lightminer

The mirror prevents you from putting the lens close to the film/sensor. You end up having to use a 'retrofocus' design instead of the other design. I won't go into those details because I'm not qualified, but apparently retrofocus is not as good as otherwise in general. If you search on photo.net there is lots of discussion about retrofocus design and that the wide angle SLRs have to use them, etc.

 

Note that the SWC is built that way - not as a lens that would go on a regular Hasselblad, in part to get the lens super super close to the film. It was different enough that they felt they had to build a whole dedicated camera to deal with it. And if you look at pics of the Mamiya 7II/43mm you can see how it goes into the camera - that lens is the same design (copy) as the SWC.

 

I'll do more research on the lens you mention, sounds interesting!

Yeah - if it is 1.1% then that is awesome, don't know why there are is so wide a range of numbers for that... The Hasselblad MF HC 3.5/50 (less wide even) has 1.3% (popphoto.com)... 1.1 I think is something that is very very hard to get to with a mirror. Lets hope it is 1.1 :). If it is, that is a huge plus on this lense over any of its competitors! Of course at 24mm it has few competitors (dslr's only perhaps?) and with that mirror in the way they will not come close to 1.1% distortion. So, if people like wide angle digital (which apparently is extremely hard/impossible to do well under 10 grand these days) this might be the best 10 MP camera out there, dslr or not! (Again, of course, depending on one's priorities. I've never cared at all about, for example, time-to-next-shot, shots/second, etc. and that seems to be at least 20% of what a camera is judged by in reviews, just because of my particular shooting style. I often use a 5 sec timer, tripod and mirror lock up, so I'm at 5 sec per pic max speed anyhow!)

Okay found the number.

 

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/SonyR1/page4.shtml

 

Geometry, wide angle

 

To measure geometric distortion we photographed a custom test chart consisting of a grid pattern with perfectly straight lines. Here are the results for the cameras at their widest focal length with an aperture of f8 in Aperture Priority mode. The images were analysed with Imatest using 5th Order line calculation and the full areas presented here at a reduced resolution.

 

The image left was taken with the Sony DSC-R1 at 14.3mm f8 (24mm equivalent). Barrel distortion was measured at 2.9%, which is better than the Canon kit lens (EOS 350D w/18-55EFS) and close to the Fujifilm (S9500) and Panasonic (DMC-FZ30) despite delivering much wider coverage than any of them.

 

 

 

Okay - so 2.9% - better than competitors even when they are just at 32 or 35mm. But, ahem, not anywhere near rangefinder level! I was thinking they might have gotten to around 1%, but I guess with the zoom there are trade-offs. The G2 28 has basically no barrel distortion at all (maybe 0.1% in the last 2% of the image) and has pincussion to 0.2% or so for about a third of its length.

The G2 21mm has 0.5% (and actually gets better at the edges to 0.25%). Of course, those might be the 2 least distorted lenses ever along with 905SWC/43mmMamiya7II.

 

http://www.contaxusa.com/lensdetail.asp?parent=202000

So - yeah - here is that advantage, found something. Can't have a through the lens viewfinder and these distortion levels as far as I understand. Look at the distortion levels of the Contax G2 28 and 21mm lenses (or equivalent Leica) and compare to *any* dslr lense at any price.

 

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/dsc-r1.htm

 

14.3 mm (24 mm eq.) It has very little barrel at the widest setting, which is better than most zooms, even on DSLRs. The lens on this prototype DSC-R1 only required a setting of +2.37 in PS CS2's lens distortion correction filter. The distortion of the DSC-R1 was a little bit complex and not completely corrected by that filter, but it's invisible for any real use. By comparison I find the Nikon 8400 at its widest setting needs a +6 setting in Photoshop CS2's distortion correction and looks awful without that correction. The DSC-R1 looks great even without correction. It's better than any of my Nikon zooms at their wide ends!

A lot of people are complaining about the lack of TTL and/or use of a mirror for viewfinder - but there might be some advantages to not having this. If they can get the lense closer to the sensor like in a rangefinder they might be able to further minimize distortion at the extreme wide angles, and you don't have to fidget with mirror lockup every shot. I don't know if they took advantage of the 'close to the sensor' thing - maybe someone who knows a lot about lenses can find out. Haven't seen distortion numbers at 24mm yet. If they are very low (like in Contax G2/Leica), then that would potentially put this ahead of dslr's if you are going to use 24-28 a lot, depending on your priorities. And if you do panorama's stitching distorted wide-angle images is much harder than those with little or no distortion.

 

Anyone know distortion level at 24 and 28mm? And, is there a TTL methodology that still allows very little room between sensor and lens - not sure myself.

Might there be some advantages to not having a mirror and/or looking through the lense? If they can get the lense closer to the sensor like in a rangefinder they might be able to further minimize distortion at the extreme wide angles, and you don't have to fidget with mirror lockup every shot. I don't know if they took advantage of the 'close to the sensor' thing - maybe someone who knows a lot about lenses can find out. Haven't seen distortion numbers at 24mm yet. If they are very low (like in Contax G2/Leica), then that would potentially put this ahead of dslr's if you are going to use 24-28 a lot, depending on your priorities. And if you do panorama's stitching distorted wide-angle images is much harder than those with little or no distortion.

This is a great and fun review of the Canon vs. Phase one P25 on Contax 645. I've read a bunch of these and few mention wide angle for some reason. Maybe I'm nuts that I take 80% of my pictures between 20 and 30mm, but I do...

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml

 

Quote:

 

"One thing that I've seen working with the Canon 1Ds for the past two years, alongside the Kodak Pro back on the Contax 645, is that the weakest link for 35mm are the wide angle lenses, especially the zooms. Wide angle primes on medium format simply blow them away. We all use WA zooms, because they're convenient. I have several WA primes for my Canons, but though they are better than the zooms, they are still not a match for a lens like the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/4 on the Contax, for example. We've known about these deficiencies in 35mm WA lenses for a long time, but high-res digital systems like the new 1Ds Mark II simply make the various flaws all too apparent.

 

It's better with mid-range and especially long lenses. This is where 35mm optics can really shine, and where comparisons with medium format digital are more fair. Don't do such comparisons with WA lenses though, as 35mm is working with one hand tied behind its back at these focal lengths. This is an area where manufacturers still have a lot of work to do."

 

This is why I think there is a place for a 12 MP digital back for 3k - to take advantage of the better wide angle lenses.

 

Now - I am very open to this Leica-on-Canon thing. I'm looking for reviews of people doing this...

 

Leica and Zeiss should warm up to Autofocus. Looks like Panasonic is making Leica at least do that with the above-mentioned dSLR with new Leica lenses. Still, I want WA AF primes. And seems like no one on this thread would ever consider getting the Panasonic/Leica because its only 7.5 MP :)... In fact, Panasonic/Leica shouldn't even bring it out, there really is no place for a camera like that in 2006 - a dSLR under 8 MP! Again - just poking fun at the MP focus people have. And who knows, you could be 100% right! It may not do well, time will tell.

 

Also, that all being said, the article is from 12/2004. A lot has happened since then, I think including some of the WA Nikon lenses mentioned above. It would be great to see a 24mm-equiv test between the Nikon, Canon, MamiyaOrHassyOrContax with good digital back. I can't find that comparison.

Oh - and about lugging a MF around - remember that the high end digital 35mm stuff weighs the same or more (within 10% or so), just read on Luminous Landscape that the Mamiya ZD is lighter than the Canon 1Dsblahblah (don't know all the letters that go there). They are gigantic!

 

For the cost analysis, 4X is definitely pretty bad. We have to give kudos to Canon for making the 5D work the way they have.

Couple of quick comments, then more later.

 

In terms of 'more megapixels are better' this guy says that he can't tell the difference between a P25 and P45 at various print sizes -

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml

 

"Your article dealing with the many factors involved with your decision to purchase a new outfit, was the best review I've read. Virtually all photographers, serious amateur and professional, have to deal with these questions, which are both time consuming and expensive in todays marketplace. I recently tested the Phase One P25 & P45 backs on my Contax 645 system and compared the results with my 4x5 field camera. My primary camera for many years has been a Toyo 4x5Aii. I drum scanned the 4x5 transparency and printed all three images to 24x30. I do not have a printer that is larger. To my eye, there was no difference between the P25 & P45 prints. I think that both are comparable to the print from the 4x5 film camera, with only subjective differences due to lighting and lenses used. I have been told that at 30x40, I would be able to see a noticeable difference between the film and digital images. Having practiced fine art photography for 15 years, I continue to be amazed at what a continuum the learning curve is for those of us who work in this craft. Everything that I do seems to come with difficulty. Thanks, for a job well done."

 

Now, what that brings up to me is that we have to have a target size in order to anlayze what we are doing. I actually do a lot of 24 X 36 - larger requires a different sort of home than most have when you add a few inches of matting and a few more for a frame. Lets call it 24X30 or 24X36 depending on ratio.

 

In that range, then, 12 MP versus 17 ro 22 would be a huge difference. But beyond that, I don't know from what I've seen that it matters. But that doesn't help us with our 3k 12 MP dealie. But I just mention this to try and cut things off at around 22 MP and after that focus us on lowering the price, versus allowing us to print for billboards on Time Square :). So for 12 MP what do we get? 11X17-ish? That would be a drawback, but is the same drawback faced by all 5d-ers out there... Everything is about compromise.

 

Of course I have a 5-foot wide print that is just beautiful made from a drum-scanned 35mm negative printed on lightjet...

 

 

 

Now - reading various things this guy uses Leica on Canon:

 

www.geoffrossphotography.com

 

and here is a page on that:

 

http://www.nemeng.com/leica/002f.shtml

 

Now - this might be exactly what I'm looking for as the 5d is in the price range mentioned and the Leica glass is obviously just fine.

 

Does anyone out there have any experience with 21/24/28 mm Leica on Canon - and can they tell us if the normal issues with the angle of light hitting the sensors making colors go bad and causing other well-documented problems?

 

The 2nd page up there explains in great detail some of the drawbacks, obviously manual focus with the various manual-focusing aids present in autofocus cameras not being a priority...

 

Some of the recent posts say the more the better and they want high MP cameras - but are you in a position to plunk down 20k?

 

There is the general issue, regardless of vertical market, of sell more junk or fewer great things, and each company has to strike the balance they want. One of the worst things to happen in history as far as I am concerned is when 'huffy' was going to buy GT Bikes. Huffy makes $80 bikes sold at KMart and GT makes world-class winning bikes. Now everything got complicated and I don't know who owns who anymore and a lot has happened since then, but its just an example that companies who make high-end stuff have to be careful or else, for example, they might get bought by a disposable-camera-maker or something...

 

My whole thing here is about selling units, not would it be ultimately better, clearly we all agree 39 MP is better than 12. But I could buy the 3k option whereas car prices don't work for me...

 

 

 

As to some of the lense-talk above and the one Nikon lense mentioned, maybe if they made a 24-prime with the same quality and it could therefore be priced better this would be absolutely perfect. I couldn't help notice the lack of primes with the 'new' digital lenses.

 

Good stuff!

Now, of the options you mention the one that may be able, from what I've read, compete with MF lenses is the DMR, but I think it prices itself out of oblivion for new buyers (but makes sense for Leica die-hards with existing complete systems). Continuing on with that thread, however, the Panasonic DMC-L1 is interesting... Do the 'D' lenses match the quality of the 'R' lenses? I don't know... Of course this is 'only' 7.5 MP. I think megapixels dont equal megapixels, imagine the space and room they would have with 10/12 MP on an 80% 645 area? I've heard people are saying that the 35mm negative size, over several years will prove to be too small for decent sized pixels. Compare an 8 MP camera with a sub-APS sized sensor to an 8 full frame... Anyway, I think everyone already knows all of this. My assumption is that a 12 MP digital back with lots of area would prove to be much, much better than a 12 MP or 10 MP dSLR.

 

So - back to Leica - why not a digital SLR based on the R lenses? I know they tried something with the M lenses, but it didn't do so well yet... I would think there would be huge opportunities there since you can put the digital sensor close the lense and take advantage of the whole rangefinder thing in the digital domain almost easier than with film... And then get the low-distortion and other advantages...

 

Okay - but staying on topic what I see that is interesting here is do the D lenses compete with the R lenses, and if they do then once the DMC-LI gets a higher-megapixel sensor, then this would be one counterexample to what I am describing. However, this doesn't exist yet, so...

Ha ha! Maybe I need to do a little research? Ha ha... I am the king of research. Don't talk to me about research. I'm not talking about availability, I'm talking about performance! Ha ha... research...

 

Now, if you have some evidence or research that suggests that these lenses are as good as the MF equivalents, then please share. This I haven't seen yet, but would love to find, and this could be out there somewhere.

Oh - and as to the reports being prematures, I've been calling around trying to replace my diopter which came off and got lost in a forest, I was told by one of the camera stores just today that their MAC rep told them Sep 1st was the last day for Mamiya - of course there is that other company that seems to be taking them over with results we don't know of yet. I personally don't know anything for sure, this is just what they told me.

My post was 'in creation' when yours went live - so I made a 'linear' assumption and you are suggesting there is another association with size over full frame 35mm... I do a bit of scientific work - if someone knew the detail, could be exponential, or polynomic, if anyone acutally knows the relationship between area and cost I could re-run my silly but curious estimates using the 5d as a starting place...

 

As to Canon having the market for now on those size sensors - kind of funny that perhaps they would be the only ones in a position to make this product and yet it would only hurt them (small upside, and reinvigorating MF only to their detriment) so of course they wouldn't do it...

So, lets see, if a 645 negative is 2.7 times the area of a 35 negative, and we are going for 70% of that area then that is a multiplier of 1.89. Now, we have to ask ourselves, what percent of the 5D is equivalent to the MF back only in terms of cost? Lets say 70%? I don't really know, someone more in the industry could comment more.

 

So, the 5d is today around 3k from several reputable online places so we would have:

 

3000 * 1.89 * 0.7 = 3969.

 

And I'd be more interested in the 80% coverage, which would be:

 

3000 * 2.16 * 0.7 = 4536.

 

Or rounded a bit, 4k and 4.5k.

 

And maybe the last multiplier is 0.6? That would be 3.4k and 3.9k.

 

3.4k and 3.9k would be very compelling for this kind of product (12.8 MP digital back on 70% or 80% 645 coverage).

 

Anyone know more about this want to change the numbers? Does Canon get a scaling factor (sell more units, less made per unit, profit comes out the same) that enables them to make things cheaper that no-one else gets? Is that really a huge part of this? Not sure...

So we've just heard about the demise/reorganization of Mamiya.

Particularly looking at what the 645afd/RZ/7II can do in terms of

pictures taken at 20 - 28mm (35mm-equiv) there is nothing in 35mm

dSLR that can compete (I welcome disagreements, just don't know of

any myself except perhaps Zeiss on Nikon - no AF though) - and it

seems that MF is dying - so what if the two or three main chip/back

makers came out with a sort of 'prosumer' 10 MP back with 80%

coverage of 6X45 and it only cost 3k? I know we've heard that there

can't be a cheap digital back because the size of the chip is so

large, but if the Canon 5d is now 3k and comes with a host of other

stuff that a back-only doens't need, and if that is full-frame 35mm

I would think that at the worst it would be 4 or maaayyybe 5k for an

80%-of-645 chip in a digital back. With all the great Zeiss,

Bronica and Mamiya MF cameras floating on EBay this would make an

awesome part of a whole package and could revive all MF right

now... Put it back in the hands of the enthusiast and not just the

well-to-do professional (struggling professionals aren't going to

spend 20k on a back, well, perhaps not).

 

Wouldn't that sell? Particularly if it were 3k? I would certainly

buy one... I've heard the 'used MF back' argument, but its just not

quite there. I see Kodak Pro DCS backs go every now and then and

mostly they already have 5k actuactions or more, and the prices are

still 5k - sometimes they go for 2.5k, but there is often something

known that is a drawback for those (they got hit once, the seller

can't guaranty that it works, etc.). And one isn't sure about

repair service down the line, etc. The only Phase One's that I see

under 10k are H5s and other early stuff that must be tethered or can

only take 1 or maybe 3 pictures... Not what I'm looking for!

I think I'll actually start a new thread with that question as it seems quite important at this juncture...

Medium format needs a $3000 8 or 10 MP (say 80% coverage) digital back... Wouldn't that fundamentally change everything for MF? Why doens't someone do this?

 

Who cares about 39-MegaPixel-for-$39,000 dollars when the whole industry is dying?

I didn't realize it, but the photo I linked to above might be a very good comparison to the Mamiya published photos from the ZD. The Nature_A.jpg photo in the Sample 3 area uses the same lense and f-stop I used. I used 1/60th and it used 1/50th - although it was at ISO 50 and the Velvia I used is ISO 100. But that is perhaps about as close as one can get! (Would be even better, of course, to have same scene, or all objects at same distance, etc.)

Oh - and no amount of sharpening at all of any kind has been applied to this yet. This is a very raw untouched file from the scan they did.

I would be willing to post a 645afd Velvia 100 picture scanned on a Drum scanner, but the problem is that the tiff is 220 MB or so...

 

I have a 6.5 MB jpg made in Paint or Visio (can't remember! are all JPGs created equal? not sure, probably not) from the tiff. I tried a couple of free sites, but couldn't manage to get it up there. Eventually I did post the 6.5 MB file to photo.net, it is here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4295654&size=lg

 

with the smaller version being here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4295654

(from there click on 'larger' to get the big one)

 

If you guys want I can continue to try and put the 200 MB tiff somewhere and someone who is into all this can pixel-peep or do whatever people do. In a week or two my local lab will have a final version of the file (little bit of lightening perhaps, not sure what else they will recommend) and I can ask them to make a decent jpg of it if that would help people here compare the ZD to film, I don't know myself how degraded that makes the file at this level of analysis.

Great, thanks. Yeah - on page 7 of the manual it says that f/16 - f/22 is recommended and on page 12 it says that for corner to corner sharpness f/16 to f/32 is recommended. Based on this I focused on f16 (still maintaining the aforementioned bias towards smaller f-stop numbers), I only had one picture with strong foreground elements (yellow flowers a few feet from the lens, and the camera 1.5 feet off the ground) and used a much lower f-stop.<p>

 

Oh - I didn't see any kind of simple way to post a picture other than to use the html-type post with a link and I didn't want to post my dumb cell-phone pictures anywhere, but I think people who know the camera know what I mean about the big infinity mark.<p>

 

The lens I have now is the 72 - so if I'm using it right the focus options I see are, assuming I need infinity and max foreground possible in focus are:<p>

 

45 - infinity to 'second line'? - what does this line mean? What does the first line mean?<br>

32 - infinity to 4.9-ish feet<br>

22 - infinity to 6.9-ish feet<br>

16 - infinity to 8.9-ish feet<br>

11 - infinity to 14-ish feet<br>

8 - infinity to 19-ish feet<br>

5.6- infinity to 27-ish feet<p>

 

And I assume that you could turn the lens barrel (looking down at it) to the left and this would maintain infinity focus but perhaps muck up the close-distance focusing? And the above chart is obvioulsy an attempt at hyperfocal focusing, you could alternatively put the infinity sign at the white pyramid in the middle if there was nothing at all in the foreground... Does this all sound right? Do you tend to put infinity on the f-stop more, or put infinity on the white pyramid in the middle (actual point of focus)?<p>

 

Danny - I know your gallery quite well (and to be honest your online galleries have prompted me to do two things 1) almost buy a GX680III :), and 2) to actually do this personal test of the viability of the 617SIII with the intent of possibly getting one at some point, or at least renting it frequently.) In your gallery do you have any examples of focusing with the f-stop at the infinity mark and/or right at the center point? Preferences between the two?<p>

 

Thanks!

Thanks for all the info! The Linhoff 617SIII is a very particular camera and you'll notice that 6X17 is not even listed on the dof website! Here are 2 pics that show the 2 options that I think are most likely. However - you've said 'use the center' and this is probably right. These are lame cell-phone-camera pictures, please excuse me for that. If any can verify for absolute certainty that I should 'use the center' I'd love to know!

I am renting a 617 and am focusing by choosing an f-stop and then

putting the infinty mark under that number on the right side. But

the infinity mark is quite wide - do you put it centered on the num

above, or the middle on the num above, or the right side all the way

to the left of then num above it? Maybe it doesn't matter, but

since this is focusing-by-numbers I want to be as precise as I can

be.

Thanks for the info, that is good to know. Can I ask, what is your personal solution for metering for this setup? Also, do you use a center filter?

Wondering which of the following can fit on a Technikardan 4X5 and

still have at least a little movement:<P>

 

Super-Angulon XL 5.6/38mm <br>

Super-Angulon XL 5.6/47mm <br>

Super-Angulon XL 5.6/58mm <br>

Super-Angulon XL 5.6/72mm <br>

Super-Angulon XL 5.6/90mm <P>

 

I plan to do a lot more 6X12 than 4X5. Although I've listed all the

XL lenses, and am curious about the first three, I guess I'm mostly

interested in the 72/90. <P>

 

I've heard the 72 XL is a gigantic lense and doesn't fit into

several LF cameras - that seems from what I've read like the one I'd

want to use.

<P>

Thanks!