enrico_pocopagni1

I never tried 110, and I heard only good things about it, but I have and use most of the time a 90. It's the best performer of my outfit, extra sharp, with good close up capabilities, very natural angle of view. I've compared with a Rolleiflex Planar 80 in same conditions (tripod, handheld metering, same speed, aperture, film): 90 is a little colder in color rendition, more flare resistant and way sharper.

I think that "Holga look" or "Hassy look" are meaningless because they are only "looks" (or empty eggshells) and not photographic cathegories.

I think that a picture should tell something, and the instrument that makes it has to be functional to the nature of this "story", wether it is a "foggy" story of deep emotions or a "crisp" story full of anectods.

 

Holga look for Holga look tells nothing, exactly like Hassy look for Hassy look.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0087jx

 

Greetings

I'm unsure, but I think not.

 

Maybe time exposure could work, depressing the small metal lever and sliding the slide switch on the left of the barrel to the "T" position. In this case the shutter will stay open until the cocking lever is advanced a bit.

 

To return in the normal operation mode the slide has to be manually driven in the original position depressing the small metal lever again.

 

Greetings.

Hello Cameron,

 

RZ lenses have electronic shutter timing control, actuated via several golden contacts matching with corresponding ones on RZ bodies. Thus they will work on RB bodies only with 1/400 mechanical time.

 

Greetings

Mamiya RZ Pro II gives you 1/2 stop both on speed and aperture.

 

Cheers.

I apologize for this illitterate's question, and maybe someone can indicate me a better place to post, but I used to know that diffraction only arises whenever light passes through a hole or slot wide as or close as wawelenght. Now, how can the even smallest diaphragm hole (several millimeters) trigger diffraction if wawelenght of light is only microns?

 

Thanks to all.

 

Enrico

Hi Andy,

 

I am not a pro like you. I think you can notice the softness even with naked eyes. But wether this softness is disturbing or not is related with your kind of photographic intentions.

 

I think that if the picture, with his composition, perspective, lighting etc, tells a story, the finesse of the detail plays an anecdotal role within this visual story, an extra effort of the teller to let the listener (or observer, in this case) feel all the reality he originally saw.

 

That's why I choose the sharper lens, even considering the older design 50 a good overall lens.

 

If you like, you can find some examples of old 50 and new 50 ULD in the following links.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=149557

 

http://www.mamiya.co.uk/newGallery/index.htm?Enrico_Pocopagni_Collection

 

And finally consider that new 50 ULD let you control (by hand, not automatically like my Nikkor 20mm AF CRC used to do when I shoot 35mm) the flatness of field with an adjustable floating extra low dispersion glass lens, with an even improved sharpness at close distance.

 

Greetings.

Hello Andy,

 

I bought on ebay a RZ 50 two years ago, and I was disappointed for what seemed to me an excessive softness, especially at far distance, even at samll aperture. So I sold it quit good and I did byte the bullett buying on ebay a 50 ULD. It's a whole different beast, stunningly sharp. I think that RB has same (or similar) optical design as RZ non ULD (actually it has no floating element).

 

Anyway everything depends upon what kind of photography is your favorite.

 

Greetings.

Hello Marc,

 

while moving around your subject with focus knob locked on a preset focus distance, please keep in mind the inherently shallow depth of field of medium format. Our lenses give relatively wide angles but behave like tele (more or less).

 

Greetings.

Hi Mart,

 

if you take a picture of a point, you expect to find a point on the film, but if your focus is less than perfect, you'll actually find a small circle with fuzzy edge. This is known as "circle of confusion".

 

Its size is related with aperture, thus depth of field is the distance from exact focus, determining the maximum allowable size of circle of confusion; it is usually a fraction of a millimeter.

 

Reciprocal of circle of confusion is the resolution factor of a lens.

 

Try this link for more info: http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/dof.htm.

 

Greetings.

Hello Anna,

 

I've heard very good things about Robert White, UK.

Anyway I agree with jason: with a bit of patience, buying on ebay you can save much money and get close to new cameras, lenses and accessories. I did this way with 0% difficulties, 100% success and maximum satisfaction.

 

Greetings.

RZ is a perfect choice for the quality of lenses and the variety of accessories for architectural photography, like 75 Shift or 75 SB and Tilt/Shift adapter. AE Finder has a quite precise lightmeter, but VERY heavy; maybe a lighter and effective choice could be a waiste level finder (very light) and a hand held meter.

 

Greetings

RZ is a perfect choice for the quality of lenses and the variety of accessories for architectural photography, like 75 Shift or 75 SB and Tilt/Shift adapter. AE Finder has a quite precise lightmeter, but VERY heavy; maybe a lighter and effective choice could be a waiste level finder (very light) and a hand held meter.

http://www.macuserforums.com/webx?14@41.d0JDasUAifP.15@.1dce01e1/0

 

I found this thread on Mamiya User Forum some time ago. I too sometimes ran 120 film in 220 back with no (visible) problem, but after I read this I had some fear overstressing 220 back and I didn't this way any longer. Maybe it is an excess of care but I'm not a professional, so frames number is not very important.

 

Greetings.

Hello Marck,

 

film path is wider on 120 back to accomodate the paper extra thickness. I've read somewhere that Mamiya discourages the employ of 120 film in 220 backs for the extra effort made by film advancing gear, and by the slightly wrong position of the film plane.

 

Greetings

Hello Nick,

 

220 film hasn't protective paper like 120 has, so it's thinner (film only) than 120 (film+paper). Thus it's discouraged using 120 film in a 220 back because increased thickness can damage film advancing gears, and the placement of film plane can be wrong.

 

Greetings.

Hello Ross,

 

try this link: http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html#nearfar.

 

Greetings.

Hello Nathan,

 

With RZ Pro II you will only get 1/2 shutter speed. IMO this is a minor issue because you can already easily benefit of 1/2 aperture stops with all Z-W lenses.

Yes, you can use metered prism II that will give old RZ Pro the ability to deal with 1/2 shutter speed too (this is exactly my gear).

 

Greetings.

Hello Tom,

 

this is the link where you can find this information:

http://www.macuserforums.com/webx?14@175.TVCGaNcLi3d.0@.ee7084a

 

Greetings.

Hello Felton,

 

RZ pro II has improved mechanics and half stop shutter speeds selectable with the body dial (RZ Pro can only benefit of half stop shutter speeds via the AE II metered finder).

 

RB Pro-SD is a fully mechanical camera but with same dimension (length, bellows extension, lens throat diameter) as RZ Pro and Pro II. Thus RB K/L lenses can be used with RZ bodies (shutter speeds on the lens) but not the contrary because RZ lenses and RB bodies haven't shutter control.

 

Regards.

Hi Luigi,

 

I've read your link to your previous post.

My opinion is that your need is better suited with a large format system. Perspective correction and DOF control are tricky with MF, heavy and very costly. Take a look at a 4X5 folding system: total control of DOF and perspective in a lighter gear.

 

Ciao da Genova

Hi Stephan,

 

the only limitation of the 180 K/L is 1 sec. longest shutter time. With 180 W-N you can benefit of 8 sec. electronic timig (always perfect). I'm unshure but I think you'll lose automatic exposure (if you use AE II finder) as well.

 

Greetings.

Hello Alec,

your question involve so many variables that a satisfactory response is virtually impossible (kind of photograph, studio/location, handheld/tripod, fixed/changeable lense ....).

However this my 2cent. Sorry, I haven't experience with Bronica, but I recently compared Mamiya RZ 90 f/3.5 against the celebrated Rolleiflex TLR Planar 80 f/2.8 in perfectly equal shooting conditions (tripod, same speed and aperture, same film, same subject). Color of Rollei is pleasingly warmer (de gustibus non disputandum est), sharpness and contrast of Mamiya are definitely higher. Maybe recent Rollei 6000 series SLR lenses are better than old Planar. If ultimate image quality is what you are searchin' for, take it into account.

Hope this helps.

Greetings.

My outfit is: RZ Pro, 90 f3.5, 50 ULD, 180 W-N, 360 f6 (bought in different times in this order). I shoot mainly landscape, and I've choosed the lenses evenly distribuited from wide to tele; each lens is roughly twice the lenght of its predecessor. IMHO the 50 ULD is far better (sharpness, contrast, correction) than old non-floating 50 I had in the past and sold to buy this.

 

Greetings.

Hello José,

this is the simplest way:

 

1- screw in the socket on the lens barrel a flex cable release

 

2- frame and focus your image

 

3- depress the BODY button to lift the mirror

 

4- wait a couple of seconds then fire the shutter with the flex cable release

 

Greetings.

 

Enrico Pocopagni