 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / October 2006Mamiya 645 Super - Should I?
Hi, I'm an an amateur photographer who's been using 35mm slr's and dSLR's for a few years, and I'm getting more and more curious about MF. I've heard all the arguments, and I've read a lot of good info here on this newsgroup. The thing that's sticking in my head is that MF is supposed to beat the pants off anything smaller for sharpness, and you can depend on decent enlargements. I enjoy my (consumer-grade) dSLR, but it's a bit of a crapshoot whether the sharpening or pixellation will become obvious before the pic is blown up to the sizes I want. I've come across a Mamiya 645 Super kit in "bargain condition", meaning it works fine but it's well worn; the price is under $350 for the body, 80mm f/2.8 lens, 120 back, power winder grip (not the II) and an AE Prism finder. Sounds like a reasonable way to dabble in MF, compared to what I've seen for some of the other 645 systems. The cheaper (than Pentax and Broncia) lenses are appealing also; I can pick up a couple of used zooms (the 55-110 and 105-210) in excellent condition for under $600, or cover my bases with (bargain-condition) primes (35-55-110-150-210) for around $1000 if I decide to continue. But, what do I know....:-) Any thoughts? Am I going to be disappointed in the sharpness of the Mamiya lenses? And is a well-used Mamiya going to let me down? Thanks for any info.... > Hi, I'm an an amateur photographer who's been using 35mm slr's and > dSLR's for a few years, and I'm getting more and more curious about MF. > I've heard all the arguments, and I've read a lot of good info here on > this newsgroup. The thing that's sticking in my head is that MF is > supposed to beat the pants off anything smaller for sharpness, and you Actually, the better 35mm lenses are sharper than the better MF lenses, but since the film is larger in MF the overall result is neg/slide that can be enlarged to a larger size that a 35mm frame. > can depend on decent enlargements. I enjoy my (consumer-grade) dSLR, > but it's a bit of a crapshoot whether the sharpening or pixellation [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Mamiya lenses? And is a well-used Mamiya going to let me down? Thanks > for any info.... The Mamiya lenses are generally every bit as good as most other MF lenses in sharpness. I've heard differing opinions regarding relaibility, but I emphasize: "opinions" v. fact. I came close to a Mamiya 645 system a couple years ago, used, very good condition, but what turned me off is that the specific lenses offered did not have leaf shutters (some Mamiya lenses do, others don't) and I wanted the fast leaf shutters for studio work. Eventually I went for a 500 C/M. I don't think you would regret buying the Mamiya. I do regret not buying a Mamiya RB67 a couple years ago which I could have had, post CLA for CAD$900 with a 180 f/4.5 lens and back. And I could have gotten an extension tube as well for a moderate price from the same fellow. To "dabble" in this I would reccomend not buying the zooms but sticking to fixed focal lenght lenses. Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Hi, I'm an an amateur photographer who's been using 35mm slr's and >> dSLR's for a few years, and I'm getting more and more curious about MF. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Actually, the better 35mm lenses are sharper than the better MF lenses, That's not what people are finding when they put their MF lenses on the 5D. Also, I ran tests (ugly Tokyo back street with lots of detail*) on my Mamiya 645 lenses (35, 55, 110) and simply couldn't see any of the feared degradation that's common on 35mm lenses away from the sweet spot. Staring at the slides with a 60x microscope, I could sort of persuade myself that the wide open and f/22 images were a tad softer. Maybe. The Canon 20/2.8 simply isn't useful for landscapes until f/11. *: See my Tech Pan scans at: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ > but since the film is larger in MF the overall result is neg/slide that > can be enlarged to a larger size that a 35mm frame. That one you've got right. > The Mamiya lenses are generally every bit as good as most other MF lenses > in sharpness. I've heard differing opinions regarding relaibility, but I > emphasize: "opinions" v. fact. The Mamiya lenses are far better made than current 35mm lenses. > I came close to a Mamiya 645 system a couple years ago, used, very good > condition, but what turned me off is that the specific lenses offered did > not have leaf shutters (some Mamiya lenses do, others don't) and I wanted > the fast leaf shutters for studio work. Eventually I went for a 500 C/M. The lack of a leaf shutter is an advantage. You get faster and/or wider; 35/3.5 vs. 40/4.0, 45/2.8 vs. 50/4.0, 55/2.8 vs. 60/3.5, 80/1.9 vs. 80/2.8. And don't pay for a shutter every time. Sure, you never shoot wide open, but viewing and focusing is that much easier. > I don't think you would regret buying the Mamiya. I do regret not buying > a Mamiya RB67 a couple years ago which I could have had, post CLA for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > To "dabble" in this I would reccomend not buying the zooms but sticking to > fixed focal lenght lenses. Seconded. The zooms are quite heavy, apparently. Pentax has a 33-<something-or-other> zoom that's makes it the widest 645 lens. The down side is that you'll want a Nikon 9000. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan SNIP > > Actually, the better 35mm lenses are sharper than the better MF lenses, > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Thanks for the well-considered replies, Alan and David. I think I'll go for it, as soon as I can liberate funds by selling some lenses. I still haven't had a chance to actually inspect the camera or find out it's history, so it's still in the early stages of the deal. I'm happy to hear that the Mamiya 645 lenses are sharp, that's the whole point of this idea. As for the leaf shutter, I understand this allows for flash sync at higher than usual shutter speeds, but I really never missed that feature in my 35mm days. My dSLR can sync up to 1/4000s (apparently), but I've not used it. I'm planning on using medium format for landscapes, mostly; maybe a few portraits but then I'll be in control of the lighting. Good info on the weight of the zooms, I need to get out and handle the system directly to get a feel for the size of it. I'm hoping for something that'll be not too heavy to hand-hold in good light occasionally. I'd prefer primes, I could probably skip telephotos altogether and just get a decent 35 and 110 to complement the 80mm. I've thought about scanning/digitizing, and I think I've decided against it for now. I'm hoping that the local pro developer will make me contact sheets, I can then pick anything decent for enlarging the old-fashioned way. I'm also hoping that there will be little need for "photoshopping" images; if I must I can always have one or two images scanned. I'm doing this on a tight budget, I have to be very frugal. As for the film-vs-digital debate, well, I won't comment. I'm HOPING that the film camera will be sharper and with better resolution, at least more than 8 MP is presently giving me. Recently, grruffbowwow@yahoo.com <grruffbowwow@yahoo.com> posted: (much snipped) > Good info on the weight of the zooms, I need to get out and handle the > system directly to get a feel for the size of it. I'm hoping for > something that'll be not too heavy to hand-hold in good light > occasionally. I'd prefer primes, I could probably skip telephotos > altogether and just get a decent 35 and 110 to complement the 80mm. I think you'll find that the 35mm is *very* wide, but that the 110 is not all that much longer than the 80mm. So, if your shooting style tends toward the wider angle, this would be a good set. However, you might want something longer for portraits. If you are used to medium to long telephotos with your 35mm cameras (180mm and up), you won't see anything like those in MF without bulk and considerable expense. > As for the film-vs-digital debate, well, I won't comment. I'm HOPING > that the film camera will be sharper and with better resolution, at > least more than 8 MP is presently giving me. People can argue this point 24/7/365. For me, it's a simple matter that the resulting images just look different, and if you prefer the look of film & traditional prints then there is nothing wrong with staying with it. Since you're coming from a 35mm background, you will definitely see a difference in the quality of prints, even at much smaller than maximum-sized enlargements. Enjoy! Neil [SNIP] > I've thought about scanning/digitizing, and I think I've decided > against it for now. I'm hoping that the local pro developer will make > me contact sheets, I can then pick anything decent for enlarging the > old-fashioned way. I'm also hoping that there will be little need for > "photoshopping" images; if I must I can always have one or two images > scanned. I'm doing this on a tight budget, I have to be very frugal. If you shoot slides you can skip the cost of the contact sheet too. A sheet of 645 slides looks pretty good on the lightbox, and a good loupe will let you check which ones you want to get printed. Peter > [SNIP] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of 645 slides looks pretty good on the lightbox, and a good loupe will let > you check which ones you want to get printed. True, sort of. The only danger is that an 8x or 10x loupe doesn't necessarily get close enough to check sharpness. I ordered some pro scans from the local pro lab, and when they came back, they had scanned the wrong frame for one of the frames. Looking closely, the frame I had asked them to scan was almost the same image as the adjacent frame, but was noticeably softer. Oops. Thank you, Horie Color! So I check sharpness with a 60x microscope. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > [SNIP] > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > So I check sharpness with a 60x microscope. Good point that I should have mentioned too. I have a nice little antique microscope that I can sit directly on the lightbox, and it is a very useful tool for that sort of thing. Peter make sure you use a good film then with your new used MF......i shoot Fuji PRO160 S love it.......weddings and seniors grads and portraits good luck with the MF if you decide to purchase it Wayne Mirror Image Photography Milwaukee, WI Devoted MF Hasselblad user and faithfull film user.............just my 2 cents > whole point of this idea. As for the leaf shutter, I understand this > allows for flash sync at higher than usual shutter speeds, but I really > never missed that feature in my 35mm days. My dSLR can sync up to > 1/4000s (apparently), but I've not used it. I'm planning on using Well, not really. What it does is drag the strobe over the "slit travel" period. Result: very low light available from the strobe as it's wasted on the non slit part of the shutter. Helps in a few narrow situations such as outdoor, wide open, fast lens, bright light with a need for fill flash or 'freeze' flash. (eg: take a GN 56 light and turn it into a GN 10 light (or worse)). I've had this feature for at least 10 years and I don't think I've used it more than a few times, and at that, not for anything worth keeping. The fast sync of leaf shutters (1/500 and 1/1000 in some Pentax' [maybe others]) is very useful in the studio to kill ambient and subject motion from whatever ambient there may be. Also a leaf shutter imparts no movement at all to the camera (in MLU/prefire shots, at least). So, it's not "higher than usual" but rather the "usual" for leaf shutters. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> Hi, I'm an an amateur photographer who's been using 35mm slr's and >>> dSLR's for a few years, and I'm getting more and more curious about MF. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's not what people are finding when they put their MF lenses on the > 5D. As per pure mtf, photodo bears out that some are and some aren't. There are more "sharper" 35mm lenses there than mf, but they've tested a lot more 35mm, and dispproportionately so. > Also, I ran tests (ugly Tokyo back street with lots of detail*) on my > Mamiya 645 lenses (35, 55, 110) and simply couldn't see any of the feared > degradation that's common on 35mm lenses away from the sweet spot. Staring > at the slides with a 60x microscope, I could sort of persuade myself that > the wide open and f/22 images were a tad softer. Maybe. The Canon 20/2.8 > simply isn't useful for landscapes until f/11. Canon's not known for their sharp wide-angles. > *: See my Tech Pan scans at: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The Mamiya lenses are far better made than current 35mm lenses. That seems a sweeping generalization. >> I came close to a Mamiya 645 system a couple years ago, used, very good >> condition, but what turned me off is that the specific lenses offered did [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 35/3.5 vs. 40/4.0, 45/2.8 vs. 50/4.0, 55/2.8 vs. 60/3.5, 80/1.9 vs. > 80/2.8. And don't pay for a shutter every time. Looking at Pentax 67 lately, its lenses appear faster than the Mamiya RB equivalents. > Sure, you never shoot wide open, but viewing and focusing is that much > easier. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The down side is that you'll want a Nikon 9000. Since he has a Hasselblad, he probably already wants one. > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are more "sharper" 35mm lenses there than mf, but they've tested a lot > more 35mm, and dispproportionately so. I realize that. But when I put my Mamiya 35/3.5 on the 5D, I get as sharp images as I get from my sharpest 35mm lenses. And the Mamiya 35/3.5 is definately the iffy-est of the Mamiya lenses (the reviews report that it's worse wide open than the Pentax and Fujiblad 35/3.5 lenses but indistinguishable stopped down). >> Also, I ran tests (ugly Tokyo back street with lots of detail*) on my >> Mamiya 645 lenses (35, 55, 110) and simply couldn't see any of the feared [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Canon's not known for their sharp wide-angles. They are sharp at f/11, though. (And just as sharp as the Nikon 17-35/2.8 when used on a 1Dsmk2<g>.) >> *: See my Tech Pan scans at: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That seems a sweeping generalization. It's my experience from using both. Part of why I said the above, though, is that the mechanical quality of the Mamiya lenses is truly superb, whereas Canon/Nikon AF, even the best, tends to be a bit more iffy. Obviously, the AF 35mm zooms are far more complex beasts than the fixed focal length manual focus Mamiya lenses I'm comparing them too. >>> I came close to a Mamiya 645 system a couple years ago, used, very good >>> condition, but what turned me off is that the specific lenses offered [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Looking at Pentax 67 lately, its lenses appear faster than the Mamiya RB > equivalents. And Pentax 67 is a focal plane shutter camera. Aren't the RZ lenses faster than the RB lenses, though??? >> The down side is that you'll want a Nikon 9000. > > Since he has a Hasselblad, he probably already wants one. Oops. I've lost the thread something fierce. I thought I was responding to someone who was looking to get their first MF camera... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > They are sharp at f/11, though. (And just as sharp as the Nikon 17-35/2.8 > when used on a 1Dsmk2<g>.) I'd hope it would be better before f11, after all, I paid good money for one... ;-) >>> *: See my Tech Pan scans at: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > And Pentax 67 is a focal plane shutter camera. Sorry, I read you backwards there. >Aren't the RZ lenses faster than the RB lenses, though??? I don't think the RZ are faster, but I've not done a direct comparison. I know that RB lenses will work on an RZ but not the other way around. >>> The down side is that you'll want a Nikon 9000. >> >> Since he has a Hasselblad, he probably already wants one. > > Oops. I've lost the thread something fierce. I thought I was responding to > someone who was looking to get their first MF camera... You may have been, but you did it via Alan Browne's reply to the OP. Close enough, in any case. >>>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message >>>>The down side is that you'll want a Nikon 9000. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You may have been, but you did it via Alan Browne's reply to the OP. Close > enough, in any case. Yes, the 9000 ED is still in my buy queue ... it's the next major photo purchase in any case... well, unless Sony do a Maxxum 9 or 7D class 10 or 12 Mpix DSLR... then I'll have to have a chat with my finance minister and she has some rather expensive notions regarding the master bathroom... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> Canon 20/2.8 simply isn't useful for landscapes until f/11. >> Canon's not known for their sharp wide-angles. > > They are sharp at f/11, though. (And just as sharp as the Nikon 17-35/2.8 > when used on a 1Dsmk2<g>.) If you want to compare MF lenses with those 35mm lenses mentioned above fairly, you should use a Lubitel or a Holga... The *better* lenses made for 35mm are capable of much more. >>>> Hi, I'm an an amateur photographer who's been using 35mm slr's and >>>> dSLR's for a few years, and I'm getting more and more curious about MF. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > more "sharper" 35mm lenses there than mf, but they've tested a lot more > 35mm, and dispproportionately so. From the engineering point of view, 35mm lenses are easier to make sharp, because their circle of sharpness is smaller. If MF lenses still behave as well as 35mm lenses, it only proves that they are better made, i.e. their glassware is ground to finer specification, and the mechanics are more accurate. That also explains why they are more expensive. -- Lassi >>Actually, the better 35mm lenses are sharper than the better MF lenses, > > That's not what people are finding when they put their MF lenses on the 5D. Just based on lab based MTF. The only real way to measure anything. One would have to look at large prints (say 30" x 20") from a 645 and a 5D to really see what's what... And if it's true that these lenses are sharper, well, great! >>I came close to a Mamiya 645 system a couple years ago, used, very good >>condition, but what turned me off is that the specific lenses offered did [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 35/3.5 vs. 40/4.0, 45/2.8 vs. 50/4.0, 55/2.8 vs. 60/3.5, 80/1.9 vs. 80/2.8. > And don't pay for a shutter every time. The "fast" I desired was in the shutter speed not the wide open. I get 1/500 sync in the studio so I can shoot with reasonable ambient to find my way around, but the shot light is really only the flashes. IAC, my 80mm *is* f/2.8 so no advantage v. the 80mm above. My 150mm is f/4 which is not bad, but faster would have been nice indeed. >>I don't think you would regret buying the Mamiya. I do regret not buying >>a Mamiya RB67 a couple years ago which I could have had, post CLA for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The down side is that you'll want a Nikon 9000. I do, and procrastinating, it has gone up US$50 and the CAD$ has gone down in value 5% on oil prices in the meantime... I need to line up a trip to the right part of the US at the right time... <sigh> Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message >> To "dabble" in this I would reccomend not buying the zooms but sticking >> to fixed focal lenght lenses. > > Seconded. The zooms are quite heavy, apparently. They aren't heavy if you compare them to the weight of the multiple fixed length lenses they replace. The 55-110 replaces at least 3 fixed length lenses and is optically quite good looking at the results I've gotten from it. I use this and the 35mm WA which covers just about anything I'd want to shoot with medium format in 2 lenses. SignatureStacey > They aren't heavy if you compare them to the weight of the multiple fixed > length lenses they replace. The 55-110 replaces at least 3 fixed length > lenses and is optically quite good looking at the results I've gotten from > it. I use this and the 35mm WA which covers just about anything I'd want to > shoot with medium format in 2 lenses. Surely a zoom lens replaces an infinite number of prime lenses? ;-) Signatureinvalid = com >> They aren't heavy if you compare them to the weight of the multiple fixed >> length lenses they replace. The 55-110 replaces at least 3 fixed length [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ;-) The 55-110/4.5 is only 800 gm, which isn't as horrifying as I thought. However, it replaces the 55/2.8 and the 110/2.8, which are both a lot faster and that much easier to focus. And together probably don't weigh 800 gms. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>> They aren't heavy if you compare them to the weight of the multiple >>> fixed length lenses they replace. The 55-110 replaces at least 3 fixed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > faster and that much easier to focus. And together probably don't weigh > 800 gms. How about the 80mm it also replaces? And what if something in between these works better for the shot at hand? Personally, I'm tired of carrying around a sack full of primes and swapping them out to get 1 stop faster speed with a next to zero increase in quality. It made sense when zooms were bad optically or if you are deep into a system that still makes optically poor quality zooms like the canon WA ones are. But for most people, they make more sense that hauling around a bag full of lenses does and cost no more than the -lenses- they replace. SignatureStacey I would get 6x6 or 6x7. > Hi, I'm an an amateur photographer who's been using 35mm slr's and > dSLR's for a few years, and I'm getting more and more curious about MF. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Mamiya lenses? And is a well-used Mamiya going to let me down? Thanks > for any info.... >I would get 6x6 or 6x7. Depends what you want to do. 645 makes _wonderful_ 11x14s. First of all, I don't recommend 6x6 unless one really likes square prints. For rectangular prints, 6x6 is 645. (There's a 5D vs. Bronica 6x6 test on the net that, while actually really excellent, sleazes a bit in that it compares 2/3 of a 5D to all of the 6x6<g>.) When you make a square print, you pretty much always end up paying for (either buying the equipment or paying the lab for) the next larger size print, so a 16x16 costs the same as a 16x20 or even 16x24. 6x7 (or even better, 6x9) is seriously wonderful at 13x19 and 16x20 (16x24). Real photographs (not soft and/or grainy posters) that you can walk right up to and take a closer look at. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan i may of misread your post , but i shoot 6x6 and have no problems with rectangle prints,,,,never have i had a square print made....except my proofs ....5x5....but like i said i may have misread your post...i was thinking you were saying that a 6x6 made a bad rectangle print? Wayne >i may of misread your post , but i shoot 6x6 and have no problems with > rectangle prints,,,,never have i had a square print made....except my > proofs ....5x5....but like i said i may have misread your post...i was > thinking you were saying that a 6x6 made a bad rectangle print? Not bad, just no better than 645 if you only print rectangles. So _IF_ you are going to be printing rectangles, 645 has certain advantages, like faster and wider wide angle lenses. Personally, I like square, and shoot square compositions with my Rollei TLR. At which point my 13x19 printer suddenly becomes a 13x13 printer, and my lab would charge me the same for a 16x16 as they would for a 16x20. Sigh. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >i may of misread your post , but i shoot 6x6 and have no problems with > > rectangle prints,,,,never have i had a square print made....except my [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Thanks for the replies, Mike, David et al. I'm still looking and considering which way to go. I have found a Pentax 6X7 with a 105 f/2.4 and a Mamiya RB67 with a prism finder and a 90 f/3.8 C that are (barely) within my price range too. The problem is that they don't include a metering finder; that would be an extra $300-500 or so. So, a light meter of some sort would be in order, but I haven't had a camera without a meter of some sort for 25 + years, and I've never actually used a handheld meter. I kind of wonder whether I'd adapt or whether I'd just get overwhelmed. The lenses are considerably more expensive for 6X7 too, especially wide ones. 6X6 cameras are surprisingly expensive, and although I used a 6X6 Rollei TLR in the remote past (as a young teenager - I had no idea what I had in my hands....) I have have never really warmed up to square images. I like 4:3 a lot (which is why I was looking first at 6X4.5), it adapts well to so many standard print sizes, and I feel like the pic is less "static" (or something) when it's a rectangular format. I print most often at 4:5 (8X10, 16X20) and I think 6X7 would be nice, requiring very little cropping. Anyways, thanks for the replies. Next step is to find some cameras to look at and hold, to get an idea about size and personal fit. Also I have to actually sell my old lenses, and find out what the budget really is..... grruffbowwow@yahoo.com Wrote: > Thanks for the replies, Mike, David et al. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > have to actually sell my old lenses, and find out what the budget > really is..... My two cents is go for the Mamiya. I have been using a Pro TL for couple of years now, and it's a wonderful machine. One other advantag to 645 v 6x6 is film consumption (15 shots per roll v 10 with 120 film and the 220 format is dead from what I've read). The disadvantage i turning the camera 90 degrees... freedom of cropping. I haven't tried an adapter to a DSLR, but I can say while the 35mm i good (or at least mine), with some corner distortion, the 50mm shif and 150mm f2.8 are just fantastic. It makes quite a counter point t digital for bokeh when you shoot 150 at 2.8 it is dreamy. I can loo at it and figure I saved on an 85mm f1.2. Oh, and another vote tha it's an either/or situation with 110 and 80mm, I generally like t double focal lengths (the 50mm is there as a specialty lens, no automatic indexing). -Mar -- MASL Mark, what did you mean by the 220 format is dead......... Wayne > Anyways, thanks for the replies. Next step is to find some cameras to > look at and hold, to get an idea about size and personal fit. Also I > have to actually sell my old lenses, and find out what the budget > really is..... Always a problem! Apologies for the jump-in so late. I'm a relatively recent 35->6X7 convert, so take this as my experience rather than gospel. One thing you will notice on the larger formats is that you'll be closing down a LOT more in order to get reasonable dof. Unless you intend to use mostly selective focusing, in which case it won't be so bad. All sorts of techo reasons why. Point being: invest in a good tripod! And don't be tempted by the Pentax "almost like a 35mm, therefore I should be able to handhold". You will of course be able to hand hold, but the results will be so frustrating you'll fall back on a tripod in no time. I was lucky I already had my trusted very old Benbo, otherwise it'd have been an extra cost. Then again: this is a hobby, isn't it? So: what's this "cost" thing you keep tawking about? :-) > Point being: invest in a good tripod! And don't be tempted by > the Pentax "almost like a 35mm, therefore I should be able to > handhold". You will of course be able to hand hold, but the > results will be so frustrating you'll fall back on a tripod in no > time. I was lucky I already had my trusted very old Benbo, > otherwise it'd have been an extra cost. Yep. Get a tripod. Carry it and use it when you can. But if you don't have one or if it's too heavy to carry on a hike, don't let that stop you from taking pictures. A tripod will greatly improve your odds of avoiding camera shake. That's all. If you have steady hands and good camera-holding technique, you can often get by without it. IOW: a tripod is a good thing to have and use, but I don't think of it as a "necessity" except in critical situations. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > A tripod will greatly improve your odds of avoiding > camera shake. That's all. If you have steady hands > and good camera-holding technique, you can often > get by without it. For lenses 110mm and shorter with the 645 Pro, I had no trouble handholding at 1/125. At 1/60, I'd see occassional problems, but still sharp if I was very careful. For 1/30 and slower, I need a tripod. For my 150mm lens, I need a tripod. > IOW: a tripod is a good thing to have and use, but > I don't think of it as a "necessity" except in critical > situations. And panoramas! David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan i can see you point with the tripod....i shoot 1/60th hand held and tripoded shooting weddings and my senior grads....not that you can't shoot 1/60 th handheld , but i do see the difference with the tripod shots....1/125th no problem hand held.. now i shoot a 503CW with a 80 and 160 Wayne Mirror Image Photography Milwaukee, WI On Oct 19, 8:28am, "Noons" <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:One thing you will notice on the larger formats is that > you'll be closing down a LOT more in order to get reasonable dof. > Unless you intend to use mostly selective focusing, in which case > it won't be so bad. All sorts of techo reasons why. In reality, you only need to close down about 1 f/stop to get the same DOF as with an equivalent FOV from the same shooting position with 35mm film! for example, using a DOF calculator program if you use 50mm lens focused at 10' using f/2.8, it has a 1.7' deep DOF. If you use 645 lens focused at 10' using f/4, it has 1.84' deep DOF. --wilt > On Oct 19, 8:28?am, "Noons" <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:One thing > you will notice on the larger formats is that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > focused at 10' using f/2.8, it has a 1.7' deep DOF. If you use 645 > lens focused at 10' using f/4, it has 1.84' deep DOF. "on the larger formats", wilt. not 645. try 6x7. [---] >6x7 (or even better, 6x9) is seriously wonderful at 13x19 and 16x20 (16x24). >Real photographs (not soft and/or grainy posters) that you can walk right up >to and take a closer look at. Agreed. My only regret is that it is almost totally impractical for slides (the only projector I know which is still sold is technically prehistoric and hideously expensive). > [---] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > slides (the only projector I know which is still sold is technically > prehistoric and hideously expensive). A local pro occasionally presents at the photo club I once belonged to and projects his "backup" shots from his Pentax 67... pause for drool... on a somewhat old projector. Fantastic. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. On sharpness of MF lenses...in absolute terms (line pairs per mm) a MF lens will generally have a lower score than 35mm lens, because it covers a much larger image circle! But in relative terms, MF lens wins...a 645 neg is about 1.8x the size (height) of the 35mm frame. So while a 35mm lens might need to deliver 64ll/mm to the film, the 645 lens only needs to deliver 36ll/mm merely to achieve the SAME performance...and that it easily does! On image quality...this is NOT merely 'resolution' of the lens. It also deals with the fact that film grain on 35mm is the same film grain as MF, but the SUBJECT occupies 3.2x the film area so there are 3.2x the film grains or color clouds to portray the same amount of subject. That means that MF wins hands down on tonality. What this means is that the same subject projected to the same final size (slide scrren) will have MUCH MORE impact on the audience than the same shot on 35mm! I have experienced the "oohh's" and "aaahhh's" of a workshop full of other photographers who are blown away at the impact of MF slides compared to their 35mm slides, so this is a reality, not merely a claim! On leaf shutters...if you shoot with leaf shutter cameras to do weddings, you know how deprived all other photographes are in using focal plane shutters to shoot weddings and use synchro sun flash fill! That is why the vast majority of wedding shooters who use MedFormat use Hasselblad or Bronica or Rollei! Plus, if a shutter fails, just mount another lens and continue shooting...something which cannot be done when the shutter is in the body. > Hi, I'm an an amateur photographer who's been using 35mm slr's and > dSLR's for a few years, and I'm getting more and more curious about MF. > I've heard all the arguments, and I've read a lot of good info here on > this newsgroup. The thing that's sticking in my head is that MF is > supposed to beat the pants off anything smaller for sharpness, and you > can depend on decent enlargements. I enjoy my (consumer-grade) dSLR, SNIP > But, what do I know....:-) > > Any thoughts? Am I going to be disappointed in the sharpness of the > Mamiya lenses? And is a well-used Mamiya going to let me down? Thanks > for any info.... I just wanted to say, thanks for the interesting discussion, it helped a lot. I rethought the Mamiya 645 idea, after all, if the idea is big and sharp negatives, why stop at 6X4.5? I did some more research, held a few Bronica 645s, Pentax 645 and 67's and Mamiya 645 and RB67's - the 645 cameras handle well with the grip and prism, like a bulkier 35mm SLR. The 6X7 cameras were bulky, I found the Mamiya RB's very easy to focus and straightforward in it's operation, but terribly awkward to handhold. The Pentax 67 was very appealing to me but out of my reach pricewise, and with a reputation for mirror shake - mirror lockup apparently adds a lot to the price. Expensive lenses, too. While browsing the dusty back cases in a local camera shop I came across a 6X7 Koni-Omega Rapid; what a beautiful piece of hardware. The shop owner was very attached to it, he wouldn't sell it, wouldn't even put a price on it. So, after researching the camera a bit, I found one at ebay and got a recently CLA'd one for a song with the 90mm lens and a 120 back. I also found a couple of older cameras online for next to nothing; an old 6X9 Voigtlander Bessa and a 6X6 Ansco Speedex Special "R", both in good working condition for under $50 shipped. They arrived yesterday, and I've just taken a couple rolls from each to get developed. "Sunny 16" and guesstimated focus... I wonder if ANY of the images will work out. I made the mistake of putting a roll of T-Max 400 in the Bessa first, I soon found out that the camera has a maximum shutter speed of 1/150s and a minimum aperture of f/22. Not good when you're wandering through a park at mid-day.... Oh well, we'll see. I think a light meter is my next purchase. So, I'm set for now. The lenses for the Omega Rapid are supposed to be razor sharp, and just from a preliminary search, they're readily available and highly affordable. I'll hold off a few months until I figure out the cameras I have, though. I'm kind of looking forward to playing with the older cameras more; the Bessa especially should be able to give me some nostalgic B&W images. Maybe next year I'll look at the Mamiya RB's again. Again, thanks for the assistance; I'm really quite happy with the way I'm going right now - the reason I posted in the first place was because I just wasn't sure about the 645 format. 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9, all for less than $170 ought to scratch the itch.... for now.... I've already started to wonder about 4X5 Speed Graphics - does this process ever end? :-) I've > already started to wonder about 4X5 Speed Graphics - does this process > ever end? :-) It does eventually. I went from 35mm to 6x6 to 6x9 to 4x5 and 6x17. Don't want to go any further... maybe. [SNIP] > 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9, all for less than $170 ought to scratch the > itch.... for now.... I've already started to wonder about 4X5 > Speed Graphics - does this process ever end? :-) No ;-) Though I think I've stopped at 10x8 for the time being... Peter > <grruffbowwow@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Though I think I've stopped at 10x8 for the time being... I've got a friend who shoots 11x14 slides. Seriously amazing. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.