_____

I retract my previous statements about RolleiFoto USA being unresponsive. I emailed them a few days ago and got a response the next day. I asked them for a catalog and it arrived at my doorstep in three days. That's fast. I guess when I emailed them the first time round they were in the process of taking over the operation from HP Marketing. Teething problems then and they are all gone now. RolleiFoto USA is doing some very good things to the brand-name and I have confidence in their support of the Rollei marque Stateside. Nope, this is not a paid announcement :)

Go to the B&H website. Open the page listing the Mamiya RZ 67 system. Take 25% off B&H's prices. That should set you in the ballpark for now.

I like the aesthetics of the square. I'd suggest very strongly that you rent both systems for a trial before committing your money. Building a system requires a serious outlay of dosh and I'd recommend that you rent before you buy to find out which format works for YOU. It is not immediately clear from your post whether you realise that the ETRSi is a 6X4.5cm format camera and the SQAi 6X6cm.

 

That said, the Bronica is a good system for what you intend to shoot. The square format has its advantages and gives you flexibility in composing the image in the viewfinder and cropping in the darkroom.

One mustn't forget: Karl Lagerfeld has one ;)

The XPan/TX-1 is a fair bit wider than the Leica M6. In fact, I was surprised at how much bigger it was than the M6 when I had a chance to hold one. It is almost the size of a Mamiya 7 except that the XPan/TX-1 is a little shorter. Considering that you are already familiar with medium format in the form of a Hasselblad I would urge you to consider the Mamiya 7. Unless there are emulsions that are only available in the 35mm format that you can't live without, shooting 120/220 allows you to crop down to a 35mm panoramic format anyway. And even then there is always the 35mm adapter for the Mamiya for such emulsions. The XPan/TX-1 is currently limited to two lenses. The Mamiya gives you an increased film area should you decide to shoot 'normal', not pano. With the XPan/TX-1, you are limited to 24X36mm for these occasions. Also, it is not discreet like the Leica M6. And as long as that is true, you may as well carry the one that can ensure you a larger film area. That said, Fuji makes nice lenses and if you're tired of the pedestrian black of the XPan, the Fuji TX-1 is available in titanium grey with a fetching wooden grip and similarly finished lenses in Asia.

 

That said, familiarity with medium format and the way you worked with it, an increased film area, and flexibility would lead me to choose the Mamiya 7 instead.

Don't Fresnels even out the light to ensure that there are no hot spots rather than concentrating the light?

Bartlett and Tarrant's "Black and White Photographer's Printing Workshop".

Because there's no mirror which needs to be locked up :O(

Your solution is to use the bloody expensive Horseman View Camera Converter for the Mamiya 645 but at its cost (not to mention the cost of the lens) you may as well buy a 4X5 anyway. Either that or get a used Rollei SL66 with an 80mm lens for about $750 for its tilt feature.

Well, I guess then that it is true: the Hasselblad is indeed the Rolls-Royce of MF. Ever tried to maintain and keep a Rolls-Royce running recently?

Dear Federic

 

Both of the posters who replied above have merits to their arguments. I don't know how hard-pressed you are for cash and what I am about to suggest is specific to only one make of camera. If you check with Mamiya USA (which, I assume, also controls the Canadian market) you will find a student purchasing programme which affords you substantial discounts off street retail prices. Humber College has a good pro programme and to progess in it you will find eventually that you need your own MF outfit. I am assuming that it's a three year programme and that the cost of renting the camera does not cover summer. For your own work and practice, it would be best to have your own equipment. So for three academic years' rental, you can afford to purchase your own now and have it for use during summer. All this assumes that you like the Mamiya camera (and I am specifically referring to the RB and RZ systems). You will need your own tripod for all photography so no point in renting that. Buy one.

 

LF is a little iffy; it really depends on your direction in photography. I would suggest renting LF for the first year and then evaluate whether you are the LF kind of photographer. The contrast is that while almost all your classes will call for use of MF, LF work is more specific.

 

Think about what you will like to shoot eventually. That will make it easier for you to make a choice.

Hi Don

 

I hate to be a contrarian but have you considered a Rolleiflex SL66 with the tilt feature. For landscapes, the tilt feature of the Rolleiflex will be particularly useful. Same great Zeiss lenses as the Hasselblad of similar vintage, same great square format. Hadley Chamberlain has some good ones. www.hecphoto.com.

 

As for a handheld meter, for landscapes especially, I recommend the Pentax Spot meter highly in both its analogue and digital incarnations.

Large Format.

Sorry guys. I had meant to type 'AE Prism' in the first line with the 'P' in caps, which would have referred to the Pentax AE Prism in particular, and not AE prisms in general. I was talking about the auto-exposure metering system resident within the AE Prism of course, and not about 'AE prisms split(ting) the beams'. I am sorry if readers for whom English is not a first language had misintepreted the context of what I was writing about. Sorry, Marcelo.

I shall be grateful for input from readers living in Japan. I am

visiting in summer 99 and I am shopping for the Contax 645 cmaera kit,

35mm, 45mm, 80mm, 120 macro, 140mm, 210mm lenses, 120 inserts,

accessory Grip and Contax UV filters (72mm, 95mm). If any readers

could help me out with enquiring about prices of the above from

Yodobashi, Sakuraya, Sanpou, etc, I shall be very grateful. Please

list prices in yen. I'll do the conversion myself.

Dear Ben

 

The circular polarising filter is required not so much for AF as for AE prisms. Split-beam metering systems may give inaccurate exposures when used with linear polarisers. So if you're using the TTL AE Prism with the Pentax 67 II you'll need the Cir Pol. If you're using a handheld meter and a non-metering prism a Linear Pol will suffice.

I had a real opportunity to play with the Contax 645 today. 'Test sample 13' it said on the side panel. A demo set so I didn't worry about playing with it freely. Okay, the body didn't have the feel or look of quality of its high-end 35mm bodies (more like the new Aria in level of construction) but it was certainly not shoddy and was built to take the abuse of a professional photographer. That is to say, tough. The demo sample had a few dings in the black paint work of the viewfinder which led me to wonder how soft the paint work is. Back to the Contax 645.

 

I tested it with a 140mm F2.8 lens. Whirr, whirr and it locked focus. The AF spot reads the target very well. I pointed it at a target on a wall 25 feet behind and just beside the head of a man. The AF locked on the target with no hesitation or searching even though a small part of the head of the man was in the AF spot (I think). The USM is fast, even for a 35mm, and for a 645 is very impressive. A Nikon F5 or Canon may be slightly faster ( I tested them both with their USM and AFS lenses) but for the target market of the 645 it is fast enough for real world jobs. It certainly didn't leave me twiddling my thumbs waiting for the AF to lock. If I may describe it this way, I pointed it at the target, one intake of breath and then focus-lock confirmed by the green LED in the finder. I say this after having come from demo's of the Minolta Max 9 with an 85mm f1.4 and a 200mm f2.8; no slouches these. I guess Kyocera/Contax have done their homework well. The rectilinear 35mm lens was truly rectilinear; in the finder at least, at the edges straight lines remained true with the kind of image distortion at the side typical of wide-angles. That is a 'spreading out' of objects but no pin cushion or barrel effects were readily apparent.

 

It was easy to lock-focus and then recompose for off-centre compositions or framing. The finder is bright and it was easy to observe that the images off to the side were in focus or not. They were in my limited testing of near and far objects. I also tested its AF speed at shifting focus from infinity to near objects. I am happy to say that I observed a pleasingly quick response time.

 

I like the ergonomics of the Contax 645. The right hand grip feels small even for my small hands. But this is the clincher: my right hand feels as if I were handling a small thin ergonomically shaped Point & Shoot. Try grasping an F5 for comparison and you will find the Contax 645 a relief, that is, unless you like chunky bodies. The shutter speed and exposure compensation knobs fall under the fingers and thumb easily. Best part of it is a function similar to Canon CF4: shift the AF to a button behind the grip under the thumb and away from the shutter button. The lenses are huge and chunky but attached to the camera it balances out nicely and comfortably in the left hand.

 

I examined three of the trannies shot with the system. The colours have a pop to them. The out-of-focus highlights were rendered smooth and creamy with no sharp ugly hardness. I didn't notice what film was used. Tomorrow I shall take up Contax's offer to shoot a test roll. I think that I will like it very much, especially the Japanese Carl Zeiss lenses.

 

That said, I feel that this Contax 645 is a very good harbinger of the things to come from Contax. It si not perfect but is instead built for the intelligent photographer: one who knows the limits of his equipment and hones his techniques to accomodate them. It is for one who knows how to anticipate the moment instead of one who hopes to grab the serendipitious shot when it suddenly appears ( which AF system is fast enough for these guys?). Anyone who needs AF in medium format, superlative lenses, and can afford the high price of admittance will do well to test drive the Contax 645.

Edward is right! I emailed Rollei USA more than a month ago for literature but not a peep from them so far. Bob Salomon posted them to me within a week of my enquiry when HP Marketing was handling Rollei. I don't understand the apathy of Rollei USA. If they're trying to crack the professional and 'serious amateur' (whatever that means) market they're not trying hard enough. By the way, ( this is not a personal remark, Joe M_) to hell with all the 'classic/rare/popular' models and stuff. I buy a system to use and make a living off, not to display on a shelf. I need a system that works easily, reliably and precisely. The collectors' market can't support the industry. Gone are the days when cameras doubled as mechanical works of industrial art as well as photographic tools. Shopped for a Vacheron Constantin, Patek Phillipe, Audemars Piguet, or a Blancpain recently? Not something for telling the time but wow at their prices. Maybe that explains the appeal behind the Hasselblad 500 series, and partly the Leica M.

 

I wish that Rollei will dispense with that silly unique Nicad battery powering the 6008 Integrale which turns all 6008's into doorstops when Rollei decides one day to phase it out, and use AA batteries instead. Fuji did that with its new 680 III so I don't see why Rollei can't. Rollei has about the most advanced, most ergonomic 6X6 system out there with arguably the best MF lenses around but bad marketing and lack of presence don't help. End of peeve.

OOps, one more and I shall shut up forever (all of ten seconds).

 

<p>

 

Dear John

 

<p>

 

Respect for each other's work doesn't mean that we should suspend our

critical faculties nor our remit to critique or criticise.

Dear Ellis

 

<p>

 

I stand chastened...perhaps. Cocksureness doesn't quite describe me

because if anything, I am rather timorous in life and careful with my

words. More hensure, actually. It gives me trepidations to put

forward a view which castigates Cindy Sherman, the darling of the 'art

world'. But I broke my usual code of tolerance and reticence because

I see nothing in her works which is compelling. I must admit that I

do not possess the right diplomas to comment on such things; I am no

art critic nor am I an art historian. "What I know is what I like" (a

dangerous viewpoint sometimes) and I am reacting naively, strictly

from the gut. Perhaps I did not articulate it well enough but is it

possible that the empress has no clothes on (metaphor unintended)? I

say this because if you have talked to any art student at any 4-year

university art school recently you will find that he is poor in

technique with a mind full of fancy theories. Yeah, all this

semiotics and postmodernism stuff where anything which justifies these

theories goes. ( I remeber we traded insults on visual semiotics

once). Where are the standards? In a world with no standards and

only relativism there is only noise. I must apologise for my previous

tone of voice for I am a passionate man and being passionate sometimes

I wound with my words or have an anger that is quickly aroused. But I

recognise a passion in you too, so even though we may lock horns

occassionally we are bound by the passion of our convictions.

 

<p>

 

Dear John

 

<p>

 

Looking Lousy is certainly not illegal, I concur. And I believe the

Constitution of the United States of America still guarantees my right

to state an opinion no matter how naive or silly or uneducated as I

may be, in short my right to make a complete ass of myself if I wish

to is assured by this country of which I am but a guest. At worst, I

may be right. At best, I may be exposed to the world for the ill-

informed blowhard that I may be. But illegal? No. Flaming? No.

That's reserved for people with nothing to say nor defend. Besides

making images it is important that we constantly talk about images

that have been made because only then will our convictions be

continually held up under scrutiny and questioned. It is not enough

to make them, it is also important to think about them.

 

<p>

 

Time is the greatest judge of whether Sherman shall be nothing more

than a footnote or not. By the way, the problem I have with Sherman is

not because her stuff 'looked lousy' which certainly reveals your

reading of Sherman more so than mine, John.

 

<p>

 

Dear Tuan

 

<p>

 

Sorry for turning your LF Forum into a pulpit for hashing art

theories.

 

<p>

 

Cheers to all...Rene.

 

<p>

 

P.S. For a 'real'photographer who also happens to be a woman, I

nominate Carrie Mae-Weems.

 

<p>

 

P.P.S. For the record I find Sherman manipulative and thus,

disingenuous. That was what I found off-putting in her.

Dear Ellis

 

<p>

 

You need to chill put a little and stop putting your foot in your

mouth. How long has Cindy Sherman been around? Can you say that

there are equal number of women photographers who are as highly

regarded as men? As it is, in your last post you struggle to come up

with scarcely enough names to cover your hands. These

days there is interesting work being done by women and I'll grant you

that that is true THESE DAYS. But back when Cindy...

 

<p>

 

As it is you need to grow up a little; I gather that your chief

pleasure comes from stroking your fragile little ego and pouncing upon

other people's pronoucements and declaring them wrong. If being able

to call someone wrong gives you pleasure and fulfillment I can only

feel sorry for you. It is time to know that you are no longer in high

school. The political dogma that Sherman's stuff represents 'ART' is

yours and is the myopia that you so readily attributed to me. If you

do not agree with me, fine, but your ready arrogance in pronouncing

rightness or wrongness is startling. So if I do not agree with you I

am wrong. Who the hell do you think you are? So tell me then, what

makes Cindy Sherman's stuff 'art' as you call it. Or don't you know?

This might be old news to some but to those of you who haven't yet

seen it Carl Zeiss debuted a limited edition 300mm F2.8 supercorrected

with flouride elements lens for the Hasselblad mount. Between 300 and

350 sets will be produced with 50 sets of lens elements kept for

spares. Yup, this platinum beauty is available for only DM 29 900!!

Place your order now. www.zeiss.de.

Sorry to pervert your forum Tuan but CINDY SHERMAN SUCKS! The only

reason why she's as 'renowned' as she doesn't deserve to be is because

there are few 'art' photographers who are women. She is indicative of

of an art establishment willing to suspend its critical criteria just

to genuflect to political hipness and correctness. What is Cindy

Sherman trying to say that cannot and has not been more eloquently

said. I find her 'works' facile and shallow. Josh makes an apt

description of the camera in her hands: it is her whore. Those who

are bold enough to call Sherman's bluff will find that she has been

mocking those who have taken her seriously all this while. And

perhaps therein lies the greatest value of her 'works'. Boy, don't

even get me started on Nan Goldin.

For that you must thank Shriro Marketing as well as Hasselblad Sweden for having picked Shriro as their agent. (Shriro also markets and services Nikon in Singapore). But as the poster above noted, if you are willing to pay the bucks you can buy superlative service.

Old news but good news: www.tripodhead.com.