dave_parry

<p>Try using blu-tack.</p>

<p>If you've got important subjects at infinity I would not suggest just automatically using hyperfocal focussing alone based on depth of field tables (i.e. no tilts) to get full front-to-back depth of field. Despite sounding good in theory, it just won't give you a sharp infinity . The human brain needs objects at a distance to be sharper on-film than close objects in order for them to "look" equally sharp.</p>

<p>If your subject is roughly in a plane (i.e. the side of a building, or the floor running from your feet away to the distace) then you're better off using tilt or swing, then stopping down to whatever degree to make your plane of focus into a wedge hopefully containing all important elements in your shot. Its not always possible though, especially if the scene needs quite a deep wedge of focus close to you. Good luck.</p>

<p>I would recommend the mamiya 645 (super/pro/TL vintage) as generally a good workhorse camera and very capable with landscapes. The only minor points are the need for a grip or adaptor to use a cable release, and the finder display only shows shutter speeds down to 1 second, but you can work around this.</p>

<p>However I found that after using the mamiya for a year that I just couldn't get the depth of field I needed for the type of landscape shots I take, even at f/22. If you like to take quite deep near-far compositions then I would say 645 is the largest format you can get away with using, and anything like a flat 6x7 or 6x9 system is going to be even worse.</p>

<p>If you need quite a lot of depth of field then ultimately no rigid medium format camera will satify. You'll need to either go with 4x5 or at least a 6x7 back on a 4x5 camera. (There is a ukranian tilt lens for 645 cameras but finding one is like trying to get hold of rocking horse faeces...).</p>

<p>I've not used the 617 camera but your issue is probably one of DOF which is universal regardless of format. Basically if you're using hyperfocal focussing techniques you will not get an utterly sharp horizon unless you calculate your DOF marks based on a very small COC. The DOF marks on lenses are usually calculated based on viewing your image at the distance equal to the diagonal of the image, which for panoramic images is going to be pretty far - people like to view panos from a bit closer in my experience.</p>

<p>The old advice used to be to stop down an extra stop or two from what the lens DOF scales advises, i.e. like someone above mentioned, use the f/16 or f/22 scale when shootng at f/32. You can read this in Galen Rowell's "Mountain Light", and its good advice for 35mm camera since the available detail on 35mm will generally mask any unsharpness at infinity. So at the expense of available DOF this will get you sharper horizons for sure on your 617. However if you really need critically sharp horizons you need to focus at infinity or as close to infinity as damn it (Yes this will grossly limit your available DOF). This is because although technically speaking proper hyperfocal focussing ensures equal sharpness at the far and near limits, your brain doesn't perceive it that when when looking at the image. It will instead see the near limit as being amply sharp, but the infinity unsharp. I and others have found this out true even shooting as small a format as 645. It can work out OK if you've got a very dominating foreground ovject and little interest at infinity, but in general for normal landscape shots you'll want infinity sharp.</p>

<p>I think the critical issue is one which isn't widely understood or discussed. This being that your brain treats slight unsharpness in images differently depending on the object represented in the photo and its distance from the camera, because your brain doesn't just see a collection of dots on a film, it sees a rock, a bush, a blade of grass, a mountain. The theory goes that say you've got a blur on an object of say 0.05mm on film. You brain knows that on a foreground rock that amount of blur represents maybe 5mm of blur on the rockitself in real space. However that 0.05mm on a mountain on the horizon might equate a blur of 50meters in real space at the mountain. So you brain sees the infinity object as being more out of focus than the near rock. I'm probably not explaining this very well, but there are articles available online about it. If i can find one I'll post it up.</p>

<p>My advice is to try stopping down and extra stop or two based on the DOF marks and see if this gives you sharp enough horizons (but bear in mind diffraction is going to set in around f/32-f/45). If this doesn't satisfy, then focus at infinity regardless of the subject and just stop down to get depth of field, and accept that you can't have sharp objects in the image as close as you're used to. Your available closest DOF limit may receed from 2m to 5m for example at a given f/stop. If this still doesn't satisfy, then you'll have to get a 6x17 camera with tilts.....</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>When I was in bangkok I had some rolls of 35mm E6 done at IQ Lab - very cheap compared to home, and fast turnaround, no problems. They were also just a block away from my hotel too.</p>

<p>I moved into medium format from digital/35mm about 18 months ago, got a 645 Pro-TL, mainly for landscapes. The main problem with the 645 format is even though this is the smallest of the 120 formats, the depth of field really is limiting for those cases when you need maximum front-to-back sharpness like landscapes, even at f/22 on a 45mm lens. Of course for shallow DOF shots, its great.</p>

<p>Paul if you want to do a rock-solid comparison simply of the relative colour balance of the lenses I'd set up a shot of something fairly neutral like a sheet of newspaper indoors. Light it with flash at a fast shutter speed to cut out ambient light - leave the flashgun at a fixed location, preferably off camera. Use the same camera for each shot, and shoot jpg then you know your RAW software isn't going to try and alter the white balance on the sly. pick a white balance setting and leave it there (doesn't matter which one as its just a relative comparison, but I suggest sun or flash on the D70). As you're indoors with flash you don't have to worry about the light changing or working fast/rushing/making mistakes. Good luck.</p>

<p>Trust me it isn't the camera, I know what a light leak looks like and this isn't it. There isn't any light coming through the darkslide slot, and if there was I can't conceive how that would lead to producing no fogging at the slot end of the frame, but instead cause thin consistent reflection-like marks confined to running all the way along both the long sides of the frame, on every shot, which are the same density all the way along, not being more severe at the darkslide-slot end (which is what you'd expect from a light leak). Anyway this is academic since I don't have any light leaks.</p>

 

<p>It also cannot be the lens, since that implies that the lens is projecting two long perfectly straight reflection-like patterns exactly 55mm apart into the centre of the ground glass that do not move or change shape or position when movements are applied, but do rotate 90 degrees when the back is reorientated, and are not visible on 4x5 film, and also all three of my lenses of different focal lengths and vintages must be exhibiting this behaviour. This just isn't possible unless the laws of physics have radically changed while my back was turned.</p>

 

<p>I would say however that I may have actually been mistaken regarding the roll of film I had developed which I thought was from my wista back. Having reinspecting it this weekend I suspect I'm actually just looking at entirely horseman-shot rolls and that the ones from my wista are the ones sitting on my desk waiting to go to the lab. I'll report back when the wista shots come back. I do note that with regard to the design of the film gate (which is the source of these reflections) the wista is of an almost identical design to the horseman, so will be interesting to see if there is a difference in the actual shots.</p>

<p>Thanks for the suggestion - however I can pretty much rule out the camera as the source since I've shot 4x5" with it with no such reflections. Althought granted flocking the back out might just be good practice anyway.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input, althought I must stres that I do know already what the cause is, I just want to establish if this is usual for Horseman or Wista holders. Cheers.</p>

<p>OK here's an example. I think this one was form my Horseman back.</p><div></div>

<p>We'll have to agree to disagree on that.</p>

<p>Thanks for the idea, but everything is tight as it should be. If it was a light leak of that type I'd also have the light band across the rebate between frames, which I don't. I mean I'm 99.9% sure whats causing it, I really want to establish if this is normal, or/and if anything can be done about it. I may try sticking some thin felt/flocking along the offending edges.</p>

<p>That "rule" is based on the focal lengths used on 35mm cameras (it just so happens to be a happy concidence). An 80mm lens on the mamiya gives roughly the same field of view as a 50mm on 135, thus camera movement is manifested in the image to the same extent (all things being equal...). Thus based on the integer shutter speeds on the mamiya you're looking at 1/60th should be fine for the 80mm, 1/30th for the 45mm and 1/125th for the 150mm.</p>

<p>However, having said all that, the mirror slap on the mamiyas is so severe compared to a 35mm camera you'd do well to ignore my advice and stick to 1/125th for all lenses for situations where you can't lock up the mirror. This is the main disadvantage of handolding MF SLRs with those huge mirrors. In terms of handholding I should easily, and often can, get sharp shots at 1/60th with the 80mm, but I still get robbed by mirror slap quite frequently.</p>

<p>I'll see what scans I can dig out later on. Basically imagine a 6x7 transparency with a slight light reflection/band on the long edges of the frame, most apparent against the sky.</p>

<p>Just wondering if anyone else gets this problem; I've got two 6x7 RFHs, one Horseman and one Wista. On images shot with either of these I get an internal reflection on the shots (all shots, but mainly noticable on area of even tone, skies etc) along the long edges of the frame. It seems to be coming from the inside edge of the 6x7 film gate in front of where the film/darkslide goes. It generally affects are area 1-3m deep on the film.</p>

<p>On my Horseman back I tried repainting the inside of the film gate frame matt back to cut down the reflections but I still get the problem (it seems matt black paint is actually quite reflective). At first I thought I just had a dodgy Horseman bakc, but it seems this might actually be normal. Has anyone else had this? Is this in fact normal for horseman/wista holders?</p>

<p>The mamiya 645 mount has a shorter flange distance than the pentax, so if you did mount them with an adaptor you'd not be able to focus to infinity - would be fine for closeups though:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html">http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html</a></p>

<p>The envolope comes in a triple box to make sure the contents are light-proof AFTER opening the envelope, for ease of handling and re-use. An unopened envelope could well be light-tight on its own for all I know. I'd email Kodak to find out for sure. Or just get your mate rig up some extra protection for the white envelope.</p>

<p>A Mamiya system based on a body like the super/pro/TL is a great field camera. Sharp glass, cheap and good availabilty. Very simple to use. Not too heavy and fairly compact for the genre. For the price of a decent hasselblad body you can pretty much get a pro-Tl with 3 lenses and a couple of backs AND a metered prism. The pro-TL with a single lens like the 80mm or 45mm is compact enough to squeeze into a small bag like a lowepro TLZ, the type designed for a 35mm SLR with a zoom, making it good for walkaround/travel shots.</p>

<p>The only downsides are mirror slap when handheld (I've had unsharp results at 1/60th with the 80mm even with my steady hands), slow flash sync, limiting depth of field for landscapes even when at f/22 (all of these are par for the course for MF SLR), and the metering display only goes down to 1 second.</p>

<p>"Stick with "C" lenses for better contrast and flare taming (C means coated)."</p>

<p>All mamiya 645 lenses are C though, aren't they? Including the later S and N versions.</p>

<p>"How many MF and LF lenses can compare to the optical quality of the best modern DSLR lenses?"<br>

The differences are pretty negligable at the type of apertures frequently used for landscape shots, i.e. f/11-f/22. Certainly by f/22 almost all lenses are operating at or near diffraction limited results, generally around 60lpm regardless of the format. On top of that, i'm sure lenses like for the mamiya rangefinders can give any 35mm/digital lens a run for their money even wide open.</p>

<p>"I've seen 35mm film photos that are sharper than images taken by large format cameras. The grain is far worse, but actual lens sharpness can be much better. Stick your nose into some of Galen Rowell's best prints and prepare to be amazed."</p>

<p>Galen only shot with the same nikon lenses and bodies as everyone else. His shots with his 24mm on a manual focus body on a tripod at f/16, correctly focussed, will be no sharper than anyone else using correct technique. The difference is that all his prints are produced from drumscans, and then all worked on in photoshop by professionals to do things like smoothing out the film grain in areas of sky etc (you can read about this in his Inner Game book) and worked on to produce the best prints, by trained professionals on professional kit rather than hobbyists at home. Most of us don't have recource to these kind of facilities so our 35mm work won't look at good. I'm sure Galen's 35mm prints will still knock most DSLRs out of the water for this very reason. If you apply the same crumscaning and workflow to MR of LF film shots, then you'd need a hell of a lot of digital pixels to compete.</p>

<p>"However, as the price of high-end DSLR going down, I have the intention to buy one like Philips's to replace my MF, not only benefits of ease of use, save processing time and cost"</p>

<p>When you see how much time and money people "invest" every couple of years into the latest RAW processing software, you might reconsider which is the most cost/time effective between MF and digital! As someone who uses MF and has shot consumer DSLR for years now, I can say that neither is easier to use than the other. With MF you even have some usability advantages, like not having to stand gawping at the back of your camera while things are happening in front of you for a start. Its a common myth to say that digital is easier to use. Its easier to use carelessley, and easier to produce hundreds of frames of crap, but not easier to produce genuinely good results.</p>

<p>P.S. Voigtlander is only a trademark currently leased by Cosina (since 1999), so don't necessarily equate that with "Voigtlander" cameras of the past, its just a name.</p>

<p>Don't forget its really a Fuji camera, just being marketed as a Voigtlander everywhere other than Japan. You should expect it to be the same build quality as the fuji rangefinders, xpan, GX617, GX680 etc etc. It's probably actually manufactured by Cosina, since it was reputedly a joint development between Fuji and Cosina.</p>