robin_larson

I own and use a Rollei pistol grip. I use it in conjunction with a neck strap for holding the camera steady when not using a tripod. It was a product intended for use with a prism viewer, and not a WLF, even though I use it with a WLF. The fact that it is oriented for right hand operation (the focus knob side of the camera), instead of left hand operation (which would leave the right hand free to focus), was a major mistake. To clarify for those people who haven't held one, the Rollei grip is angled to the right by 15-20 degrees, which was a nice ergonomic touch, but in the wrong direction for normal use.

I just responded to your other thread. If you envision shooting (or currently shoot) on a tripod with apertures of F11 or F16, get the T. At F4 or F5.6 (once you have a better screen or become practiced) the 2.8C should have an advantage, especially in the corners, if you enlarge your prints. Obviously, the T will not go down to F2.8.

 

The T should have a brighter "stock" screen than the 2.8C, is a little lighter and smaller than the 2.8C (the 2.8C is about as small as you will get with a Rollei 2.8). I don't think you can get a double exposure with the T, but you can set the 2.8C for a double exposure if you wish.

 

The T will use less expensive bay I accessories instead of bay III.

 

If both cameras are in equal mechanical condition, then the 2.8C has a more rugged film transport system.

 

Not to get the bokeh hounds "baying", but the 2.8C shutter is supposed to be more amenable to better bokeh because the shutter has more blades than the D and later bodies, but that's a whole different argument.

 

I think the sample variation question in lens quality in the C series concerns the Planars more than the Xenotars. I'd wait for someone like Jerry Lehrer to weigh in on this one.

 

-Robin

Congratulations! I have a 2.8D and am very happy with it, having purchased it for a very low price because it wasn't "hot" like a 2.8F F or 3.5F. More money for film and what-not.

 

One advantage of having the rolleikin counter on your camera body already is that now it is easier and less expensive for you to acquire a rolleikin. There are many rolleikin sets out there without the 35 mm counter and take up spool because they are left on the original owner's camera. I paid $20 for a rolleikin because it was "incomplete" but not incomplete for my camera, because the "missing" part was already attached!

The worst way to create a (worst case scenario) light leak on a Rollei TLR is to attach the TLR to a tripod without a Rolleifix, and then carry the tripod with the Rollei still attached, e.g. folding the tripod legs, slinging it over your shoulder, and yomping around until finding the next scenic vista. The back of a Rollei TLR is thin and vulnerable to bending because it forms a 90 degree angle curving down from the back and covering the base of the camera. I used my 2.8 for over a year with a standard quick release plate before I found a Rolleifix, but I always removed the camera from the tripod before moving the tripod.

 

The Rolleifix secures the camera by attaching at the camera bottom (which is part of the back) and two small depressions on the front frame of the camera, which is very rigid. Even then, I don't yomp around with the TLR attached to a tripod, so I have a quick release plate attached to the Rolleifix. I use the Rollefix even with my flash bracket.

 

Look very carefully at how the camera back aligns to the camera when you close it, to verify it is not bent, and check also Mark's suggestion, although my 2.8 has no string in the baffle. Hopefully, it was either just the lab or a mistake you made when you were removing the exposed film.

I won't say that absolutely need a handheld meter, but I use one with my Nettar. I now use an accessory rangefinder with mine, too. I was doing well with estimation and a depth of field chart, but do better with the accessory rangefinder for getting critical focus. Your 105 mm lens has less DOF than my 75 on my 6x6. Get one that you can adjust the calibration yourself. I found mine for $20.00. Whatever you buy, you'll probably need to take apart to clean out haze and dust off of the glass surfaces. Just don't touch the mirrored surface of the rangefinder mirror with your fingers or a tool, as they usually have very thin coatings.

 

I have other postings on this subject, and will sound like a broken record, but try finding a push on lens hood! You'll see better edge contrast on your enlargements. I found mine in the cheapo bins of an old camera store. You should be able to find on at a swap meet. Look for a Kodak push-on to series six converter, then you can expand the number of hoods and accesories.

I use both Contax G kit and classic rangefinders to supplement my Rolleiflex, but I'm assuming your choice of the Canonet means you are trying to keep your costs down. Other posters have mentioned other cameras, so I'll answer your question directly:

 

I have two Canonet GIII's. I must really enjoy them because I'm on my second pair. I buy them cheap, have a good tech perform a CLA (especially the finder, which gets real hazy), replace the foam seals, make the adjustment to use environmentally non-mercury batteries, and put on a Hama rectangular lens hood using a 48 to 49 step up ring (49mm Screw-In Plastic Wide Angle Lens Hood with Cap $17.00 at B&H).

 

Seems like a lot work for cheap cameras, but film and processing involve more time and money in the long run.

 

These are great cameras for photographing WTO protest riots, hiking, wading in the surf, etc.: things you can do with this affordable camera that give you great pictures and reduce your fear of dropping the M6 and Summicron in the Pacific Ocean, or getting it snatched by an anarchist. My first two have died from 1) a long fall from a cliff when a williwaw (wind) blew the tripod over and 2) a swim in the Pacific from a sneaker wave. I use them as either back up bodies for my other cameras or in rough conditions. When I carry two, I load one with fast film, one with slow film.

 

The Canonet can flash synch at all shutter speeds with any auto-flash, uses a standard hot shoe and has a flash synch terminal. You can use a handheld meter and manually set the shutter speed and aperture. The Hama hood vignettes in the finder a little, but kills flare AND makes the exposed metering cell become much more accurate (heck, more people should use lens hoods on zooms and primes, period). This camera is not bad for flare without a hood, but edge contrast improves with a hood. I use hoods on my Zeiss lenses. Rubber collapsible hoods will intrude on rangefinders.

 

Very sharp, excellent color contrast, back ground blur is OK although F2-8 can have strange background highlights with pinpoint light sources (follow this link for an example of Christmas lights in the back ground):

 

http://www.not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=1262

 

Other inexpensive rangefinder cameras mentioned like the Olympus and Minoltas are nice, but I've just settled on the Canonets because I have a good source for them. Downsides to the Canonets are fixed lens, Canonet stuck shutter syndrome, and the shutter speed adjusted by stiff ring on the lens barrel. The meter bar in the finder can get lost in some lighting conditions.

 

I also like my later Agfa Karat 36 with Tessar-clone lens, but they're harder to find, have bellows, no meter, and no hot-shoe. I like the Yashica Electro GSN (cheaper than the Black GTN) but you can't manually set aperture and shutter speed. The "electro" shutter is stepless and the metering works very, very well. But it is bigger than a Canonet so for less weight and smaller size you could use a small SLR body, so no advantage there.

I need an alternative to optical slaves and I have a Metz 40mz3i.

Finding detailed information for using the Metz wireless TTL has

been frustrating. I know I need the appropriate Metz flash to serve

as the master (a 40 MZ1i or -3i, a 50 MZ5, or a 54mz3) and a Metz

with the appropriate SCA unit for the slave. I understand I will be

limited to a max shutter speed of 1/60, although some users on this

site report success with higher shutter speeds.

 

I've done a number of online searches with no luck, both on this

site and g**gle. I've gone through the Metz .de and the bogen site:

 

http://www.metz.de/1_metz_2000/m_pages_english/4_mecablitz/m_blitz_ti

pps/m_mb_e_tricks_tipps_13.html

 

Any suggestions such as a link or the name of a book? I'm after

information like placement suggestion or limitations, zoom head

position on the slave flash, etc. Tricks, warnings, foibles, etc.

 

Thanks in advance.

This is an old thread, but it requires a correction: the wireless TTL function requires a Metz SCA 3082 adaptor, not the SCA 3802, which is the Contax TTL adaptor. You use a controller flash like the 54 MZ as the master, then use another Metz flash with an SCA 3082 attached to it as the slave.

Funny that you should post such a question as I have been looking to get back into medium format and have been shaking my head at half of the posts regarding MF. However, the MF posts seem much less frivolous than the 35 mm posts: "Help! I bought a Nikon/Canon expensive body with the cheapest generic lens that came with it but my slides vignette/have poor contrast/look grainy...P.S. did I tell you I used Kodak Gold 400 and I get red eye with the pop-up flash...I paid $_____ why did this happen?"

 

Recently I have borrowed or rented various Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, and Pentax systems. I own a Contax G1 system (Zeiss) and unloaded a Leica M4-2 with a newer standard lens. My newer prints with 35 mm, 6x6, and 645 are being compared to my 12 year old prints from my parent's Yashicamat TLR. My color development then came courtesy of a pro-lab as my father was a partner in a professional developing lab. This made a far greater difference in prints than I realized at the time. I was and still am a clod in the darkroom printing my own black and white.

 

My conclusion has been that differences are subtler in medium format than between brands in 35mm. When you are making an 8x10 print from 35mm film, lens "resolution" characteristics will be much more evident in an enlargement from a small format than from a larger film format's 8x10 enlargement. My wife's bulletin board at work is covered with prints from a variety of cameras, which we have had in the last few years. Her co-workers don't gravitate toward the prints with the best line pair ratio, but instead the ones that have the brightest color/contrast ratio without being "garish." B/M/P as you call them all make some fine lenses. I have uncorrected vision. With the Zeiss and Schneider I often (but not always) see consistency in colors and contrast across the range of the lens family which I do not always see with B/M/P. What the tests do not always show is color fidelity in color formats and shadow detail in black and white photographs with better film, paper, and lenses.

 

In medium format your skill at metering, film selection, filter use, tripod use, and lighting seem to be greater determinative factors in the apparent "sharpness" and resolution of prints than your lenses. In MF, most modern lens formulations and films work very well at smaller apertures (F8+) with modern flash systems. Most of the older lenses and bodies work well, too.

 

One answer to your question is that Hasselblad cameras maintain a premium for reasons other than their lenses, history, and perceived history. While I like the look of a Hassy body, but not the feel of one, I know that the user of a "geezer" Hassy body can access a network of dealers, repair shops, and rental infrastructure that many of the other MF systems do not have.

 

I am really debating whether to purchase a used Rollei 6006 system (with all of the necessary backs, lenses, and accessories priced well) vs. a very elaborate (and thorough) used Mamiya set-up, or a 6x9 Fuji. Each is a different creature. The struggle is in part over what sort of shooting do I want MF for (an avid amateur's problem). The difference between a user who makes their living from photography and someone like myself who enjoys photography as a pastime is that I can still make my housing payment if that 6006 dies. The pro user whose livelihood depends upon an old Hasselblad can access a network of techs in any major metropolitan area who either have or can scrounge up a weird little shutter spring quickly.

 

The longer answer goes to the concept of "value." If you can see a difference, or believe you can see a difference, then buy that which you can afford that feels worthwhile to you. Photography is a visual medium with a tactile interface. When you hold that body, your perception of the shutter movement, or the film advance, or the focusing ring, etc. will contribute to your experience. Ultimately, the best image counts, but rarely do 6 camera bodies stand lined up on a bluff to catch the moonrise over Yosemite, all with identical film which is processed at the same film lab by the same old wizened technician who changed Ansel Adams' emulsions. Instead, you are perched at the edge of a bluff fumbling with a film back change while your "perfect" light changes and you need to remove that ND +2 filter. Something has to "feel right" to many users.

 

George, I am taking your question at face value. Look carefully at the threads for the useful information such as, "this lens vignettes at this aperture with this film in this kind of situation" or this "film back leaked light after I did this" or "these buttons were too small/ too big when I..."

 

Looking at MTF charts or line pairs is going through the looking glass IMHO.