tim_klein1

Be careful if you're going through an airport that has one of those

bag size templates. It won't fit with the side pouch and you have to

make sure the harness system is well bound and stowed. If you leave

the harness loose, it won't fit.

Brian - You don't have to wait until you move to color to project your images. Agfa Scala is a wonderful B&W slide film (though, it requires mailorder processing).

Projected chromes are much brighter and more lifelike than a print. This effect is especially striking with Scala because we aren't used to seeing large scale black and white images that are so vivid. I frequently insert 6x7 Scala landscapes in between color images during presentations. When you see it, all you can say is "Wow"!

Kevin - Since my post was mainly intended to let Ross know that an

Ebony (a camera that his original message implied was an

extravagance) might actually be in his price range, I didn't want to

waste a lot of time detailing the poor performance and workmanship of

my older Zone VI camera.

<p>

Since you've asked though, let me go into a little more detail.

<p>

I thought it was pretty clear what I meant by loose, but for those

who were unsure, to me, looseness is the opposite of rigidty. At

longer extension, the bed was less tight and stable than it was

originally. The standards (while never exactly bombproof), got to the

point that they moved at the slightest touch. It didn't matter that

the knobs were tightened, things still wiggled and moved more than I

was willing to accept. Inserting film holders, pulling darkslides,

adjusting f-stops, and cocking shutters were all enough to

occasionally change focus. I tried different sized washers of

differing materials, and that didn't help. I cleaned metal to wood

and metal to metal contact surfaces, it still didn't help. I was

unsatisfied with the experience.

<p>

My results with the camera were sometimes disappointing, so yes, I

considered it "essentially worthless". When I went to sell it, I

found out that Zone VI had a fairly poor quality reputation (again,

older model) and I ended up taking far less for it than I would have

expected (entirely my fault, I now check resale value before

purchasing new equipment). The low resale coupled with the cost of

getting a new camera, made the Zone VI "essentially worthless" to me

financially as well.

<p>

Does that help or is that still "ludicrous over the top criticism"?

<p>

I know others have mentioned it here, but we should keep in mind that

all we are sharing here are our personal experiences. Mine was

negative and I know of others whose experiences were similar. Yours

was positive and you probably know others who have had positive

experiences. The fact that my experience was negative doesn't make

it "ludicrous", or "over the top". Two of the three reviewers you

mentioned on the linked review page mention the difficulty of folding

the camera. Why is their combined opinion "ludicrous" or "over the

top", while your single opinion about how it's a piece of cake for

anyone who isn't blindfolded, not?

Ross - Don't jump to conclusions about the cost of an Ebony! At

current exchange rates, Robert White lists the RW45 for only about

$150 more than the Zone VI. It doesn't have quite the movements of

the Zone VI, but they are ample enough for most landscape work. The

RW45 will focus a 500mm lens (of telephoto design), and it actually

weighs slightly less than the Zone VI.

<p>

I was also a user of the older Zone VI camera. It wasn't the most

rigid camera to begin with, and while it was fine for the first year

or so, everything just kind of loosened up over time until the thing

was essentially worthless. Until very recently, a friend of mine had

the ultralight. It was more rigid than I remember my Zone VI being,

but it was starting to loosen up a bit as well. He was concerned

enough about it that he sold it. This may be a problem with wood

fields in general, as I had the same thing happen with the first wood

field I purchased (a Wista, many, many years ago).

<p>

I came very close to purchasing an Ebony when I was last in the

market. I looked at two models; the RW45 and the 45S, which is non-

folding. They were by far the most rigid wood field cameras I've ever

handled (though I've certainly not handled them all), and were very

nicely designed. I ended up going with the Canham DLC (which I have

been extremely pleased with), but there is no doubt that I'd have

chosen the Ebony if I had ultimately decided to go with wood.

<p>

By the way, I took a look at your website. You've got some fantastic

images there! No matter which camera you ultimately purchase, I

suspect that you'll continue to prove your "artistry of a

photographer" statement for a long time to come.

Not to pick nits John, but you'll notice I said a "perceived" problem with accuracy <grin>. I think that very few people actually experience a problem, but the worry is obviously out there since nearly everyone who asks about the M7 on this list also asks about the focusing accuracy.

I don't really disagree with any of your comments except the one about it being "dramatically insufficient" for some. Every camera system is dramatically insufficient for somebody! Yes, Mamiya and Bronica could alter their systems to include different rangefinder systems, they could offer faster lenses, heck! they could put autofocus and motor drives on the things too if they really wanted. That might make it a better system for your needs. I bought into the system for its light weight, handling ease, and lens sharpness though. The added size, weight, and cost, of the proposed "features" would make the system worthless to me. They wouldn't have added to the customer base in that case, they'd have merely shifted it.

As for the lens speed question; A bigger, heavier lens definitely goes against the design philosophy of these systems (large image size with 35mm like handling ease. These are "carry around" cameras). Personally, I don't see much use for an extra stop on a camera like this. Since they are rangefinders, the extra stop makes absolutely no difference when focusing, and in low light, an extra stop of shutter speed is usually the least of my worries. The depth of field on these lenses is miniscule; a mere 2 1/2 inches when using the 80mm at minimum focus distance, jumping to a whopping 11 inches at 6ft and a little over 2 feet when focusing at 10ft. If I'm calculating correctly, an extra stop would drop those numbers to 1.9 inches, 6.2 inches, and 14.8 inches. Hey, I'm good, but I ain't THAT good! If I'm shooting landscapes, I've got a tripod. Again, the extra stop makes no difference.

Unlike 35mm, where through the lens focusing and action capturing shutter speeds cry out for fast lenses, I just can't imagine an extra stop making the difference in whether I get a shot or not with a medium format rangefinder.

Mani & John - You may be right that its primarily a financial consideration, but the costs to a company could be far more than just design and engineering.

I'm more familiar with Mamiya than Bronica so I'll use them for my example: Mamiya might be able to design a faster lens for the M7 at a relatively reasonable engineering cost, but what other concerns might they have? Their 150mm lens has the reputation of being one of the sharpest medium format lenses available, but it also has a reputation for being a bit difficult to focus. Adding a stop to the lens speed (and therefore, the associated reduction of depth of field), would only make this problem worse. What does that cost Mamiya? Increased customer service costs, reduction in customer product opinion, possible sales reductions for the lens, maybe even reduced sales for the whole M7 system due to customer perceptions. They already take an incredible amount of heat for a perceived problem with the accuracy of their rangefinder. How much worse would that get if they brought out a faster lens that made this perception even worse?

Mamiya claims it's a technical issue, which it is; the rangefinder system is only accurate enough to focus acceptably to within the depth of field at f4.5. You call it penny pinching by "bean counters" since designing a faster lens seems like it should be relatively cheap. Costs and technical considerations go hand in hand though, and the hidden costs could be anything BUT cheap in the long run.

The fact that Mamiya and Bronica BOTH decided to go with f4 as their widest aperture, lead me to believe there is more to the question than simply timid penny pinching.

Mike - Thanks for following up here. I appreciate the time you took to write up your impressions, and I hope my message didn't come off sounding too critical. These type of user reviews are what make photo.net such a great resource. I just wanted to make sure that nobody misinterpreted your statement about how you were more impressed with the camera than Michael Reichmann because, as a "people-and-passing-scene type of photographer", you shoot more verticals. I was afraid someone might think the "people" part of that statement included portraits. As you've rightly pointed out, this isn't necessarily the case.

Thanks again for your review. I'm sure many will find it useful!

Thanks for posting this John. I think the reviewer missed a key point about lenses for the RF645 though.

I'd been considering purchasing the Bronica as a compliment to my Mamiya 7. The vertical format seems like it would make this the perfect portrait camera. Unfortunately, like the Mamiya, the lenses focus no closer than 1 meter. The lens that most closely matches what would normally be considered a portrait lens (135mm; equivalent to 80mm on 35mm film), only focuses down to 1.8 meters (nearly 6 feet).

Mamiya has claimed for quite some time that designing a lens for the M7 that focuses any closer than this would require changes to the body that would make it substantially larger and heavier. I've never really understood why, but Bronica's lens selection seems to confirm this limitation. Can someone who knows a little bit about lens design explain why this is so?

There has been a lot of discussion about M7's being out of adjustment right after purchase. I suspect that it's due to rough handling during shipping and the "egg carton" type packaging material that is used to package the M7. FWIW, my M7, like Jeff's, was fine when I received it and has stayed in adjustment despite some fairly rough handling.

For those who have sent their M7's in to be repaired, the general opinion seems to be that once it has been adjusted, it stays in adjustment just fine.

As for the kit advertised on e-bay? Don't waste the money! I received an e-mail from someone who ordered one and they didn't feel the kit was worth the money. Mamiya has posted instructions for those who want to attempt this adjustment themselves (I probably wouldn't), along with the part number for the replacement cover that is usually destroyed on removel. With their instructions, you can do the adjustment yourself for around 5 bucks.

I'm a little confused by your comment about getting better pictures due to the "convenience". I'm a big fan of the M7II, but compared to point and shoot and zoom lenses, it can't be considered convenient.

Will it be worth every penny? Well, medium format is much superior to 35mm for landscape work in my opinion, even at print sizes of 8x10. My little Yashica TLR (picked up at a garage sale for about 50 bucks) easily surpasses most prime 35mm lenses and generally blows away zoom lenses though, and it's images are only slightly less impressive than those from my M7. I'd rate the difference between the Yashica and 35mm far greater than the difference between the Yashica and the M7. So, 50 bucks versus $2000.00? I can't really say it's worth every penny!

That doesn't mean I don't highly recommend the M7 though. It's a great camera (assuming you don't mind manual rangefinder focusing, manual film advance, a changing appararent metering area, and limited lens selection!). I use the M7 almost exclusively, with the exact lenses you mentioned, and couldn't be happier with the results. I'd love to see a lens in the lineup that focuses a little closer, but it doesn't sound like it's possible with the current M7II design. I don't consider it much of a problem though because the portraiture I do is generally environmental anyway, and the few head and shoulders shots I need are easily available through cropping of the huge 6x7 image area.

Aside from a point and shoot Ricoh, I don't shoot 35mm at all any more (unless it's in the Mamiya, in panoramic format). 6x7 is simply that much superior to 35mm in the work I do. If you have the money, you can't go wrong with the Mamiya (I do suggest you spend a day or two with one before laying out the cash though). If you're really concerned about "every penny", I'd still make the move to medium format but look around for a more reasonably priced way of doing it.

What is generally the accpetable tolerance for this type of

measurement? Also, does anyone know what tolerances the manufacturers

of film holders use?

<p>

It seems to me that these tolerances, coupled with the varying

thickness of different film bases could potentially add up to less

than sharp images. I'm just curious at what point the ultimate

difference could affect image quality.

I'm normally a big Lowe fan myself (I use them for every camera I own except my M7), but I wasn't happy with any of the Lowe bags for my Mamiya. The M7 body and a lens was just a little too snug a fit for easy access and the Lowe bags were too padded and bulky for a discreet street bag.

I finally chose a Domke F-3X. Its simple canvas design easily holds an M7 body and lens, plus two additional lenses in the main compartment. There are pockets on either end as well as one in the front that is covered by the top flap. Plenty of room for film, filters, and even a light meter or small flash unit. (There's also a "hidden" pocket in the top flap that I find pretty useless).

The nice thing about the Domke is that since it doesn't have all of the extra padding, it tends to wrap around your body a little bit and stays snug up against you. It's also less "high tech" looking than the Lowe and therefore quite a bit less conspicuous.

The downside is that it isn't nearly as protective as the Lowe bags from either a padding perspective or from a weather perspective. I was pretty concerned about the lack of padding when I first got the bag, but since it tends to hug your body, I find that I am far less likely to whack it against anything than I am with a bulkier Lowe. As for weather, the canvas sheds a light rain just fine, but a heavier rain would be dangerous to your M7's health! The Domke just isn't designed to take the dunking that a Lowe does. The main compartment is pretty well covered, but the flaps on the end pockets won't stop much weather at all. I always carry a plastic garbage bag (in the "hidden" pocket) and dump the hole bag in the plastic bag if it starts to rain. It's not a problem for me because there's absolutely no way I'm even going to THINK about using a camera as expensive as the M7 in a driving rain!

This point has been discussed quite a bit in various forums. Joe Englander discusses it briefly in <a href="http://www.englander-workshops.com/documents/depth.pdf">this pdf document</a>.

There's also a website that goes into this phenomenon quite a bit, but I can't seem to locate it right now. It's quite interesting, so I'll post it if I can track it down.

Just to add my 2 cents on a couple of the above comments:

For weight and handling the Mamiya is the way to go. If you must change film mid roll you have to go with the Hassy.

I don't agree with Ulrik's comments about the M7 being limited to negative film since I shoot chromes and project them through the projector that a Mamiya rebate gave me for FREE! Even when it's not free, a rebate is often available that substantially reduces the cost. I'm not sure which "reasonably priced" 6x6 projector he's referring to, but the models I'm familiar with are comparable to some of the 6x7 projectors.

Ulrik is correct about a limited lens selection for the Mamiya, so make sure the lens lineup matches your needs. If not, go with Hasselblad.

Caution on the new Bronica RF645. Its format is vertical! This is great for portrait photographers but, unless you shoot a lot of trees and waterfalls, it might not be the choice you want to make for landscapes.

Last, I want to second the comment about the M7 being a rangefinder. Unless you're used to using rangefinders, you may want to pick one up and try it out before committing to such a large purchase.

Have you been using your G1 in autofocus mode? Have you spent much time using manual focus?

I've owned both of the cameras you mentioned and, assuming you don't mind manual rangefinder focusing, I'd definitely point you towards the Mamiya 7. It is much better sized and handleable (is that a word?) for street photography than the Pentax. Couple a black version of this camera with the whisper quiet release of the leaf shutter, and you've got a true stealth camera (if there is any such thing in 6x7).

Some of the other suggestions are also good but, depending on where you shoot and your subject matter, you might get a lot more attention from these options. I took a Pentax 645 on vacation once and got way more questions and inquiries about the camera than I felt like dealing with. I get nearly as many comments about my "old fashioned" Yashica TLR. It seems that people are just used to seeing something that resembles the standard 35mm camera, and can ignore that far easier than anything that looks different. The M7 fits this 35mm form factor and seems to draw very little attention.

I also wouldn't try to tighten the head onto the tripod plate with the pan screw tightened. The locking ability of the pan knob isn't terribly strong (not that it really needs to be) and you might damage it or reduce it's holding capacity.

I grasp the B1 around the very bottom (the fixed portion of the panning mechanism) and hand tighten it onto the tripod plate. Even hand tightening in this fashion can make it difficult to remove the head from the plate since you've got a metal to metal connection.

At the same time, you want to make sure you check your head tightness before each use (tripod head, wiseguys!). I've had the head loosen following large temperature swings as the two metals expand and contract at different rates. It mostly occurs overnight when temperatures drop significantly (though, thinking about it now, I guess it could be gnomes or elves!).

Peter - Regarding your second comment about pan problems:

I had the same problem with my B1 when I first got it. No matter how tight, the head still panned. It doesn't sound like mine was as bad as yours, but it still panned too easily.

I removed the bottom plate from the head and found that some of the lubricant had slopped onto a place it didn't belong (sorry, it was long enough ago that I can't describe exactly what the inside looked like but when you remove the bottom piece, it's pretty clear where lubricant belongs and where it doesn't).

As soon as I cleaned this up, the holding power of the pan was much improved.

As for the operation of the B1? I love it! I hated ballheads until I discovered the elliptical design of the B1 and, IMO, it is a far superior design to conventional round balls. I've had no jamming problems, the elliptical design works exactly as advertised, and coupled with a Really Right Stuff plate, the head is rock solid bombproof.

I think it's a great film though it's kind of a specialized product.

You can make prints from it but I'm not really sure what benefit (if

any) you'd get from that over printing from B&W negatives. This tends

to leave Scala as a film that's used for B&W product shots, fashion,

etc. that is intended for publication.

<p>

I was mainly playing around with the film in 4x5, using it for

backlit displays. I've also used it a couple of times when I knew I

was going to use an image electronically. Scala scans very well.

<p>

In my opinion, it really excels in medium format. 6x7 shots with

Scala, projected on a screen, are absolutely stunning! As I mentioned

in an earlier post, I'm using it in 6x7 for images I make for

alternative process prints. It's nice to be able to judge the image

straight from the film on a lightbox then enlarge to an 8x10 negative

in a single step. I've only done cyanotype to this point, but I'm

hoping that my process can be made to work for Platinum printing as

well.

<p>

As for your other questions: I've only shot Scala at EI 200 and the

results are very nice. I haven't felt the need to adjust the rating.

Mailers are not available, to my knowledge, for 4x5. I simply put my

sheets in an empty film box and apply a label that includes any and

all information that I can possibly think of about the contents of

the box; film type, number of sheets, rated speed, name, address,

phone#, etc. It's probably overkill, since I'm sending the film to a

professional lab, but I use a half-sheet label (about 5 inches by 8

inches) that serves the dual purpose of covering as much of the film

box labeling as possible (since the film often gets shipped in

something other than a Scala box), and sealing the box from

accidental opening. I then wrap my check and the order form around

the box and secure with a rubber band. The box goes into a bubble

wrap mailing envelope. To this point, I've had no problem with this

method. I always use small film boxes (10 or 25 sheet) rather than

the larger 100 sheet boxes. I once received processed E6 by return

mail that was shipped in one of the larger boxes and it arrived

crushed enough that there would have been light leakage and hissy

fits if it had contained unprocessed film.

Main charged me a couple of bucks per sheet the last time I had it

processed; about the same as E6. I think shipping was 4 or 5 bucks.

<p>

I try to ship out at least 10 sheets at a time because of the

shipping.

There are many good suggestions above but I thought I'd add my 2

cents.

<p>

First, head to a local bookstore or hit an online source to pick up a

view camera book. At the beginners stage, there really aren't any BAD

large format books (Heck, there's hardly any available at all!),

though there are one or two that may be too in depth to start.

<p>

Next, in case you didn't get to this forum through the Large Format

homepage, you can find it here:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/

Sometimes we forget that people occasionally find this forum through

sources other than Q's excellent web site. There are several articles

that will help get you started.

<p>

If money isn't an issue, buy the best quality accessories you can

because they're worth it. Many who start large format are strapped

for cash after getting the camera though, so here are some

suggestions to get you started relatively inexpensively if you're in

that boat.

<p>

From your message, I see 3 key items you're missing:

<p>

1. A heavier duty tripod - Manfrotto 3011 is probably the lightest

I'd use and is pretty reasonably priced. If you're not strapped for

funds, you can spend all most as much as you want on a tripod.

2. A dark cloth - A t-shirt just ain't going to cut it! A local

fabric shop can get you started cheaply. Dark courduroy works pretty

well, but hold different materials up to the light in the store until

you find something that blocks out as much light as possible. The

best material I've found is a "microweave" suiting material. A yard

and a half will cost you between 5 and 15 bucks and is more than

enough. If you want to get fancy, buy two yards of the same material

in white and sew them back to back. You can then put the white side

out to help keep you cool in warm weather. Get a few feet of adhesive

backed velcro too. As you use the cloth you'll find that sticking it

together in a couple of places can be helpful. I'd stick it on where

needed in the field, then sew it on permanently when I get back home.

3. Loupe - I've used a cheap plastic 8x slide viewing loupe forever.

Most slide loupes have a clear base which works OK, but you can paint

over the clear plastic with an opaque paint to make viewing even

better. Use it on the GG to help make sure you're really in focus. It

helps if it has a cord on it so that you can handily wear it around

your neck. You should be able to get on of these for less than 20

bucks. Again, you can find loupes for several hundred dollars if

you've got the cash, but the cheap ones work fine and don't bring you

to tears when you drop it at the end of the day onto the rocks below

you. (Ask me how I know!)

<p>

I wouldn't bother with another lens or a spot meter yet. Those things

will just add more complexity at this point. What you want to do is

concentrate on the PROCESS of large format photography. You need to

get the hang of this process before you can really focus on the

results.

<p>

Having said that though, I WOULD suggest that you change over to a

slide film (Fuji Velvia or Provia would be a good start). The results

will be much more satisfying to view and, in my opinion, it will be

easier to judge how your mastery of the process is coming along. If

you make this switch, don't opaque the base of your loupe. It will

serve double duty as magnification for inspecting your film. Assuming

there's no problem with your equipment, adding the 3 items listed

above will help ensure that your images are as sharp as possible.

<p>

Good luck, and don't give up! Viewing your first successful large

format images is well worth the work you put into it.

I've had it processed at Duggal, which was mentioned before, and at

Main Photo Service. (Web address http://www.mainphoto.com/)

<p>

I didn't notice any difference in quality but Main was a little

quicker. That's probably just due to the fact that they're closer to

me.

<p>

Scala is a great film! I got the same feeling looking at my first 4x5

Scala as I did when I saw my first 4x5 chrome. It's very fine grained

for its speed and, though I haven't tried it myself, can be

pushed/pulled between 100 to 1600 with very nice results.

<p>

This film is quite handy for those making enlarged negatives for

alternative processes. I shoot 120 Scala at 6x7 then enlarge to 8x10

film for contact printing cyanotypes. I plan to try my hand at

Platinum printing using the same process.

I've had similar problems with the metal strip getting stuck and I

found that the flimsy metal used on the forward facing side of the

holder was often the culprit. If the holder was slightly mis-seated,

the metal would compress inwards a bit and catch the metal strip on

the film packet. (I doubt that this description makes any sense at

all, but I've been sitting her for 15 minutes trying to come up with

a better way of describing it!).

<p>

Simply put, check that the holder is seated properly and maybe remove

it and reseat it to be sure. I still have the occasional self-

destruction, but I don't get the packet after packet failure that I

used to get unless there is really a problem with the holder.

I second Scott's observations about duty charges being pretty funky.

<p>

My first order from RW was a Gitzo tripod that ran around $450.00. I

had told my wife to expect the package with a small amount due but

UPS just left it on my porch and forgot to charge for it. (of course

my wife was ever so helpful, and called them back to TELL them they

forgot to charge me!) The duty came to $31.00 for that order.

<p>

My next order was for a medium format Mamiya lens (~750.00) and a

Ricoh point and shoot camera (~$300.00). The duty on that one was

only $22.00 despite the total bill being more than twice as much.

<p>

Robert White's policy seems to be to give you a worst case estimate.

You shouldn't owe any more than they tell you to expect.

<p>

I've been very impressed. They've been great people to work with;

very fair and honest. I wouldn't hesitate to order from them again.

I haven't actually tried this myself, but I've been told that the

metal strip on the end of a polaroid packet is too large to extract

from a Fuji holder.

<p>

Apparently, you can get it into the holder and even expose the film

but you can't get the metal flange back out of the holder.

<p>

Kinda like a kid sticking his head between the fence posts, but his

ears leave him stuck when he tries to pull his head back out!