_____

Fuji GW690 III and then crop, crop, crop.

Hello

 

I just received a bunch of brochures from

Schneider B+W. Apparently, Schneider B+W

has released a new bunch of Soft filters in

different strengths for that classic 'Hollywood'

look. Has anybody tried them? Comments

please. Oh by the way, these came from the

Cine Department of Schneider B+W.

Addendum

 

<p>

 

I am curious: what happens to those lenses that fail the Linhof tests

and are returned to the manufacturers? Are they repackaged and sold

as your regular off-the-shelves Schneider and Rodenstocks? If that

is so, don't we run the risk of getting 'second-rate' lenses? Sorry,

I don't mean to generate paranoia :)

Thank you all for weighing in, especially Mr Bob Salomon of HP

Marketing. I actually got the LINHOF list from a friend in

Frankfurt. Not only are LF lenses so selected, Lihnof also tests and

selects enlarging lenses from Schneider and Rodenstocks.

 

<p>

 

Mr Salomon didn't answer this though: are these Linhof selected lenses

available in the USA through HP Marketing? Please advise.

Hello

 

<p>

 

Is anyone aware of Linhof tested lenses? Apparently, Linhof buys batches of lenses from Schneider and Rondenstock and tests them. Those lenses that meets Linhof's own set of criteria are inscribed LINHOF on the barrel. I have seen three such samples myself but I am wary of the hypothesis that these are premium samples of any one production run of lenses from Schneider or Rodenstock. Can any readers please advise. Thanks.

What worries me about the EOS-3 saga is this: it apparently exposes

correctly with its 550EX flash but underexposes under natural light.

What does this imply? That the 'fix' may not be as simple as it

sounds. It is not a matter of bad calibration but an issue of a

fundamentally flawed design. Iw ish that Canon will have more respect

for its consumers than to release flawed products and make consumers

pay to be its testbed. Explaining it away under first production run

glitches simply won't cut the mustard with me. Consumers who are too

kind are asking to be abused at a price.

The cowardly John Shonit (shonit@leahey.com) obviously does not have

the courage of his conviction. Not only did he post anonymously and

list a fake email address, he had the chutzpah to send me a rude

message and then block off my being able to send him a reply. A

bigger coward I have never seen.

And yes, I'm sure these Explorers of Light also got their EOS-3 units

off-the-shelf from B&H.

Mark, I stand corrected. As Jeff Spirer said, perhaps the Mamiya 7 would be worth investigating unless you're wedded to the 6X6 format because you like composing for the square. Nope, you don't have to be ashamed of buying the best optics that money can buy but the best optics aren't neccessarily the most expensive optics. I congratulate you (with no hint of sarcasm in it) that you show such commitment to your photography. But before you plunk down your money please do yourself a favour and rent the various systems for a weekend or two to find out which best serves your photographic style. I was only concerned because the tone of your question seemed to suggest someone who is buying by the label. (And the tone of your latest post does suggest that for how do you know which is the 'best' without trying out all the others too? Zeiss is undoubtedly good but I'd be hesitant to call it the 'best').

You want better negatives, you want to do street shooting and candid portraits, you're not interested in 645 (why? too small? Because if you crop a 6X6, you'll get a 645), you care about optical quality... get the rangefinder Mamiya 7. The Hasselblad, and Rollei are more studio cameras than anything else. And as the above posters have said, it is conspicuous on the street which is not what you want, I presume (but then again, some crave the attention that a Hasselblad attracts).

 

However, it appears to me that you're bored with your photography and perhaps you think that moving from one pro system (F5) to another in the medium format (Hasselblad or Rollei) is the solution. Before you dump your investment in the F5 do take a while to think about why you're doing it. I am sure that the F5 is capable of 'better' negs with the proper technique. I am not talking down to you; just trying to help you save a bundle of money because I feel that your reasons for wanting to shoot MF are not strong enough. I recognise the syndrome; whenever someone talks about the Nikon F5 and Hasselblad/Zeiss in the same breath I can be sure that photography is the last thing on his mind.

 

Keep your F5 and your embarrassing number of pro lenses for a while otherwise in a few months, you'll have a Hasselblad and an embarrassing number of Zeiss lenses up for trade.

 

Good luck, for it's your money :)

 

P.S. Uh, Tom, I think it's 'depth of field'. 'Depth of focus' refers to something else entirely.

Paul

 

Post your question again on the Mamiya user's forum: www.mamiya.com. You'll find an answer from Mamiya USA themselves.

Sorry for my mean-spirited post above but seriously, prices are lower for a number of reasons, some of which has nothing to do with the quality of the lens.

 

One, it may be due to favourable foreign exchange rates, i.e. the US dollar buying more crowns. Two, Carl Zeiss/Hasselblad may have found a way to manufacture the same quality cheaper due to more efficient processes. Three, they may have found a cheaper material but no less good material as a substitute for a previously expensive to manufacture part (all right, some will pipe in 'plastics' but what's wrong with plastics if it does the job; besides there is plastics and high-tech plastics). Fourth, are you aware John, of the pricing structure of goods from the manufacturer to the end-user. That $85 difference that so bothers you may reflect only a $5 difference in the cost of materials where the manufacturer is concerned and how much corner shaving can you do for $5?

 

Don't lose sleep over it John. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Go shoot some film. That's the only way you can tell. Like they say in the wine trade: don't drink by the label, don't drink by the price-tag.

No, it is definitely not better. To charge a huge $85 less, means that corners have to be shaved somewhere. I bet it is in the barrel of the lens. You know, more plastic, less metal. Or maybe even the multi-coating. One layer may not be T*. Gasp! How dare Hasselblad insult their clients by actually charging a lower price for a new product? Doesn't it know that its clients expect a humungous increase or otherwise they suspect something is wrong? What is the new management at Hasselblad thinking about? Doesn't it know that its charm lies in one having to shell out lots of money for it? Affordable Hasselblad is not what the people want. You are cheapening it for your loyal followers. Come on, Hasselblad. Jack up your prices immediately so that John can sleep assured that the new CFi 180 is a better lens than the old CF solely because it costs more. Raise the price to $4000 and John will be even happier. It must be a really good product then.

Get a Thermodyne with telescoping handle and wheels. Tougher than Lightware or Tamrac or Tenba, cheaper to boot. www.shokstop.com

I had been in the market for a 35 mm system for a very long time. N

or C? Perhaps the small C (ontax)? or the L? Price was no object. I

was ready to go for the Nikon F5 about last month because its price

has become very tempting. Then one day I read about the Minolta Max

9. Monolta was the furthest thing in my mind. What swung it for me

were its steel chassis, and 100% viewfinder. As Minolta's flagship

camera it is not overpriced. In terms of build quality and features ,

it is not overpriced. I guess objections from those who associate the

name Minolta with cheap cameras because for the longest time all they

had were cheap cameras while N and C had their field day with the F5

and the 1N, respectively.

 

<p>

 

I wish it were cheaper so that more can afford it but it is not for a

good reason: Minolta can't be selling too many of these to spread the

cost of manuafacturing the steel chassis. At its current build level

I don't think a lower price is possible. When the F5 debuted in the

US it was going for about $2895, it debuted at about $2000 in Asia at

the same time. Today, the F5 costs about $1850-$1950; it's about

$1900 in Asia, may be $1800 on a good day. The Dynax 9 debuted at

about US$1500 in Singapore and Japan. Its doppelganger, the Max 9

costs about $1500 Stateside. Too expensive? I don't think so.

Contrary to what James believes, I don't think Minolta goofed with

their marketing.

 

<p>

 

Heft a Max 9 if you have a chance and compare it to the EOS 3 and

F100, and then to the F5. Use it if you have a chance, and forget

about all the techno-whiz-gizz of USM, AF-S, 1005-matrix metering, 45-

eye-point... If you believe what your fingers and senses tell you and

not the marketing hype that you read you'll determine for yourself

whether the Max 9 is any good and worth the money. If Minolta had

released the Max 9 right next to the F5 when that made its appearance,

I wonder whether the comments would flow the other way and say that

Minolta priced it too low and no-one will take it seriously now as a

pro camera.

 

<p>

 

You get what you pay for, you pay for what you get. It'll never be

cheap enough for some. There ain't no free lunch. I put my money

where my mouth is and after delibarating two long years, I finally

have a pro camera with its G-glass to start me on my career.

 

<p>

 

Cheers...Rene

Let us not forget the trusty Kodak series.

Gil

 

<p>

 

I use B+W and I can assure you that it is of top quality of brass

construction. The multi-coated ones that I bought has such fine

multi-coating that it is almost invisible. I have compared them to

Nikon's own and I can also vouch that Nikon's are just as good. Of

course, some have compared filters and said that there is nary a

difference among brands. However, owning the B+W maes me feel warm

all over :)

 

<p>

 

Rene

 

<p>

 

P.S. Get the Multi-coated UV ones. The Skylight KR1.5 filters I got

noticeably imparted a slight amber cast to the whites in my subject.

May not be desirable for some situations.

Dear Charles

 

Has Cathay Pacicfic (sic) gone from flying into camera retailing now? Let me know because the next time I fly CX I'll want to take advantage of their on-board duty-free sales to snag a Mamiya 7 or two.

Guys

 

You're all going about it the hard way. This is how you may buy Mamiya USA equipment at 50% off list and 25% off BH prices with full Mamiya USA warranty. I know that tomorrow is April Fool's day but please read on, this isn't a joke:

 

First, haul your asses over to your nearest community college that grants an A.A. in photography. Sign up for your basic Photo class at $13 a unit if you're a resident of the state or $125 a unit if you're not (if which case take a trip back to your native state). Now you're a bona-fide photography student in a Mamiya USA approved photography programme. Now walk to your nearest Mamiya dealer and ask for a PEPP price list and application form. Study the prices, pick what you want, have your photo instructor initial the form to verify that you're indeed registered in the programme, walk back to your dealer, pay up, wait two weeks, and voila, you'll get your Mamiya stuff at 25% off BH prices. And everything on the Mamiya catalogue is up for grabs at these prices. No overseas shipping worries, no customs hassles, no nothing but the real thing.

 

Catch it before Mamiya USA reads this and revises their PEPP Scheme. Oh dear, I feel like I have betrayed them :(

 

Okay, a little more info: you have to be a 'full-time photography' student at an accredited college or uni. Check with your college what

'full-time' means. And as long as it is a photo class for photo majors it suffices. It is also a good way for some to make use of the

college's darkroom facilities. Some prices:

 

Mamiya 7 body Mamiya List: $2832 PEPP: $1291 80mm f4 List: $2017 PEPP:$920 43mm f4.5 w finder List: $4034 PEPP:$1839

65mmF4 List: $2501 PEPP: $1140 150mmF4.5 List: $2767 PEPP: $1262.

 

I guess it's still a little higher than buying from Asia but it is not grey market and carries full USA-warranty. By the way, you aren't

allowed to sell the equipment for two years and you're limited to one of each. The PEPP applies also the the Sekonic L508 list:$665,

PEPP:$329.

 

Like I said, do it now before it is too late.

 

Some Mamiya dealers are very reluctant to reveal that the PEPP exists because it eats into their profits. In fact, one tried to convince

me that the PEPP wasn't a good deal. Do your groundwork because sometimes the rebates may work out to be better. The dealer told

me he had no PEPP forms left. I got it at another dealer. And realised that the former was lying through his teeth. Caveat emptor. Don't

let them sweet talk you. Check out the PEPP list first.

 

Sad to say, rebates cannot be combined with PEPP purchases, so if you're thinking, Hey, a further $500 rebate off the PEPP price for

the M7 plus 80mm, you must be an optimist.

Perhaps if it matters to you how your lenses look sitting in your glass case, the 'Japanese look, plastic feel' should bother you! Bummer. The rest of us had better worry about how our images look, 'Japanese look, plastic feel' notwithstanding :p

If memory serves me, the AF 300mm f4 and 400mm f5.6 for the Pentax 645N are made out of ED glass.

 

My point is this: if one can get away from the hackneyed thinking that MF is neccessarily bulky and slow to work with, and that with long lenses one has to fill up the negative all the time then one can see the advantage of having both 35mm and a larger MF format at the same time in the MF setup. One has the the bonus of extra acreage when one needs it. Millimeter for millimeter, MF lenses are similar in size, weight, and quality to their 35mm counterparts. To those who are so wedded to the technological gizmos in their 35mm systems that they feel they can't function without them, well, I can't say anything other than it may help to turn off auto-pilot, take over and fly manual occassionally. Yes, AF may help you to capture shots 'never before possible' but great photographs were made way before there was AF (circa 1985); 'old-time photographers' call it learning to anticipate the decisive moment. These days, it is 8 frames-per-second, 36 frames in 4, and then let's see what I've got. There are two ways to use technology; use it to enhance the way you work or dumb down and let it control the way you work. For many of us, the latter applies. Turn this dial, twist this knob, push that button...Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya choice.

 

P.S. The only justifications for 35mm are its look of its ultra-wide angles, unique 35mm emulsions, and oh yes, F2.8 teles for those who can't live without F2.8 but some will pipe in and say, "look there's the Mamiya 645 300 f2.8 and the 500mm f2.8 and they cost a lot of money and yadda, yadda".

John

 

Buy yourself a Fuji GSW 690 III (65mm F5.6, 28mm 135 format equivalent) AND a Fuji GW 690 III (90mm F3.5, 39mm equiv.) and be happy. Both cost less than one M7 plus any one lens, Mamiya'a current $400 rebate not withstanding. 6X9cm format rocks for 16X20 enlargements; the aspect ratio of 6X9cm is similar to 24x36mm. So you can carry over your visual sense developed in 135 format to a larger format. Don't knock it till you've tried it. Cheers...Rene.

Hello Poor Habib

 

<p>

 

Check under press releases on the mamiya usa website. I suppose the

price of the m7 will drop somewhat. mamiya has already started to

market the M7 2 in the usa; the latest issue of outdoor photographer

carries a two-page ad on the m7 2 and the new 50mm f4.5.

As addendum to my above post, I wish that people who maintain that MF lenses are bigger, heavier, blah, blah than 35mm would actually go down to the shops and take a good look at them, or better yet use it out in the field before they say their piece. Don't merely look at the pictures in the catalogues. And question whether you have any real need for the fastest and the'baddest' long range lenses before repeating the mantra 'F2.8, F2.8, F2.8'. Sorry, I'm getting tedious.

Shun Cheung don't state the obvious. I was referring to the Pentax 645 system specifically as that was Dave's concern, thus my reference to the 400mm focal length. Cheers...rene.