 |
 | 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 / April 2004Rolleiflex image quality?
How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense? Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs? Thanks, Sam We had a teacher in school who used to say... "Tisn't the pen at all, 'tis the fella behind the pen" > We had a teacher in school who used to say... > > "Tisn't the pen at all, 'tis the fella behind the pen" And still some pens cover your fingers with ink the moment you touch them, blot like there's no tomorrow, scratch the paper, etc. while other pens don't... > How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current > Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense? > Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs? You may want to read <http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html> and be surprised. Martin Any review or comparison about Mamiya 7 but without mentioning the Fuji 690 can not be called complete. > > How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current > > Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Martin > How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current > Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense? > > Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs? Doubt it.... it's practically the same as a Hasselblad 80mm Planar, only with the upside of no mirror slap and the downside of non-TT(taking)L viewing. The latter is the main reason I have a 'Blad and not, say, a Rollei Tele and a Rollei Wide. -- - Martin Francis "Two hundred channels, and nothing but cats" - Jasper TTL viewing is great for macro or microscope or extreme long lens work. For 90% of general camera work it's a frill, and a rangefinder or TLR is so much quieter and less obtrusive. The 80 Planar is a good lens. It's nothing super-special. People who extol German optics forget that the most discriminating optical customer in the world, Panavision, buys very few. [---] >the most discriminating optical >customer in the world, Panavision Source ? > TTL viewing is great for macro or microscope or extreme long lens > work. For 90% of general camera work it's a frill, and a rangefinder [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > extol German optics forget that the most discriminating optical > customer in the world, Panavision, buys very few. I'm one of the few people in the world who don't stop and think "What would Panavision do?" before buying a lens. And as a previous owner of a Yashicamat I am well aware of the pros and cons of non-TT(taking)L viewing. And I happen to do rather a lot of close-up work, and seldom use a standard lens- so a TLR would find little use with me. As a hard-up student, I have little room for cameras I don't use. -- - Martin Francis "Two hundred channels, and nothing but cats" - Jasper >I'm one of the few people in the world who don't stop and think "What would >Panavision do?" before buying a lens. Since I collect 35mm cameras and projectors, I though I might make a comment about motion picture image quality in general. A 35mm motion picture frame is really a still camera half frame. The final print quality varies greatly with the production. The highest quality is usually the trailers wth show prints being next. Most general high spped release prints, being 3rd or 4th generation, are very low quality in relationship with 1st gen still camera slides or negatives. A 35mm movie frame will make a very poor indeed 5x8 inch image flat or a 5x11 inch image in scope. So lens quality is not the biggest issue with movie cameras. Rather, it's the registration from one frame to the next which Panavision is very good at. Larry >TTL viewing is great for macro or microscope or extreme long lens >work. For 90% of general camera work it's a frill, and a rangefinder >or TLR is so much quieter and less obtrusive. Can't argue with the "quiet and unobtrusive" part, but TTL viewing has lots of advantages. How else to visualize the effects of, say, a polarizer or grad-ND filter? How else to deal with zoom lenses, or sets of fixed- focal-length lenses. How else to visualize, precisely, the depth of field for any given subject, lens, or aperture? Or to observe (and thus prevent) lens flare from shooting too close to the sun? How would you use a tilt/shift/swing lens without TTL viewing? The only thing that beats TTL metering is a spot meter, brain power, years of experience, luck, and/or bracketing. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > TTL viewing is great for macro or microscope or extreme long lens > work. For 90% of general camera work it's a frill, and a rangefinder > or TLR is so much quieter and less obtrusive. I've tried rangefinders and find them difficult to "see" what I'm shooting. The viewfinder gives unlimited DOF and trying to visualize what a limited DOF image will look like is difficult. While some people like the split image type focusing, I abhor it. It's dificult for me to see where the focus plane is, especially if there are no edges etc to focus on. Also some of the viewfinders don't have as good an optics as the lens and show barrel distortion ect than the lens doesn't have, my 6X9 fuji GSW comes to mind. The other problem is when you can change lenses, the magnification of the lens doesn't change with the lens so it's only optimized for one focal length lens and the others are a comprimise. So for me either a TLR or an SLR is a much better.  SignatureStacey Older is better, both lens are excellent > How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current > Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sam Swings and tilts are associated with view cameras, on which the image is viewed on a ground glass directly. There are perspective control lenses that do the same thing on 35mm and medium format systems, but not as flexibly or well. Polarizers are easier to use on SLR or view cameras. But again is it worth the tradeoffs? Sometimes yes, more often no. The Linhof, the last "press" style system, has grown to where it is no longer much of a handheld camera, but a 6x9 version that was designed specifically for rangefinder use would be nice. Ever use one of the old cast aluminum Polaroids with the big focusing knob under the bed? A very convenient thing, hobbled by being a Polaroid (and most having lousy lenses-but a 110B did have a real lens and shutter of surprising quality.) A modern version with a roll back would be pretty cool. |
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.