john_whitman

I use both the 65mm and the 90mm versions of this camera and like them

quite a bit. There's a lot on them in the medium-format archived

threads on photo.net (under "Fuji rangefinders") and one guy even

started a website, www.fujirangefinders.com.

<p>

The shortcomings are well-known: non-interchangeable lenses, no meter,

not a convenient "B" or "T" setting. But compared to LF, they're a

breeze to use, especially in driving rain or blowing snow. A few

thoughts:

<p>

Marked hyperfocal distances, as with most MF rangefinders, are a stop

or two optimistic.

<p>

Lenses are not as sharp as Mamiya 7 lenses; see Chris Perez's site, I

think, for a comparison. They're "very good" lenses, but I don't think

they're "great."

<p>

Film flatness has been raised as a problem for the 6x9 versions of

this camera; I haven't noticed it, but my photos with the Fujis do not

seem to be quite as sharp overall as those with the Mamiya 7, a camera

which combines the sharpest MF lenses with good film-flattening

design.

<p>

Many people are buying both the Fujis and the Mamiya 7's at

www.robertwhite.co.uk and saving a bundle.

<p>

........

I know it's heretical to point this out in a rangefinder-oriented

forum, but it certainly sounds like SS is using SLRs more than

rangefinders. In the Sep/Oct "American Photo" interview Salgado says,

<p>

"Ninety-five percent of the time I use 28mm, 35mm, and 60mm lenses

mounted on three Leica R6 SLR bodies. (I also use Leica rangefinders.)

I don't like to change lenses. I know these cameras and my film like

the lines of my hand."

<p>

Since the APhoto mention was a direct quote and he specifically used

the phrase "R6 SLR bodies," I'm inclined to think that's more accurate

than the writeup at NYIP, in which the writer probably heard "Leica

bodies" and assumed "rangefinder."

<p>

....

Pete, at least in the US this kind of titling isn't uncommon. There

was a very good little book of essays on Weston called "EW 100"

published on the 100th anniversary of his birth, and I also know of

an "F. Scott Fitzgerald at 100" centennial tribute (like "AA at 100,"

both of these books were definitely posthumous publications).

Wow! This is VERY big (and good) news! Thanks for posting it, Bill;

I'll be eager to hear users' reports....

<p>

...................

In that last sentence above I meant "whichever lens filter size"--82,

86, 95, etc.--not the size of the square filters you want to use.

<p>

......

Since you asked about systems "such as Cokin" I'll note that many

users here have had good experience with Hitech and Lee (which I

highly recommend). Whichever holder you get, you may want to see that

it can use standard 4x4 and 4x6 (for grads) filters, and be sure the

largest filter size you're likely to have has a corresponding adaptor

ring available with the particular filter system.

<p>

.............

Just curious: Why did you rule out C41's? If you're only going to be

scanning, the chromogenics rated at about ISO 200-250 work very well,

some would say better than any traditional b&w films. Many one-hour

labs will develop them (no prints) for $3-4 per roll, relieving you of

the least interesting part of darkroom work and freeing you to spend

your time on printing. Just a thought.

<p>

......

You may want to look at this thread:

<p>

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001p2h

<p>

Keep in mind that there is no hard data that I know of on lens

color--only opinions, which vary widely and frequently contradict each

other.

<p>

......

For what it's worth, you'll have a much easier time finding a 70-200

in great condition used than a 100-400IS. The former is now frequently

selling used at photo.net for under $1000US (650GBP?) and I would

guess that will only continue with the intro of the new IS. 100-400's

just aren't very common on the used market (yet) and when they are

available they often sell for close to new (grey-market) prices.

<p>

Btw, word on the street is that the 1.4MkII TC is optically identical

to the MkI, so there too you could save money by buying used as some

photographers rush to buy the new model.

I assume you have the 100 2.0 (don't know of a 100/1.4).

<p>

The Canon 1.4 TCs don't work with the 100 or any other Canon lenses

that have a flush rear element, because the EF teleconverters have a

protruding front element. If you want to use a 1.4x with the 100/2.0

you have to look to Tamron, Sigma, etc.

<p>

The 135/2.0 is an exceptional lens; note, though, that it weighs

almost exactly as much as the 200/2.8 and is almost as big. There's a

significant jump in size from the 100/2.0 to the 135/2.0.

<p>

.......

If it's wound reasonably snugly, you don't have much to worry about. I

keep my exposed 120 film in clear ziploc bags for weeks while I'm

traveling and I've never had problems (except when the roll wasn't

tightly wound, and in those cases it would have exhibited light leaks

no matter HOW quickly I got it to the lab).

While loading and unloading I try to shade the camera from direct sun

and hot lights, but other than that I take no special precautions. As

a poster noted above, what's ideal and what's realistic in the field

aren't always the same: you should protect the film as much as

possible, but in my experience there's no need to be anal about it.

I would not buy a camera for architectural/interior work that did not

have an interchangeable (removable) viewfinder, and as far as I know

this disqualifies the 645AF.

www.mamiya.com should have pretty good descriptions of the various

models.

You don't need autofocus for architectural/interior work. You probably

will want (I would) a removable finder (so you can use a waist-level

finder when the camera's backed up against a wall), which rules out

the 645 AF. You'll probably want interchangeable backs, which rules

out the 645E and the Pentax. And you'll probably want at least the

option of using a wide-angle shift lens, which rules out both Contax

and Pentax (granted, you can use the Pentax 67 75mm shift lens on the

P645 with an adaptor, but it won't be wide angle).

Sounds to me like a 645 Pro or Pro-TL, new or used, is your best bet.

Don't know what prices are like in Australia, but many Americans are

now buying their Mamiyas from overseas, e.g. at www.robertwhite.co.uk

Good luck.

P.S. I have a Mk. II

<p>

....

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that the leg locks on Gitzo's

CF tripods are superior to the leg locks on their older tripods. Like

many others, I've grunted and struggled with the locks on older

Gitzos--especially in damp or cold weather--but I've been very pleased

with the leg locks on my Gitzo CF tripod.

<p>

Just pointing this out so that you don't judge today's Gitzos based on

the shortcomings of their tripods 10 or 20 years ago.

<p>

.........

...but I shouldn't be overly flippant about an issue that is real (and

clearly elicits real passion!). I think Glenn Kroeger's post above is

eminently sensible, and I second the points he makes: if there are to

be fees, they should be fair, modest, and well accounted-for.

<p>

......

It was my understanding that the check I wrote on April 15 went

entirely to the missile defense program, not to management of public

lands.

<p>

................

At the risk of getting crucified, let me say that I actually think the

fees at US national parks are too LOW. While it's nice to say that

every American should contribute equally to the tab for managing

wilderness lands, as with any other realm in our society I don't think

it's wrong for those who use something the most to contribute a few

dollars more for its upkeep.

<p>

I know it's an unpopular position; I suppose I've talked with too many

park rangers who relate endless stories of tourists who spend hundreds

or thousands of dollars to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to a

park or wilderness area and then balk at paying a $10 entry fee (for

something far more fulfilling than any amusement park!).

<p>

.............

.............

......

The owners and managers of any land have every right to ask about

visitors' motives, and their mere asking shouldn't spoil your euphoria

(heavens, I'd be perpetually gloomy if I let each such incident spoil

my day!). If they have no case, they'll leave you alone; if you're on

land you shouldn't be, you can't blame the messenger for telling you

so.

<p>

When I have these encounters, I always just smile and cheerfully say,

"No, just a hobbyist." A smile can go a surprisingly long way.

<p>

Fwiw, I've had no trouble with view cameras in Death Valley, in a wide

variety of locations. Again, though, I keep smiling when I encounter

anyone and if they ask what I'm doing, I reassure them that I'm not a

commercial enterprise--just a nature lover trying to get good

pictures.

<p>

..........

Tilting the front of the lens (or, with a view camera, the entire

lens) forward changes the plane of focus from being parallel to the

film plane (i.e., a vertical "wall" a ways out in front of the camera,

a wall of increasing thickness as you stop down) to laying down that

plane of focus over the subject (e.g., a meadow of flowers). By

aligning the plane of focus with, say, all of the blossoms, you can

put in focus all of the flowers from an arm's reach out to the horizon

with f8 or f11 instead of f22, and thus use a faster shutter speed.

Tilt is an essential feature in tabletop photography, where objects

from a few inches to a few feet in front of the camera must all be in

focus, and it's a given in large-format photography, where 150mm

lenses (the limited d.o.f. of which is known to 35mm users) are

considered "standard."

The large-format sites have volumes of information on tilt; for

example, see www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf or

http://www.toyoview.com/LargeFrmtTech/lgformat.html

Paul, the problem is that from the US perspective Wales IS in "the

London area."

<p>

.....

KEH has one for $17 (it's for the II, but should be applicable for the

III if that's what you have).

www.keh.com > Used > Medium format > Fuji > Instruction booklets

Don't expect too much; as I recall it's a pretty simple manual (for a

beautifully simple camera).

Expose for the highlights (by using an incident meter in the brightest

area of the scene).

<p>

In which direction are you off by "as much as 4 stops," underexposure

or overexposure? Most people, when moving from b&w or color neg to

chromes, are in the habit of giving more exposure "when in doubt,"

which usually results in disastrous overexposure with chromes.

<p>

...............

Lee Filters

Central Way, Walworth Industrial Estate

Andover, Hampshire SP10 5AN, England

Tel +44 (0) 1264 366245

Fax +44 (0) 1264 355058

<p>

or www.leefilters.com

<p>

.............

I was hoping Scott Eaton would weigh in on this one because in another

thread recently he summarized perfectly why many photographers reject

Velvia: "There are more things to photograph in life than lighthouses

and balloon races," I believe it was. For a few subjects Velvia is

great; for most subjects, I think there are better choices, including

Provia.

Does Velvia render dramatic colors? Of course. Does Velvia render

natural colors? Of course not; often they look downright silly (look

at the overwrought color landscapes in any issue of Outdoor

Photographer). Which film you use depends on how you want viewers to

see the world through your eyes. Me? I would choose Provia III over

Velvia even if the former were ISO 50. The fact that Provia is ISO 100

is just frosting on the cake.