moses_sparks

Kurt,

You should rent the 250 and the 1.4X if possible and see what you like better.

That's exactly what I did when I was considering a longer lens, and here's what I found:

The 250 did provide a little more compression than the 180, but the image size on film was virtually identical between the two because the 180 will focus closer.

I found the 250 harder to focus, in part because it is much heavier than the 180, and exerts a lot of drag on the bellows mechanism.

I preferred the 1.4X with the 180 because it gives virtually the same effective focal length (252mm), was easier to focus because of the shallow depth of field (even though you lose a stop), and was far cheaper, smaller, and lighter than the 250. I can also use it with my 110mm to provide a 154mm/f4 short telephoto.

The thing you have to be careful with though is focus shift, i.e. focusing in the center of the screen, then tilting the camera down to recompose. The DOF is so thin at wider apertures it's easy to inadvertantly throw the eyes out of focus this way.

As far as loss of sharpness, the 180 is so sharp, and the 6x7 frame is so big, it was a non-issue to me. I really couldn't see any significant difference when I louped the chromes.

Hi Mark,

If it were me, I would save some money and wait for the camera you really want...the RZ.

Since you say that system really works well for you, I think it's unlikely you are going to be happy with something as different as a TLR. The net result is that you will end up dumping that gear and buying the RZ anyway at some point, which will be more expensive than having bought it to begin with.

You use the word "career" so I assume you want to pursue commercial work. That definitely changes the equation.

Amateur photographers can use any camera equipment that suits them, and it really doesn't matter...it's the picture that matters. But if you are trying to make a living with it you have to consider other factors: reliability, versatility, technical and repair support, availability of rental gear, an extensive system of lenses and accessories, etc.

Early in my career I needed MF gear, so I researched everything out there and concluded that the best system for me was the RZ, but I couldn't afford it.

So I bought what I COULD afford, and that was the Pentax 6x7. Great camera, great lenses, but it always held me back. The lack of leaf shutter lenses, interchangeable backs, and motor drive always compromised my efficiency, and eventually frustrated me to the point where I sold a large system at a HUGE loss, and bought what I really needed...the RZ.

I sure wish I had started there!

Good luck to you.

Hey Patrick,

Since we're being completely unbiased and motivated by only the purest of motives here, I have a proposition for you.

As a highly paid, big time Hollywood photographer to the stars, I would be happy to endorse the Pocket Wizard system if you will send me a couple of transmitters and receivers for free.

I would, of course, toss all my Q------- units in the trash...

Whaddya say? :)

Moses Sparks

Staff Photographer - Universal Studios, Los Angeles

Hi Ian,

Leaf shutters are a HUGE advantage for any type of outdoor portrait work, since you really have to use flash to control your contrast, and the leaf gives you much more latitude with the flash.

The fastest focal plane shutters found in MF cameras sync at 1/125, which is still woefully inadequate in bright light.

I used to own the 645 Pro system, including all the leaf shutter lenses, and they work really well IF you get the power winder. The way it works is that there is a tiny cable that runs from the winder to the lens, and that automatically sets the focal plane shutter to 1/8 second, and recocks the leaf shutter after each exposure.

It's very slick, the only problem is that when you want to change lenses you have to disconnect that cable as well as your PC connection, which adds some time to lens changing.

The Hasselblad has the same problem regarding PC connections however. I can't tell you how many times I've watched a photographer change lenses on his Hassy and waste the first frame because he forgot to reconnect the PC cord.

It drove me nuts when I used them.

Electronic cameras like the Bronica SQai, Rollei 6008, or Mamiya RZII allow you to sync your flash to the hot shoe on the body, and then you have full leaf shutter capability without ever having to mess with the cord when you change lenses.

This is probably a minor thing to some shooters, but I change lenses a lot with my RZ's, and I love that feature.

Ellis has it right on the money...when you say "lightweight" you are by definition talking about Dynalite.

They still pack more watts per pound into their gear than anybody in the market, and the packs are simple, rugged, and reliable. I have 6 of them, several of which have been working steadily for years, and no problems to date.

My "location" kit has 2 very small Lightware cases that I can easily carry by myself. In one of them are 2 1000 packs and 2 1015 mini heads, and in the other are 2 500 packs and 2 more 1015 heads (I have found over the years that I don't need big wattage packs very often, as I like to shoot at wide apertures for selective focus, but having one pack for each head REALLY simplifies things when you need to work fast and still have absolute control over your ratios).

So that kit gives me 3000 watts and 4 heads in the smallest possible cases, and you can't beat that.

I'm really impressed with the 1015 "mini" heads. They look just like the standard 2040 heads, but have no blower and take a maximum of 1000 watts. They are incredibly lightweight, and I can get them up on little mini-booms for hairlights, which is not possible with the bigger heads...you need a full size boom for that, and a heavier stand to hold it, and that means carrying a lot more weight. ( You do this for a few years and you get a little fanatical about cutting the fat out of your kit!)

The 1015's are also much cheaper than 2040's, so I think that's the way to go UNLESS they will be in softboxes all the time OR you need to put more than 1000 watts through them. Softboxes cause the heads to get very hot, so you need blowers for that. The 4040 head is the BEST way to go for softbox use, but also the most expensive. I use only umbrellas with my 1015 heads so it's never an issue.

I also have a "studio" kit that I prefer not to travel with unless it's a big job, and that has 2 2000 packs and 4 4040 studio heads in a large Lightware power case. And of course I can combine both kits if I need more power or heads.

Dynalite also makes a nice range of shaping tools, heads, and packs, so you can easily expand your system when you're ready. It's a good idea to think beyond your present needs when you're investing in lighting...maybe you don't have any use for a head that can put out a 4000 watt pop now, but if you ever do, you will be glad you don't have to buy into another system to get it.

I've owned Normans and Speedotrons, and used Profoto in rental studios, and if I had to do it over I would buy Dynalites again without a second thought. Dynalites are very simple, but they will seem like Rolls Royces after using Novatrons! My strobe repair guy in LA won't even work on those things, been shocked too many times.

The other thing I would encourage you to look at for your system is the right cases. I will state flatly that there is ONLY ONE WAY TO GO, and that is Lightware, with Tenba a distant second.

Having the right cases makes a big difference in how easy it is to transport, carry, and organize your gear, and nobody comes close to Lightware in my opinion. They are expensive, but so are good lights, so you're investing in protection for them.

Mine have about a squillion miles on them, and they aren't even dirty. Nothing sticks to them, they're lightweight, and virtually indestructible. You will never regret owning them.

Good luck to you!

The only real difference is that the Mamiya version has the film ISO connections, so if you need to shoot in AE for Polaroids that's the way to go.

If not you could save some money with the NPC version.

Hey Thomas!

There are no stupid and simple questions...plenty of people matching that description though!

Load the pack. Pull the black tab all the way out.

If you've done it correctly the little white tabs will be showing, stacked on top of each other.

Pull the darkslide, and make your exposure.

You don't have to wait, pull the white tab all the way out in a smooth even motion.

Black & White cooks in 30 seconds, color in 90 seconds. Don't peel it early, the contrast will suffer. Doesn't matter if you wait LONGER than the recommended development time.

Grasp the corner and peel the print away from the backing slowly and smoothly.

Watch out for the caustic jelly that may be left behind, it's nasty (Manuel Noriega got that stuff on his face, and you know how butt-ugly he was).

Voila!

And a final little tip...inspect the rollers inside the back and clean them when they get goopy, otherwise they will jam up your 'roids eventually. The rollers pop right out of there, and you can clean them with alcohol (I prefer a nice Pouilly Fuisse', but you can also use isopropyl).

Party on Garth...

Alright you RZ jockeys, I'm wondering whether anyone else has

experienced this with their winders.

I shoot a lot of color neg for portraits, publicity, and various

commercial work, and I've recently started using 220 emulsions more

and more often to avoid reloading so much.

I used to have 4 120 backs I would load, but have since traded 2 of

those for 220 backs. When using the 220 backs I notice there is

coonsiderably more tension when winding the film on. It causes my

winder to really chew through the batteries compared to using 120

backs.

When I asked Mamiya Tech Service about it they told me the 220 backs

always have more film tension because you are pulling a longer load

through the back, and the pressure plate has to be tighter to hold

the film flat since there is no paper backing.

That makes sense, but I still want to send my winder in to be

checked...the problem is I use it constantly so it's hard to be

without it...I do not like winding film by hand!

If you don't understand that, try shooting 30 rolls of 220 in a

session and you will!

Thanks for your input.

Julian,

The advice from Kevin and John is sound, and Lumedyne is definitely the way to go in my opinion.

My remote kit consists of a 400 watt L (fast recycle) pack, a 200 watt L pack, a 200 watt booster that adds 200 watts AND an additional head outlet that can be set to a different output wattage than the main pack, and 2 standard heads.

I have done countless location portrait jobs with this kit, and it has never let me down. The whole kit, including a dual charger, 2 mini batteries, and 2 super batteries, fits into a small Lightware power case.

I also have a Quantum X2 flash that runs off the same packs, and that gives me a 400 watt head that can be fine tuned in 1/3 stop increments, as well as Auto or full TTL operation depending on the camera.

You cannot beat that kind of versatility in battery powered units.

Norman makes 200 & 400 watt units, but they are primitive by comparison.

Metz makes a nice line of flashes, but those are really on-camera units and mounting them to a lightstand, umbrella, or softbox is a bit of a pain to me.

Lumedyne is not the cheapest way to go, but messing around with Vivitars, Sunpaks, etc will only frustrate you and you'll end up buying the real thing eventually anyway.

As John said, you can buy a 200 watt unit and add a booster later, but you can never have too many watts on location.

I have had big budget location shoots for clients where we had 10000 watts pumping and I was still thinking "if I only had ONE more pack..."

Good luck.

Hi Eric,

I would not be surprised that you find very little difference in camera meter readings with the Maxwell vs the Pentax screen, based on my own experience.

I have 2 Mamiya RZ67 II bodies, and I ordered Maxwell Brilliant Matte screens for both. When I got them I installed the new screen in one body and left the factory screen in the other for comparison.

The difference in finder brightness and ease of focusing was significant, but there was less than a 1/3 stop difference in the meter readings using the camera's AE prism, and the test transparencies confirmed this.

I had a rather lengthy conversation with Bill Maxwell about this, and his testing has shown that while his screens are more efficient at transmitting the light to the finder, they often don't have a big impact on metering because of where most sensors are placed inside the camera.

I cannot elaborate on that because frankly a lot of his explanation was simply over my head! If you want to get a quick master class on optical physics and camera design he is a great guy to talk to.

And his products really deliver.

Well, since my pal Robert left a flaming bag of dog crap on my doorstep and rang the bell, I suppose I better post something!

He is referring to a recent incident where I actually DID drive my car over a bag full of cameras and lenses. I'm not sure about these riders mentioned above, but a "camera floater" on a business policy will cover just about any type of loss.

In my case these include a building falling on my lighting equipment (the Northridge earthquake), theft, dropping a camera and lens into the ocean while shooting from a marine lab boat, and rolling a Dodge Dakota Quad Cab over a camera bag...after it fell off the roof...on the freeway...at rush hour. So it even covers stupidity.

You get the idea.

I pay a lot for insurance, but I also have over $40000 worth of equipment covered, and I have to use the policy from time to time, so it's worthwhile to me.

Adios amigos!

Hi Scott,

I rate the Polaroid films I use regularly (Polapan 100, Polapan 400, and Polacolor 100) the same way as the films I am shooting, which is usually 1/3 stop slower than the manufacturer's rating. So with ISO 100 color neg for instance, I shoot the film AND the Polaroid at EI 80.

I know from experience that's a more accurate rating for my particular films, and all of these Polaroid products more closely resemble the contrast and tonality of film if they are overexposed 1/3 to 1/2 stop, depending on the lighting.

Reflectance of Polaroid vs film is different, but that's only a factor if you are shooting TTL flash. I sometimes need to do this, so what I do is put an NPC back on my Nikon and dial in -1 compensation on the flash...that looks about right to me.

Quantum makes an adapter to use their Q-flash with either the Mamiya 645 PRO TL or the 645 AF.

That flash has a parabolic reflector, and higher output than anything else available (if you get the X2 and use with a Lumedyne pack, or Quantums 's Qpac)

I have the X2, and it's a very nice unit.

Peter,

I used to shoot the 645 PRO TL system, and my 210 was an N version...it had none of the problems you describe and performed very well.

When I was researching the system before buying I read a lot of opinions regarding C versus N series lenses, some of them said the changes were merely cosmetic, others maintained that the N versions were updated optical formulas and considerably better than the older lenses.

I cannot confirm or deny either argument, but since I bought all 5 of my lenses new, they were the latest versions, and I had absolutely no complaints about the optical quality of any of them. They compared very well to Pentax 67 and Hasselblad lenses I have also owned.

(My system included 35/3.5, 55 leaf, 80 leaf, 150 leaf, and 210/4 lenses).

Since you're unhappy with the lens you bought anyway, why not return it and try the newer version? Then you can see for yourself what the differences are. Reputable dealers like B&H generally have a 10-14 day period in which you can return an item if unhappy with it.

Good luck.

Well, first of all, I just want to confirm that Robert is indeed a BIG MF'er.

Secondly, although the Swedes and I had a falling out some time ago and eventually split due to irreconcilable differences, I too preferred the 553 ELX to the 503 with winder.

And I'm assuming we're talking about handholding the beast.

The 553 was easier for me to keep steady because I could get both hands under it, with or without prism.

And I found it hard to believe that the plastic winder for the 503 would actually stand up to daily use. It felt very cheap and flimsy to me. I had to check the price a couple of times to be sure it was actually a thousand bucks.

Oh yeah...the Swedes never forget the massive mark-up.

Adios amigos.

I think Steve is correct about the usability vs. quality issue.

Not as much now, but I used to shoot lots of editorial, and many of the photo editors had a preference for MF over 35mm, but it had much less to do with reproduction quality than with eye strain!

When you spend your days bent over a lightbox with a loupe, the bigger transparencies are a lot easier to evaluate than 35mm slides.

Some guys used a slide projector of course, but then you're always fiddling with the focus and sitting in a dark room.

They always smiled when I laid those 6x7 chromes on the box...

Dan,

The film advance lever is disengaged, that's how the 67 is designed.

To fire the shutter with your NPC back what you do is open the back, then put your finger on the center dial found on the advance lever. Push down and twist that dial past Frame # 1.

Then, while holding it there, close the back.

You should now be able to cock the shutter.

Pentax also makes a cocking key that will accomplish the same thing, but this is easy enough to do, although it takes a little practice.

Another vote for the Rodenstock 6x.

I went shopping for the best loupe I could find recently, and this was it, by a long shot.

I compared it to Schneider, Peak, Mamiya, etc and it was easily the sharpest, best corrected, and most comfortable for my eyes.

Price was about $200, about the same as the best Schneiders.

Hey Robert,

Let me take a wild guess here...is business a little slow at the moment?

I know that you're usually cranking Astia through the Blads as fast as you can load them, so when you start contemplating your navel and looking back on past purchases, you have too much time on your hands bro!

Try this: Put on some new age music, dim the lights, and sit in a lotus position as you hum "Kodachrome" very softly to yourself.

It won't do a damn thing, but it's free, whereas browsing the B&H website to check out more lenses and Profoto pieces is going to cost you a bundle. And you know that's next.

How do I know this? One alcoholic can always spot another in a crowd.

So let me talk you down off the ledge while there's still time!

Love,

Sparky

Well...

If I could do it over again,

I would NOT have bought the Pentax 6x7 system, or the Mamiya 645 Pro system, or the Hasselblad 503CX, or the Fuji 6x9 (both of them) or the Yashicamat...all of which I DID buy in my unending quest to find the perfect camera.

Which doesn't exist of course.

Instead, I would have bought the RZ67II system I use now FIRST and used all the money I've pissed away to buy a sports car!

Of course, I wouldn't be able to drive it now because it won't hold a baby seat or a 5000 watt strobe system.

Live and learn, huh?

Wow, this thread is older than The Mummy and still kicking!

Well, I ultimately ended up settling on Fuji Reala as I'm still able to purchase it in both 35mm and 120 rolls. If they would only make it in 220 rolls I'd be in heaven.

Looks great, nice skin and good color overall. Contrast is a bit on the low side, but not to the point of being a problem.

When I need more DOF or flash reach I'm using NPH.

And for indoor work in 35mm it's NHGII exclusively. That stuff is amazing.

The new NPC sounds intriguing, and I will definitely give that a try.

Maybe that will be the 220 solution I need. Right now I have no choice but to go with NPS at EI 80 or 100 when I must have 220 rolls, but it sure is a distant second to the Reala in color and overall quality.

And finally, just to be sure my hard-on for Kodak hadn't clouded my judgement, I went back and tested some of the Portra films. The kindest thing I can say about them is that they are, uh, neutral.

Kinda like tofu.

Which I wouldn't eat at gunpoint.

Each to his own.

Live long and prosper, cyber dudes.

Ah, some clues!

Joseph - I've done that, put an 80-200 on the Nikon, and set it at 80mm and 1.8m focus...equivalent to the 135mm Bronica lens...and that looks close enough to me. I'm thinking more environmental portraiture here, not headshots. I use the RZ for that.

Alan - The advantage the Bronica has for me is the format. I would actually prefer the 645 neg over 6x7 for this purpose because of the increased number of frames and greater relative depth of field at a given aperture. I also have a 6x7 already.

Phillip - You're right, I hadn't thought about that. I have purchased RZ lenses from New Sankyo Camera in Hong Kong for about half of the USA price. I think I should take the 645AF for a test drive. I sure wish Mamiya made a 35mm lens for it though. 45mm is not that wide, and I loved the 35mm I had for my 645 Pro. Kinda wishing I had it back about now! Do you know if the Contax 645 can also be purchased overseas at a similar discount?

John - I know about the external viewfinder for the 45mm, and yeah, that's a bummer. It's another reason I need to handle the camera and lenses to make a decision, you can only glean so much from reading specs.

T. - Ever try to track a 2 year old (or any other moving subject) with a waist level finder? I would end up dropkicking that thing over the wall before I got through a roll. Just not for me.

I think my next step should be a serious head-to-head comparison of the Mamiya 645AF and the Contax 645, see which one handles better, and then start shopping for the deal.

Maybe the Bronica will arrive by then.

My other alternative is to save my money and just heft the RZ when I have to. It is POSSIBLE to handhold that thing...but it ain't no fun!

Thanks for your contributions everyone.

Robert, bless your black little heart!

And the rest of you guys, you sure know how to fuck up a fantasy!

But you might be right. So maybe if I share my oblique logic on this you can help me find the elusive beast I seek.

For the life of me I cannot find a truly handholdable medium format camera that I really like.

I want to use it for B&W location portraiture, something compact and lightweight, for no more than about $3000. And since my current favorite subject is my two year old son it has to be fast focusing and operating.

How's that for a wish list?

A little background for those unfamiliar with my checkered past:

I shoot professionally, and in my day job ( I am the Staff Photographer for Universal Studios in LA ) I shoot publicity and advertising stuff, celebrities, media events, and executive portraits.

I use Nikons and Mamiya RZ's for these tasks.

I also freelance a lot, shooting mostly portraiture for magazines, PR firms, etc. and even the occasional PJ type wedding.

I have owned and used a lot of different cameras over the years, and I have also looked at most of the popular stuff out there. My impressions of them are these:

Mamiya 7 - Too expensive, definitely doesn't focus close enough.

Mamiya 6 - I really like this camera, but it's discontinued, and I hesitate to invest in something I may not be able to repair in 5 years.

Fuji rangefinders - Had them, no interchangeable lenses.

Pentax 6x7 - Had them, mucho hassle for flash, no interchangeable backs.

Pentax 645N - Looks like a good bet, but the lack of interchangeable backs is a killer for me.

Mamiya 645 Pro - Had them, got tired of all the operational quirks.

Mamiya 645 AF - Very expensive.

Contax 645 - Probably the best solution out there for me, except for the insane lens prices.

Hasselblad - Been there, done that, not impressed. And way too expensive.

Rollei 6008i - My pal Robert hit it on the head, they are just not serious about supporting the USA market. Also way too expensive.

So there it is, I've looked pretty hard for the machine I'm after but just don't see it out there. That's why I am anxious to at least try the Bronica rangefinder and see if it will fit the bill.

And yeah, I know I am being VERY particular, but I have a ton of money invested in cameras and I just don't want to drop any more without getting the exact tool I really need.

So there it is boys, what am I missing?

What would YOU buy to do the work I've described?

I appreciate your input. AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

I've read everything I can find in the archives, but haven't seen

anything new for a couple of weeks now.

I have also read all the available reviews and specs on this camera,

and everything so far seems to indicate it is the handholdable MF

solution I have been looking for. For a long time, I might add!

My dealer is expecting shipments in the next 30 days, but as of today

I have yet to hold one in my hands.

Has anyone who has not already posted been able to try this camera

out?

I'm specifically interested in how well it will work as a location

portrait set up. I know that the 45 and 65 lenses focus to 1 meter,

and the 135 to a little under 2 meters, but I don't know what that

really means in terms of filling the frame for a closeup portrait.

Also, one of the first listing of specs I read indicated that this

camera will support TTL flash, but I have not seen that mentioned in

any of the reviews...does anyone know?

Thanks for any input, I am hot to get my hands on this camera and

shovel another load of money out the window!

He DOES love me dearly...a fact that would cause me concern if we were not both barrel chested granite-jawed he-men who can heft a fully equipped RZ in one hand and a leggy babe in the other...oh, wait a minute. Only ONE of us can do that.

No matter. He might use a sissy Swedish camera, but I've seen Robert's work and the little sucker is good.

More whiskey and hookers for my men! Party on Garth!

Oh, and Robert...I'm getting you an unjamming tool for Christmas.

Kiss kiss, wubba wubba.

Sparky