timlayton

August 24, 2011

Steve, thanks for the quick response. I did confirm the small battery in the 120 back does write to the memory via the "set" button. It appears the set button on the camera is not functioning. The data writing on the edge of the film would be nice, but not necessary. The question I do have is in regards to the ISO setting on the back. Meaning, I assume the meter in the camera is using the ISO setting from the back to determine exposure. Is this assumption correct?

August 24, 2011

I have a question about setting the date/time on the Mamiya 645AF. The manual says to set the selector switch to "S" to turn the camera on and that works fine. It says to press and hold the F2 key for 2 seconds and then press it again to set the date/time. That works. After setting the date and time it says to press and hold the "set" key for 2 seconds to write the change to memory. Nothing ever happens and the date and time is lost when I hit any other buttons or turn off and on. Any ideas???

August 22, 2011

Douglas, thanks for commenting. I track very closely to your comments with my own opinions. My primary film is Tri-X for large format and 120 roll film and I also use d-76 1+1 as my developer. I get excellent shadow details, highlights and tonal gradation that is unlike anything I have ever used before.

I wish the Nikon 9000ED was still in production. I currently use an Epson V750 which does a good job at what I think is ts optical peak around 2400 dpi and it also handles my 4x5 and 8x10 large format sheet film. If there was a replacement for the 9000ED for 120 film I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Tim

August 22, 2011

Ray, I talked to The Mac Group this morning because I needed the manual on the extension tubes. Long story short after reading and re-reading this thread as well as digging around on the net and considering all of the variables I ordered an 645AF this morning with a 45mm and 80mm lens and extension tubes. The 45 will be perfect for my landscapes and the 80 will also work for some landscapes as well as be a great option with the ext. tubes when I run across a closeup opportunity on the hikes. Does anyone know if the TTL meter in the 645AF compensates for the ext. tubes or will that be a manual compensation required?

After a lot of thought and consideration I realized I didn't really want the digital back option and with such little difference between the AF and AFD models it was a no brainer based on the price. It should be here tomorrow afternoon so I will have it for my next project this coming weekend. BTW Ray, your very first comment is where I ended up!

Thanks,

Tim

August 21, 2011

Ray, thanks for the response. I must have read the chart that I found from Mamiya wrong. I googled around and found a Mamiya AF/AFD/AFDII comparison chart. For whatever reason they didnt include the AFDI.

Now that I think about it the AFDII allows 1/2, 2/3 and full stop bracketing in addition to 1/3 stops. Oddly enough I really want the 1/3 stop increments because of slide film so that is a bonus for me. It would be nice to have the other options, but not necessary for me personally.

I can't recall where I found the information stating the AFD would not take the latest generation backs but glad to know that was wrong. I honestly probably would never get a digital back for it, it was more of a low-cost way to protect my investment over the long run.

Thanks again Ray for catching my misunderstanding... I appreciate it.

Tim

August 19, 2011

It turns out the AFD II camera I was considering was sold to someone else before I got back to them. Post that event I stumbled onto a Contax 645 system that I was considering. My impression based off of research and observation is that I can get into the Mamiya system for about half the cost as the Contax and while the Zeiss glass is probably better than Mamiya it should be more than fine for my needs. I did a lot of digging and found some good charts comparing the different Mamiya 645 AFD models and based on my needs I will go with either a AFD II or III. The II gives me the ability to bracket in 1/3 stops which I find critical for slide film and also the option of using a newer model digital back if I ever wanted to do that. I think both systems are really quality rigs but since this is not a critical purchase for me I am going to go with the Mamiya based on the cost factor and it does meet my needs. I own several other Mamiya systems (RZ67 Pro II, Mamiya 7 Rangefinder, C220 TLR) and they have been exceptional over the years. I suspect if I held up two prints side by side no one could tell which camera was used.

Thanks for your help and comments. Very helpful.

Tim

August 19, 2011

Thanks everyone for your comments and advice. I appreciate it.

August 18, 2011

I have an opportunity to pick up a Contax 645 in great condition but my only concern is if the camera needs a repair in the future if I will have that option or not? The last I heard was Kyocera was supporting until 2010 but since that date has passed I was wondering if anyone here could bring me up to date?

Thanks

Tim

August 18, 2011

Ray, thanks for the fast response. To your point the AFD is absolutely an option. I didn't know about the mechanical lockup so that is good news and cheaper is always a good thing! Any experience with the 45mm AF f/2.8, 80mm AF f/2.8 and/or the 120 f4 MF macro lens? I suspect they are all good quality lenses. Also interested in comments on the accuracy of the AE meter when shooting slide film.

Thanks,

Tim

August 18, 2011

I am looking at a used Mamiya 645 AFD II camera and was hoping some current owners of the camera could comment on their likes and dislikes. Every system has its pros and cons and I am trying to figure out if there are any deal breakers for me in regards to this camera.

I am currently looking at the 645 AFD II for a couple of reasons. Most of my photography is large format landscapes and there are times when I would like to have an autofocus 120 film camera with me on my hikes and adventures that is fast, easy to use and will still produce good quality negatives and slides. I run across different interesting opportunities that I just don't have time to get setup for with my large format gear and so the most important features for me would be autofocus, AE metering and good quality lenses. An accurate meter would be very important to me because I would mostly be shooting slide film with this camera and I would need to be able to trust the meter in the camera. The option to add a digital back in the future is a plus but have no plans to do that at this time.

I thought of Mamiya because I have a RZ67 Pro II that I bought new back in the 90's and it has always been a good camera with excellent quality lenses. It is just too big for what I am looking for and everything is manual on the camera. My goal is to have the camera readily available and ready to shoot when I am out hiking or exploring.

Based on your experience with the AFD II do you think it would be a good fit for how I would like to use it? Since my only option is to order something used online I don't have the opportunity to hold one in my hands before ordering.

Your comments and any insights are appreciated.

Tim

August 10, 2011

Ilkka, I am not trying to prove anything. You must be misunderstanding me or maybe I did a poor job at explaining myself. I was simply weighing out the options and possibility of bringing my current V system into the digital realm with the cfv-39 back in the context of how I work. I wasn't even sure it was logical and had concerns about the long term support of the back with the recent change of hands with Hasselblad again.

I have been a film photographer since 1983 with a full darkroom shooting primarily large format 4x5 and 8x10 for my landscapes and fine art subjects. The bulk of all my prints are fine prints made to archival standards in the darkroom with the ocassional scan on my system or a high res tango drum scan for a client and printed digitally. There are times when the LF systems are not an option or desirable so I bring my V series. It is light, extremely reliable, no batteries required and top-notch glass that always produces high quality images. I was considering the idea of shooting both film and digital for my fine art projects and exploring some other possibilities in my current business model. The cost of the back at $14k is big factor for me personally and with so many other options that surfaced as a result of my discussions I need to think about the return on investment for the cfv back vs some of the other options that need to be considered. One of the most simple but profound pieces of feedback I got was "digital looks different than film". I haven't shot much digital so that simple thought did not occur to me at first. I have spent 30 years building a large portfolio of images based on my style and vision. My "look" sources from film as a medium and that is something that I really need to explore before going too much further. I did the tests with the D3X because it was available to me and from what I understand a goo quality DSLR. I thought it was at least help me close the gap on the different looks.

I needed to get through the basics first before taking the next steps and that is exactly what the feedback from this thread has given me. I am still on my journey with all of this but I am much more organized and prepared as a result of everyone's help and input. I appreciate your comment and if you have any specific input or feedback I would be interested in listening to what you have to say.

Tim

August 9, 2011

Taking some advice that was given in this thread I reached out to a friend of mine that is a digital photographer. He has a Nikon D3X. I headed out this morning at 5 a.m. for a sunrise landscape with the digital equipment and my 503CW. I used the 50mm CFi on my 503CW and the Nikon 24mm prime lens on the D3X. On the 503CW I shot 6 exposures of Tmax 100 and 6 Velvia 100. On the D3X I took the same 6 exposures. I rated the TMAX at EI 64, Velvia at 100 and the Nikon D3X at ISO 100. The best lighting was from about 30 minutes till sunrise to 12 minutes. I plan on going out again tomorrow morning at the same time but a different location to complete the rest of the TMAX and Velvia exposures. Exposure times today ranged from 4 minutes to 15 seconds. Once I get through these tests I will post again with my observations and comments.

Tim

August 8, 2011

Mauro asked "If you shoot landscapes and fine art mainly B&W, what benefits are you expecting by adding a 39mp back to your film workflow?"

Mauro, I am not expecting any benefits per say, other than having digital as a second medium to my main staple which is and will always be film. One of the things that I wanted to explore was the feasibility of swapping the cfv back and the A12 back between exposures for landscapes. It sounds like as long as I am protective of the cfv back that should be fine. In the back of my mind I feel like I need to at least explore this as an option for the long run.

I currently swap my A12 backs all the time because I group my exposures by development (N, N+1, etc). Since I already have a large investment in my V series this is the main reason I was exploring the idea of the cvf over any of the other options. And, I absolutely love my V series equipment. I can always rely on it to help me produce fine prints. I suspect I will own and still be using my current V series equipment for the rest of my life.

The bulk of my fine art work is done in large format but there are times when my old bones just can't get that gear where I need it and my V series has been a great alternative in these cases. There are also times when I have no access to developing my film for long periods of time and it would be nice to be able to preview my scenes although that is more of a secondary thought that anything. I still print all of my fine prints in the darkroom and I have no plans of changing that at this point. The digital back in my mind is just another medium which is different and is not a replacement in my mind.

My plan is to rent a back if I can and if I can't do that then I know H4 systems are readily available which should give me a good idea of what to expect.

This has been a good thread with a lot of great information. Definitely a good group here and I appreciate the help and feedback.

Tim

August 6, 2011

I appreciate the input and comments from everyone so far. Some very good points that I will add to my list:

CFV-39 is 16-bit vs. 12 or 14 bit in DSLR systems.

I should visit hasselbladdigitalforum.com for more info.

The images from film and digital do indeed look different so that was a good reminder. I need to really think about that aspect.

I will assume that Phocus is the best route to go for optimum images from the back.

Thanks so far and hopefully I will get some more replies.

Tim

August 6, 2011

Over the last year as I have been building out my 503CW system I have asked questions here and always received helpful and quality responses based on experience. I need your help in making sure I am considering all of the factors when thinking about getting a CFV-39 digital back. First, this is the equipment that I currently have: 503CW, Acute-Matt D screen, PME-45, WLF, 40mm CF, 50mm CFi, 80mm CF, 150mm CF, 250mm CF and two A12 backs. My style of photography is mostly landscape and nature fine art. I shoot black and white the majority of the time. I still do a lot in the darkroom and plan to continue that independent of any digital back. My workflow for digital is a scan of my negatives that are brought into Lightroom for cataloging and minor edits and Photoshop for any other edits.

A new CFV-39 is about $14,000 US and that is a lot of money to me. I want to make sure I am thinking clearly before making this type of investment.

Here are my current thoughts and questions at this point. Please add or correct as needed:

1.) Is it reasonable to assume the CFV-39 will be viable 5 years from now? I have been using my film equipment for many years (in some cases 25+ years) without ever requiring an update or upgrade. I am concerned about spending $14k and not being able to get service or repair in 5 years. I am not worried about the quality issue because I am sure the CVF-39 will meet my quality and artistic standards indefinitely.

2.) I use Lightroom and would like to leverage the 3FR and lens correction support there vs having to use Phocus software. Any experience or comments on this? If you recommend Phocus then what format do export from Phocus to Lightroom?

3.) I am not replacing my film work, just adding digital as a medium. From my understanding there are no adapters required for the cfv-39 on the 500 series so I am assuming it is a reasonable idea to swap the digital back and A12 backs between exposures without too much of a hassle. Anyone with experience confirm my thinking?

4.) According to the specifications there is a maximum of 64 second exposure for the cfv-39. That is a limitation for some of my work and will preclude me from being about to use the digital back for that. Does anyone have experience with long exposures on the cfv-39 and if so what do you find the practical limitations to be? I assume noise and quality issues will be the problem at some point.

5.) Based on experience what do you find the optimal ISO range of the cfv-39? I know what the specifications say, but I was hoping to get some input based on real-world experience. Keep in mind I mostly photograph landscapes and nature.

6.) Last, but not least, for $14,000 should I even try and make digital work on my 500 series and just consider another option? My initial thought is to leverage my current equipment as a base and continue to use it with my film work. I am not opposed to pursuing another system or option as long as it is not more money because the $14k is actually more than I want to go at this point. I would say that the vast majority of my work is wide and ultra wide angle if that matters in your opinion when considering cameras and lenses.

If there are other points I should consider please add them here. I appreciate your time and thoughts.

Tim

June 28, 2011

It really is strange... have you tried the Arista kits? I haven't because I have heard such bad things about them but that may or may not be true?

June 24, 2011

I am looking for the Tetenal E6 3 bath kit in the US and can't seem to find it anywhere. I looked at the obvious places like Freestyle and B & H. Anyone know where to find it? If not this kit, something similar?

Thanks

June 22, 2011

Chris, thanks for your input and confirmation. From what I can tell one of the options I could pursue is to use the unofficial Dilution H which is basically Dilution B +1 or cutting the amount of developer in half if you only need 32 oz as I do. My best guess at this point is that I will probably try an couple different higher dilutions and then give Ilford DD-X a try per Ilfords recommendation and compare the results. My personal EI for the film turned out to be 80 by the way. Hopefully some others will reply and get a good cross section of experienced replies.

June 21, 2011

I just tested some Delta 100 4x5 sheet film and determined my personal EI rating to be 80. The odd thing is that I used the normal development and agitation stated by Ilford which was 6 minutes with HC110 - B. When I plotted my curve I got N+3 on my dev time which was shocking to me. I can't believe it was due to agitation causing these results. My best guess is that it may have something to do with the HP tank or I may need to dilute +1 possibly (in other words instead of using 30ml(1oz) per 32 oz water to dilute +1 therefore using 15ml(.5oz) per 32oz of water. I would rather not guess if others have experience and I could at least get closer than then continue my testing. My question. Is anyone using Delta 100 sheet film and HC110-B or other dilution in a HP Combi Tank? If so, what have you found your normal development time to be? And then N-1 and N+1?

June 21, 2011

I just tested some Delta 100 4x5 sheet film and determined my personal EI rating to be 80. The odd thing is that I used the normal development and agitation stated by Ilford which was 6 minutes with HC110 - B. When I plotted my curve I got N+3 on my dev time which was shocking to me. I can't believe it was due to agitation causing these results. My best guess is that it may have something to do with the HP tank or I may need to dilute +1 possibly (in other words instead of using 30ml(1oz) per 32 oz water to dilute +1 therefore using 15ml(.5oz) per 32oz of water. I would rather not guess if others have experience and I could at least get closer than then continue my testing. My question. Is anyone using Delta 100 sheet film and HC110-B or other dilution in a HP Combi Tank? If so, what have you found your normal development time to be? And then N-1 and N+1? Thanks Tim

April 15, 2011

I am in the final stages of bidding on a PME45 and wanted to check back with the group here on a couple of questions. First, were there different versions of the PME part number 42297 made? It seems like I read somewhere that was the case I just want to verify before the final bid closes. I use spot metering a lot and want to make sure the one I get can do that. Second, I currently use an Acute-Matte screen with my WLF and was wondering based on experience which screen, Acute-Matte or Acute-Matte D, is best suited for the PME45? Also, based on the current market, in US Dollars what do you think a good condition PME45 is worth?

Thanks,

Tim

April 3, 2011

Seth, that sounds interesting. I actually have an old TLR that is broken and I have just hung on to it. Maybe this is its second life. I am not sure how you plan on using it, can you elaborate on your idea?

Tim

April 2, 2011

You left out a lot of details around your requirements but I will comment on a couple of things in an attempt to help you. I own a Mamiya 7, RZ67 Pro II, C220 TLR, Hasselblad 503CW, Pentax 645N and a few other MF cameras.

The Mamiya 7 Rangefinder is a fantastic camera for just about anything except for closeup work. Some of my best images have come from my M7. I own the 43mm wide angle which I use most, the 80mm standard and the 150mm short tele lenses. They are among the sharpest lenses I have ever used and the camera is top notch in my opinion, at least for my style of photography.

The RZ67 Pro II is a fantastic choice for just about any photography you could throw at it. I own two of them with a full line of glass. Just be aware of the size of this system and if that is not a problem them go for it. I really can't think of any limitations with this system for most photographers. I tend to use this system as my studio camera and for some landscape work. The rotating back for the 6x7 format is one of the reasons this camera is so popular, and for good reason. The bellows is a nice feature on the RZ as well. I have done a lot of closeup work with this camera and I have two comments. I actually prefer to use the 110mm f/2.8 lens with the #1 tube over my 140mm macro lens which is heavier and slower. None of this matters to some people because the camera system produces top-notch professional images.

The Hasselblad 503CW is an incredible MF camera and of course we all know the Zeiss glass is wonderful. I use this camera as my day-to-day staple and rely on it to produce my bread and butter work. I personally love the 6x6 square format and 12 exposures per roll is nice. You mentioned doing closeups. I typically prefer the Hasselblad system over my RZ for closeup work for a couple different reasons. The more compact size of the camera and the wide range of extension tubes makes it easier to use and make changes. Some of my macro work requires precision focusing down to .5mm and the smaller 503CW is just easier to work with. You will find the close focal range of the Zeiss glass to be well suited for closeup work and the simple addition of the small tubes makes it extremely easy to work with. Once again, this system produces beautiful images and it is probably just a matter of matching your requirements with a system. There are no perfect cameras but there are prefect photos from time to time.

Tim

April 2, 2011

Frank, thanks for the suggestion. I actually own several high end scanners and I don't want to use computers in this case. I love the natural beauty of my chromes and to me they just are not the same if I scan them. Just a personal thing I guess. I have to use computers in so many things that I actually enjoy avoiding them in my photography whenever possible. My large format 4x5 and 8x10 slides don't require anything but a light source to fully enjoy, but the MF slides are just a little too small for my old eyes I guess. Unless I can come up with something better, I think I am going to get an old Hasselblad chimney viewfinder and rig it up with a light source somehow.

April 1, 2011

Q.G., thanks for clarifying the metering! Does it matter which focusing screen you use with the PME45? I pulled my screen out and was looking for a part number on it but can't see one. I don't have a split screen or focusing aids so I am assuming it is the acute-matte. Does that sounds right to you? I have been looking for a used PME45 but haven't located one yet.

Thanks,

Tim

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by timlayton