Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On Nov 22, 2005, at 12:28 PM, William Robb wrote: The trick is to not move. And to have exposure and focus set. It's quite doable, though it's not something I would expect to have much success with if I was using a normal lens or longer. I do this quite often with the 90mm and 45mm lenses. It does work but I prefer to compose with a little more space at the edge of the frame, just in case I do move the camera while the mirror is up. - Dave
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On Nov 22, 2005, at 3:20 PM, frank theriault wrote: I'm happy to answer further questions along these lines, and also to sing the praises of the truly spectacular 75mm f2.8 and generally enable those who need enablement, just CC your questions/responses to me since I'm not subscribed to the list. Tell him to shut up, and I hate him :) BTW I liked the photo. - Brother Dave
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 21/11/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: There's no precision in what you're showing us Cotty, and you're using a lens with a great DOF and wide angle of acceptance. Funny, I worked out a method of shooting in this way that took what I considered a certain amount of precision. It's not just firing the shutter willy-nilly, and with distinct finger movements on the shutter for each exposure, needs a certain amount of co-ordination. Not to mention trying to blend in with the crowd - a 1D is *not* exactly easily camouflaged in the street - but controlling bodily movements as if not carrying a camera can make it appear as if i am not carrying anything at all. Further, it seems that the reason you do this is for quiet operation, not with any idea of getting a sharp, well framed foto. Sure, it's for the quiet operation, primarily. I can get sharp pics this way - it's all to do with the moment of exposure and the position the camera is in relative to the movement of the arm. Well-framed? Entirely subjective. HTH? Not really ... Does it ever ? ;-) Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Cotty Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. FWIW, all the pics on this page were shot with the mirror of my digi locked up: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/photoessays/essays/hip.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Fwd: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
More from Brother Aaron (in response to Shel): -- Forwarded message -- From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Nov 21, 2005 11:20 PM Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement To: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh, now you've sucked me in. I looked at the site and I have to respond to Shel -- OK, I can see that as a ~possibility~ in situations where critical focusing isn't required and the subject is far enough away that you can take advantage of the hyperfocal distance or DOF, and the lens is stopped down substantially, depending on just how critical you'd want or need the shot to be. I agree that all bets are off with lenses past a certain focal length (depending on camera body/format). I'll give this one to you based on the number of qualifiers in the discussion, although I still can't see any reason for doing such a thing other than to say you did it. For example, your own tests a few years ago showed that MLU played a role in generating sharper pics, with a tpod mounted camera, only between certain shutter speeds, which were quite low - like 1/2 sec to 1/30 sec or something similar. If you're shooting at a faster shutter speed it would seem that the need for MLU is minimized or of no importance. Trying to hand hold many cameras (in this case we were talking about MF) at slower speeds introduces movement and degrades sharpness. So, what's to be gained by using MLU while hand holding a camera? Shel, my own use of it is always at 1/30 and close to wide open, when it makes a difference. My framing and focus do not change any more than they change when I depress the shutter button -- I am not taking my eye away from the camera or moving the camera, I am pressing one button followed by another in one smooth motion. You can see in that sample I linked to before that the plane of focus is razor thin -- while the subject's face and hands are sharp, nothing else is. I have been very successful with this technique and generally have no images that I reject due to shake that didn't involve me sneezing or losing my footing or something like that. I can see it being a problem if you're trying to shoot something that's moving, but then shooting it at 1/30 would be tough anyways. I don't see any use at all for MLU at 1/125 or above. Now to answer the obvious question: why am I not using a tripod for shots like these? 1) guerilla shooting -- run and gun and run. These shots (for a project I'm working on that's a short novel illustrated with photographs) are mostly in public places late at night. 2) I don't have a tripod of sufficient solidity (or a head to match) for Mr. 67. Using an underweight tripod actually leads to more sharpness issues because that giant shutter can ring hollow aluminum legs like bells, where my body can absorb most or all of that shutter-shock. Drove me nuts for a while that whenever I used a tripod my results were worse. -Aaron -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Fwd: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
I have since learned the 67 lends itself to this sort of technique. At some point the discussion about MedFormat in general became specific to the use of the 67, as it's the only MedFormat choice out there (coincidentally, it wasn't on the list of choices the original poster asked about). I don't know how many other med format cameras have MLU, but my suspicion is that they're not as easy to use as the 67. My recollection of either a 'blad or a Bronica was that using MLU was quite a bot more difficult. Anyway, I've learned something. Thanks. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Nov 21, 2005 11:20 PM Oh, now you've sucked me in. I looked at the site and I have to respond to Shel -- OK, I can see that as a ~possibility~ in situations where critical focusing isn't required and the subject is far enough away that you can take advantage of the hyperfocal distance or DOF, and the lens is stopped down substantially, depending on just how critical you'd want or need the shot to be. I agree that all bets are off with lenses past a certain focal length (depending on camera body/format). I'll give this one to you based on the number of qualifiers in the discussion, although I still can't see any reason for doing such a thing other than to say you did it. For example, your own tests a few years ago showed that MLU played a role in generating sharper pics, with a tpod mounted camera, only between certain shutter speeds, which were quite low - like 1/2 sec to 1/30 sec or something similar. If you're shooting at a faster shutter speed it would seem that the need for MLU is minimized or of no importance. Trying to hand hold many cameras (in this case we were talking about MF) at slower speeds introduces movement and degrades sharpness. So, what's to be gained by using MLU while hand holding a camera? Shel, my own use of it is always at 1/30 and close to wide open, when it makes a difference. My framing and focus do not change any more than they change when I depress the shutter button -- I am not taking my eye away from the camera or moving the camera, I am pressing one button followed by another in one smooth motion. You can see in that sample I linked to before that the plane of focus is razor thin -- while the subject's face and hands are sharp, nothing else is. I have been very successful with this technique and generally have no images that I reject due to shake that didn't involve me sneezing or losing my footing or something like that.
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Every medium format SLR I've owned (Mamiya RB67, 1000S; Bronica SQ; Hasselblad 500C/M) had mirror lock up. It is an essential feature on medium format SLRs. On the Hassy, it's a little lever that falls right under your thumb when you're holding the camera with a waist level finder, with your finger on the shutter release. click with the thumb, click with the forefinger a moment later. Godfrey On Nov 22, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I have since learned the 67 lends itself to this sort of technique. At some point the discussion about MedFormat in general became specific to the use of the 67, as it's the only MedFormat choice out there (coincidentally, it wasn't on the list of choices the original poster asked about). I don't know how many other med format cameras have MLU, but my suspicion is that they're not as easy to use as the 67. My recollection of either a 'blad or a Bronica was that using MLU was quite a bot more difficult.
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
There are a few that don't, notably the non-MLU version of the Kiev88. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Every medium format SLR I've owned (Mamiya RB67, 1000S; Bronica SQ; Hasselblad 500C/M) had mirror lock up. It is an essential feature on medium format SLRs. On the Hassy, it's a little lever that falls right under your thumb when you're holding the camera with a waist level finder, with your finger on the shutter release. click with the thumb, click with the forefinger a moment later. Godfrey On Nov 22, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I have since learned the 67 lends itself to this sort of technique. At some point the discussion about MedFormat in general became specific to the use of the 67, as it's the only MedFormat choice out there (coincidentally, it wasn't on the list of choices the original poster asked about). I don't know how many other med format cameras have MLU, but my suspicion is that they're not as easy to use as the 67. My recollection of either a 'blad or a Bronica was that using MLU was quite a bot more difficult.
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Reese) wrote: Shel asked: How would you use MLU without a tripod? It's actually pretty easy with the MZ-S. Heck, I've done it with the MZ-S... the same way Frank shot a whole roll at 1/2000 with his LX ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
I've shot the Super Program at several scenes with the self timer still engaged. Unlike its ME Super predecessor, it doesn't un-set it's self. Jack --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Reese) wrote: Shel asked: How would you use MLU without a tripod? It's actually pretty easy with the MZ-S. Heck, I've done it with the MZ-S... the same way Frank shot a whole roll at 1/2000 with his LX ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com __ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 11/22/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heck, I've done it with the MZ-S... the same way Frank shot a whole roll at 1/2000 with his LX ;-) Excuse me, it was 1/2 a roll. Okay, 20 frames. But not a ~whole~ roll... -frank LOL -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/22/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heck, I've done it with the MZ-S... the same way Frank shot a whole roll at 1/2000 with his LX ;-) Excuse me, it was 1/2 a roll. Okay, 20 frames. But not a ~whole~ roll... I actually got one of my favorite shots with the MZ-S with the 2-sec delay on (though it *was* tripod-mounted, in this case). I had the shot framed with the moon where I wanted it and was waiting for a flock of geese (possibly even Canada Geese!) to pass by. When they reached the moon I pressed the shutter button and heard the snick that told me that the mirror had locked up but the shutter hadn't fired. Two agonizing seconds later the shutter fired and I was convinced I'd missed the shot. I'm convinced that the result was better than if the shutter had fired when I intended - when the geese were right under the moon. Judge for yourself: http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/7d106008.htm -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 11/22/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've shot the Super Program at several scenes with the self timer still engaged. Unlike its ME Super predecessor, it doesn't un-set it's self. It beeps at you to let you know your mistake. :-) Luckily, if you quickly flip the little self-timer flag back in with your finger, it'll stop beeping, and you might still be able to get the shot. -Mat
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Mark, I'm buttin' in cause I commented about forgetting to un-set the shutter delay. I agree with you. The composition is doubtless better. Jack --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/22/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heck, I've done it with the MZ-S... the same way Frank shot a whole roll at 1/2000 with his LX ;-) Excuse me, it was 1/2 a roll. Okay, 20 frames. But not a ~whole~ roll... I actually got one of my favorite shots with the MZ-S with the 2-sec delay on (though it *was* tripod-mounted, in this case). I had the shot framed with the moon where I wanted it and was waiting for a flock of geese (possibly even Canada Geese!) to pass by. When they reached the moon I pressed the shutter button and heard the snick that told me that the mirror had locked up but the shutter hadn't fired. Two agonizing seconds later the shutter fired and I was convinced I'd missed the shot. I'm convinced that the result was better than if the shutter had fired when I intended - when the geese were right under the moon. Judge for yourself: http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/7d106008.htm -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com __ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Mat, if it beeps, (and if so, it makes sense) it is drowned out by the ringing in my ears. Jack --- Mat Maessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/22/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've shot the Super Program at several scenes with the self timer still engaged. Unlike its ME Super predecessor, it doesn't un-set it's self. It beeps at you to let you know your mistake. :-) Luckily, if you quickly flip the little self-timer flag back in with your finger, it'll stop beeping, and you might still be able to get the shot. -Mat __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! This one's a 75mm Xenar. O.M.G. ~ it just occurred to me, I'm just watching it! Maybe I'd better commit! ;-) Okay, I did it... Talk to y'all tomorrow! Keith, for a splittest briefest moment I thought you were going to let me have it... *sigh* Boris I promise, Boris, you can have the NEXT one. I have this one! (See my comments to Godfrey...) keith
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
I promise, Boris, you can have the NEXT one. I have this one! (See my comments to Godfrey...) I doubt it I will be after RolleiFlex... Fuji rangefinders are very attractive proposition. I need to do two things: 1. Get to meet one such camera in person. 2. Somehow get to know how reliable they are... -- Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:35 PM, keith_w wrote: I just located a _superb_ f/3.5 Rollei TLR, a 3.5E, and I hope it's still available the next time I check. I found that the f/2.8s are NOT available for much less than the national debt! I'd have to sell 3 or 4 cameras to get one, and I don't know which ones I'd sell. For 1/2 stop difference, maybe it's not worth it, if the rest of the camera is mint... The 3.5E has either a Schneider Xenitar or a Zeiss Planar lens. These are actually better performers in their f/3.5 incarnation than the f/ 2.8 models, particularly wide open. My best Rolleiflex was a very late F3.5 Whiteface with Zeiss Planar 75mm f/3.5. Superb camera, worth every penny. I read about that in your 1999 post to the Rollei list! Godfrey Turns out I was looking at a Rollei Magic, not a 3.5 E! The E was less money but even so... Sports an f/3.5 75mm S-K Xenar, which is reportedly identical to the Tessar version of the same aperture. Practically new in box, it's near mint. For a 40+ year old camera, nice. To have the box it came in and manual, etc. even better! So now we wait... and that's the hardest part! ;-) keith
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
I can only agree with Mishka: P645 has very good mirror dampening. I don't have a single unsharp frame so far, because of slow shutter speed. Only because of missed focus or DOF... It holds VERY good. Meter is accurate, so shoot with slides and expect correct exposures. And it is built solid, with good ergonomics. Better get 55mm lens or even 45mm. Wide angle is fantastic with SMC coating and manual focus. Gasha Mishka wrote: Boris, You can hardly go wrong with P645 (although I wouldn't buy a FA75mm -- the manual focus ones are much cheaper). The *big* plus of P645 is that you can easily mount many 3rd party lenses made for pentacon6/kiev mount, inluding some very inexpensive Zeiss gems (and very expensive Zeiss gems from Hasselblad as well) The MLU is not really required with it since it has very good mirror dampening. It's *very* handholdable and the built-in meter helps a lot. If you want a lighter option, go for a clean late model Rolleicord. At f/5.6 on, it easily outresolves 50lpmm on slide film. And it is very light. And inexpensive. I have no experience with 645 fujies, but their 690W is fantastic. But *very* bulky. Best, mishka On 11/18/05, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I think it would be prudent to open a new thread... What I was thinking of is a camera with standard lens, preferably fixed lens. I have eyed some Fuji models. I want something that is reasonably light, with good quality and reasonable versatility... I think I can live with Pentax 645 and 75/2.8 lens... But I think I'd want a MLU so that I won't have to haul a tripod with me *all the time* if I go shooting MF... Well, in fact, except that wonderful day in Norway, I am completely clueless about MF... I have a friend who is deeply in love with his RolleiFlex, but I may be not good enough with mechanics to try and repeat his path... For now, on KEH, they show Pentax 645 (basic, manual focus) body for order of $300 and FA 75/2.8 lens (supposedly I'd go AF some day) $250 more... There are some RolleiFlexes for similar sum. They also list some Fuji GA645 with 60/4 lens for similar money. As for what Frank suggested... I've seen some shots made with YashicaMat... They did not impress me really. The lens was probably very simple triplet variety. It was sharp but I am not after bleeding sharpness... Well, I am confused all right. Any help in unconfusing this individual will be appreciated. Boris P.S. I lean towards Fuji cameras because I know they'll be much lighter than Pentax. Also, evidently, having fixed lens means it is leaf shutter and so it does not suffer from shake too much...
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
How would you use MLU without a tripod? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax Boris wrote: I think I can live with Pentax 645 and 75/2.8 lens... But I think I'd want a MLU so that I won't have to haul a tripod with me *all the time* if I go shooting MF...
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 11/21/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would you use MLU without a tripod? Aaron Reynolds claimed to be able to do it - did it all the time (so he said). But he was the Senior Brother of the Brotherhood... LOL Aaron? Can you respond? g -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Why is a better question... Shel Belinkoff wrote: How would you use MLU without a tripod? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax Boris wrote: I think I can live with Pentax 645 and 75/2.8 lens... But I think I'd want a MLU so that I won't have to haul a tripod with me *all the time* if I go shooting MF... -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement How would you use MLU without a tripod? On the 6x7, I crop a little loose, and just before I want to take the picture, I lock the mirror. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff How would you use MLU without a tripod? On the 6x7, I crop a little loose, and just before I want to take the picture, I lock the mirror. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? The trick is to not move. And to have exposure and focus set. It's quite doable, though it's not something I would expect to have much success with if I was using a normal lens or longer. Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 21/11/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. FWIW, all the pics on this page were shot with the mirror of my digi locked up: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/photoessays/essays/hip.html First press on the shutter release locks the mirror up (on approach to subject), the second press and hold of the release fires the shutter (at the subject), then removing the finger from the release button allows the mirror to return to rest position (departing from the subject). This is the quietest way I can do it HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Exposure set, stopped down a ways and hyperfocal. This shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mawz/29589141/ was shot from the hip with a Canonet. Same basic idea as shooting with MLU, but even less framing accuracy (but great for stealth street shooting, the Canonet's quieter than a Leica). It's actually a 40% crop from 35mm, to make the frame vertical from a mostly horizontal shot. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff How would you use MLU without a tripod? On the 6x7, I crop a little loose, and just before I want to take the picture, I lock the mirror. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
OK, I can see that as a ~possibility~ in situations where critical focusing isn't required and the subject is far enough away that you can take advantage of the hyperfocal distance or DOF, and the lens is stopped down substantially, depending on just how critical you'd want or need the shot to be. I agree that all bets are off with lenses past a certain focal length (depending on camera body/format). I'll give this one to you based on the number of qualifiers in the discussion, although I still can't see any reason for doing such a thing other than to say you did it. For example, your own tests a few years ago showed that MLU played a role in generating sharper pics, with a tpod mounted camera, only between certain shutter speeds, which were quite low - like 1/2 sec to 1/30 sec or something similar. If you're shooting at a faster shutter speed it would seem that the need for MLU is minimized or of no importance. Trying to hand hold many cameras (in this case we were talking about MF) at slower speeds introduces movement and degrades sharpness. So, what's to be gained by using MLU while hand holding a camera? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 11/21/2005 3:29:35 PM Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? The trick is to not move. And to have exposure and focus set. It's quite doable, though it's not something I would expect to have much success with if I was using a normal lens or longer. Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Most MF SLR's have far worse mirror slap than even a cheap 35mm. So you'd likely see far more benefit from MLU. Especially since they're more difficult to hand-hold in the first place. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: OK, I can see that as a ~possibility~ in situations where critical focusing isn't required and the subject is far enough away that you can take advantage of the hyperfocal distance or DOF, and the lens is stopped down substantially, depending on just how critical you'd want or need the shot to be. I agree that all bets are off with lenses past a certain focal length (depending on camera body/format). I'll give this one to you based on the number of qualifiers in the discussion, although I still can't see any reason for doing such a thing other than to say you did it. For example, your own tests a few years ago showed that MLU played a role in generating sharper pics, with a tpod mounted camera, only between certain shutter speeds, which were quite low - like 1/2 sec to 1/30 sec or something similar. If you're shooting at a faster shutter speed it would seem that the need for MLU is minimized or of no importance. Trying to hand hold many cameras (in this case we were talking about MF) at slower speeds introduces movement and degrades sharpness. So, what's to be gained by using MLU while hand holding a camera? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 11/21/2005 3:29:35 PM Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? The trick is to not move. And to have exposure and focus set. It's quite doable, though it's not something I would expect to have much success with if I was using a normal lens or longer. Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
It simulates digital shutter lag. :-) Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:11:06 -0800 OK, I can see that as a ~possibility~ in situations where critical focusing isn't required and the subject is far enough away that you can take advantage of the hyperfocal distance or DOF, and the lens is stopped down substantially, depending on just how critical you'd want or need the shot to be. I agree that all bets are off with lenses past a certain focal length (depending on camera body/format). I'll give this one to you based on the number of qualifiers in the discussion, although I still can't see any reason for doing such a thing other than to say you did it. For example, your own tests a few years ago showed that MLU played a role in generating sharper pics, with a tpod mounted camera, only between certain shutter speeds, which were quite low - like 1/2 sec to 1/30 sec or something similar. If you're shooting at a faster shutter speed it would seem that the need for MLU is minimized or of no importance. Trying to hand hold many cameras (in this case we were talking about MF) at slower speeds introduces movement and degrades sharpness. So, what's to be gained by using MLU while hand holding a camera? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 11/21/2005 3:29:35 PM Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? The trick is to not move. And to have exposure and focus set. It's quite doable, though it's not something I would expect to have much success with if I was using a normal lens or longer. Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
are you looking for 645 or 6x9 fuji rf? i mishka On 11/21/05, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I promise, Boris, you can have the NEXT one. I have this one! (See my comments to Godfrey...) I doubt it I will be after RolleiFlex... Fuji rangefinders are very attractive proposition. I need to do two things: 1. Get to meet one such camera in person. 2. Somehow get to know how reliable they are... -- Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
This is a different kettle of fish. My comments dealt with accurate focus and framing. The type of shooting you're presenting here lends itself to neither. I've done a lot of this type of photography myself, and being close wrt to focus and framing is fine - being OOF, showing motion blur, and framing wide enough to get the pic can often enhance the final image. If accurate focus and framing are not needed or desired, then one may even shoot with eyes closed. There's no precision in what you're showing us Cotty, and you're using a lens with a great DOF and wide angle of acceptance. Further, it seems that the reason you do this is for quiet operation, not with any idea of getting a sharp, well framed foto. HTH? Not really ... Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Cotty Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. FWIW, all the pics on this page were shot with the mirror of my digi locked up: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/photoessays/essays/hip.html First press on the shutter release locks the mirror up (on approach to subject), the second press and hold of the release fires the shutter (at the subject), then removing the finger from the release button allows the mirror to return to rest position (departing from the subject). This is the quietest way I can do it HTH
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
LOL It's not quite the same as shooting MF with MLU and trying to maintain proper framing and focusing accuracy. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Adam Maas Exposure set, stopped down a ways and hyperfocal. This shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mawz/29589141/ was shot from the hip with a Canonet. Same basic idea as shooting with MLU, but even less framing accuracy (but great for stealth street shooting, the Canonet's quieter than a Leica). It's actually a 40% crop from 35mm, to make the frame vertical from a mostly horizontal shot. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff How would you use MLU without a tripod? On the 6x7, I crop a little loose, and just before I want to take the picture, I lock the mirror. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
this is a blank statement that doesn't mean much. what excatly MF 35mm SLR are you comparing? i am also curious about your reasoning (since i doubt you did an extensive first-hand research): the mass of mirror scales as (frame side)^2 -- as film area the mass of camera scales as (frame side)^3 so, one could argue that for MF mirror slap is *less* important, considering the equivalent lens FOV. best, mishka On 11/21/05, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most MF SLR's have far worse mirror slap than even a cheap 35mm. So you'd likely see far more benefit from MLU. Especially since they're more difficult to hand-hold in the first place. -Adam
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Few MF SLR's weigh much more than a Nikon F5 or EOS 1v. However the mirrors on a MF SLR are substantially heavier. And they scale at a higher rate than (frame side)^2 for mechanical reasons, the mirror must be thicker to withstand the extra stress and it must move faster at the equivalent shutter speed because it has further to go (Barring an unusual arrangement like the Bronica D with it's fold/slide mirror) I own a 35mm with truly bad mirror slap, my Ricoh KR-5sv (heavy mirror, poor damping, very light plastic body). I've not seen worse in any of the 20+ other SLR's I've shot with in my day. Yet it's slap is milder than a Hasselblad 500CM, whihc isn't noted for bad mirror slap. And it's not a blanket statement, you'll note I said 'Most MF SLR's' not All MF SLR's. I would expect that you can find a MF SLR, likely a 645 format with less mirror slap than certain 35mm jobs, and I'm aware that certain mirror arrangements, like the Bronica D's and the Leica R's cam operated mirror reduce mirror slap significantly at the cost of mechanical complexity. -Adam Mishka wrote: this is a blank statement that doesn't mean much. what excatly MF 35mm SLR are you comparing? i am also curious about your reasoning (since i doubt you did an extensive first-hand research): the mass of mirror scales as (frame side)^2 -- as film area the mass of camera scales as (frame side)^3 so, one could argue that for MF mirror slap is *less* important, considering the equivalent lens FOV. best, mishka On 11/21/05, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most MF SLR's have far worse mirror slap than even a cheap 35mm. So you'd likely see far more benefit from MLU. Especially since they're more difficult to hand-hold in the first place. -Adam
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
It's fairly common practice, when shooting with a Hasselblad 500C/M or similar, to press the button that flips up the mirror, closes the front shutter and opens the rear shutter to minimize vibration at low shutter speeds. Even hand held. As long as you're steady, it works remarkably well. Godfrey
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
very true. also, hassy (and p645 for that matter) mirror is loud and seem to shake the camera, but *on its way down*. however what really matters is how well it is dampened on its way *up* -- and there the answer is very well indeed. best, mishka On 11/21/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's fairly common practice, when shooting with a Hasselblad 500C/M or similar, to press the button that flips up the mirror, closes the front shutter and opens the rear shutter to minimize vibration at low shutter speeds. Even hand held. As long as you're steady, it works remarkably well. Godfrey
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hand held Medium Format shots (6x7, scans from 8x10 prints). http://www.graywolfphoto.com/renfair.html Both the flower girl and I moved just as I hit the shutter, someone deliberately interrupted us, but the sign on the cart is still reasonably sharp. You should be able to hand hold MF at a much lower shutter speed than 35mm or digital because you do not need to blow the negative up as much (an 8x10is only a 3.5x blow up), and because the camera is much heavier (mass reduces vibrations). Wish I still had that camera. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Adam Maas wrote: Most MF SLR's have far worse mirror slap than even a cheap 35mm. So you'd likely see far more benefit from MLU. Especially since they're more difficult to hand-hold in the first place. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: OK, I can see that as a ~possibility~ in situations where critical focusing isn't required and the subject is far enough away that you can take advantage of the hyperfocal distance or DOF, and the lens is stopped down substantially, depending on just how critical you'd want or need the shot to be. I agree that all bets are off with lenses past a certain focal length (depending on camera body/format). I'll give this one to you based on the number of qualifiers in the discussion, although I still can't see any reason for doing such a thing other than to say you did it. For example, your own tests a few years ago showed that MLU played a role in generating sharper pics, with a tpod mounted camera, only between certain shutter speeds, which were quite low - like 1/2 sec to 1/30 sec or something similar. If you're shooting at a faster shutter speed it would seem that the need for MLU is minimized or of no importance. Trying to hand hold many cameras (in this case we were talking about MF) at slower speeds introduces movement and degrades sharpness. So, what's to be gained by using MLU while hand holding a camera? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 11/21/2005 3:29:35 PM Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? The trick is to not move. And to have exposure and focus set. It's quite doable, though it's not something I would expect to have much success with if I was using a normal lens or longer. Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
I sometimes use MLU without a tripod on the 6x7. (Or at least I used to. Haven't used the 6x7 in quite a while.) I remember Aaron said that he used MLU frequently for hand held shots. On Nov 21, 2005, at 6:07 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement How would you use MLU without a tripod? On the 6x7, I crop a little loose, and just before I want to take the picture, I lock the mirror. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Shel asked: How would you use MLU without a tripod? It's actually pretty easy with the MZ-S. This is the procedure I use: Set camera on tripod. Set shutter mode to 2 second delay mirror prefire take the picture remove camera from tripod forgetting to reset shutter to normal mode frame another picture press shutter button curse, stare into black viewfinder and try to hold camera steady until camera stops beeping and shutter fires
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
i don't see any great skill in doing that and getting reasonably sharp images. what i am skeptical about is getting consistent compositions. Herb - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Cc: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:55 PM Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement Aaron Reynolds claimed to be able to do it - did it all the time (so he said). But he was the Senior Brother of the Brotherhood... LOL Aaron? Can you respond? g
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
MLU can be enabled on the 6x7 without moving the camera. It's focus first, then a quick push up of the MLU switch followed by shutter release. Paul On Nov 21, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff How would you use MLU without a tripod? On the 6x7, I crop a little loose, and just before I want to take the picture, I lock the mirror. William Robb
Fwd: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Here's Aaron's take on handheld MLU with a 6x7: -- Forwarded message -- From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Nov 21, 2005 9:07 PM Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement To: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: pentax-discuss@pdml.net On Nov 21, 2005, at 4:55 PM, frank theriault wrote: On 11/21/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would you use MLU without a tripod? Aaron Reynolds claimed to be able to do it - did it all the time (so he said). But he was the Senior Brother of the Brotherhood... LOL Aaron? Can you respond? g But of course! Obviously I'm not hand-holding and using MLU for really long shutter speeds, but I found that it was quite helpful to use MLU when shooting at 1/30 hand-held. Here's what I do: Frame the shot in the viewfinder. Breathe in. Flip the MLU switch with my middle finger on my right hand. Gently squeeze the shutter button with my trigger finger. Those two are together, sort of a gentle up-down motion. Breathe out. There are always doubters out there (in fact, I still encounter people who tell me that they read on the internet that you can't hand-hold a Pentax 67 and wonder why I'm so stupid as to be shooting with one hand-held), so here's an image for you. It's about 90% of the frame, Ilford Delta 3200 developed in Agfa Studional. Pentax 67, SMCP 75mm f2.8 AL. Hand-held, 1/30 f4, available light, using the mirror lockup technique described above. Scanned at 4000 dpi on a Polaroid Sprintscan 120. Link leads to a smaller version of the image. Click on that to see it at full size and judge sharpness for yourself. http://aaronreynolds.ca/gallery/MLU-demo/bench_giant I'm happy to answer further questions along these lines, and also to sing the praises of the truly spectacular 75mm f2.8 and generally enable those who need enablement, just CC your questions/responses to me since I'm not subscribed to the list. -Aaron p.s. Frank, I'm cc'ing this to the list, but it may bounce because I'm not subscribed -- can you forward it on for me if it does? Thanks. -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
While there's not a lot to be gained with handheld MLU, it eliminates mirror slap vibration which can be a factor. As I mentioned in a previous post, Aaron did it quite frequently with the 6x7. I recall one people pic he showed here that was shot at 1/30 with a 75mm lens. I think it was nearly wide open. I know I've used it with the 105mm lens at f5.6. Paul Paul On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:11 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: OK, I can see that as a ~possibility~ in situations where critical focusing isn't required and the subject is far enough away that you can take advantage of the hyperfocal distance or DOF, and the lens is stopped down substantially, depending on just how critical you'd want or need the shot to be. I agree that all bets are off with lenses past a certain focal length (depending on camera body/format). I'll give this one to you based on the number of qualifiers in the discussion, although I still can't see any reason for doing such a thing other than to say you did it. For example, your own tests a few years ago showed that MLU played a role in generating sharper pics, with a tpod mounted camera, only between certain shutter speeds, which were quite low - like 1/2 sec to 1/30 sec or something similar. If you're shooting at a faster shutter speed it would seem that the need for MLU is minimized or of no importance. Trying to hand hold many cameras (in this case we were talking about MF) at slower speeds introduces movement and degrades sharpness. So, what's to be gained by using MLU while hand holding a camera? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 11/21/2005 3:29:35 PM Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement And how does that effect to focus, my good may - after all, the camera position has moved and with the mirror up you can't see to adjust focus. Am I missing something? The trick is to not move. And to have exposure and focus set. It's quite doable, though it's not something I would expect to have much success with if I was using a normal lens or longer. Lots of people shoot from the hip, where they have preset focus and exposure, and depend on their feel for the situation to know what the camera is pointing at. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hi! are you looking for 645 or 6x9 fuji rf? i I am looking either for 645 or 6x6 camera... I am not looking for 6X9... Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hi! How would you use MLU without a tripod? Like this: http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/230042 Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement Hi! How would you use MLU without a tripod? Like this: http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/230042 Nice shot, Boris. As is this: http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/216097/index.en.html http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/215716/index.en.html I agree about the wider angle, had you put a film camera into use, you would have been wide enough, most likely. I suspect now you would do an image stitch though. http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/214695/index.en.html http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/214295/index.en.html http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/201548/index.en.html Did you get a shot of the cats looking at the camera? http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/199955/index.en.html Im not normally one for religious trappings, but this is a nice picture: http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/195613/index.en.html I'll keep looking through your gallery there. Some of it I've seen before, some is new to me. You've got some cool photos up there. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hi! What does *a* mean? Once upon a time I made rather unpleasant blunder by writing quite few while it should've been quite a few... Cropping to a square isn't always the same as composing to fit the square format, Boris. Well, of course... You're right... But given a rectangle one can only crop to fit the square... Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Mishka wrote: one more thing to keep inmy about 'flexes: unless it's a fairly recent model, factor in a replacement g.g screen -- something like maxwell (which is what i have on my 'cord and which is wonderfull). a very clean (~ KEH EX..EX+) 'flex can be had under $500 on ebay (like my 3.5F which I bought a year ago or so). also, keep an eye on ritzcam.com best, mishka I just located a _superb_ f/3.5 Rollei TLR, a 3.5E, and I hope it's still available the next time I check. I found that the f/2.8s are NOT available for much less than the national debt! I'd have to sell 3 or 4 cameras to get one, and I don't know which ones I'd sell. For 1/2 stop difference, maybe it's not worth it, if the rest of the camera is mint... keith whaley
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:35 PM, keith_w wrote: I just located a _superb_ f/3.5 Rollei TLR, a 3.5E, and I hope it's still available the next time I check. I found that the f/2.8s are NOT available for much less than the national debt! I'd have to sell 3 or 4 cameras to get one, and I don't know which ones I'd sell. For 1/2 stop difference, maybe it's not worth it, if the rest of the camera is mint... The 3.5E has either a Schneider Xenitar or a Zeiss Planar lens. These are actually better performers in their f/3.5 incarnation than the f/ 2.8 models, particularly wide open. My best Rolleiflex was a very late F3.5 Whiteface with Zeiss Planar 75mm f/3.5. Superb camera, worth every penny. Godfrey
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Nov 20, 2005, at 4:35 PM, keith_w wrote: I just located a _superb_ f/3.5 Rollei TLR, a 3.5E, and I hope it's still available the next time I check. I found that the f/2.8s are NOT available for much less than the national debt! I'd have to sell 3 or 4 cameras to get one, and I don't know which ones I'd sell. For 1/2 stop difference, maybe it's not worth it, if the rest of the camera is mint... The 3.5E has either a Schneider Xenitar or a Zeiss Planar lens. These are actually better performers in their f/3.5 incarnation than the f/ 2.8 models, particularly wide open. This one's a 75mm Xenar. O.M.G. ~ it just occurred to me, I'm just watching it! Maybe I'd better commit! ;-) My best Rolleiflex was a very late F3.5 Whiteface with Zeiss Planar 75mm f/3.5. Superb camera, worth every penny. Godfrey Okay, I did it... Talk to y'all tomorrow! keith
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hi! This one's a 75mm Xenar. O.M.G. ~ it just occurred to me, I'm just watching it! Maybe I'd better commit! ;-) Okay, I did it... Talk to y'all tomorrow! Keith, for a splittest briefest moment I thought you were going to let me have it... *sigh* Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hi! All were very good cameras and turned extremely good photos. The Fuji GA645 has a very good lens, super crisp, but I always prefer the rendering with the Zeiss lensed cameras. The Hassy SWC's Biogon is just a phenomenally wonderful lens. I guess RolleiFlex is still the best... A friend of mine has one... Wonderful piece of gear... The question is where to find it cheap, or better yet in such a condition that no CLA would be necessary. I am leaning towards Fujis because they are modern and were discontinued only recently. Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hi! The fixed lens range-finder style cameras generally offer very good performance relative to cost, the P645 whilst a wonderful camera is IMO too much like the kit that you already have without a really substantial advantage. The RF style cameras optics are generally better than SLR optics, there is less need to compromise also as you mentioned the leaf style shutters do not shock the camera like a mirror/FP shutter (though the P645 is very good in this regard). If I'm shooting at normal daylight shutter speeds with my Mamiya 7 I can't detect a difference between images (at 40X magnification) shot on and off tripod. Bottom line is that really I wouldn't suggest that you bother with MF unless you are considering 6x6 format or larger and modern optics that is unless you aren't chasing improved image quality over what you already shoot. I am chasing improved image quality of course... Otherwise why bother... So, if I understand you correctly Fuji 645 that I mentioned is a reasonable way to proceed, right? Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On Nov 19, 2005, at 9:19 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: All were very good cameras and turned extremely good photos. The Fuji GA645 has a very good lens, super crisp, but I always prefer the rendering with the Zeiss lensed cameras. The Hassy SWC's Biogon is just a phenomenally wonderful lens. I guess RolleiFlex is still the best... A friend of mine has one... Wonderful piece of gear... The question is where to find it cheap, or better yet in such a condition that no CLA would be necessary. I am leaning towards Fujis because they are modern and were discontinued only recently. The problem with the Fujis, in my experience, is that parts and service are difficult to obtain. One buddy in North Carolina has been trying to get his Fuji 6x9 repaired for several months, Fuji says they have no parts for it anymore. There seems to be no lack of parts and service for old Rolleiflexes and they're beautifully made ... built to last. Buy one that isn't beaten to death with a good, clear lens, have it cleaned and adjusted, and it should last another 40 years if you can get film for it that long. Godfrey
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! All were very good cameras and turned extremely good photos. The Fuji GA645 has a very good lens, super crisp, but I always prefer the rendering with the Zeiss lensed cameras. The Hassy SWC's Biogon is just a phenomenally wonderful lens. I guess RolleiFlex is still the best... A friend of mine has one... Wonderful piece of gear... The question is where to find it cheap, or better yet in such a condition that no CLA would be necessary. I don't know what you call cheap but I have twice purchased Rolleiflexes from KEH for a price I considered reasonable. You might visit www.keh.com and see if they have any at a price that would interest you. ERNR
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
HEllo Boris ... Please think about this. The Fuji 645 shoots in portrait orientation, i.e., vertical. If you want a horizontal or landscape photo, you'd have to turn the camera vertically. I've never cared much for the 645 format, much preferring 6x6, and probably 6x7. Also, I understand that parts and service are hard to come by for some Fujis. Not so for a Rolleiflex 40 and 50 yo 'flexes are still going strong, still serviceable. Get a good one - even if you have to save up for it, spend a few dollars for a good CLA, and you'll have a camera good for many, many years of troublefree service and great photographs. To see some nice Rolleiflex work, go here: http://www.edkrebs.com/ Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Boris Liberman I guess RolleiFlex is still the best... A friend of mine has one... Wonderful piece of gear... The question is where to find it cheap, or better yet in such a condition that no CLA would be necessary. I am leaning towards Fujis because they are modern and were discontinued only recently. Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
If image quality is what you want, why not go for a 6x9 camera. a 6x9 tanny is very nice on the light table. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! The fixed lens range-finder style cameras generally offer very good performance relative to cost, the P645 whilst a wonderful camera is IMO too much like the kit that you already have without a really substantial advantage. The RF style cameras optics are generally better than SLR optics, there is less need to compromise also as you mentioned the leaf style shutters do not shock the camera like a mirror/FP shutter (though the P645 is very good in this regard). If I'm shooting at normal daylight shutter speeds with my Mamiya 7 I can't detect a difference between images (at 40X magnification) shot on and off tripod. Bottom line is that really I wouldn't suggest that you bother with MF unless you are considering 6x6 format or larger and modern optics that is unless you aren't chasing improved image quality over what you already shoot. I am chasing improved image quality of course... Otherwise why bother... So, if I understand you correctly Fuji 645 that I mentioned is a reasonable way to proceed, right? Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Another thing about Rolleis is one with slight cleaning marks goes for about 1/2 what one with a pristine lens. That puts a Xenotar (my preference) or a Planar lensed Rolleiflex in the same price range as a Tessar lensed one without the marks. Believe me, if there is any difference in photo quality, then a pristine lens is fabulous beyond belief because the 2.8 E2 Xenotar Rolleiflex with marks I used to have produced supurb trannys. One thing to be aware of is having a Rolleiflex worked on by a really competent person is very expensive (they are mechanically complicated cameras), but it is worth it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: HEllo Boris ... Please think about this. The Fuji 645 shoots in portrait orientation, i.e., vertical. If you want a horizontal or landscape photo, you'd have to turn the camera vertically. I've never cared much for the 645 format, much preferring 6x6, and probably 6x7. Also, I understand that parts and service are hard to come by for some Fujis. Not so for a Rolleiflex 40 and 50 yo 'flexes are still going strong, still serviceable. Get a good one - even if you have to save up for it, spend a few dollars for a good CLA, and you'll have a camera good for many, many years of troublefree service and great photographs. To see some nice Rolleiflex work, go here: http://www.edkrebs.com/ Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Boris Liberman I guess RolleiFlex is still the best... A friend of mine has one... Wonderful piece of gear... The question is where to find it cheap, or better yet in such a condition that no CLA would be necessary. I am leaning towards Fujis because they are modern and were discontinued only recently. Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
I also tend to prefer 6x6, but 645 is much more economical on film and fits most paper sizings with less waste ... I always feel bad when I cut down a 13x19 sheet to 13x13 for full frame presentation, or have to work to make 20x20 inch prints. Funny thing is that I find that I shoot about 80% vertically oriented photographs, so the orientation of the GA645 worked much better for me than the Mamiya 1000S. Godfrey On Nov 19, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Please think about this. The Fuji 645 shoots in portrait orientation, i.e., vertical. If you want a horizontal or landscape photo, you'd have to turn the camera vertically. I've never cared much for the 645 format, much preferring 6x6, and probably 6x7.
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
E.R.N. Reed wrote: Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! All were very good cameras and turned extremely good photos. The Fuji GA645 has a very good lens, super crisp, but I always prefer the rendering with the Zeiss lensed cameras. The Hassy SWC's Biogon is just a phenomenally wonderful lens. I guess RolleiFlex is still the best... A friend of mine has one... Wonderful piece of gear... The question is where to find it cheap, or better yet in such a condition that no CLA would be necessary. I don't know what you call cheap but I have twice purchased Rolleiflexes from KEH for a price I considered reasonable. You might visit www.keh.com and see if they have any at a price that would interest you. ERNR Oh dear me! I wish you hadn't reminded me! I've been half-heartedly* looking for a Rollieflex 2.8E or F for some time now. The online prices have remained quite high for all that time. Oh well...dream on! Maybe I'll just sort of sneak in and glance at the Rollies... ;-) keith whaley (*) only because of the high prices!
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Shel Belinkoff wrote: HEllo Boris ... ...for a Rolleiflex 40 and 50 yo 'flexes are still going strong, still serviceable. Get a good one - even if you have to save up for it, spend a few dollars for a good CLA, and you'll have a camera good for many, many years of troublefree service and great photographs. To see some nice Rolleiflex work, go here: http://www.edkrebs.com/ Shel Mighty fine stuff ol' Ed did! keith whaley
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
While aware of it, I've never let economy of film or paper influence my choice of format. Perhaps I should have given such things more consideration shrug. However, I see 645 and 6x6 (and that includes 6x7 as the two are so close in my mind) as different formats. As for paper, if I were to make a 16x16 on a 16x20 sheet, trimming 4 off the long end isn't really a waste. The piece can be used for test strips or for calibrating focus. Of course, what works in a wet darkroom might not work so well with an ink jet system. Of course the vertical/horizontal orientation is a personal choice. Boris seems to be doing a lot of landscapes these days, so it seemed appropriate to mention it. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi I also tend to prefer 6x6, but 645 is much more economical on film and fits most paper sizings with less waste ... I always feel bad when I cut down a 13x19 sheet to 13x13 for full frame presentation, or have to work to make 20x20 inch prints. Funny thing is that I find that I shoot about 80% vertically oriented photographs, so the orientation of the GA645 worked much better for me than the Mamiya 1000S.
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement However, I see 645 and 6x6 (and that includes 6x7 as the two are so close in my mind) as different formats. Interesting take on the subject. 6x7 is sort of a Texas 645 format. 6x6 is definitely a horse of a different colour. None of the really good 6x6 photographers that I know make rectangular prints. I think Pentax 6x7 equipment can be had reasonable these days, BTW. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
6x6 often requires a different way of seeing the subject. It's been said that filling a 6x6 frame with a good image is more difficult than with rectangular frames. What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb None of the really good 6x6 photographers that I know make rectangular prints. I think Pentax 6x7 equipment can be had reasonable these days, BTW.
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
6x6 often requires a different way of seeing the subject. It's been said that filling a 6x6 frame with a good image is more difficult than with rectangular frames. What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? I dont have a metric tape,but i just measured a slide and it 2 3/4 by 2 1/4 between jiggles.:-) Dave Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Is the slide mounted? If so, doesn't the mount eat into the frame somewhat? What do you mean by between jiggles? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? I dont have a metric tape,but i just measured a slide and it 2 3/4 by 2 1/4 between jiggles.:-)
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
No. Sorry i should have said from a slide photo, unmounted. Jiggles means my light table at the time was my window and its cold today.:-) Dave Is the slide mounted? If so, doesn't the mount eat into the frame somewhat? What do you mean by between jiggles? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? I dont have a metric tape,but i just measured a slide and it 2 3/4 by 2 1/4 between jiggles.:-)
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 19 Nov 2005 at 19:22, Boris Liberman wrote: I am chasing improved image quality of course... Otherwise why bother... I had to ask, you may just have been trying to fulfil an MF fantasy :-) So, if I understand you correctly Fuji 645 that I mentioned is a reasonable way to proceed, right? As I mentioned personally I wouldn't bother with MF unless I was shooting 6x6 or larger (hence the fact that I sold my 645 kit and only retained 67 gear), but that's just me. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 19 Nov 2005 at 14:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 6x6 often requires a different way of seeing the subject. It's been said that filling a 6x6 frame with a good image is more difficult than with rectangular frames. What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? The official frame dimensions for the P67 are 55mm X 70mm and the official Mamiya 7II spec is 56 x 69.5mm so I guess in absolute terms it depends on the camera model. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
one more thing to keep inmy about 'flexes: unless it's a fairly recent model, factor in a replacement g.g screen -- something like maxwell (which is what i have on my 'cord and which is wonderfull). a very clean (~ KEH EX..EX+) 'flex can be had under $500 on ebay (like my 3.5F which I bought a year ago or so). also, keep an eye on ritzcam.com best, mishka On 11/19/05, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! All were very good cameras and turned extremely good photos. The Fuji GA645 has a very good lens, super crisp, but I always prefer the rendering with the Zeiss lensed cameras. The Hassy SWC's Biogon is just a phenomenally wonderful lens. I guess RolleiFlex is still the best... A friend of mine has one... Wonderful piece of gear... The question is where to find it cheap, or better yet in such a condition that no CLA would be necessary. I don't know what you call cheap but I have twice purchased Rolleiflexes from KEH for a price I considered reasonable. You might visit www.keh.com and see if they have any at a price that would interest you. ERNR
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? 55mm x 70mm. William Robb
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
The Pentax 6x7 makes perfect full frame 11 x 14s, so 55 x 70 sounds right. Paul On Nov 19, 2005, at 8:27 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 19 Nov 2005 at 14:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 6x6 often requires a different way of seeing the subject. It's been said that filling a 6x6 frame with a good image is more difficult than with rectangular frames. What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? The official frame dimensions for the P67 are 55mm X 70mm and the official Mamiya 7II spec is 56 x 69.5mm so I guess in absolute terms it depends on the camera model. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hi! 6x6 often requires a different way of seeing the subject. It's been said that filling a 6x6 frame with a good image is more difficult than with rectangular frames. I really *love* 6x6. I have small Voigtlander folder and also you may have noticed quite *a* ;-) few of my digital photos were cropped to a square... I really do like the square format. What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? No clue. Let the hunt begin?! Boris
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
What does *a* mean? Cropping to a square isn't always the same as composing to fit the square format, Boris. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Boris Liberman I really *love* 6x6. I have small Voigtlander folder and also you may have noticed quite *a* ;-) few of my digital photos were cropped to a square... I really do like the square format.
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On Nov 20, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: 6x6 often requires a different way of seeing the subject. It's been said that filling a 6x6 frame with a good image is more difficult than with rectangular frames. What are the actual dimensions of the Pentax 6x7 frame? It may vary slightly depending on the model. I just measured the frame of my old MLU 6x7: 55 x 70mm. I have to set my scanner to 6x9 to get the whole frame in because the film holder overlaps slightly when set to 6x7. IIRC the RB67 I used to own shot 68x56mm. Or 68x24mm with my homebrew 35mm adaptor (aka the $2.00 xpan). - Dave
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On Nov 20, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is the slide mounted? If so, doesn't the mount eat into the frame somewhat? I am not sure if labs will mount medium format, but the mounts are available. The ones I use are 85 x 85mm with a 67 x 55mm cutout. They work a bit like glassless Gepe mounts but they're not quite as good. I only mount my slides for protection and convenient handling. There is also plenty of space to write on the mount. 6x7 projectors are pretty expensive so that's still a dream... - Dave
Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Hi! I think it would be prudent to open a new thread... What I was thinking of is a camera with standard lens, preferably fixed lens. I have eyed some Fuji models. I want something that is reasonably light, with good quality and reasonable versatility... I think I can live with Pentax 645 and 75/2.8 lens... But I think I'd want a MLU so that I won't have to haul a tripod with me *all the time* if I go shooting MF... Well, in fact, except that wonderful day in Norway, I am completely clueless about MF... I have a friend who is deeply in love with his RolleiFlex, but I may be not good enough with mechanics to try and repeat his path... For now, on KEH, they show Pentax 645 (basic, manual focus) body for order of $300 and FA 75/2.8 lens (supposedly I'd go AF some day) $250 more... There are some RolleiFlexes for similar sum. They also list some Fuji GA645 with 60/4 lens for similar money. As for what Frank suggested... I've seen some shots made with YashicaMat... They did not impress me really. The lens was probably very simple triplet variety. It was sharp but I am not after bleeding sharpness... Well, I am confused all right. Any help in unconfusing this individual will be appreciated. Boris P.S. I lean towards Fuji cameras because I know they'll be much lighter than Pentax. Also, evidently, having fixed lens means it is leaf shutter and so it does not suffer from shake too much...
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On Nov 18, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: What I was thinking of is a camera with standard lens, preferably fixed lens. I have eyed some Fuji models. I want something that is reasonably light, with good quality and reasonable versatility... ... As for what Frank suggested... I've seen some shots made with YashicaMat... They did not impress me really. The lens was probably very simple triplet variety. It was sharp but I am not after bleeding sharpness... ... Over the years of shooting film, I've switched back and forth between 35mm and medium format several times. The YashicaMat 124G was a decent camera ... I seem to recall that the earlier ones had a 4-element Tessar type lens, where the last series had been cost-reduced with a relatively poor Triotar type design. Mine was 1981 vintage and was certainly sharp enough when stopped down appropriately (f/11-f/16 is pretty normal for this kind of camera). That said, the 1954 Rolleiflex MX-EVS I replaced it with in 1982 had a FAR better Zeiss Tessar f/3.5 lens and took photos that were greatly superior. I had the Mamiya 1000S 645 SLR around that same time, and later had both a pair of Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas (A and B variety) as well as a Fuji GA645. My last Rolleiflexes were a very late model 3.5F and a '51 Tessar f/3.5 MX. My last medium format cameras were a pair of Hasselblads, a '92 500C/M with Planar 80/2.8 and a '93 903SWC (Biogon 38mm f/4.5). I sold that last one, my favorite of them all, at the end of 2004 just before I bought the Pentax DS. All were very good cameras and turned extremely good photos. The Fuji GA645 has a very good lens, super crisp, but I always prefer the rendering with the Zeiss lensed cameras. The Hassy SWC's Biogon is just a phenomenally wonderful lens. That said, I'd have to say the greatest number of my favorite photographs in medium format were made with the Rolleiflexes. Something about them just works right. They're amazingly versatile despite being a fixed lens camera with an only modest speed, simple lens. From portraits to scenics, they just keep on returning the goods... http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW2/20.htm And they're rugged, can take an enormous beating. And reasonably priced. I think I paid $120 for the '51 MX (bought it about 1996) from a local store, then had it cleaned and a custom (Maxwell focusing screen) fitted for another $180. Superb camera. A friend in Tokyo bought it from me in 2002 and is still using it today. Godfrey
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 11/18/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The YashicaMat 124G was a decent camera ... I seem to recall that the earlier ones had a 4-element Tessar type lens, where the last series had been cost-reduced with a relatively poor Triotar type design. Mine was 1981 vintage and was certainly sharp enough when stopped down appropriately (f/11-f/16 is pretty normal for this kind of camera). That said, the 1954 Rolleiflex MX-EVS I replaced it with in 1982 had a FAR better Zeiss Tessar f/3.5 lens and took photos that were greatly superior. If the camera has Yashica Mat in the name, as opposed to just Yashica, it has a 4-element tessar-style (Yashinon) lens. This includes the Yashica Mat, Yashica Mat LM, Yashica Mat EM, Yashica Mat 12, Yashica Mat 24, and Yashica Mat 124/124g. The 124g was the last of the series, and one of the most common. Also probably the most expensive. But you get a meter that actually works and is decently accurate. A 124 is a 124g without gold-plated meter contacts. Same camera. Both have a slightly faster viewing lens (f2.8 versus f3.2) than the earlier camera. All of the Yashica Mats are excellent cameras for what they are (fixed lens TLR's), and are a great value for the price. I paid $50 for my Yashica Mat EM, and have taken some beautiful pictures, both color and BW, on it. Next up in expense level is something like a Kiev/Arax 60C, but that's actually a full SLR, and a horse of a different color (language?). -Mat
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
I highly recommend the Fujifilm GW670ii. It is light, robust, reliable and produces stunning images. It is a completely manual rangefinder and has no light meter. It is also known as the Texas Leica, which refers to both its size and quality. I'm confident that the other models in this family are equally excellent, and I was planning to buy a GSW690 (ii or iii), but decided that I wanted movements and so bought a 4x5 instead. I still use the GW670ii a lot. Good luck.
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
Boris, You can hardly go wrong with P645 (although I wouldn't buy a FA75mm -- the manual focus ones are much cheaper). The *big* plus of P645 is that you can easily mount many 3rd party lenses made for pentacon6/kiev mount, inluding some very inexpensive Zeiss gems (and very expensive Zeiss gems from Hasselblad as well) The MLU is not really required with it since it has very good mirror dampening. It's *very* handholdable and the built-in meter helps a lot. If you want a lighter option, go for a clean late model Rolleicord. At f/5.6 on, it easily outresolves 50lpmm on slide film. And it is very light. And inexpensive. I have no experience with 645 fujies, but their 690W is fantastic. But *very* bulky. Best, mishka On 11/18/05, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! I think it would be prudent to open a new thread... What I was thinking of is a camera with standard lens, preferably fixed lens. I have eyed some Fuji models. I want something that is reasonably light, with good quality and reasonable versatility... I think I can live with Pentax 645 and 75/2.8 lens... But I think I'd want a MLU so that I won't have to haul a tripod with me *all the time* if I go shooting MF... Well, in fact, except that wonderful day in Norway, I am completely clueless about MF... I have a friend who is deeply in love with his RolleiFlex, but I may be not good enough with mechanics to try and repeat his path... For now, on KEH, they show Pentax 645 (basic, manual focus) body for order of $300 and FA 75/2.8 lens (supposedly I'd go AF some day) $250 more... There are some RolleiFlexes for similar sum. They also list some Fuji GA645 with 60/4 lens for similar money. As for what Frank suggested... I've seen some shots made with YashicaMat... They did not impress me really. The lens was probably very simple triplet variety. It was sharp but I am not after bleeding sharpness... Well, I am confused all right. Any help in unconfusing this individual will be appreciated. Boris P.S. I lean towards Fuji cameras because I know they'll be much lighter than Pentax. Also, evidently, having fixed lens means it is leaf shutter and so it does not suffer from shake too much...
Re: Possibility of Medium Format enablement
On 18 Nov 2005 at 21:15, Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! I think it would be prudent to open a new thread... What I was thinking of is a camera with standard lens, preferably fixed lens. I have eyed some Fuji models. I want something that is reasonably light, with good quality and reasonable versatility... I think I can live with Pentax 645 and 75/2.8 lens... But I think I'd want a MLU so that I won't have to haul a tripod with me *all the time* if I go shooting MF... Hi Boris, The fixed lens range-finder style cameras generally offer very good performance relative to cost, the P645 whilst a wonderful camera is IMO too much like the kit that you already have without a really substantial advantage. The RF style cameras optics are generally better than SLR optics, there is less need to compromise also as you mentioned the leaf style shutters do not shock the camera like a mirror/FP shutter (though the P645 is very good in this regard). If I'm shooting at normal daylight shutter speeds with my Mamiya 7 I can't detect a difference between images (at 40X magnification) shot on and off tripod. Bottom line is that really I wouldn't suggest that you bother with MF unless you are considering 6x6 format or larger and modern optics that is unless you aren't chasing improved image quality over what you already shoot. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
