orsetto

Despite the huge prices drops in MF film gear, it can still be a painfully expensive learning experience if you decide it just isn't working for you. Bad enough you'll nearly always lose some money re-selling anything but Leica or Rolleiflex, but then eBay/PayPal rip an additional 13% out in their fees. Its rough. The Bronica system itself generally sits collecting dust on eBay unless you're willing to risk a low starting price to generate bidding action. Even more popular brands like Hasselblad sit and rot on eBay if you ask realistic prices for it: now more than ever, people are bargain hunting and will blow right past any listing with a starting price anywhere close to actual market value. It will eventually sell if your starting price is normal asking range, but be prepared to wait six weeks to two months before the vultures "watching" your stuff in hopes you'll drop the price give up and finally buy it. Be sure to list your Maxwell and Beattie focusing screens as individual separate items: these are probably the most sought-after, unusual items you have. I don't remember if Maxwell sold you a separate screen or he modified your original screen: if its your original, you're kind of screwed because it limits your selling options. You could separate all the pieces and sell your GS1 body without a screen, but probably not get a good price for it. If you keep the screen in the body, you could easily sell the package of body/back/finder/100mm lens, but you won't get as good a price for the screen if its bundled. Weigh your options VERY carefully before investing in your new digital system: the cameras depreciate faster than a 1978 Cadillac and you'll suffer a dead loss if you make another mistake. Take your time, play with them at several different stores, or perhaps rent a body and a couple lenses for a week. Of the two systems you're looking at, the Sony is most versatile but with the drawback that nobody actually likes using the damned things. If you don't have any interest or plans to use non-Sony lenses, the advantage of the A7RII over a Nikon D850 evaporates (the D850 files are much easier to work with). The Fuji is an extraordinary smaller-format system with incredible lenses, but some people don't get on well with their focus-by-wire manual override and their X-Trans sensor produces weird raw files that can be difficult to process with generic software. Both Sony and Fuji are polarizing systems with no middle ground: users love them or hate them. Make sure you love it before you buy it.

Very nice salvage job! I also have a CS8000, which I grabbed at a fire sale bargain price ten years ago because it arrived defective and the eBay seller refunded me half the purchase price so I could have Nikon repair it. Dealing with Nikon Melville scanner service was a nightmare I hope never to repeat, but after three round trips over six months they got it working perfectly. I dread the day it ever fails again, because now there's nobody left who knows how to fix them. To minimize wear and tear, I reserve it now for 120 film only, having bought a very nice Polaroid SprintScan 4000+ for my 35mm film. The Polaroid actually makes somewhat better 35mm scans anyway, much faster actually, and its software dust removal runs neck and neck with the CoolScan's ICE system.

I've always found it a tragic/comic irony that Steve Jobs killed the patient to save it. Despite Wall Street's endless hypocritical clutch-the-pearls handwringing all thru the 1990s, Apple was actually doing perfectly well as a niche supplier of midrange graphics/audio/video computers, with an ancillary share of the school/university/consumer market. It remained fairly steady despite an appalling run of terrible boards and worse CEOs: had Sculley been succeeded by anyone remotely competent, Apple would have been OK, and probably remained focused on providing the best solutions for graphics and A/V. When they lured Steve back instead, he had other plans: first to take his revenge by cratering everything that made the Mac special, then reorient the company as a purveyor of consumer electronics with a vague tie in to its Mac legacy. Slowly but surely, Apple began making one boneheaded, inexplicably hostile move after another that rapidly killed the Mac advantages in digital media integration until a significant percentage of the loyal user base switched to Windows because it was actually better at Apple's game than Apple had become. This continues today, with the utterly idiotic "USB-C ports and nothing else" on the latest MacBooks (apparently learning nothing from their overnight destruction of FireWire).

Agreed. When it comes to film scanners especially, I'm often amused by the terrified resistance potential owners have to the idea they'd need to allow a dreaded Mac under their roof, as if it would contaminate the house or something. More than a few newbie film photographers seem utterly unaware that all high-end scanners (and the first three generations of digital cameras/backs) were designed to interface with a Mac's built-in SCSI or FireWire, with Windows compatibility a far distant afterthought. There's some really useful older gear out there that requires a Mac to run it smoothly: just consider the Mac a part of the thing and relax. Some can also be run off an old WinXP tower, but if you're gonna be stuck with an extra dedicated CPU anyway you may as well use the Mac the device (and its software) was optimized for. Speaking of which, thanks for the detailed update on the vagaries of Mac SCSI adapters with later versions of OSX: great info! I've never bothered to update a legacy Mac beyond OS 10.4, so never looked into this. Good to know. Tho sometimes I dearly miss the old days of OS 9.2.2: I cut my teeth in graphics firms starting with OS 7.1 on a Quadra 700 (beautiful CPU), finally supporting a team at a sportswear company running blue, gray and "mirrored door" Mac towers. I bailed during the hellish forced migration from OS 9.2.2 to OSX 10.3: not a fun time to be a designer (or their Mac tech manager).

I've never seen the DP2 service manual posted anywhere other than that Italian trading website, which has listed it as "sold" every time I've looked. It may be worth trying to contact the seller to see if he has any more, given it was advertised as a photocopy of the original 33 page repair manual for 5 euro. Be aware that Nikon revised the DP2 guts something like 17 times in four years, because they were getting killed with warranty repair claims. They issued supplementary service bulletins to cover each revision, which may or may not be included with any baseline DP2 service manual you can find. It is also worth considering that the DP2 contains first-generation, near 50 year old prehistoric camera electronics. Early Nikon meter prisms are notorious for circuit boards that crumble upon removal from their housing, and cold solder joints that can be nightmare difficult to fix. There's a reason Sover Wong charges a small fortune to repair the DP2 and offer a proper warranty: its a very dicey proposition to open one up. If you acquired this DP2 for little or no money and have nothing to lose tearing it apart, maybe its worth the effort. But if its your primary camera, think about having Sover repair it properly. Better yet, invest the money in a newer more reliable DP3 (SB) or DP12 (AS) prism with updated electronics, low drain LEDs, and indestructible silicon blue metering cells. The DP2 was Nikon's longest-running prototype, masquerading as a finished product.

The current scanner situation for medium format film is dire. The only easily-available flatbeds are the Epson 700 variants, which are mediocre at best if you want scans for top-quality printing. Getting the best from MF film requires a dedicated MF film scanner: these were never all that numerous to begin with, tend to be high-strung failure-prone devices, and most of their original mfrs are long gone from the business. Unlike old cameras, there is no thriving subculture of scanner repair specialists: they are incredibly fussy, ridiculously Rube Goldberg contraptions that can take forever to troubleshoot. The most infamous example being the Nikon CoolScan 8000 and 9000, so fragile that the mere act of shipping one (in its original box and packing) from one owner to another can irreparably damage them. Walking on a carpeted floor in the wrong shoes before touching a CoolScan 9000 risks blowing its FireWire board to kingdom come, turning it into a $3000 paperweight. Parts and service have not been available for years, and Nikon was generally AWFUL at repairing them anyway. Yet these are the scanners every film photographer and his mother are chasing, at ever-higher second hand cost (if you want to give yourself a migraine, check the asking prices for a spare Nikon 120 film tray- it would be cheaper to buy your own 3D printer and make trays yourself). Close on Nikon's heels you have the Imacon ne Hasselblad FlexTights: the most overpriced collection of near-empty boxes with awkward footprints ever to gouge photographers. Capable of excellent results, yes, but at one heck of a cost in both cash and learning curve. The only "affordable" FlexTights are the ancient SCSI-connected models that require their own dedicated blue or gray circa 2001 Apple Mac tower. Any FlexTight with a connector recognizable by anyone under 40 is priced at the downpayment for a BMW. The Polaroid/Artixscan 120 twins had a following for awhile, but here again are flimsy contraptions from mfrs gone like the dinosaurs. Ditto the superb Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, arguably the finest price/performance MF film scanner ever offered: now rarer than rare, no spare parts, no service whatsoever. The only serious scanner still available new at anything approaching reasonable cost is the Plustek OpticFilm 120, but its still a bug-riddled work in progress after nearly five years on the market (each buyer becomes another guinea pig). More and more film photographers are turning in desperation to the "scan film by re-photographing it with a high-megapixel digital camera like Nikon D850" workflow. This can work surprisingly well, but comes with its own baggage of advantages vs disadvantages. We may be approaching an era when film photography completely detaches itself from digital: you'll either have your own wet print darkroom, pay for the services of someone who does, or you won't use film at all. Color film is already such a PITA to deal with that we may regress completely to black and white. The price of new MF digital cameras like Pentax 645Z, Hasselblad X1D and Fuji GX have dropped low enough to make many of us seriously rethink the value proposition of film system + exotic pricey vintage film scanner. Smaller wonder-cams like Nikon D850 and Sony A7RIII would probably do just as well as the new MF models. Of course, if you happen to lay hands on (and have room for) something like a Creo EverSmart professional prepress flatbed scanner, that can scan an entire roll of film with perfect colors and detail all by itself, your outlook may be sunnier. As prices for used Nikon CoolScan 9000s reach ever more absurd heights, a Creo can seem almost rational. They're 90 pound boat anchors that require an old legacy Mac workstation, but much more convenient than a drum scanner (or even a FlexTight). I'm in awe of the guys who truck an abandoned drum scanner into their garage and blithely learn to use it: wish one lived next door to me!

I rarely used the silver 250mm C lens that came with the Hasselblad 500cm outfit I bought from another photographer years ago: very difficult to handhold, and didn't impress me much even on a tripod (compared to the 150C and 120C). Despite this, last year, I picked up a later CF version because I couldn't resist the giveaway asking price (the barrel is very worn/ugly but the glass is pristine: usually indicates a lens was a favorite and probably a good copy). This CF version handles better than the C, and the T* optics also seem to perform somewhat better, but its still a challenging lens to get the most out of when mounted on the Hasselblad bodies it was designed for. Surprisingly, I find it really shines when adapter-mounted on smaller format full-frame Nikon DSLRs. The elusive Zeiss "3D Look" that is hard to achieve with this lens on the 500cm routinely appears in shots taken with it on a Nikon D700, D610 or D800. When I nail focus perfectly, the colors and detail floor me: overall performance smokes my 180mm and 200mm Nikkors. Of course, the 250mm CF Sonnar is three times the size and weight of those Nikkors, pre-set diaphragm makes it much slower to handle, and the f/5.6 max aperture can be tough to work around: certainly, not a rig for everyday DSLR shooting. My point is this "lowly non-APO" lens seems more capable than its mediocre rep suggests: it may be the Hasselblad V camera design that holds it back somewhat. It would be interesting to try it on a modern mirrorless MF digital body like the Fuji GX.

Yes, that does indeed come in handy to check important details they left out of the standard mobile interface. My complaint is eBay keeps eroding the desktop browser interface to make it look more like their simplified mobile interface (pointlessly removing significant info and replacing it with dead white space). If they're gonna merge the interfaces there won't be any good option for those who hate swiping and digging for info that should be immediately visible, at least on a PC screen. It isn't just eBay: other websites are dumping their full desktop interface option, replacing it with a mobile knockoff (ridiculously inefficient on a PC screen). I get that they don't want to pay coders to maintain both versions anymore in an era when 90% of their views are on mobile, but the shift to a simplified Fischer-Price web paradigm is frustrating.

I absolutely hate this latest pointless change: it defeats the whole purpose of monitoring an auction to see how it ends (whether you bid or just want info). When this started a couple weeks ago, it took me days to figure out WTH eBay was doing, and that clicking on the warning "this listing is no longer valid" text would take you to the actual ended listing. eBay seriously needs to pull its head out of its rear and stop trying to be the next Amazon. eBay management and all its doltish investors need to get it thru their thick skulls: there is no "next Amazon" and never will be. It was a one and done phenomenon (yeah, you have Alibaba, but thats China-run and a whole different ballgame). eBay has made one counterproductive change after another, year after year, chasing its demented Amazon fantasy. None enriched the experience for most users (most make things worse, without moving them closer to being Amazon one iota). Infuriating: if I'm monitoring a second hand vintage Nikkor macro lens listing, how is redirecting me to a brand new 18-55mm AF zoom useful? All that does is annoy me and make me swear a blood oath NEVER to purchase any brand new item from eBay that rewards this marketing idiocy. Sadly, another imminent change they announced is a wholesale revamp of the search engine. The default results will be displayed in their new "headline news" style, forcing you to dig around and use non-intuitive overrides before you can see a single traditional listing (assuming they even allow it anymore). While we're at it: eBay and PayPal need to cut the pandering to mobile devices at the expensive of the full PC/laptop experience. I'm not writing my listings on an iPhone with the tip of my nose, and when I need to look at my overview I want every detail thats supposed to be there, not a page thats 70% useless white space. PayPal has become utterly impossible to navigate: you can't get a live running total with balances at all. Why on earth not? Isn't your running balance a crucial piece of info? They could be robbing you blind and you wouldn't know from the new overview system. They actually force you to download a gigantic unwieldy spreedsheet PDF to get a "snapshot" of your running balances now. Ugh: how exactly does this help people, on phones OR computers?

The two versions of 105mm are much closer in performance than the other Nikkors I cited: I mentioned those more as a point of overall reference. Perhaps I should have left out the 5.8cm, since it is more of a wildcard performance-wise: I'd say the more accurate comparison duo would be the 5cm Nikkor-S vs 50mm Nikkor-H. The former has somewhat different separation of foreground/background, different field flatness, different color contrast that is more pleasing for some subjects. But also less predictable: those same qualities sometimes evaporate, or aren't helpful to a particular photograph. The latter is less capable of pleasant surprises, but also a more predictable consistent tool. I enjoy using both versions of 50mm and 105mm. I'd be wary mounting the 5.8cm on modern AI-compatible Nikon DSLRs. It very badly fouls the AI follower tab on my D700: attempts to adjust the aperture ring feel like they'd snap the tab off. Also, the meter doesn't couple or read correctly with non-AI lenses, Unfortunately the 5.8cm has no mount screws on the rear bayonet, making it more difficult to AI modify, so for me its more of a F/F2 film-body or Sony A7 mirrorless lens.

You need to separate the bokeh question of "subjective artistic validity" vs "vital eBay selling point". Like it or not, the major impetus behind a lot of vintage lens sales today is the bokeh fetish. Lenses you couldn't give away ten years ago now fetch much higher prices. If you're a seller who happens to have acquired them ten years ago and outgrown them, thats a good thing, if you're a buyer, not so much. All thru photographic history, lens mfrs have played whack-a-mole with lens aberrations vs rendering characteristics. Fix one problem, you wreck another factor. This is why certain lens brands or specific lenses had their own followings. In recent years, as new AF lenses are ever more optimized for digital, to look sharp as a tack with zero chromatic aberration when pixel peeping, they've had to compromise secondary characteristics like bokeh quality. That (rather perversely) drives many photographers to seek out older "flawed" glass to achieve the look they want for their work: they shop for bokeh first, sharpness second. The whole situation goes in contradictory circles. On one hand, you have photographers desperately chasing down vintage "flawed" manual-focus glass, willing to pay crazy-high prices for some of it. OTOH, if a mfr tries to meet demand for these characteristics by designing them into modern convenient AF lenses, the attempt fails spectacularly (witness the unending backlash Nikon still endures for their 58mm f/1.4 AFS misfire). You would think having both vintage manual focus and newer AF options would be welcomed, but apparently not (aside from the domestic Japanese market).

Yes, well: thats where the design is an epic fail for many of us. Trying to set a slow speed on a Varex will drive most photographers mad. It is fine to like and enjoy using a vintage camera system despite its flaws, but we must factor the flaws when considering how we'd use that system. For me, Exakta was a "high-noon bright sunlight on snow" camera: i.e., useless because I shoot mostly low available light. The Rube Goldberg slow shutter settings drove me to sell it off and forget using the lenses with film: Exakta-mount glass is strictly for Sony A7 digital shooting as far as I'm concerned. None of that detracts from its deserved status as a pioneering, remarkably long-lived SLR. Without Exakta to forge a path, there would have been no Nikon F twenty years later. To be fair, when Varex was designed, ALL slow speed escapements for hand-held focal plane shutter cameras were non-intuitive horrors (one reason screw-mount Leicas died the second the modern M3 debuted). Exaktas are beautifully machined, the unusually contrasty reflex viewfinder is easy to focus, but the slow shutter speeds are a giant PITA to set. If you're a morning person, no problem: for evening streetscapes its poison. To each his own.

The older (silver nosed) 105mm Nikkor-P "Sonnar" has come back into vogue lately (for years it was unfairly sneered at as inferior to the later "Gauss" version). If you're the type who can actually tell the difference between the "signatures" of similar lenses, you might prefer it. The rendering difference between the earlier and later 105mm Nikkors is very similar to the differences between the earlier 5.8cm and 50mm f/.4 Nikkors, or earlier Nikkor-S 5cm f/2 vs Nikkor-H 50mm f/2. While hardly cutting edge today, the later Nikkors hew closer to the "look" of modern glass, while the older Nikkors have more of a vintage rendering. Whether one can see the differences to begin with, or exploit them artistically, is highly subjective (esp if the lenses cost significant money). If you got these two relatively cheap in a package eBay deal, you've got nothing to lose: both are mid-run serial # with removable mount, easy to AI modify. The 43-86 is unfortunately the earlier less-good version, but worth a spin: you might like it for certain things. As far as monetary value, neither is worth a lot. The 105mm resale potential is hobbled by the user-engraved barrel, tho if AI modified could still approach $80 or more depending on glass clarity. Early 43-86 lenses are typically sold as body caps with old Nikkormats: essentially worthless unless pristine and AI-modified. The second version 43-86 has an inexplicable cult following: its an OK lens overall, but the zoom range remains neither here nor there.

No mystery: they're just made that way. Zeiss wasn't exactly known for rational design choices back then (and still aren't: witness the ridiculously cheesy self-destructing soft sticky rubber focus rings on their new $4000 Otus lens line). The unmarked lines in this case actually do make some sense: the distance scale is easier to read at a glance than it would be if marked every three inches. Having the sequence as 3ft, 3.25, 3.5, 3.75, 4, 4.5, 5, might be more annoying then useful: your brain more quickly and easily comprehends the unmarked line between two equal distances than it does literal overcrowded markings. The automated depth-of-field indicators on this lens help compensate for the missing distance numbers. You probably meant to say "80mm" lens instead of "50mm" lens: the 80mm has the distance scale you describe, the 50mm is different. The 80mm is a general purpose lens designed for spontaneous shooting, so the scale is compromised for that use. Dedicated macro, copy, or cinema lenses often do have the additional complete distance markings because they are used more slowly and/or need to be preset precisely and repeatably.

I would go with the 200mm as well. Over time, it has proven the best focal length for general-purpose medium format portraiture for most photographers. The jump from 200mm to 250mm isn't quite as significant with 6 x 7 as it is with smaller MF sizes, so a number of photographers did choose 250mm instead as a single, compromise portrait/landscape lens. But 250mm is somewhat trickier to exploit for portraits: if you aren't particularly drawn to it, go for the 200mm. At todays prices, if you need a longer lens later for landscapes you can just add it to your kit. At the risk of offending the purists, I'd suggest you consider a +2 close-up lens that quickly screws into the front filter threads. This is much faster and less disruptive to deploy during a session with a portrait subject than the traditional extension tubes. Also, extension tubes for the GS-1 aren't widely available: you'd probably need to order from a Japanese dealer for approx $60. Often, they sell only in a set of two (G18 + G36), which doubles that cost. Back in the day when Hasselblad ruled MF, its extension tubes were crazy expensive and a giant pain to use. The most popular option for head shots was the Zeiss Proxar closeup filter. Since the GS-1 lenses have standard filter threads, you can use any good-quality closeup filter you like: Nikon and Pentax made some nice two-element versions but typical generic ones are often OK for portraits. While they do reduce ultimate picture sharpness slightly, the penalty is not nearly as harsh as you might think and is usually welcome for portraits anyway. The huge advantage is that you can attach and remove the filter as needed without looking at the camera or disrupting your flow with your portrait model. Mounting extension tubes will stop a session dead, so once attached tend to limit you to head shots only, stifling spontaneity. Also, tubes suck up light and will drop your shutter speed or open your aperture, which can affect sharpness as much or more than the slight hit from a +2 or +1 filter.

Yes, AFAIK it is compatible with all the prism finders: the prism base slides right over it just like the WLF. I've used it with my ancient unmetered NC2 prism and an early PME 45. This is how it looks thru the eyepiece of my PME prism. The pincushion distortion is caused by my cellphone camera that took the pic (it looks normal and straight IRL), and of course the acute matte screen photographs with a hot spot in the center that you don't normally see with your eye. The additional square frame in the middle doesn't bother me, but it does annoy some users who only shoot 645 and have no intention of ever shooting superslides or using an old CFV digital back. Those people usually opt for the solution Ed_Ingold described, cutting your own custom mask from some translucent material.

The A16 and A16S (square superslide) backs both originally came with an accessory drop-in transparent plastic masking plate, part number 42145. I have one of these and it is very convenient (you can move it between different cameras and use it with any screen, without having to make marks on the screen or cut your own masks). I no longer have a 16 back, but kept the plate because its also useful on the occasions I borrow a digital back (the rectangular 645 guidelines approximate the sensor size of larger backs, the central square matches the sensor of older 36mm x 36mm backs nicely). This 42145 mask turns up on eBay regularly, there are a couple listed now for under $30. Most sellers don't know the actual part number, so you if you don't see it under "Hasselblad 42145" search for something like "Hasselblad 6 x 4.5 16S Drop In Mask". And yes, Hasselblad shooting 645 vertical is an ergonomic nightmare, unless you use a 90 degree prism and some sort of grip. Enough pros complained about this that Hasselblad sold a small quantity of vertically-oriented dedicated A16V backs, which could shoot vertical portraits with the waist level finder (the mask that came with those had an additional set of vertical guidelines, as pictured below).

YES! If you saw it back in the day in its original 70mm six-track Dolby release, the sound of the winding stroke once he finally gets it loaded would rip across the theater- wild! Then there's the brace of motorized Nikon F2s and Hasselblad 500 ELMs tracking the barrage of UFOs at Devils Tower, and Melinda Dillon taking snapshots of the aliens with her Rollei 35B! As the proud teen owner of a Rollei 35S at the time, it always sorta bugged me visually that they had her use the rather ugly lesser-known 35B model instead of the iconic 35 or 35S. Eventually I figured it belonged to someone on set and they just spontaneously handed it to her for the scene (the movie was notoriously improvised).

Beautiful shots, with interesting glass, as always! Any day with a new rick_drawbridge lens/pics post is a good day.

It means "affordable" in the context of the older depreciated cameras we'd like to use them on. In an era when a complete body/wlf/lens Hasselblad 500cm or Mamiya RZ67 outfit runs under $1000 used, the typical $30K asking price for new digital backs with anywhere close to 645 coverage is absurd for most amateurs to contemplate. In such discussions, it is wise to make a distinction between different use cases. For most commercial work, yes: current smaller formats are more than up to the job. Those who need the subtle distinctions of larger sensors with their different lens effects and software integration will lease, rent or buy the latest greatest Phase or Hassy. Ditto the well-heeled or compulsive non-pro who needs such performance (or deludes themselves that they do). Those of us "crying" for an affordable true 6x6 or 6x7 back are approaching it more from an emotional (yet practical) angle. It isn't a case of deluding ourselves that we "need" some fantastical, intangible advantage of a large format sensor: we simply like the handling, operation and lenses of the classic MF systems. We want to be able to use them digitally, with reasonable quality, on the level of the old 16 or 22MP backs which were more than sufficient resolution for these systems. BUT: since we aren't commercial studio photographers, the compromise of second-hand crop sensor backs doesn't work for us. We don't need a digital back to speed workflow for demanding clients at the expense of usability: we want a digital back that allows using these MF systems as they were originally intended, with lens coverage and viewfinder advantages unaltered. If there was any conceivable way to make and sell something like a Phase P25+ in true 6x6 and 6x7 for $5000, we'd be ecstatic. But of course it won't happen. A pity, because the satisfaction of using these classic MF cameras is a unique experience that could theoretically continue indefinitely with a proper digital update (imagine the fun of a digitized Rolleiflex 2.8C).

Physically stitching two sensors together was done for the hellishly expensive larger "full frame 645" CCD backs. The seam can indeed be problematic, and is one reason buying an older used MF back from anywhere other than a well-connected dealer can be dicey. It isn't uncommon for the backs to need factory re-programming or adjustment after some years to electronically hide the seam, and in some cases it can never be flawlessly hidden. This is also why the earliest CMOS backs were the smaller 33x44 size: making larger CMOS is difficult and very very expensive (the recent push to move more MF systems at reasonable prices forced Pentax 645Z, Hasselblad X1D, and Fuji GX to settle on 33x44 as their default size). It isn't yet clear how Sony pulled off their due-any-minute 55x41 "full frame" CMOS sensor. It would seem to require stitching to achieve that size, which might be a first for CMOS. It is true that the "need case" for large MF sensors is not what it was ten years ago: smaller high-density formats like the Nikon D850 and Sony A7RIII can manage almost any requirement today. But you still do have an obsessive subgroup of landscape pros whose signature style is stupendously high resolution using the largest single sensor they can find (some don't enjoy the multi-shot stitching workflow). Apparently there are enough such pros for Sony to bother making this 150MP sensor, which will easily cost $40K once Phase puts it in a back. Sadly, what the overwhelming majority of medium format amateurs want is something they will never get: an affordable digital back of moderate resolution that would cover the actual size of the old film gates in classic 6x6 and 6x7 cameras. Quite a lot of us simply enjoy shooting the Hasselblad 500cm or Mamiya RZ67, but they are hobbled by current crop sensor backs. Hasselblad is essentially a square oriented system: rigging it with a prism and grip for faux-645 defeats its purpose. And a crop back on the RZ67 is just pathetic altogether: the entire point of the big bulky Mamiya is its huge viewfinder (if you're gonna mask it down 50% and crop all your focal lengths out of whack, why bother). A nice 22 or 40 MP sensor in true 6x6 and 6x7 would make a lot of people very happy (and keep vintage cameras/lenses shooting forever), but it ain't gonna happen. To mfr them would require either a huge increase in wafer standards, or stitching together multiple sensors. Both options are far too expensive, and demand too small, for it to be economically viable.

Ah, now I understand: in your other thread I somehow got the idea the screen you sent to Maxwell already had a split image. If that one was plain, I can see why you would also want an additional split image screen. Glad to hear you found a nice deal on the Beattie and that you're very happy with it! The ratings from most medium format screen buyers usually favored Maxwell first, then Brightscreen, then Beattie. But of course different cameras and photographers might flip that ranking: larger 6x7 cameras might need the extra raw brightness of the Beattie more than the subtle refinements of the other two brands. Even with Hasselblad users, there's disagreement as to whether the pricey Acute Mattes are as overall accurate or easy to focus as the older ground glass screens re-finished: so many factors can influence performance. You raise an important point that can be confusing with Maxwell: he offers more than one "grade" of screen. Without knowing the specific screen being discussed (HiLuxe, Brilliant Matte, etc), opinions may not synchronize. The same applies with some other third-party screens: they sometimes change their process which then alters the performance (making comparison threads like this one tricky). In your case, it seemed as it you ordered the Brilliant Matte screen a few weeks ago: it would have been unusual to reject that in favor of an old Beattie. The HiLux is more in line with other brand screens: some people (like you) find its performance good but not spectacular. Don't be too upset that Bill Maxwell seemed defensive when you expressed your concerns. All these technicians who still repair medium format cameras or make screens for them will be a little sensitive to criticism of their work sometimes. The bigger the name, the nicer they usually are, but anybody can have a bad day. As more of them retire, the few who are left get more business than they can handle, which can be stressful. Maxwell issued you a refund, and you found your perfect screen at last, so all's well that ends well. Enjoy your brighter Bronica!

I'm rather surprised you would buy a second-hand Beattie screen so soon after picking up a very expensive new Maxwell screen for your GS1? Of the three premium custom screen brands, you really can't get anything better than Maxwell: aside from being the only brand still in business, Maxwell is generally considered the best if you have difficulty focusing. The other two, Beattie Intenscreen and Brightscreen, were OK if all you needed was high brightness but they sacrificed some focusing ease and contrast for their higher light transmission. All three typically start with an original camera mfr screen, which they then refinish/polish/coat with their proprietary technology to increase brightness. In Beattie's case especially, this tended to make any engraved additions like split image, microprism, or gridlines fade into the background and become barely visible. Customers who needed the checker grid to be visible would request the lines be re-etched, which results in the effect you describe: the grid is distinct and appears "black" while the central split image and microprism collar are near-invisible (aside from vertical lines spltting/aligning thru the split circle, and out-of-focus subjects looking grainy in the microprism collar, but clear when in focus). In practical use, as long as out-of-focus lines do split in the circle, and align when you have perfect focus, the screen is working properly and the split will guide you to good focus even if you're having difficulty seeing the borders of the split circle or find it difficult to focus anywhere else on the screen. I tried both Beattie and Brightscreen for my Hasselblads, and was not happy with either: their metal frames both seemed a hair off spec leading to slight focus errors. I resold them and standardized on Hasselblad's own Acute Matte screens. The Acute Matte is also a compromise of brightness vs contrast, but its the best you can do for Hasselblad. For other "frameless" cameras I'd probably opt for Rick Oleson's newly-resurrected Brightscreen variation, or Maxwell if you can afford it.

Since your only significant previous experience was with the D200, which was the smaller DX format, you have the distinct advantage of being "imprinted" on that format. The sensor technology of recent years is leaps and bounds beyond the D200: in those days, FX (full frame) was a huge step up, today, not as much as you'd think for many photographers. On a per-dollar basis, Nikon DX bodies give much more bang for the buck, so you have funds left over for more lenses (or gas to take the car into the wilderness). Despite advances in production efficiency and higher sales volume, Nikon FX bodies remain at a (sometimes staggering) price premium over DX. In addition to cost, Nikon has had teething pains with nearly every FX camera they released after your D200 era. The D600, D610, D750, D800 and D810 all have an assortment of "gotchas" that may or may not prove extremely annoying. Those who prize the FX format above all else will tell you those concerns are trivial, but they can really bite you if you aren't prepared (esp if you wade into the second-hand market for something like a D800, which I would really think twice about at any price). The newest Nikon FX sensors are fantastic, no one can argue that, but unless you grew up in the film era and have your mind locked into the focal lengths used by that format I'd recommend almost anyone opt for DX instead. If you have no budget limits, go for the best new FX technology: the D850 is a watershed camera, producing resolution and color unmatched by anything else in the format. But even with unlimited funds, the D850 is still at a nosebleed $3000: you have to be heavily into your photography to justify it (and the files are of course huge). c_watson's suggestion of the D7200 is a good one, almost a "no brainer". It blows the doors off the old D200, yet its a steal at current prices. The newest "pro-oriented" D500 is better, but "better" is a loaded term. For they type of shooting you mentioned, I don't think the sensor improvements are all that significant. Nikon stalled producing the D500 for several years before finally releasing it, only so the small but obsessive chorus of "I want a new-tech magnesium body pro DX camera waaah" crowd would stop pestering them about it. Aside from the nicer build, the only practical advantage of the D500 over a D7200 is speed: it is a monster body for sports and wildlife with long lenses. D500 is phenomenal, but it answers a need few photographers truly have: if you don't regularly shoot at 9fps or require AF that locks on the subject before you even know yourself what the subject will be, skip it. Get a D7200 and be happy. My own digital Nikons are an old 6-mp D40 DX and 12-mp D700 FX. I picked up the D40 on fire sale when it was discontinued, just to get my feet wet with DSLR after decades in film. Its a fantastic, silent, tiny travel/street body and if I wasn't in the mental rut of old-school film focal lengths I'd probably use it for everything that doesn't require high res (6MP isn't much, but the colors in good light are beautiful and it prints just fine at reasonable sizes). The D7200 is the Incredible Hulk evolution of such ancient DSLRs: you can't go wrong with it. The main reason I bought the D700 instead of D7200 is stubborn-ness: I had wanted it for so long, because it could meter with my old beautiful film Nikkors while giving familiar film framing, but the price would never drop. Year after year I waited patiently, until the release of the D810 finally persuaded all the holdouts to dump their beloved D700 on eBay for peanuts. It has beautiful output, despite all the carping from gearheads thats its "only" 12MP and its strong AA filter "smears everything". Um, no: the D700 is still a killer general-purpose camera unless you're shooting in coal mines and printing billboards from the murk., or making wall-size landscape murals for National Geographic's head office. By opting for a $600 used D700 as my FX Nikon, I was able to save up for a complimentary Sony A7II, which offers double the resolution and ability to mount any random lens imaginable. But thats me, I'm an unusual case with my MF lens fetish. Get a D7200 with kit lens and see how you get along with it. If it doesn't suit you for some reason, you can resell it easily without much of a loss and try something else like the D500 or one of the FX Nikons. If you choose to go down the siren path of FX, save yourself some headaches and skip the D800 (its dirt cheap used but has issues). Consider the D810 or D750 instead, or if you can afford a D850 you'll have the most perfected FX body extant for some years to come. For giggles, you might even consider a D700: they cost almost nothing now, but work great and body is near identical to your previous D200. A D700 with tlow-distortion 28-105mm AFD lens would cover most of your needs in the short run, allowing you to very cheaply scratch the FX itch. If you find it compelling, you can flip the D700 for something newer.

Couldn't resist posting this before the thread fades away. The Exakta under discussion here was used a a significant prop in Hitchcock's "Rear Window", which the mfr crowed about in this 1954 ad (note the interesting variety of ancillary lens brands):