john_biskupski

<p>Ivan, could you elaborate please about substituting the bulb with a red LED laser? That means a laser bulb unit, whatever that is? Apart from cat toys, what other sources are there?</p>

<p>The Mamiya dedicated diopters fit both the 6 and the 7. The rectangular eyepiece has a rubberised surround, the dioptre drops into the snug hole. I recollect that I only found my -4 dioptre lenses at one of the US marts, either B&H, KEH or Adorama. Because of the huge shipping costs to the UK, I had to wait until I had something big to buy from them also. A -2 will be easier to find, so a wider choice of outlets may have them (remember the 7 is still in production). BTW, the rubberised eyepiece works fine for eyeglasses too.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Plaubel Makina 67, or 67 Wide (but then you're getting rare and pricey), as despite their weight and size (comparable to the Bessa III, I think) they are easy to handhold and to switch between horizontal/vertical. And Nikon MF quality lens.<br>

Rollei or other TLR is also a great candidate, easier to find, much cheaper than the Plaubel, great 6x6 results, and once you're used to it, quite quick to compose; and above all else, you can shoot hand-held down to 1/15th if you're using the scissor strap as a tautening device. And whisper quiet.<br>

The only SLR I would use for street would be the Hasselblad SWC (a rather pricey suggestion) with hyperfocal/zone focusing (easy as almost everything beyond 1.2 meters seems in focus with the 38mm Biogon lens). It's small and light, but takes practice to hand hold smoothly at eye level. Shame there is no waist level finder for this fine camera.<br>

I would favour the Mamiya 6 over the 7 for street scenes for a number of reasons. The 6 is smaller, lighter, and semi-collapsible, but has a nice interchangeable lens set (only the 43mm lens really sets the 7 apart). While IMHO neither are really easy to use handheld, the 6 would be slightly easier, and the square format makes your mind up for you in composing. Biggest advantage of the 7II is the much improved rangefinder view. I use these for landscape work, but if in town, I use at least a monopod with the 6, but the 7 justifies a tripod.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As has been said above, the Mamiya 6 is a great compact MF camera due to its size and collapsibility. The Mamiya 7II , apart from the larger 6x7 format and larger size, has a much improved viewfinder in terms of framing accuracy and especially contrast to help focusing accuracy, a rather improved metering system (less average, more centrally weighted), and a bigger choice of expensive lenses (but you won't be dissapointed with the Mamiya 6 lenses either).<br>

The problem with both is that, while it is flattering to refer them as oversized Leicas, their frameline inaccuracy and frequent misalignment, plus the optimistic depth of field ranges marked on the lenses, make them less than 100% reliable picture takers. And as mentioned previously, they can be delicate to use. The lenses by contrast ooze class.<br>

Nevertheless I have both, keeping the Mam 6 for travel, used with monopod or if necessary hand-held, and the Mam 7 for more prepared photos, with tripod. I use them primarily for landscapes. I prefer MF SLR's for more carefully framed subjects eg, if you want it sharp between the eye and the ear, or if you want selective focus to isolate subjects for portaiture or telephoto landscape shots.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I go with Brad's post above. Ok, you can chase the ultimate in digital quality, but there is a huge gulf opening up in the cost of pro-level quality digital cameras (both 35mm FF and especially MF digital) and their corresponding lenses with 'consumer' digital offerings and of course with old film cameras and lenses.<br>

As Brad and others point out, you can still get high quality scanned results from 35mm and MF (and do you want to talk about 5x7 LF and above?).<br>

A fundamental assumption about the 'digital revolution' is that film, scanning and digital back technology for film cameras are all dying. It may happen, who knows, but despite gloomy forebodings, super sharp new film types (Ektar 100) and better scanning solutions are all happening. This could go either way.<br>

This thread was about IQ, but if you need convenience of high ISO digital for low light, fast moving reportage, or for client expectation and turnaround times etc, obviously super digital cameras and matching lenses are the answer - at a price.<br>

But to get top quality images at reasonable cost, digital will take some time to bury our old 6x6 and 6x9 folders, our old 35mm Canon/Leica/Nikon/Olympus lenses, and any of the great MF systems out there, mostly available now at bargain prices. And I have to add, while I love my 5D and its super-zooms for certain times and purposes, the photographic experience can be entirely different if you want it to be when you revert to these classic cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A lot has been said here about good alternatives to Leica cameras, but the fact remains that if you want Leica lens IQ in 35mm format, then you need the Leica SLR or M body. You have to judge if this choice is Ok at your course - ask your teachers. <br>

Some lenses now rivalise Leica in 35mm, with the range of Zeiss lenses in M mount, and for Nikon mount etc. Older Nikon/Canon/Olympus etc lenses were never as good. I switched from Nikon and Canon SLR's to a Leica R5 many years ago, and could not believe the improvement in IQ with the Leica R lenses. Also, it wasn't just the lenses, the R5 handled beautifully and had far superior metering systems (average, matrix, spot). It's a new ballpark now, and all the manufacturers have improved their offerings - just be aware that Leica has also improved dramatically, along with matching price increases! A new Nikon F100 with latest lens may be closer in quality today to my old R5 and matching older lenses; and prices would be similar too.<br>

The Leica M is a dream, do you really need/want it for school? I could never use one with anything longer than a 90 lens, even that was slow and difficult. I defy anyone to visualise telephoto shots effectively with a RF viewfinder; but it is ideal for 50 and below, when your viewfinder image seems instantaneous and larger than life - and why the M became a legend.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Like many, I started long ago with a 35mm film camera, a Nikon FE, and loved the ease of use and portability for street and candid shots. Then I acquired a motor drive, and soon was shooting off whole spools of film, and I became indiscriminate in my shooting style. Also, it become impossible to keep up with the processing. That experience turned me off photography for a long time, until I tried a Leica rangefinder, which made me think more about the essentials of taking a photograph again.<br>

Much more recently, I found myself, like some respondents above, shooting off a thousand pics with a 5D (there was a good excuse-it was a week's trip to Cuba!). But again, out had gone the care and thought that I prefer to put into making photos. So now, here I am, with my 5x7, learning LF from scratch, slowed right down, and having to make the photo myself, not relying on a computer chip to replace my brain.<br>

If this works out, I may get an 8x10, and concentrate on making contact prints, which should give excellent results for B&W work in terms of tonality and image quality. I still have the 5D though, because for some occasions, it's just the right tool for the job!</p>

<p>To the question of which Rollei model had camera movement, it's the SL66, which has modest front tilt capability. The late Barry Thornton (of "Elements" fame) adopted it for landscape as well as macro work, due to its 'near-far' sharpness capability wide open, which facilitated use of ultra slow B&W emulsions, most suited to fine tonal expression in the final print. Thornton suggested that utmost rigour in exposure and development could produce superb results from any format. The Zeiss glass with the Rollei did not hurt. He moved from LF to the 6x6 format, although I have undoubtedly over-simplified his approach here.<br>

I find there's a hugely interesting blurring of formats (both of size and of type) going on in the photographic world today. It's not just the many MF 6x7 and 6x9 roll-film cameras with movements (Alpas etc), but the cross-overs with MF digital backs, the gearing up of film format thru' digital negatives (eg scanning a 4x5 neg to 10x8 size and contact printing out) with apparently superb results. There's a lot going on. It's a question of selecting the right track for yourself, and luckily these do not have to be expensive to get really satisfactory results.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paul<br>

I'd suggest you keep it simple, get a Canon film camera which can use your Canon EF lenses and flash with. Then, if tempted by MF, by all means try the Bronica Sq or a TLR, all well recommended in the archives here. yashicamat and Rollei T are good economical choices, so too the Mamiya although much heavier. Or even try a Holga! Good luck with your choice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Isn't that comparing apples and oranges? Try the aspherical Canon FD on a 5D and then compare results with (any) digital Nikon. Besides, the resolution even on 35mm film still equals or outweighs most digital output. Anyway, it's missing the point, shooting film with the best old film cameras and lenses that exist is fun.<br>

As someone mentioned, Irwin Putts rated the Canon 55mm aspherical as good as, or better in certain conditions (eg direct sunlight), than the old Leica Noctilux. By the way, check out the price of the latest Leica Noctilux (not sure if its IQ is better, but its build quality is unlikely to be) - - £4k plus?.</p>

 

<p>Andy,<br>

Just some additional ideas, I find it useful and informative to have a light table and a good loupe for inspecting relative sharpness and look of bracketed film negatives and transparencies prior to scanning, to help selection.<br>

Also, in my view, you'd do better to go with a superior scanner, such as the V700 recommended above, or the V750, because if you one day you decide you want some nice large good quality prints, the better resolution scanner will be the better investment.<br>

I also got into this a little while ago, starting with the Mamiya 7, and then a Hasselblad 503CW, and purchased the V750 to do the scans. Once I had it, I realised that it would also handle prodigeous quantities of 35mm film, scanning sheets of 24 at a run. (So that had me out shooting my old Canon FD and Leica stuff as well, just for fun). So now, with both 35mm and MF scans, I do a low resolution run for general contact sheet and potential web uploads, but before removing the film holders (having done the dust removal chores once) I also perform a high res scan of a very small number of selected negs or chromes, which I keep for printing. Unless you have multiple hard drives, you do not want to be doing too many high res scans as your storage capacity will qickly be absorbed, and worse, your computer slows to a crawl.<br>

In your research, I assume you have seen Vincent Oliver's reviews of the Epson scanners on Photo-i, if not, well worth studying.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>David Leung is an official Canon dealer in the UK, obviously today dealing heavily in Canon digital stuff, and sometimes advertising in AP mag. However, he is also an unadvertised source of original Canon FD gear and accessories. He has supplied me with Canon F1 and F1N dioptres, the original Canon hard leather ever ready camera cases, Canon neck straps etc. <cite>www.ukcamera.co.uk/<strong>leung</strong> /. <br /> </cite></p>

<p>I don't know about digital, but for 35mm gear in UK, especially Leica, I have found that Ffordes, Aperture Photographic, Peter Walnes and Camtech all have extensive used product range, reliable descriptions, and friendly, knowledgable service. (The first two, together with MXV, Mifsuds, and Mr Cad are also good for MF gear). I recommend that if you can, talk over gear choice with them, as they will describe in accurate detail the state of each item, and will compare with similar items stocked. Good luck!</p>

 

Brad, if you are looking towards the 50 + range focal lengths, maybe you should also consider a good used Noctilux or 75 Summilux. I hardly need to describe the qualities of the Noctilux, but it's a lens that you'll always want with you in low light conditions. The old 75 Summilux M renders beautiful images similar to the superb 80/1.4 R. I also endorse the earlier comment about the Nikon 80/2.0 for Leica. Both 75 and 80 focal lengths are easier to focus with a 0.72 M body than the 90, and IMHO are a bit more polyvalent, unless, that is, you 'see' in the 90 to 105 focal range.

 

I notice nobody recommends a tri-elmar, or a 135, any reason for that?

I moved to MF earlier this year, looking for better IQ and a more reflective, learning approach to my

photography. My first results were shot with Mamiya 6 using Provia and FP4, on a grey, grey, day, and scanned on

V750 in standard mount. I was immediately hooked on the sharpness and brilliance of the images compared with my

5D, which always seems sharp until you look more closely. I have since moved on to 503CW when I want to take

'serious' photos, same excellent image quality. For walkabouts, the Mam6 or TLR 3.5 are perfect.

 

This is just a hobby for me, there are some days when it just feels right with a manual/MF film camera, other

days when the 5D and digital zooms feel right. But with the V750, now I know I can do both. I used to do my own

B&W developing/wet printing, and I have now re-acquired developing equipment for B&W.

 

BTW, I have now ordered a 9000 ED, which should be even better with MF, and also because I still like using my

old 35mm gear sometimes, and will be able to scan and digitally print the keepers. So, yes, for me there is still

life in film and Hassie MF (and other).

Some years ago, on a trip to Venice with an R5 (and my wife), we shared a gondola at sunset with a guy trying to shoot MF (Hassy). The fast R lenses could take good low light, hand-held, shots from a moving platform. Our companion with the MF gear was fuming because he couldn't do 'grab' shots with his MF gear. He swore he'd buy a Leica!

 

I don't know if he did, but years later, while I kept (and still have) my R5, I also bought into MF - Mamiya 7 for landscapes, Hasselblad SWC and 503CW for indoor/outdoor general purpose. I only use the MF gear with a tripod, usually slow shutter speeds for increased DoF, the results are great, especially the fine detail. But I recognise that the Leica R still has its advantages in certain conditions.

 

The elephant in the room, that has not been mentioned much in this thread, is digital replacing 35mm. It is undoubtedly true that the better DSLR's outgun even the best film SLR 35mm systems in many respects. However, when I compare old 8x10 colour prints from my R5 (traditional wet prints) and from my 5D (digitally printed), the Leica results are IMO superior in terms of IQ and overall attractiveness, especially saturation, and graduation and bokeh. I would bet that that perceived difference would remain at even larger enlargements.

 

I do not dispute that the DSLR wins hands down for versatility etc (which is why I have one) and when I return to Venice I will take my DSLR and the R5 or an MF camera.

For me, the FM2 represents one of the the best of old film slr's - manual, simple, light, solid, effective. An slr version of a Leica film rf - perfect for its purpose.

 

However, just as I see no point in Leica's M8 apeing the old manual rf body styling, I see no point in a digital FM2 either, as modern digital bodies have such significant ergonomic improvements, and digital improvements which are there for the taking with an electronic sensor (eg histograms, JPEG customizing, etc).

 

I shoot both film and digital. On a trip to Cuba, a photohog's dream, I shot mostly digital SLR (sorry-Canon 5D), but I loved getting out early morning with my FM2 with B&W film, which actually made my most memorable shots of that trip. One does not exclude the other.

While I love my 5D and its practicality, it still keeps me in the realm of fast 35mm shooting, and so I too turned to MF since a year ago in order to slow down, think and improve my photography, especially in terms of composition and understanding exposure. This in turn is improving my shooting with the 5D!

 

If you do decide to take the plunge into MF, I'd recommend either an old-timer type camera like a Rollei TLR, which is easy to use and gives excellent 6x6 results and is easy to travel with, and/or a system with a future DB upgrade path, eg the Mamiya 645, Hassy 503/203, or Rollei 6008 series, etc. My favourite travel combo is a TLR + 903 SWC, or Mamiya 6 or 7 with a pair of lenses. Most MF prices are still softening, it depends on the model, scarcity, whether there is an upgrade path, etc.

 

There will undoubtedly be a decline in the range of 120 film availability, but MF shooters will adapt. Currently, I develop my own B&W, there is no shortage of good colour processors here in UK, I scan with V750 flatbed, but I am also building up a full wet darkroom set up at low second hand prices. It may also be wise to 'double up' on key items, ie add a second camera body, or a second Jobo CPE-2 processor, for future parts availability. Wait till you see your MF images, then you'll know you were right to make the move!

Reasons to upgrade to the Mam7 are if you prefer the big 6x7 negs, like the extra choice of excellent lenses, and appreciate the improved 7II viewfinder, metering and more . Ken Rockwell's pages set out chapter and verse on all this. Reliability and long term parts availability affect both models 6 and 7, and some aim to own a second body just to have that backup, and prices for these items are getting rapidly more affordable. I use both - the Mam6 for me is a compromise travel camera, smaller, neater, just 6x6 (it's also a bit of a cult camera because of these things). The Mam7 is a more accomplished product (read Rockwell) and has the larger neg. I always feel it is a privilege to use either one (for me, with these cameras this means mostly land and cityscapes), the silent shutter, no vibration, superb lenses, and great results. But you do have to be conservative and accept the compromises in focussing and framing with both models.

Show a kid the ground glass and wait for the look of awe...

 

I can endorse this statement. I had just purchased my first TLR, a Rolleiflex T, and was using it, or trying to hamfistedly, in a little picturesque village in the middle of France called 'St Loup'. It was school holidays, and suddenly a group of schoolchildren came running round a corner, and stopped dead as they saw me peering into this ancient apparatus. They ran up and asked to peer down also into the ground glass, with much ooing and aahing. With their teachers, they gathered around, had their photos taken, and asked lots of questions about this old 'museum piece' (I'm referring to the camera of course).

Following an earlier recommendation on this forum, and as I live in Europe, I have just used Jurgen Kuschnik in Frankfurt, Germany, a Rolleiflex specialist, to service a sticky 3.5f. Professional service, fast turnaround, reasonable cost, I am very pleased about the way the camera handles now, and his sensible advice about what needing fixing. You can reach him via his website at www.jurgenkuschnik.com.

Does anybody know if the lift unit of an older Jobo CPE2 w/lift processor can be

transferred onto a CPE2 Plus (which currently is without lift)?