john_whitman

Those interested in more discussion on this subject might look up a

thread from last month (filed under "Digital" threads in this forum)

called "Piezography: Ansel Adams and the Inkjet Print":

 

<p>

 

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005hny

Paging Mr. Salomon, Mr. Bob Salomon; please report to the Large Format

home page.

 

<p>

 

....

I'm not sure others can tell you things you don't know; your dilemma

is the same one faced by every MF buyer (weight vs. size vs.

convenience). For example, it's simply very hard (impossible, really)

to find lightweight, non-SLR MF cameras that can shoot cathedrals

without converging verticals and without cutting off the top. Tall

buildings, like close-up portraits, are not rangefinders' strong suit

unless you make a virtue of converging verticals.

 

If you found the Mamiya 7 "bulky" and "slow" I'm not sure you'll be

happy with anything else in the 6x7 or 6x9 range; they simply don't

come any smaller than the Mamiya 7, and compared to your M6 any MF

rangefinder will seem slow. And only you can know whether you prefer

the TLR vs. the rangefinder design; it seems to me these are two very

different directions to go. Do you use tripod or always shoot

handheld? You didn't mention 645 (e.g. Bronica), so I'm guessing you

don't consider this to be a large enough difference vs. 35mm.

 

Because you lament "cutting off the top of cathedrals" and "getting

only half of Greek temples," and because shift lenses are heavy and

hard to handhold, I'd look at going as wide as possible on a 6x6 or

6x7 (e.g., a Mamiya 6 or 7 w/50mm or 43mm) and cropping off the bottom

third. (Fwiw, cathedrals are pretty tough to fit in any lens' view

without shift capabilities; I've tried numerous times.)

Does the MH2000 (and Bob, the 3000) have normal (single axis) pan

capability? One of the large double-ball heads I played with recently

at a store--I thought it was the 2000--didn't have independent pan

rotation; loosening the second (lower) ball control allowed the whole

head to dip, changing the axes I'd already set by the first (top) ball

control. But it may not have been a Giotto I'm thinking of.

 

<p>

 

Of course, if you have a center column and it rotates (not the new

grooved Gitzos) then you technically don't need pan in the head, but

it's nice to have.

 

<p>

 

....

Wayne,

 

<p>

 

If the photos are just going to be used by your friend for submission

to a committee or panel of judges or client, I'd shoot 35mm. The

photos just have to show what the place looks like, with reasonable

detail. If, on the other hand, the photos are likely to get published,

you probably have to find a way to shoot a larger format or the photos

will stumble when compared to the other photos in the publication.

 

<p>

 

...........

Stage shots. People dancing in low light levels. New baby on the way.

All of these involve shooting action in very low light, with use of

flash impossible or inadvisable. Get the 50/1.8 lens before you buy

any other lens. Previous poster's comments regarding bodies is right

on target--Rebel/300 should be fine--as is his disdain for the

worthless 28-90 kit lens. www.photographyreview.com isn't particularly

useful (everyone generally likes what they buy) but contributors there

are united in their contempt for Canon's "kit" 28-90.

 

<p>

 

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

Don't know if your friend is an entrepreneur, but I suspect that (in

light of the cost of sheet film, especially color, and the realities

of sample variances among cameras and holders) a lot of us LF

photographers would pay a fair price to own such a precise measuring

device.

 

<p>

 

...

Oh foolish Wayne, you made the same mistake Nikon and Canon did when

they named their so-called "PC" shift lenses. While they and about 100

percent of their buyers assumed "PC" meant "Perspective Correction,"

only 2 of us (Bob and me) knew they actually meant "Position

changing." Rather than use the shift feature to "correct perspective,"

in other words, owners of these lenses are supposed to leave the

lenses at the zero position and move the entire camera and tripod

around to "correct perspective." We're glad you gave us this

opportunity to clear the air!

 

<p>

 

.........

One more that I don't think anyone has mentioned: the Fuji 690II ("Texas Leica"), which should fall exactly in the $600 range. Sharp, fast lens, huge neg, eye-level viewing, SLR-like handling and winding, light weight, anvil toughness. No light meter, but then many of the above-mentioned cameras don't have meters either (you can take light readings with a 35mm camera). No, it's not modular, but you can sell it and get your money back or, if you want a modular system, do what other Fuji 690 owners do: hang on to it and use it as a complement to a MF SLR system.

Lars,

 

I'm not sure any modification will solve the problem. Rereading my

above post and your subsequent query, I feel I was too hard on the

Omni Trekker because if given the challenge (a shoulder/briefcase

style bag convertible to a backpack) and lots of talent and money I

don't think I could do any better. In other words, any problems are in

the concept, not the execution. I like LowePro a lot (I have nine of

their bags and backpacks) and I don't know of a better product line or

a company more in tune with photographers' needs.

 

The reality is that a good photo backpack will be curved a bit to

conform to the back, have 2-3cm thick shoulder and waist belts, have a

strong internal frame, and be most practical when in the upright

position. The OmniTrekker briefcase style is flat and rectangular,

can't have thick belts or it'll be too bulky, doesn't have room for a

backpack-like internal frame, and is made to be opened from the

"side," not the "top," when in backpack mode. (This last factor is a

problem because--in order to make the OmniTrekker accessible from the

"top" edge when it is used as a suitcase or shoulder bag--LowePro

doesn't put velcro on the inside wall directly under the suitcase

handles. When the bag is turned on end to be worn as a backpack, the

lack of velcro on that fourth wall--now the right side--means the

dividers sag and let equipment fall to the bottom, a real problem.)

 

You really have two options: buying a backpack that can be carried

like a suitcase when you have to, or buying a suitcase/shoulder bag

that can be occasionally worn as a backpack. If you're mostly going to

be backpacking (including putting it inside a Pelican or Tundra), I'd

give serious thought to one of LP's excellent Trekker backpacks, which

can carry very heavy loads for hours (and several of which include a

suitcase-style handle). If you mostly work out of a shoulder bag and

only rarely use it as a backpack, the OmniTrekker is probably the best

thing out there. Ideally you'd get to load it up with equipment and

try it before buying, to see if the comfort and partial internal

velcro are sufficient for your needs.

Hi Clark,

 

<p>

 

I didn't know whether to put this here or with your next question (the

one about the Horseman 450), but if you can have only two lenses, a

180 and a 210 are awfully similar in field of view. Perhaps it's a

package you're buying?

 

<p>

 

..........

I have the (smaller) Omni Pro, the old Omni Trekker (no backpack

straps), and the new Omni Trekker. I kind of wish they'd left the

backpack harness off the new Omni Trekker because when the straps are

not in use (folded away so you can use it as a shoulder bag) they push

the weight of the bag far from the hip and add a lot of bulkiness. As

a backpack, it stinks--especially if you're carrying a lot of weight

for a good distance and especially if you're spoiled by LowePro's true

Trekker backpacks, in my mind the best photo backpacks anywhere.

OmniTrekker is a great idea (a briefcase-type bag with a backpack

harness), but a bad execution (or more likely, an impossible goal).

It's fine for short walks (e.g., through airports) where you need both

hands free for other things, but not for any length or distance.

 

The (new-style) Omni Pro doesn't have the bulging harness problem, but

it's a little too small for my taste; the front pocket is dinky and

the back pocket doesn't hold American-sized sheets of paper (8.5x11)

without crumpling them. The old Trekker (it may have been called the

Pro before it was downsized) was the right size and had no

harness--but of course it has been discontinued.

 

Being able to put any of these bags in a Pelican is great, by the way,

a real plus.

'Course, you gotta subtract the 10%, meaning that "37mm" above should

read 33 or 34mm, and "75mm" should read 66 or 68mm.... oops.

 

<p>

 

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

VERY roughly, I generally divide by three and subtract 10% to go from

4x5 to 35mm. Thus a 90 would equal about a 27mm and a 110 would equal

about a 37mm.

 

<p>

 

Most manufacturers double 35mm focal lengths to get 6x7 equivalents

(thus, in the above example, 55mm and 75mm).

 

<p>

 

As Ellis points out though, you can't do direct or exact comparisons

across formats that have different aspect ratios.

 

<p>

 

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

The Mamiya SV AE Reflex Finder ($529.00) includes an LED meter with built-in +/-5 rotating dioptic adjustment. Four internal colored LEDs indicate either "Correct Exposure", "Over Exposure" or "Under Exposure" as well as an "AE" indication. This eye-level finder features aperture-priority AE (auto exposure) with shutter speeds of 8 seconds to 1/1000 second and manual operation with shutter speeds of 4 seconds to 1/1000 second. It requires no battery as it takes power from the body.

 

NOTE: This finder will NOT fit the older M645 Super camera.

 

To see a picture, go to bhphotovideo.com > Photo > Medium Format > Viewfinders > Mamiya - 6x4.5 - "Go" > scroll down

I've been using Paterson plastic trays for about 20 years (replacing

them every few years as the silver builds up); a 3-pack (3 different

colors) of 16x20 trays is $39.49 at B&H. Whatever trays you buy, make

sure they have dimples or ribs on the bottom; improves circulation and

makes it easier to get a tong under the print.

 

Magnifier-wise, I like the Bestwell Microsight.

I'd say if anything MF TC's are worse than 35mm. In my experience with Mamiya and Pentax brand 2x converters (I haven't tried Hasselblad's or Bronica's, and I haven't tried 1.4x TC) they seemed about as bad as 3rd party (Sigma, Kenko, etc.) TC's are in 35mm. Especially at the exorbitant prices charged for OEM MF TC's I think they're a complete waste of money; in 35mm I can say "Well, the TC lets me get a shot I couldn't have gotten," but in MF if the the photo is significantly less sharp (as it is with the TC's I've used), I think, why bother shooting MF?

 

.

Thanks for the link, Ralf. As Kodak clearly says (regarding the

powerful CTX luggage scanners),

 

"Never ship unprocessed film as checked luggage with commercial

airlines."

 

'Nuff said.

I heard once that the formula is something like each 100mm of focal

length = about 1mm of moon on film; thus a 1200mm lens would give you

a moon that is 1.2cm in diameter (does this match your results?). Thus

to fill the frame of a 90mm-wide sheet of 4x5 film you'd need a lens

with a focal length approaching 9000mm. Maybe it's time to call Edmund

Scientific....

 

<p>

 

Then again, I don't see any reason to stop at 4x5 when there are 8x10

frontiers to conquer! Any of the ultra-large-format guys want to jump

in? Just picture the 20x24's you could make....

 

<p>

 

....

....

....

....

Ralf writes, "I have not noticed any difference between carried and

checked film, no fogging or discoloration whatsoever. It seems that

modern equipment is in general ok for films."

 

Now that powerful CT-scanners (not merely weak x-rays) are widely used

on checked luggage, you should never, ever put film in your checked

luggage, and except for Ralf's anecdotal experiment I haven't heard

any photographer in the past three years say it is safe to do so.

Hint: if the airlines are telling you it might not be a good idea (to

put film in checked luggage), you can be pretty sure it's not a good

idea.

This problem was discussed in the following thread about the

EF200/1.8, but there was no obvious solution. Perhaps contact the

people who contributed to the thread?

 

<p>

 

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004iSp

 

<p>

 

.

I wonder: If Mamiya and Bronica had incorporated into their 6x7 and

645 rangefinders everyone's wish lists--larger rangefinder, faster

lenses, etc.--would everyone say "Great cameras! But they're as big

and heavy as an SLR; rangefinders should be small and light!"

 

Hmmm?

Nowhere. www.photodo.com is perhaps as close as you'll come (click on "Products" > "Medium-Format lenses" > "Only MTF tested")

 

But photodo has tested only about 39 out of hundreds of medium-format lenses, so it's hardly a "comprehensive listing."

 

Why isn't there a web site like you're looking for? Well, testing dozens (or hundreds) of lenses scientifically is tremendously expensive (and who's willing to pay for objective tests? manufacturers and advertisers certainly won't risk it) and quite thankless (everyone takes issue with your findings--and understandably so, because lenses can vary greatly from sample to sample).

I should add that (unlike rear vs. front tilts and swings) rear shift

doesn't let you do anything that front shift doesn't do; it's exactly

the same effect. Technically, I suppose, rear shift moves the film to

different areas of the image circle, while the front shift moves the

image circle to different areas of the film, but the effect is the

same.

 

<p>

 

......

.

Re: question #1, I'm not sure what you mean by "This feature would

enable me to take panoramas on 4x5 without lens movement." Probably

half of all view cameras sold have rear shift (and almost all

monorails do), but I don't think it helps or limits the ability to

take "panoramics," which are simply extremely rectangular photographs

(aspect ratio of 2:1 or greater).

 

<p>

 

I'm baffled by your question #2. With any view camera you can crop any

4x5 picture you take into a panoramic (6:12 or 3:12 or whatever)

image.

 

<p>

 

#3: You couldn't get anything wider than 6x12 without stitching

together multiple photographs, and there wouldn't be any reason in

that case to use any 120 size smaller than 6x12.

 

<p>

 

You could, if you have a large enough image circle, take a picture

with the rear shifted fully in one direction, shift it fully in the

other direction, and then stitch the two photos together on a computer

(although with drum scans of two 4x5's you're talking maybe 300 megs

EACH file size, so you'd need at least a gig of RAM).

 

<p>

 

But (question #4) with a 137mm image circle, the Super Angulon 38XL

doesn't cover 4x5 and will just barely cover 6x12. So with that lens

you wouldn't be able to just shift the back over and take another

picture because you'd immediately encounter severe vignetting. To do

that shift procedure you'd need a longer lens with a much larger image

circle, presumably at least 200mm or so before you'd realize a

significant perspectival difference between your two photos.

 

<p>

 

.....

.....

....