enrico_pocopagni1

Hello George,

old 180W is a different lens; it has a different optical scheme, different lens number, different lens barrel shape. I don't know the optical performance nor basic characteristics (e.g. minimum focusing distance) 'cause I own a 180W-N, a truely superb lens.

Talking about of a Mamiya lens I think it would be a very good lens. Maybe you could find some extra news on www.mamiya.com user forum.

Greetings

Hello Curt,

I too was disappointed by the standard focusing screen of the RZ. So I bought a Beattie Intenscreen with checkers and center split image (I do mostly landscape and architecture). Difference is stunning and is well worth the 200 bucks approx the screen costs. I made the test suggested by Beattie and found a +1/3EV more light, but for the eye the gain is even more evident.

Greetings

Hello David,

I read on a John Shaw book on 35mm landscape photography

that times mostly risky are 1/8 - 1/15th due to the body

resonance frequencies. these are inherent frequencies, i.e. no

sturdy tripod can stop them. I think that on a M.F. camera (I too

own a RZ67) with more size and mass, risky frequencies are

lower, say 1/2 - 1/4. To shurely work with no MLU it's safer to

choose long times multiple than lower risky time: with 2 sec.

shake affect only 25% of total exposure, or shorter in the same or

bigger ratio. Greetings. Enrico

Hello Dave,

For sake of truth, perspective only depends upon position of

camera v.s subject, in no way it depends upon focal length. So

cropping a 50 would give a 65, 90, 110 & so on, taken from the

same place. Only the degree of fine detail sharpness (connected

with magnification) would distinguish different focal length.

Obviously wideangles modify perspective, but only for they allow

to go closer to subject.

Greetings.

Hello, Dave,

It's not easy to answer such a question: apart from premium

(everyone wants premium lenses for his work), what kind of work

(portrait, wedding, landscape, architecture, repro), what range of

focal length, steady or handheld, need of tilt/shift and so on.

I can only share my experience: I own 50 ULD, 90, 180W-N, 360

non APO. I find all excellent lenses of the most demanding,

professional level, more or less over the whole aperture range,

but I think either there's no technically perfect lens and no work

can rely only on the technical performance of camera and lens.

Greetings.

Hello, Gary

in a Mamiya User Forum I recently read, Mamiya, referring to the

RZ backs, discourages this practice for the increased effort the

mechanics are exposed to 'cause the major thickness of the

film+paper.

Best regards.

Enrico Pocopagni

Hello, Sean

this is my drop in the sea:

1) - I switched to MF about 4 years ago 'cause for landscape and

cityscape photography (my favorite) I used my Nikon F4 much the

same way as MF: ALWAYS on tripod, ALWAYS small aperture,

near ALWAYS polarizer, ALWAYS mlu, ALWAYS slow film;

2) - I choosed RZ for several reasons: preferred rectangular

frame, revolving back, bellows focus, bigger negative, though

Hasselblad is much more diffused and easy to find 2nd hand in

Italy.

3) - for my personal kind of vision, handholdability in the field isn't

an issue, and I use the same backpack I used with my 35mm

gear, with little weight increase: I still (even more than before)

tend to plan my pictures, still frame and shot slowly;

4) - while architecture photography could often benefit of

movements of LF (and RZ have some specific accessories and

lenses), landscape photography is less dependent from tilt and

shift (yes, yes, I know Ansel Adams' photography!);

5) - the only real and visible change from my 35mm experience

is the quality of my pictures, in term of sharpness and especially

color, and the consistency of results.

Hope this helps.

Greetings.

Hello Patrick,

I have an AE finder FE701 (latest type with dials on top) for my

RZ; I took a look in the finder and I can distinctly see all the

numbers on the left. I don't know if the size of the focusing

screen and its frame are the same for RZ Pro and RZ Pro II; I

think so. Did you try to see through the glass of the prism finder

for some misalignment (maybe some screw could become

loose). Greetings.

Enrico Pocopagni

Hello Bruce,

Miles centered the question: the little dark area on top of the finder is due to the size of the mirror, smaller than frame (with a bigger mirror every shot could lead to an earthquake). The effect is more prominent with teles, and has no effect on film and, first of all, doesn't mean the rail is bent! I too read a thread on Mamiya user forum some time ago.

Greetings.

Ciao Roberto,

I have no experience with P67II though I've heard only good thing

about. I am a happy RZer, but I think that it's not the right system

for your special pourposes. The smallest aperture of 32 is

meaningless (and you'll trade more DOF with more diffraction),

shortest rectilinear lens is a 50, and handoldability is only

theoretical.

Hope this could help. Saluti. Enrico Pocopagni

The day that RZ AF will appear on the market, another myth will

break down. I promise I'll immediately sell mine and buy a 'Blad!

Hi all

Hello Richard,

furthermore and depending on the RB model, the length of RZ and RZII bodies differ from the length of RB bodies, preventing infinite focusing: if I remember correctly, RB body is longer than RZ one, acting as a built in and not removable close-up tube with RZ glasses. Anyway the best information source is Mamiya forum.

Greetings.

Hello Jeff,

I bought this lens used about one year ago.

First result were unsatisfying due to excessive vibration; now I'm more aquainted with this glass, and I'm obtaining result far beyond my expectations. Sharpness is fully satisfaying, as well as color rendition (see the "blue" steam machine or the moonrise where I used it wide open). I can't agree with the dog definition I sometimes heard about this lens. For some samples you can visit the 360 folder in my gallery here.

Greetings.

Hello David,

I have a 45° split image w/grid Beattie Intensscreen for my RZ, and though I had to sell some blood to buy it, it was worth the effort.

Image is much more contrasty and easy to focus, especially with 50 and 360 that I use extensively. I fine tuned the AE metering finder as stated in the leaflet of the screen: it need a +1/3EV to compensate true higher transparency.

Greetings. Enrico

Hi, Tom

I extensively use polarizers of both kind (sometimes I find strange that lenses are made or sold without :-) and I've never had a metering problem with linear polarizers, nor with my dismissed 35mm Nikon F4 (matrix meter), nor with my actual RZ with AEII prism finder (center weighted/spot or both). I shoot only slides, where exposure precision is critical. Sometimes problems can occur with AF sensor where light phase is involved. Light meters read only intensity of light, and it's not affected by polarizers of any kind (apart from a sometimes dramatical -2EV dropdown!)

Greeting. Enrico

Hi, Petr,

in my RZ 180 folder I posted some samples of Fuji slides (mostly Velvia and Provia) scanned @ 1.000 ppi vith a flatbed HP 7400c taken with the lens you specified. Sharpness, dynamic range, saturation are better than my former 35 slides were.

I have little or no experience with negatives, but I have two considerations to say:

1) due to the red layer base color, negative contrast is inherently lower than slide;

2) in case of positive scanning, image passes through a printing lens that reduces contrast and sharpness from near 0 to something more.

Greetings to all.

Hi, Tom.

I too was unsatisfied with the infinite sharpness of old 50. In addition, some recent shots showed a prominent barrel distortion. So, with a favourable circumstance on e-bay I switched to to 50 ULD.

Improvement is evident to the naked eye, and is not limited to the sharpness, but it involves saturation and straightness too. I'm very happy with the change. For some samples you can check my 50 folder.

Happy new year! Enrico Pocopagni

Ciao, Armando

I have no experience with Hasselblad system (a single roll I shoot several years ago doesn't matter). I am an enthusiast non professional Mamiya RZ user. I follow last message to say that Mamiya standard tele are great performers, far beyond my expectations when I decided, with some exitation, to buy a couple (180 W-N and 360).

Here are some samples: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=149561.

Greetings. Enrico Pocopagni

I'm seeking for a Mamiya online Club/Association (something like the

various Hasselblad - Zeiss - Rollei clubs spread all over the world),

but unfortunately with no result up to now.

Can anyone tell me if some such Mamiya club does exist.

And, if not, is time to found one still long to wait? Does Mamiya

(and especially RB/RZ line) misses something compared with other MF?

Thanks and greetings.

Enrico Pocopagni

Hi Cedric,

before every other consideration, I think a moderate wideangle and a super wideangle are not comparable in terms of perspective and of general useage. Exactly, optical performances have different meanings and tastes for the different lenses.

Talking about optical performances, old 50 wasn't that bad: optimal color rendition and sharness at mid distance. For my personal taste, and considering that a "lens character" rather than a true flaw, it was a bit soft at infinity, so I sold it and bought a used 50 ULD. It's still in trip from U.S. to Italy. I hope it arrives quick and it's as better as I heard about. Here you can see some samples of old 50 performances: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=149557. Greetings. Enrico Pocopagni

Hi, Ralf

kind of polarization is meaningless with a non-AF camera. Circular polarization is a little less effective in reflextions reduction, (maybe) a little more effective in color saturation (obviously in suitable situations) and MUCH more effective in wallet thickness reduction ;-) You can freely decide. Greetings from Italy.

Enrico Pocopagni.

Hi, Karl.

Before you decide, I suggest you to take a look at www.ebay.com, in the photo section, Mamiya subsection. I recently bought for my RZ pro from an American really good guy two items (a 50 f4.5 and an AE II metering prism finder) both like new, even better than described, perfectly clean and working, and for a price competitve with italian market. Transaction and shipment smooth as velvet.

I think Mamiya RZ is the right choice; I shoot close to 100% landscapes, cityscapes and travel pictures with good results. If you like I can send you some scanned exemples. Compare the number of trading items in e-bay's Mamiya and Bronica section, and specifically RZ v.s GS-1 items: you'll see by yourself.

Greetings from Italy. Enrico Pocopagni e.pocopagni@libero.it

Ciao, Massimo

I had same your problem for my RZ67, and I solved exactly the way David sugested you (for sake of truth it's the way indicated on the leaflet that comes with screen) with very minor changes: a 18% gray cardboard filling finder in place of wall, lens on infinite focus. I obtained 1/3 EV more light striking meter. Some test with Fuji Velvia confirmed the choice, but I think it's an irrelevant correction with more forgiving print films.

I bought my screen in Italy; you can find reseller address at www.intenscreen.com; by the way, I don't think it's an economical way: my screen costed close to 400.000 L.

Ciao. Enrico Pocopagni

Bob,

I currently use with stunning results a Mamiya linear polarizer, even on the 50 with no vignetting. Obviously brand isn't important, optical quality is.

In general terms, with a camera like ours, kind of polarization (linear vs. circular) is not an issue. Linear polarizers could be a problem under certain (quite uncommon) circumstancies with AF cameras.

Greetings.

Enrico Pocopagni

Thanks to all friends who contributed with useful suggestions.

I own a Mamiya RZ outfit with 50 (non ULD), 90, 180 and 360 and I was seeking for some more technical lenses evaluation to compare with my personal and very subjective feeling about all glasses; unfortunately only 180 has a MTF test.

Enrico Pocopagni