large_formater

Thanks Sam, that explains alot and was just what I was looking for.

Hello, I have Nikon N90s, F100, F6, & Pro SLR Digital Bodies(hope to in

future). I am considering purchasing my first Zeiss ZF len for them.

 

Question: I am wondering if/how a Zeiss ZF manual focus lens stops down

automatically in Aperture priority and Shutter priority modes with these

bodies? In other words, as a photographer, what is you actual sequence for

exposing a frame - in these modes?

 

Is it an "auto diaphram"? - meaning the reading can be taken with the lens wide

open, and the camera automaticaaly stops the lens down during exposure?

 

 

As I understand it, the Zeiss ZF lenses will automatically stop down to the

aperture that the camera selects (while metering wide open) in the above modes.

 

Thanks in advance for any info, particularly from those of you who actually

shoot with these lenses.

In what sense? As in it's overexposed? A&I sucks? Why "kiss it goodbye"?

Hello, I am temporarily unable to devolop my own Maco IR820C sheet films and

will be therefore relying on A&I in Los Angeles to process it for me.

 

A&I uses XTOL straight (undiluted) at 72F. During exposure I rated my Maco

IR820C sheet films sheets at ISO 3-6 with a 89 deep red wratten (B+W

equivalent) for the true IR effect.

 

Question: For IR820c, in straight XTOL, 72F, what development time would you

suggest?

 

Thanks in advance for all knowledgeable replies.

The 80-400 VR doesn't work for me. To me, there is only one justification to spend many thousands of dollars on a super telephoto: The lens has to be RAZOR SHARP at f2.8 center to edge. Otherwise for me, the deal is off.

 

(Personally, I don't feel Nikon's current AFS II 400 f2.8 is sharp enough center to edge at f2.8 to justify $7500.- there would have to be optical improvements - I already use the optically and mechanically superb AFS 300 f2.8, so I know what is possible)

The Nikon 5000 does much better on negative and E6 slide than Kodachrome, BTW.

Why not? Canon has image stabilization(IR)on their 400 f2.8

Does anyone know if Nikon has a 400 f2.8 Vibration Reduction lens in the works?

I have a 5 Liter Kodak 6-Step E-6 Kit never got around to completely using it,

with Exp. date of Nov 2006. Used 1 liter of it, and 4 Liters remain.

 

Will this remaining kit still give good results if I used it now (March 2007)?

Tamron Will Send you an exploded view diagram of the lens you need free of charge. I have an exploded view, but no way to scan righ now.

 

Also Koh's camera will service the lens for hald the price Tamron charges, and their reputation, even with the Tamron people is very high.

"we saw no differences at all in the result"

 

What result? 4x6 print? 8x10 print? Negative under second rate or less than 8x loupe?

 

Also, what's acceptably sharp to some may not be to others.

 

4 out of 4 of my Nikon 35mm lenses (including a 20-35 zoom) that can resolve down to the film grain. 3 of 3 of my Large format lenses can do so as well. The Kiev 80 could. Bronica PS lenses cannot. I realize that for some photographers ultimate resolving power is not an important issue, they enjoy the process of shooting with their Bronicas, and I have to admit the Bronicas are fun to handle. But all confidence is gone due to barrel distortion and the mushy negatives they produce, despite heroic efforts to optimize sharpness.

Ron,

 

I Would pay a couple thousand dollars for the advice I have given you and am about to give you if it could take me back in time to avoid purchasing the Bronica SQ-Ai system I have:

 

First the Bronica system is well engineered mechanically, for the most part.

 

But the lenses have a number of fatal flaws, which sequentially add up to a system that falls short of the format's potential. Reporting this info makes me seem like a snob, but I'm not. I don't judge the camera's nameplate, just it's performance.

 

Here goes:

 

The system CANNOT be shot hand held for critically sharp negs unless you're at 1/250 or 1/500. This is because the recoil created by the huge mirror swing will move the camera downward during exposure. Even on the tripod, with mirror locked up there is a strong spring mechanism in the lens shutter asembly which induces vibrations to the camera body, makng shots in the 1/8 to 1/60 second - even with tripod, mirror lock up, and cable release, unacceptably soft, unless you take heroic messures to dampen them such as place sandband over camera body while tripping shutter with cable rease and mirror locked up.

 

The deal killer (I will repeat) unacceptable barrell distortion in the PS 40mm PS 50mm, PS 65mm and PS 80mm lenses - rendering them useless for shots of buildings, urban cityscapes etc and the suboptimal resolution performance of the portrait lenses is substandard. This sofness would actually be o.k. if it was a 6x7 format where no cropping of the negative to print to standard 8x10 format is needed. However, like the man above said, you typically crop 6x6 to 6x4.5 dimensions to print portraits.

 

I've made 11x14 from such 6x4.5 crops on the Bronica, and all of the pros I should the professioanlly made enlargements to guessed I

had shot the portraits on 35mm format!! That's how poorly a Bronica PS portait shot under studio strobe lights enlarged to a typical format looked. It's like why bother with 6x6 when I can get this look or better with my Nikon Portait lenses and good ASA 100 or 160 film?

 

Finally, I'm suggesting to look at these resolution figures and BELIEVE. See: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

 

I didn't believe his figures. But now after extensive use and testing I feel these numbers are in line with what you can expect from Bronica PS lenses. The Hasseblad and Mamiya resolved almost 30 lp/mm more.

 

A sharper less is not only instills more confidence in the photographer (see man above who feels " my photography is 1000 times better with Zeiss, etc.." - but a razor sharp lens is also a much more versatile optic - a much greter percentage of shots are useable.

 

I have had Fuji, Mamiya RZ, Mamiya 645, and Mamiya 7 medium format camera experience. The lenses on all these surpassed the Bronica's performance. Even a Kiev MC 80mm lens I bought in Moscow was sharper than the two Bronica PS 80mm lenses I've used.

 

Summary: The dealer killer for me is the lack of resolving power in the telephoto lenses and the unacceptable barrell distortion in the normal and wide angle lenses. Part of this distortion has to do with retrofocus design limitations, in part because Bronica was cutting corners on lens manufacture cost.

 

My impression is that Zeiss has controlled the distortion to acceptable levels, but at a cost of added price, and that Zeiss lenses are acceptably sharp, with a few in the Superb catrgory.

 

My recomendations is to look at only the following in order: Mamiya 7 and then Mamiya RZ or Hasselblad, and Rollei.

 

Summary: I cannot recommend the Bronica SQ-Ai over even a Nikon 35mm SLR Sytem in terms of final image quality.

Battery Holder Contacts - Clean them and bend them. Problem gone.

I Have Owned 14 Bronica PS Lenses. Biggest Purchase Mistake of My Life.

 

My Background is in both 35mm and large format. I recently acquired the Bronica when there was still a few new lenses available. I believed the Bronica hype by recomendations of amateurs or price conscious 6x6 enthusiasts, and went for the 'bang for the buck' ideology, and got screwed instead.

 

The lenses have one good strength - build solidity and quality. When you handle them, you asume anything Japanese with such build quality MUST be razor sharp. Wrong! Instead of Nikon, think Tokina, Tamron, etc.

 

But That's it. Unfortunately the glass inside the lenses in not engineered to the same quality. If you handle your own negatives and do your own darkroom work, this matters, and you will notice and be dissappointed if you like sharp, down to the grain resolvable lenses.

 

In Short the lenses have both inferior resolving power and unacceptable curvilinear distortion (PS 40, 50, 65, and even the 80mm).

 

Admittedly the 80mm and 65mm (and possibly the PS 250) are the only acceptably sharp lenses in the entire line to me, but the distortion in the 40mm to 80mm make me want to puke.

 

Can't sell the system now, because I won't get even half what I paid for it. Don't be a Bronica SQ-Ai sucker like me.

 

SUMMARY: BRONICA PS LENSES ARE BOTH SOFT and FULL OF DISTORTION. Run, don't walk toward a Hassie or Mamiya RZ.

I have a line of Bronica PS wide angles: 80mm, 65mm, 50mm, and 40mm that are SO

VERY frustrating to me due to their poor correction for (and therefore quite

noticeable) barrell distortion.

 

I am looking at the Mamiya RZ and it's lens system as a possible system

replacement, in part to get optics that have better curvilinear distortion

correction, but I don't know how the RZ lenses perform in this department.

 

Any PROFESSIONAL or critical amatuer RZ lens users who shoots architecture and

can provide your personal opinion of the level of curvilinear (barrell)

diastortion in the RZ normal and wide angle lenses, would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks in Advance.

Jil, I have mnay Bronica PS lenses and tetsed them all. The 80mm and the 65mm are equal and are the best in terms of outright resolution in the whole line up. I would guess they are the only lenses that sharpness wise could compete with Hasselblad.

If you don't have or don't plan on having your own darkroom or at least reel and tanks with intensioin to develop your own film - then you're not up for the fututure of shoting film.

Thanks all for the replies. It was a fun read. Interesting about not going too long on a rangefinder. I'm cool with that. Actually I'm cool with one body, one lens (35mm seem good compromise, though I do see in 28mm) - with the prices as they are.This Leica dream will have to wait. Doesn't mean I won't be taking pictures - I have a 35 slr, MF and LF sytem. But when time comes to get a Leica, I hope I remember to refer back to this thread.

 

Thanks all again.

Hello:

 

I am a longtime Photonet member (one id or another) This is perhaps my first

post on this Leica forum. I've answered alot of dumb questions on photonet,

and now have one of my own here on the Leica forum:

 

I am thinking of long down the lime getting one Leica Body, and two lenses. A

100mm ish portrait lens and a 28mm or 35mm wide angle. I know much about all

other types of cameras except for Leicas, which I know very little about.

 

Is the M7 a reliable camera or is the M6 generally thought to be the best?

 

Second, which lenses of focal length 100mm and 28mm do you recommend for the

Leica in terms of optical performance. On the 28, low curilinear distortion

and sharpness are important. On the portrait 100mm, sharpness and colour

saturation is most important to me.

 

Finally, can you recommend a source for lowest prices/best return policy and

reliable customer service for new and used.

 

Thanks in Advance.

I mixed the batch in glycol, as you may know. I tried it on a roll yesterday and it works fine. I was pretty sure it would be o.k. right out of the box.

 

My concern is it's longevity - as in "Did I receive some developer that's already near the end of it's lifetime?". So I spoke to Photographer's Formulary yesterday about the brown color of the pyrocatechin. They said it's normal. I asked them why I previouxly received a pinkish pyrocatechin, and they said they get it in different colors from their supplier fresh.

 

Photographers Formulary began offering Pyrocat HD and another pyrocat formula in glycol themselves recently, and their sales have since been brisk, I was told.

 

Mixing this stuff in glycol is the way to go.

I have to agree with Evan about the oxidation part. I'm quite sure that either by age or heat or exposure to air that this is oxidized to some extent. But I posted sma ephoto and questions on Tuan's Large Format site and the response there is that this is similar in color to what others have been receiving in their shipments and that it nevertheless still works.

Finally, in Solution (glycol):

Better View:

Hello,

 

Is this the normal color and consistency of fresh Pyrocatechin?

Finally, on a slightly different note: I was under the impression that modern C-41 processed negative film is more archival than modern E-6 processed transparency film??

 

Ie, becuase of the multiple layers, image is more recoverable over lifetime of normal fading, all else being equal.