darcy_lorimer

One item that has yet to be mentioned is the archival potential of film over digital, and I am refering to the source image as opposed to the printed one.

 

Due to the rapid progression of software and electronic systems, digital methods of storage are constantly being obsoleted. If you don't continually convert your files from one operating system generation to another, you risk not being able to recover the information at all. Ever have anything saved on 5 1/4 floppies and need the files now? How about Jazz 1 G storage media? I have had a large amount of info on these cartriges which are no longer readable on current Iomega drives. So it matters little that Iomega claimed 20 year information integrity when they made drives for only 5 years. Put you files on CD-R disks? These have maybe five to seven year potential lifetimes. Proprietary "RAW" files that require OEM software to open and manipulate will be OS dependent and may not usable 10 years from now after three OS revisions.

 

Film, on the other hand, is well documented regarding its archival capabilities.

 

In the current "throw away" society, perhaps professional image makers don't care if their work extends beyond the current magazine issue. But I have negatives taken 20 years ago I can still print and view.

After further contact with David Silverman, the guy selling the 40th Aniversary Edition ETRSi on EBay, I found out what he's selling is not new, but is used. Comes with no warranty documentation, and is not in the original packaging. He claims its in "new" condition, but that's not "new" to me.

KEH finally diagnosed the problem to the body, and not the finder. Something wrong with the electricals somewhere between the lens and the finder.

 

The good news is that ETRSi bodies are a lot easier to find and replace than AE-III finders.

I think your meter may be out of calibration or there may be a sensitivity problem with it. All your readings are at EV of 6 (f22, ISO 50, 16 sec) or EV 5 (f22, ISO 100, 16 s----ISO 1600, 1 sec), indicating the limit of sensitivity is EV 5. It should be closer to EV 2, or three stops more sensitive. In other words, the meter is not indicating light levels below EV of 5. At EV of 2, it should flash "16" for any ISO setting lower than 800 (EV 2 at f22 is 16 sec at ISO 800).

 

All this assumes the actual light entering the meter is EV 2 or less, including what might enter the rear of the finder. At EV of 2 or less, the limit of sensitivity, the camera will still give a reading of 8 sec at ISO 1600 and 4 sec at ISO 3200 (not a flashing "16").

 

However, the other explanation is that the actual light levels being measured is EV 5, even though you have a dark room with the lens cap on, the light coming through the rear of the finder.

 

You might want to have the meter calibration checked.

I recently bought this lens from KEH and also use it with my 20D. Wide open, exposures are about perfect, but a little overexposed at the smaller apertures (see earlier posts about exposure accuracy of the 20D with Leica R optics).

 

Can't comment on the relative performance, but I like this lens. With the Canon 20D, its a bit dark in the finder, so I recommend a Katz Eye screen which makes the spilt image usable to about f11 (since you have to shoot stopped down).

Simon:

 

The price he's asking is not out of line, particularly if it's really new, in an un-opened state, packaged in a metal carrying case. I think he wants nearly $1000 for the kit (which was the body, AE-III finder, 75mm f2.8, speed grip, and 120 back, all in that matching "champange" color). KEH wants $960 for a used version of the same kit, in exc condition (but not new), without the case.

 

The problem is one of buying and shipping the item to the US from Japan, paying duty, taxes and shipping, and the problem of warranty.

Interesting enough, Tamron says they will honor any new camera warranty if the camera is truly new, even though it could have been produced in 1988! A camera produced and sold in Japan would be warrantied for 1 year, as opposed to three years for a US imported product.

I only can surmise what the 40th Anniversary edition actually looks like from photos on the KEH website.

 

It is a champange color (not exactly "chrome") with light colored leather covering. The description (and the photos) show an AE-III finder, not an AE-II, the obvious difference being the LCD lighting window at the front of the finder. The lens is also a matching color with the body, as is the speed grip and 120 back.

 

The documentation on the Tamron website (etr_guide.asp) does not even mention this model, which is why I have posted an inquiry here. The production date I got was from a tech support rep at Tamron, which conflicts with the production data for the AE-III finder in the etr_guide.asp document (which states a 1994 introduction for the AE-III finder). I guess its possible that a special edition with the AE-III finder was introduced 6 years in advance of the general introduction, but its not likely.

Can anyone enlighten me as to the production history of the 40th

Aniversary Bronica ETRSi? Tamron says they were produced in 1988, but

they have an AE-III finder which supposedly was not introduced until

October 1994, according to the ETR Guide on the Tamron website.

 

Were these produced for only one year, or more? Was there more than

one version produced? A guy selling these on EBay says they were only

introduced in Japan, but there appears to be a number for sale in the

US as well. Are there any known problems with these cameras?

As previously noted, Bronica/Tamron recommend silver oxide batteries as opposed to lithium. Lithium batteries have longer voltage stability for low current draw applications (like modern CMOS circuitry), but have poor voltage life for higher current draw applications. Older circuitry was mainly bi-polar, which had much higher current requirements. Silver Oxide batteries are much better for high current draw applications. Unfortunately, silver oxide batteries are getting hard to find. A recent Google search (for 544/28PL) turned up only a couple of sources, and I could not find anything but lithium in my local stores

I am in the middle of a purchase from KEH of a Bronica ETRSi body with two lenses, an AEIII finder, misc backs and speed grip. All were in Exc+ to LN- condition. The AE-III finder is not working properly, but it is unclear whether the problem was the finder, body, back or lenses (ERR flashing in finder, no readings for any setting).

 

I sent both lenses, the back, body and finder back to KEH. They have not been able to determine the root cause of the problem, and do not have a replacement finder of equivalent grade to swap. I am dissapointed they did not check functionality before shipping me the gear, as their salesman assured me they test all their product.

 

They have been very helpful and assured me they will give me a refund if the problem cannot be resolved.

 

I agree that the rating system is a mystery. I have ordered Leica lenses from them previously that were rated exc+ that looked new with no signs of wear. But my AEIII finder was rated LN- and it does not function properly (although cosmetically its perfect). The Bronica body was rated exc+ and it looked as good as the finder at LN-. There was a large difference in price between a finder at exc+ and the one I bought at LN-, so I am less inclined now to pay the premium for LN-.

Put in a new lithium battery, but still no joy. I noticed that Bronica recommends silver oxide first, alkaline second, and lithuim last. Lithuim is what I can easily buy at my local stores, I have never seen silver oxide or even alkaline in the 6V 544 or 28L sizes.

 

After contacting tech support at Tamron, who was very helpful, I was told that the problem could be the finder, body, film back, or lenses. So I RMA'd the whole kit back to KEH, so they can find out what's bad.

Andrew:

 

The reason I cite Leica/Zeiss lenses is that the phenomena has been mainly reported by owbers of 20Ds and these lenses, and my detailed and lengthy conversations with Rachael Katz have led me to believe that a number of other lens brands do not show the under-exposure effect at wide open apertures. Rachael has personally tested a number of 20Ds sent to her for screen changes, and has never observed the under-exposure effect wide open with Tamron or Pentax lenses. She has observed mainly a requirement to compensate for over-exposure at small apertures. So I don't think this has anything to do with Leica lens owners reactions, its a real affect with Leitz lenses.

Simon:

 

Thanks for the help. I tried moving all the switches and controls, including the ASA settings. I even mounted and dismounted the finder a number of times, all to no effect. I tried a number of ISO setting which should have given me readings within range, no effect.

 

Your suggestion regarding the battery is a good one. I'll replace it and see if that helps. The battery was supplied by KEH with the kit. It's a Lithium Duracell 28L with an expiration of 2014, so it should be good. If a new battery does not cure the problem, I guess the finder goes back to KEH.

Bob Atkins:

 

(1) This technique is not intuitive or described in the manual. What results do you get when you use it? Since the lens is physically disconnected, no ROM or electronic info can go to the body. Are the same errors seen?

 

(2) Yes, the discussion is somewhat academic. The convenience of digital does allow multiple exposures to made quickly and analized with the histograms for correct exposure, as long as you have the time and your lighting conditions aren't rapidly changing. But the problem does reduce the attractiveness of using R optics on the 20D, in addition to the inconvenience of having to use the lens stopped down at the working aperture.

 

(3) I will post something in the EOS forums, but I posted here because the problem (ie underexposure at large apertures) seems to be unique to Leica (and perhaps Zeiss) lenses. And it was on this forum were folks suggested using the 20D for digital with Leica R lenses in the first place. So I assumed that those using R lenses with the 20D would have observed this.

Andrew:

 

Thanks for the link. You website is very helpful. It does seem, after reviewing the references you provide, that this overexposure affect is seen primarily with Leica and perhaps Zeiss lenses.

Thanks to all for their input. I made the measurements by puting the camera in manual mode, and yes, the displayed aperture is 00 with R optics. But the shutter speed is fully adjustable. Adjusting the aperture ring on the lens stops it down, and for each stopped down setting I adjusted the shutter speed until the exposure needle indicator was centered ("0").

 

So I proceded from f2 to f16 in this manner, took the images, and reviewed the histograms. The thing that caught my attention immediately was that the shutter speeds were not changing by the typical factor of two as I stopped down.

 

Now I can understand that Canon meters at a fixed aperture with their own lenses (manual or automatic settings), and tweaks the readings electronically for each lens. What I don't fully understand is why Leica optics would cause the exposure sensors to read so much more light at the same "reading" aperture. I've had this discussion with Rachael Katz of Katz Eye Optics, who has seen this phenomena with her special Canon focus screens at smaller apertures (below f4), and sees no difference with non-Canon lenses (such as Tamron and Pentax) wide open. It appears to be unique to Leica R optics, perhaps?

 

I also did another test, comparing the readings bewteen the Canon 20D w/ Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro lens and my Leica R7 w/90 mm f2. The subject was the same grey wall, same lighting conditions. Both read an exposure within 1/3 stop of each other.

 

I don't understand the comment regarding "oily" blades. How would this introduce more light to the exposure sensors at wide open aperture? If at, f2.8 or smaller apertures the blades were not closing far enough, I should see over-exposure down through the complete range (all histograms to the left of center), which I do not. The histograms move left to right, through center, in a uniform progression, incicating correct exposure at f4-f5.6, then slight underexposure f8-f16. Also remember that the images are taken at a fixed aperture with the Canon, meaning the blades don't have to stop down and open back up as they would on a Leica body. So there are no frictional or dynamic effects on the aperture blades.

 

The good news is that the exposures are not off by more than two stops. If you take images in RAW format, the Canon software utility allows up to a two stop adjustment. However, for complex scenes with dark shadow areas, you could still loose shadow detail information even with the correction.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I purchased a 20D as a

convenient, reasonable cost road to digital while still using my R

optics. While taking a number of test shots with the 20D body and my

Sumicron 90mm f2, I noticed very significant metering errors in the

20D. At wide open apertures, I was under-exposed by 1 to 1.5 stops

with the Leica glass. I confirmed this by shooting a grey stucco wall

in natural sunlight, and looking at the histogram which generally was

a sharp spike distribution due to the monochrome nature of the wall.

A Canon 100mm f2.8 AF lens gave a correct exposure with a centered

histogram distribution. My Leica f2 90mm gave a distribution shifted

significantly to the left at f2. As I stopped down, adjusting the

shutter speed to the exposure recomended by the 20D, the histogram

began moving to the right. It was centered at about f4 to f5.6, and

moved slightly to the right at higher stops to f22. I tried my 35mm

f2 Leica R lens and it did the same thing. The Canon lens gave a

centered distribution at all f/stop shutter speed combinations (but

you cannot meter with the Canon lens stopped down). I checked a

second 20D body at my local camera store and got similar results, so

I don't think my 20D is "deffective" (unless by design).

 

I understand that Canon meters at a fixed aperture and can alter the

exposures through ROM programming in the lenses. What is unclear is

why the Leica optics would put twice as much light into the finder at

the same f stop. For example, the Leica R lens at f2.8 was 1 stop

underexposed (more light to the meter) than the Canon at f2.8. I

guess I always figured that f2.8 is f2.8, no matter what the lens.

Unfortunately, this makes using the Leica optics complex because the

exposure correction is f stop dependent. Staying above f4 or f5.6

minimizes the error, but creates other problems.

 

If anyone has observed the same thing or understands why this is

occuring, I would be interested in your experiences.

I am brand new to MF, and have wanted to get a kit since I first used

a Rollie TLR many years ago. I finally pulled the trigger and got an

ETRSi with 50mm and 75mm PE lenses, 135 Wide back (for panoramic

images), and AE-III metering finder (all in exc+ condition from KEH).

But when I mount the metering finder and turn it on, I get a flashing

ERR in the finder and no meter reading. Spot, average, AE, or manual

gives the same result. I don't have the manual for the finder, and

the ETRSI.pdf file on the Tamron site is of limited use for the AE-

III.

 

I read somewhere in a previous post that this is due to a lens

mounting issue, but the finder behaves the same with both my 75 or 50

lenses. I have cleaned the gold contacts on the lenses, body, and

finder, but no effect. Since I just got the equipment, I have not had

any chance to put film through it yet. Is it time to return the

finder to KEH?

In response:

 

The Canon lens cost me about the same as the Leica lens. Of course the Leica was used, but in mint condition. So I do not consider the Leica exorbitantly priced.

 

I stand corrected on the speed loss. I went back and measured the speed loss of both lenses at the 1:3 magnification (which is the limit for the Leica), and both lenses loose 1 stop.

 

I don't consider the Canon lens to be "junk". Its just not quite as sharp as the Leica.

 

K. Mendenhall-- Ever hear of a colloquialism? Perhaps I should have said "My confidence was restored..." Not every test has be carried out in an optics lab. If the lenses were so close in performance, I should not have seen any difference in the images. Same is true if the test was not capable in resolving any difference. The images were taken back to back and compared with the LCD viewer (10x magnified) on the camera. I admit its not a critical test, but it should not produce a bias toward the Leica lens either.

 

P. Voudouris -- Maybe you should read the manual that came with the Canon lens:

Closeup Photography

[Framing Priority]

"While looking through the viewfinder and framing the subject, focus with the AF or MF mode"

Where in the Canon literature does it say that there is a close focus limit to AF?

The impression I got from previous posts below was that the only way to effectively focus with the Canon 20D was in using the autofocus, and that there was inherent advantage in using AF Canon lenses with this body as opposed to manually focussed R lenses. Now your saying this is not true for Macro work?

I just got my new Canon 20D body and 100mm f2.8 EF USM Canon lens.

One thing I was curious about was the focus issue with R lenses, so I

took some macro comparison shots with my Leica 100mm F4 Macro Elmar R

using a Photodiox adapter on the 20D body.

 

I fully expected, before the tests, no to see any apprecable

difference between these lenses. In fact, I guess I expected to the

Leica lens underperform in comparison to the faster, more modern

Canon lens, which is optimized for the 20D body, yadda yadda yadda.

 

Boy was I surprised. First thing I found out was that the Canon lens

gets slower at close focus distances. But the F-stop reading in the

finder does not change from f2.8! What a con! This is mentioned in

the manual, and I confirmed it by placing a neutral grey card in

front of the lens, and adjusting the focus from infinity to the

closest focus point, with manual exposure mode on the 20D. If the

shutter speed is fixed for a proper exposure at infinity, focusing to

close focus drops the exposure by 2 stops. This makes this lens

effectively f5.6 at near focus points. The Leica R lens, of course,

does no such thing. F4 at infinity, f4 at the close focus endpoint,

and R lens is now faster for macro work than the Canon.

 

I tested the focus accuracy (meaning image sharpness) at macro levels

of about 1:4 with the Leica lens. With the stock screen in the Canon,

I had no trouble focussing, even stopped down 2 or 3 stops. The

digital images manually focused (R lens) were as accurate as ones

made with the Canon lens auto-focussed. I tried a number of other R

lenses from 180mm F2.8 to 24mm, and I had no focus problems

whatsoever.

 

I made a couple comparison shots at 1:4 with both macro lenses under

flourecsent light, ISO 1600. The Canon lens produced a slightly

orange tinted image (large, fine) with no white balance corrections

applied (AWB engaged). The Leica R lens, produced white whites with

no tint. All body settings were identical for both lenses. Finally, I

tried to compare sharpness of both images. I did this by magnifying

sections of both images via the viewer LCD on the back of the 20D. I

think you can get a 10x magnification this way. Not super critical,

but I still found the R lens somewhat sharper. One of the circuit

components I was shooting (which is about 0.2" x 0.3") has ID numbers

laser etched on one side. Blowing these up to the maximum

magnification showed the Leica to be sharper, cleaner, with better

contrast. And remember, this is the manually focussed image being

compared to the auto-focussed Canon image.

 

These tests clarified a number of things for me. Comments I received

in an earlier post about R lenses being impossible to focus on the

20D were incorrect. My faith in R optics is restored, and feedback I

have read about superior Canon optics (particularly telephoto lenses)

is not the case for the 100 mm Macros.

Sandy:

I just bought an R7 body myself. I also owned an R4 since the early '80s. [bTW, some might consider it heracy that you would buy an R7 in exchange for an R6.2.]

 

I think the R7 is a great product. I compared it side by side with my R4, and the only obvious thing I noted was a significantly brighter viewfinder, which also had more contrast; and the 2000 shutter speed. But that said, I compared meter sensitivity of both down to the low light levels near 1 or 2 EV, and the R4 was just as sensitive as the R7, even though the specs say it should be two stops less sensitive. All the the other specs for the R4 were right on the money.

 

In my opinion, the R series products are highly underrated. The lenses are great, and the bodies are not Minolta copies. Just go pick up an XD-11 used somewhere and compare it directly to an R4 or R7. No comparison. There's a reason they (XD-11) sell used for a lot less money.

 

I just got my new Canon 20D delivered, so I could use my R4 lenses and do digital. I would never take the 20D (which costs more than my R7) over the R7, now that I have had a chance to compare them side by side. That's saying a lot for a camera designed 20+ years ago. Where the R7 is pleasurable to use, the Canon is, well, irritating. Why would you put lens aperture adjustment on a wheel on the camera back?

Thanks to everyone for the constuctive input. I will probably be doing mostly macro close focus work of electronic circuitry modifications, so the comments about low light suitablity hit home. I tried some tests with my 100 mm F4 R macro lens (and the R7) on these cicuits, and found I would have to use very slow shutter speeds and wide apertures, even with ASA 400 film. The digital solution would provide more sensitivity with an effective ASA speed of 1600 to 3200. I know I could get brighter lights, but I am currently stuck with the existing lighting conditions.

 

So the film option is increasingly less desirable. The digital camera body solution also offers a quick way to check the final image and correct for any needed changes which would take days or weeks with film. I guess I could always get that Canon 100mm F2.8 macro lens (almost halfway there if you buy a Novoflex adapter) and/or one of the aftermarket focussing screens.

 

Thanks again for the great feedback.

I am a bit confused as to why a focussing screen change (I assume for the Canon 20D) would cure the focus problem. Does the new screen move the plane of focus to match that of the CCD? Please understand that the focus problem is a defect and not acceptable by users (or Canon).

 

I really don't want to buy more lenses, since I have an adequate assortment of R lenses. I can see buying some AF lenses for convenience, since using the R lenses removes a lot of the automation features of the digital SLR body.

 

So is it the general consensus that a scanned 35 mm slide or negative is as good as a digital image made with a 20D? Or am I going to give up something with the scanner?

I am trying to come up with a good cost effective solution to

producing digital photos. I have an R4, R7 bodies and a number of R

lenses.

 

The R8/R9 option plus the digital back is out of consideration due to

the cost of the digital back.

 

Many have reported the use of R lenses on a Canon digital body such

as the 20D. This is a cost effective option, except I have heard of

focussing defects in some Canon bodies (particularly the 10D) where

the focus point on the finder is not the same as at the image sensor,

resulting in out of focus images. This problem has been reported in

particular with respect to the use of R lenses on the 10D. Anyone

know if this problem has been addressed or is present in the 20D?

Will using the R lenses stopped down mitigate this problem?

 

The other option I am considering is the purchase of a 35mm digital

film scanner such as the Nikon LS 5000 LED, which costs about the

same as the Canon 20D body. Is this a good alternative (considering

the overall quality of the final image)? Of course, this requires the

purchase of the film and processing, and then the time required for

scanning (which can be extensive).

 

And finally, I am confused about the capability of digital vs that of

film. Some are saying that an 8 or 10 Megapixal CCD is capable of a

higher resolution than a R lens can produce. Is this true? Or is a

fine grain film still capable of a higher resolution than the CCD's?

 

Thanks in advance for any input. This is a great forum.

After reviewing a lot of the posts here, I am getting a bit paranoid

about my R4. I have never had a problem with it, and it works

flawlessly to this day. I have noticed a very small amount of paint

crinkling, but it is over 25 years old.

 

I love the lenses I have, and was considering the purchase of another

R body to supplement/replace my R4. I have considered the R8, but do

not like the size and shape compared to the lighter weight R3-7

series. The digital capability is nice, but outrageously priced.

Plus, all of my current lenses are not ROM equipped, so their utility

on the R8 is a bit limited and reduces the capabilities of the R8.

Plus, I can use my motor drive with the R3-7 series, but not the R8.

The only plus is that almost new condition R8s sell for the same

price or less than R6's and R6.2s.

 

But I am confused over the myriad of descriptions folks have used on

this forum in describing the R3-7 bodies. I am refering

to "mechanical" vs electronic. The R6 is often described as

mechanical, but it clearly has electronic exposure measurement.The R4

and R5 are electronic by the R6 is mechanical? Is there a source I

can go to get a feature/spec summary of the R3-R7 series?