f5.6 and lower with infinity right at the focus point, I assume it is haze/atmospheric effects.

I think if hyperfocal and f22 is the tradeoff I would rather see you get the AF lenses over several years than shoot at f22. I used to always shoot at f32/22 (more dof is good, right? everything will be sharp, right?) until I realized what that does to sharpness of the entire picture, even right at the focal point. It kills it!!! The lenses just aren't nearly as sharp at f22.

 

If you get:

 

wider zoom

longer zoom

45mm lense for wide angle

 

in that order - (or, obviously any order, me personally would start with 45) you will cover tons of range and shooting possiblity with 3 lenses - maybe just get one per year? One of those at f5.6 or 11 will be much much much better than 6 lenses all used at f22....

 

Just an idea!

 

Oh - if you only meant wide angle, the trick with wide angle isn't just even using f22, but look at closest object and maybe don't even use hyperfocal, bias towards infinity nearer the center mark, but try to stay at f8, f11 if possible. I've noticed far-away stuff get soft as it gets to the actual marks on the lense - if I put infinity right at the f16 or f11 marks. Others have said that you have to use an online focal distance calculator if you want 'real' marks, and they are a bit inside what you find on the lenses (the manufacturers of many lenses want you to think on wides that the range is larger than it is - not a Mamiya slam, they all do it).

 

And, just to say, (this is really all I mean to say in that bloated last paragraph) tons of pictures, even using hyperfocal distancing, can come in quite well at around f11!

I would definitely give the Mamiya 35mm a try. According to PopPhoto:

 

ZEISS DISTAGON T* 40mm f/4

 

4.0 74

5.6 74

6.0 74

11 59

16 59

22 52

 

and the 35mm from Mamiya:

 

3.5 70

5.6 74

6.0 62

11 62

16 60

22 49

 

at the edges, you get what you pay for and the Mamiya goes back and forth from 35 and 39 while the Hassy is at 42, 47, and even a 52 at f8.

 

So, yes the three 74s are awesome - but lets remember that the Zeiss Hassy is 4.5k! I got my 35mm Mamiya for around 750 used in pristine condition.

 

So, for it to have the same resolution at f5.6, better at f11 amd f16, definitely more softness at the edges for the Mamiya, I'll keep my other $3.7k! If you absolutely need the extra resolution and have money to burn, go for it. For example, if one were doing almost exclusively night photography where the closest object is somewhat far away, then the extra 2 stops would be worth it. In my case I often have objects that are close enough that I'm going to 5.6 anyhow to keep it in focus.

 

That is the whole Mamiya 645 thing - you get 95-99% of the quality of the Hassy at 1/8th or less of the price over a whole system. And once in a while, depending on the item, you get the same quality. (i.e., see Hassy vs Mamiya zooms compared in one paragraph on luminous landscape in the article about the digital MF vs film MF vs film large format, etc. They put Mamiya zoom ahead of Hassy, and Hassy didn't have 2 zooms like Mamiya, if I remember right.)

 

That being said, if you want an adapter Zoerk or Novoflex are king of that market. Make sure you still have infinity focus! Many adapters loose infinity focus.

 

 

However, if you are like me, the 90deg field of view will only get you hungry for 120deg and you'll end up renting Linhoff 617 or Alpa gear every now and then........

The 'N' version seems better - front standard tilt/shift, etc. and longer

extension. Is there some reason the 645 af one is different (and seems not as

good). I think I don't need autofocus, perhaps it is different to maintain

autofocus, I intend on keeping it at the shortest focus distance and focusing

by moving the camera or bellows back and forth a little. Has anyone actually

used the 'N' with a 645afd?

Jim, I've been looking at that lense for a while (45 Super-Rotator). What do you think of the results compared to the Mamiya 45? Have you taken the same picture with both?

Another plug for the Mamiya 7II. I believe that with the 43mm lense, it is noticeably superior to RB/RZ as very few if any cameras/lenses can match that lense or the 905SWC it is modeled after. All the lenses in the range are super sharp, but that one in particular is amazing.

 

If you have other cameras, then this is a great option. If you don't the 7II might be too limiting as a single-camera solution, its definitely not an SLR.

There is also

 

Tilt- / Shift-bellows BALPRO T/S

 

http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/products.htm

 

This looks like a nice solution. No personal experience with it.

That very well could be! If you shoot Velvia there is lots of barely-available shadow detail to be had depending on the scene as its latitude is so low, so this ability to pick up every ounce of it is meaningful to me. Most of the tricks/settings beyond normal settings above have to do with shadown detail.

I added another thread that is very similar to this yet different.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HRM6

 

The answer there may lead to an answer here.