Related Local Links:
Advice on Buying Older Medium Format Cameras
Best Buys Guide
Catch 22 Buyers Guide to Cameras (35mm.. )
Medium Format Camera Features
Medium Format on a Budget

Related Links:
How To Choose Second Hand Equipment [12/2000]

Medium Format Camera Selection

Here is my personal selection criteria list:
• over-riding photographic specialty need or general use?
• Leaf shutter or focal plane shutter?
• camera type - SLR, rangefinder, TLR, viewfinder, mini-view camera?
• format - 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x8cm, 6x9cm, or panoramics?
• available lenses?
• system camera or fixed configuration?
• repairability, reliability, and availability?
• overall system cost vs. available budgets?

Specialty Photographic Needs

However, if you do have such a specialized photographic need, I presume you already know what those needs are and what features and camera types best fit those specialty needs.

80% Solution

Fortunately for new photographers, most general photographs can be taken by nearly any type or model of camera. A study of contest winning photographs showed that most were taken with the standard or normal lens (78%) and at a modest f/stop (90% at f/3.5 or slower). In other words, practically any medium format camera from an older folder or TLR up to the latest autofocus models could have taken the majority of prize winning photographs. So even if you don't pick the exactly right camera the first time out, you probably won't miss many prize winning photographic shots regardless of what camera you pick.

Leaf Shutter or Focal Plane Camera

If you intend to do a lot of outdoor portraiture in bright light, you will probably want a leaf shutter camera to control or prevent "ghosts". These "ghosts" arise when the bright ambient light generates a second exposure during the long exposure time of the focal plane shutter camera set on flash or X-synchronization (typically 1/30th to 1/60th second).

Unfortunately, chosing a leaf shutter based camera usually precludes using lenses from other manufacturers (with miniview cameras being an obvious exception). Leaf shutters in each lens also add to the cost of an interchangeable lens camera system, since every lens has its own shutter.

On the other hand, you can sometimes find one or two leaf shutter lenses adapted for use with focal plane cameras, typically in the short telephoto range needed for portraiture work. So if you can live with just that available leaf shutter lens(es) focal length and a bit of inconvenience, you can still enjoy some limited flash synchronization on some focal plane camera bodies. As an example, the 105mm Nikkor LS leaf shutter lens is available for the older focal plane shutter Bronica S2A/EC camera line.

Camera Type

Like 35mm, the medium format SLRs are very flexible, with the widest range of standard optics. They are excellent for both closeup and telephoto photography, and provide precise composition even with very wide angle lenses.

By contrast, rangefinders tend to have limited close focusing ranges, although accessory closeup diopter lenses may be available (with focusing bracket attachments). Rangefinders are also not usually equipped with lenses longer than 180mm or 200mm, which usually equates to circa 135mm or so on a 35mm SLR. Compared to most SLRs, rangefinders are quieter and easier to focus in dim light, and potentially lighter and simpler in use. Most medium format rangefinders are fixed lensed models, but a few such as the Fuji G/GL series take interchangeable lenses (when you can find them).

Viewfinder cameras range from $20 toys (Diana..) to the kilo-bucks Hasselblad Superwide with its legendary 38mm Biogon rectilinear very wide fixed leaf shutter lens. The better cameras will be light-weight, simple and reliable designs, often with fixed leaf shutter lensed optics.

The TLRs are mostly fixed normal (75-85mm) fixed leaf shutter lens models, usually 6x6cm, with some 6x4.5cm or 35mm film back options. A few pricey telephoto (Tele-Rollei) and wide angle (Rollei-Wide) models are also available. One unique line of interchangeable leaf shutter lens standard design from Mamiya (C2/C22/C220;C3/C33/C330 models) offers the ability to use a range of lenses from 55mm to 250mm is also popular. You will also find paramender and other closeup lens adapters, as well as wide angle and telephoto adapters (of variable quality and cost). While many beginners buy fixed lens TLRs as a low cost entry to medium format, they often upgrade to an SLR or other interchangeable lens model later on.

Medium format folder cameras are mostly older viewfinder or rangefinder models. Unfortunately, most of the better older folders with great optics and rigid mechanics are also highly collectible and outrageously priced for a user camera. Fuji has come out with a popular line of modernized folders with fixed leaf shutter lenses which are popular with some users, but with quirks worth checking into before buying. While folders are popular as a low weight traveling camera, they are mostly second cameras supplementing or backing up another medium format system.

A variety of "mini-view" camera models such as the Horseman 6x9cm models provide some unique view camera features while using medium format rollfilm. You can find press camera style models, field cameras, and monorail studio versions of large format (4x5" and up) cameras in the medium format rollfilm range. Naturally, most of these cameras are aimed at users needing the range of perspective control movements these cameras offer, with architectural and cityscape photographers being an obvious example. The electronic Fuji GX-680 series offers a 6x8cm format with a good range of movements and lens options, albeit at a substantial price.

Finally, there are lots of "odd-ball" cameras, including panoramics, which are clearly aimed at specialty needs. The panoramics range from 6x9cm and my Veriwide 6x10cm to 6x12cm and 6x17cm, with a few view camera or torpedo cameras in the 6x24cm and up range! Some specialty cameras also take rotating 360 degree images, while others feature ultrawide swinging lens designs. You will also find many stereo and 3-D cameras, some of surprisingly ancient vintage and design. Again, if you need or want one of these specialty cameras, I will presume you can find something to fit your needs from current medium format offerings or older used offerings.

Picking a camera type is fundamental. If you need movements beyond the very limited shift lens capabilities available in some SLR lines, you should probably pick a mini-view or press type camera. If you need a wide range of capabilities, including precise closeup, wide angle, and longer telephoto shots, then an SLR is indicated. If you need a quiet and unobtrusive camera, then a rangefinder, TLR, or viewfinder camera would be indicated (e.g., for street, cafe, church, or concert/theatre photography).

Available Lenses

Used lenses are even more limited in choices, since most older SLRs had more limited ranges of focal lengths than today's models. The Kowa 6x6cm SLR lenses are an exception, but the 19mm fisheye, 35mm rectilinear, and 500mm/2X long telephoto combinations are all very hard to find. On the other hand, over 80 lenses were produced or adapted for the Bronica S2/EC series thanks to their focal plane design. Between current and past lenses, the Kiev cameras have over 30 lenses available, including 4 shift lenses and a 30mm fisheye as well as some affordable long telephotos up to 1000mm.

Format Choices

The choice between 6x4.5cm and 6x7cm is pretty direct, given the large increase in camera size and difference in exposures (15/16 versus 10). The quality difference is only 25% or so greater enlargeability of the 6x7cm format over 6x4.5cm and 6x6cm (per Wildi's Medium Format Advantage). While the 6x7cm slides have much greater impact on buyers, they are harder to project due to the rarity of of 6x7cm slide projectors. The Mamiya 7 series rangefinders are the main exception of a lightweight 6x7cm rangefinder with interchangeable optics - but at a high price in the USA market (less so overseas).

The 6x8cm format is mainly represented by the Fuji GX-680 series, which most competitors would have labeled a 6x9cm camera (really 56mm x 82mm). Most 6x9cm cameras are either folders (e.g., Bessa) or mini-view cameras such as the Horseman 6x9cm mini-view and related press camera models.

The specialty formats of 6x10cm, 6x12cm, 6x17cm and 6x24cm are generally associated with panoramic or wide angle specialty cameras. If you need a panoramic camera, you already know it, and your choices are rather limited among current offerings (and costly too!). Lots of people opt to build their own homebrew specialty cameras, using view camera lenses with the desired coverage and angle of view.

Personally, I am a fan of the square format composition from 6x6cm cameras. With a 16/A16 back on my Hasselblad 500C or 500 EL/M, I can take 16 (or 32) exposures in 6x4.5cm format. More often, I prefer to stick with the square 6x6cm backs, giving me the option of cropping prints horizontally or vertically (or both). I also own and shoot 6x4.5 and 6x9cm folders, a 6x10cm panoramic ultrawide camera, and a 6x7cm rangefinder (as well as 4x5" LF plus 35mm SLR/RF). As I have noted, shooting different types of cameras with medium format is not so much a matter of which camera, but rather having a range of camera types and formats to choose from.

===========================================================

Criteria - Implications (budget examples under $1,000 US$)
• flexible - SLR system camera (Bronica S2, Kowa 6, Hasselblad 500C..)
• quiet - rangefinder (Fuji 645), viewfinder (Seagull folder)
• lightweight - 6x4.5cm SLR, rangefinder (Seagull), TLR (Rolleicord)
• lens range - SLR (non-system body Mamiya 645..), Mamiya TLR, Fuji G series RF (G-690)
• street camera - TLR (Rolleiflex..), SLR (6x4.5..), RF (Fuji 645..)
• architecture - mini-view or press camera (Horseman 980, Galvin..)
• aerial photo - motorized cameras (500 EL/M..), rangefinder (KoniOmega)
• portraiture - leaf shutter if outdoors, short telephoto optics..
• weddings - leaf shutter, interchangeable backs preferred
• landscapes - lens range, interchangeable backs for zone system if used

Related Postings:

someone wrote:

>>I still think the Leica R line is better than anything else taken as a
>>whole. The cameras rate no better than a B on the grade scale, and maybe
>>that's being charitable; but the lenses are A+. I would rate all the other
>>brands and lines being from A down to D (and I could grade them pretty
>>precisely if I had to).

Having personally been doing this photography thing for exactly fifty years, going through Brooks, working as a commercial photographer, medical photographer, aerial photographer, and now a fine art photographer and teaching workshops, there is only one way to "grade" a camera system "precisely." And that is to live with is as a working system. To make money with it or at least be a hard core amateur/advanced amateur user. Hard core meaning hundreds and hundreds, perhaps thousands of rolls or sheets, and using it over a reasonably long period of time.

It is amazing how first opinions from casual use or merely fondling something (camera system in this case) can lead to many incorrect conclusions. What might seem to be a wart at casual glance will turn out to be a wonderful feature. What might seem to be a mediocre lens, might turn out to be stellar in actual hard use in the proper situations. Use a Noctilux for general everyday photography and you would hate the M system. Average photographs with a lens that blocks half of the viewfinder. But use it at f/1, f/1.4, or f/2 in available darkness, and a whole new world opens up. The lens/M camera becomes neither a pain nor average. It becomes stellar.

Real photographers don't care about connoisseurship or someone else's feeble attempt at grading a camera system. What one person fondles and dislikes, another will actually use over the long haul and love. And vice versa. This is why I find those magazine camera ratings pathetic and having no association with reality. Many writers/fondlers mercilessly panned the Alpa camera. I used one at Brooks for small format assignments and professionally after that and found it to be one of the easiest to use and most intuitive cameras available. I used to laugh at the critics... all the way to the bank.

So these folks that sit around and fondle, sit around and write articles and reports, are no different than the TV news talking heads. No experience with what they are yakking about. You should be listening to Ted, Donal, Harrison, Gary Todoroff, Henning, Eric, Tina, Tom K., Tom A., and all of those others out there who make a living by USING photographic equipment on a daily basis, to make photographs, to make money.

IMH and real life experienced O,

Jim

Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Collin Brendemuehl dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo .marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Re: The Best Medium-Format Camera Ever, period?

Dan,

In all seriousness, I think this is rather silly. What are you going to shoot? Under what conditions? For what purpose?

Answer these and then pick the equipment that meets your expectations.

For instance, for people candids, there's not much better than the
Fuji 645 rangefinders, esp. the auto-focus ones.
For durability, a Blad.
For studio technical work with movements, GX-680.
For studio portrait work, RB/RZ.
For a general-purpose, carry-around camera, Mamiya 7.
For group photography under a variety of conditions, Pentax 645n.
For fasion work where you move more than the subject, Pentax 67II.

Otherwise, just pick one. :)

Collin

From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which medium format to get?
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 

> I am looking to get a medium format camera that is verstile - can be used
> for holiday snaps, and that can be lugged around easily.  Does one exist?

It really depends upon what you mean by "versatile". A Rolleiflex TLR is a
very versatile camera, despite its fixed lens. But if you're looking for
an eye-level camera and automation conveniences like interchangeable
lenses, auto-focus and auto-exposure, the currently available models are
more likely what you're after. The SLRs (Bronica, Mamiya, etc) are very
versatile with interchangeable lenses, finders, back, but they get bulky
and fairly pricey. 

I've worked with 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 over the years. While I love the
big 6x7 and 6x9 negs, I find the cameras too bulky and cumbersome for
"party" use. Even the Mamiya 7, which is a fairly fast working camera, is
just a bit cumbersome to me. My preference is a Rolleiflex TLR (6x6) or a
6x4.5 eye-level camera. 

Recently I bought one of the Fuji GA645s and last night I processed my
first negatives from it. This is a camera that can truly be used as a
point and shoot if you wanted to ... autofocus, program mode auto exposure
... but can also be used fully manually with focus by scale and manual
exposure settings. The lens is just incredibly sharp, it has a small
built-in flash unit and motorized film transport. I carried it all
weekend, shot four rolls of film, and it never felt too big or in the way.
It balances well in the hand and is remarkably unobtrusive in operation.
Plus you can pick them up from Ebay for around $500-600. Mine came from
there and was practically unused for $550. It may be only one lens (either
60mm or 45mm) but there's a lot of versatility right there for the money.

I'd also be interested in the Bronica RF645 if you prefer a manual focus,
manual wind rangefinder type camera. The Bronica's biggest asset is
interchangeable lenses ... 65mm and 45mm available now, with a 105 in the
works soon ... and it supports Program, AP-AE and manual exposure. 

Godfrey


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cameras using 120 or 220 Film
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 

Flummox(c) wrote:

> I'm thinking about getting into medium format.  I currently only use a
35mm
> camera.
>
> My question is that what kind of camera am I looking for?  I don't want to
> spend a huge amount of money on my first medium format, but I'd like
> something working.  Vintage is the way I was thinking of going.
> Any help would be much appreciated.

There are quite a few choices you will have to make besides the spool size.

But first of all, remember that the medium format advantage is in the larger
format, not in the camera you pick. Camera features only help you to use the
medium format in the way most suited to you and your needs.

So what format do you want, or need? Formats range from 4.5x6 cm to 6x17 cm.
Most popular are 4.5x6 cm, 6x6 cm, and 6x7 cm. The choice of format also
dictates what enlarger and slide projector (if any) you can/have to buy.

Next, but connected, what aspect ratio? Do you want rectangular pictures? Or
square? Rectangular formats make you decide what orientation to use, and you
will have to tilt the camera to change orientation. This means prism finders
are a must. Mamiya RB67 and RZ67 cameras have solved the problem by using a
rotating back.
And some medium format systems allow you a (limited) choice of formats by
offering different backs.

Then there is the choice of three quite different camera types: single lens
reflex, twin lens reflex, or rangefinder. What type fits your particular
style and need is something only you can decide. SLR's are the most
versatile type (more choice of interchangeable lenses, interchangeable film
backs, ditto finders, easier to use for close-ups), but that does not
necessarily mean they are the best choice for you.

Then there is the matter of automation. Though available in most (if not
all) types and brands, exposure automation mostly is an add-on extra. The
basic models come without. Which is not a bad thing, since using a handheld
meter, though undeniably slower, makes determining exposure a more
deliberate and thus precise excercise.

And do you need or want autofocus?

My advice would be to find a basic SLR (either 4.5x6, 6x6 or 6x7), with
standard lens and a separate meter, preferably a system intended to be
extended, so you can always add on to it if and when you need to. A Yashica
TLR, for instance, is a fine and fun camera, but restricts you to one focal
length. A Mamiya C220 or C330 TLR offers considerably more flexibility.

And, indeed, buy used. There are a lot of "vintage" cameras on offer, most
of which have a very long life still left in them.




From: Chris Ellinger ellinger@umich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How many lenses do you use, and how?
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002


dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl) wrote:

> I'm not curious about quantity, but rather application.
>
> What lengths/brands for portraits, full-lengths studies,
> landscapes, architecture, interiors, products shots, etc.?

product:  135mm, 210mm
portrait:  135mm, 210mm, 360mm
architecture:  65mm, 90mm, 135mm
landscape:  65mm, 90mm, 135mm, 210mm, 360mm

Chris Ellinger



From: Todd Maurer maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How many lenses do you use, and how?
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002


About 99% of the shots I shoot are landscapes.

    40% with a Schnieder f8 90mm Super Angulon
    45% with a Schnieder f5.6 180mm
    5% with a Goertz 270mm
    5% with a 380mm Tele Optar.
    5% with a Schnieder f8 65mm Super Angulon
...


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How many lenses do you use, and how?
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002

Portraits 210mm geronar

Landscapes 90 f8 SA, 135mm WF ektar or the geronar.
--
  Stephe



From: mkirwan@nospampacbell.net (Mike)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How many lenses do you use, and how?
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002


I shoot 99% Black & White, but here goes

Landscape
- 90mm f6.8 Angulon
- 120mm f8 Super Angulon
- 210 f5.6 mm Symmar-S

Most used is the 120mm, great coverage and I use it on my 5x7 as well.

Portraits
-150mm f5.6 Sironar
-210mm f5.6 Symmar-S
-240mm f4.7 Ilex Paragon

Most used is the 240mm


Still Life
-150mm G-Claron
-210mm Symmar-S

Most used is the 210mm

Mike



From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How many lenses do you use, and how?
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 

...
In my 30 year professional photo career, I've needed only 4 lenses for
4x5 to do most anything I've ever needed to shoot.

   75 f6.8 Grandagon
   90 f8.0 Fujinon SW
    125 f5.6 Fujinon W
    180 f5.6 Caltar II (Rodenstock)

and once, I rented a Nikkor 360 T and a 65 SW.

I picked the above focal lengths mainly for architectural work, which
was a few years ago about 75% of what I did, with the 90 and 125 being
used equally about 85% of the time.

The 180 does the lion's share of table top product work, but I have
used the 75 for products as well.

For my holiday, fine art b&w; landscapes, mostly I use the 125 and 180,
but usually carry the 75 for when I need a really wide look.  I leave
the 90 at the studio.

For portraits, which have mainly been 3/4, full length, or groups for
clients, I usually use the 125 or 180.

> Do you find the specific color characteristics of some lenses
> to be better than others, esp. when using specific films or
> shooting specific subject matter?  (This is apparently an issue in
> 35mm, with some complaining about Canon & color accuracy,
> but rarely an issue with medium format.  Does the issue
> diminish with the larger formats?)

I've not noted any color variations with the lenses I use, even when
doing interiors, where color accuracy is paramount.  Most times I shoot
the same setup from the same position, but with different focal lengths
-- horizontals and verticals -- to provide a better selection for the
client.  And even then the shots match colorwise, and I and my design
clients are very color critical.


> This stems from my last inquiry concerning portraits,
> and will help me (and perhaps others) as I develop in
> 4x5 and later shoot other material, learning which lens
> selections might be most valuable in the various niche
> areas of work.

For architectural -- exteriors or interiors -- start with the 90.

For table top product work:  something in the 180 to 240 range works
well.  An Apo one is even better.  This range would also work well for
portraits, but use a diffusion filter to soften and hide the
imperfections in the subject's skin.

Most 4x5 photo students start with just 2 lenses:  90 and 210; and
build from there.

Good Luck . . .

--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 
From: Andreas Mueller Amueller@lbl.gov
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1500 503 kit

 I bought a 503 CW kit last year.  At a certain point I think the 501 CM would
have been fine for me  as well. Main difference seems to me  the possibilty to
add a 1000$ expensive winder which I don't plan. Most kits come with a
80mm lense which is  about 50 mm in 35mm format. For landscape you may indeed
want to buy a 50mm lense or a SWC. You may consider to buy a primen finder as
well which I didn't do by now but I am thinking about. Soon you might want
to add more backs.  A good idea is to rent  a kit possibly with another lense
or a SWC for a weekend or so  before you buy. I didn't do this with the body
but with addtional lenses and the SWC I did before I made the decision what
items to add. You only need to keep batteries for an external  lightmeter if
you don't want to spend another 1000$ for one of the fancier prismen finders. I
sold some of my 35mm equipment and I think I will only keep a basic 35mm
equipment. I barely shoot 35 mm any more. You are shooting way less and become
much more aware what you are shooting. The actual film costs are going down.

I hope that helps,

Andreas



From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 or 6 x 7
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002

 Luis wrote:

> I would like to make the step into MF and I'm considering the 645 and
> 6x7 formats. I would prefer the 645 because you get more pictures per
> roll (not that important) less expensive camera (lets say a Mamiya
> 645E or Bronica ETSRi), less weight etc. However I know that the 6x7
> slide or negative would produce better results than the 645.

You'll notice little difference between 6x7 and 645 with prints less
than 16x20 inches.


> To the point. Is the 645 a real improvement (sharpness and detail) over
> 35mm?, lets say that you have two 8x10 images one made with 645 and
> the other made with 35mm of the same size and subject, can you see the
> difference at a plain sight? I know that the answer should be
> affirmative for the 6x7.

The difference in print quality between 35mm and 645 is considerable
and easily seen with the naked eye in 8x10s.


> I currently use digital equipment for printing. I have a dedicated
> Nikon scanner for 35mm and a Espson printer, and no complains, but
> when I saw the prices for MF scanners my jaw hit the table, so the
> question would be if is it possible to obtain GOOD scans and prints
> with a flat bed scanner (around 2,400 DPI) from a 645 negative or
> slide. The image would be better than the 35mm scanned on my Nikon
> scanner?.


A friend of mine, who is a commercial photographer, just got the Epson
2450 flat bed scanner and is very happy  with the results.  2400 x 4800
x 48-bit with a transparency/negative drawer for scanning up to 4 x 9
inch film.  The results are much better than the old Minolta Dimage
Multiscan film scanner on the desk here, at least, as far as scanning
medium format.  On 35mm, we can only tell the difference by checking
the shadow detail.  The Epson having a wider dynamic range does a
little better job.  Not a lot, but better.


> And finally is this Mamiya 645E any good? looks to good for the price.

I've look and held this thing, and was NOT impressed.  It was more like
a small child's toy than a serious photo-taking machine.  I expect it
will break rather easily.  I'd rather spend the money on a used Mamiya
1000s like a friend of mine did.  He wanted to get into medium format
just like you and was "hot" for the Hasselblad, but I talked him into
getting a used 1000s.  He was able to get a really nice setup--body, AE
prism, several film inserts, 3 lenses, plus a few do-dads--for what a
used 'Blad with an 80mm lens and film back would have cost.  He's been
very happy with the results.  Consider it in your search.

--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com


Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: First rolls of MF: Results and questions


I had my first three rolls of MF film processed today.  I shot two rolls
of Provia 100F, and one roll of Provia 400F.  The cost of processing was
27.27 ($US 24.08); I had to go to a pro lab because I'm not aware of
any ordinary one-hour places that do E6 120 where I live.  The slides
were returned as-is (neither cut nor mounted) in nice plastic sleeves
(frosted on one side, clear on the front, and sealed).

My observations:

1.  It's great to be able to just hold up the strip of film and
instantly see how the images look.  They are nice and big and can easily
be evaluated even from two feet away.  Not really practical with 35mm.

2.  As might be expected, images are very smooth, with no trace of
grain, even in 400F (400F shows grain in 35mm, as well as a bit of
softness compared to 100F).  Being able to shoot at the higher speed
without obvious grain is very nice.

3.  Overall impression is extremely positive; definitely a considerable
step up from 35mm.

4.  I managed to expose most images perfectly; a few were just a tad off
(I'm using a 501CM with a separate incident and spot meter).  Spot meter
readings seemed to give slightly better results than incident readings.

5.  The lens (standard Zeiss 2.5/80mm provided with the 501CM kit) gives
beautifully clean and sharp images.

6.  Contrary to what I've been told here, shooting handheld did not
sacrifice sharpness at most shutter speeds (1/60 and up).  I shot on a
tripod with prerelease and a cable release, and also handheld with no
special precautions other than trying to hold steady.  I can't see any
difference in sharpness between the two at normal shutter speeds (1/250
or so for Provia 100F); this is true even when examining the slides
under a microscope (yes, I actually did that).  At lower shutter speeds,
some camera-motion blur was evident, but not enough to make images
unusable or even enough to be very noticeable.  At 1/15, camera motion
was easy to spot.

7.  The square format is great because all my images are right-side up,
so I'm not constantly rotating the slides.

8.  A loupe for MF costs a fortune (185 for some mystery-brand loupe--a
good loupe, it seems, but still awfully expensive).

9.  It's nice to be able to shoot complex compositions and still have
all the details clearly visible on close examination.  The larger format
and resulting greater detail seem to give the images a much more
realistic and three-dimensional quality than 35mm.

10.  This is all going to be very, very expensive for film and
processing, even compared to 35mm, which was already expensive.


Questions:

1.  Is there any reason why I cannot turn the 501CM sideways to shoot
with the waist-level finder from eye level?

2.  If the small winding crank on the magazine stops after loading film,
and if I back it up a bit too much such that it won't snap into its
little nook on the magazine, is there any harm in that (doesn't seem to
be)?  Is there any way to back it up a bit to slip in there?  It seems
to be locked by a one-way ratchet.


Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Questions about medium-format vs. 35mm


"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl ...
> The picture remains the same though, the
> relations in it do not change. But the
> precalculated DOF has gone out of the window.

What about the DOF markings on the lens?  What assumptions were made in
calculating those?  Do they also assume less enlargement for the MF
image?

Frankly, it's hard to see a lot of utility to MF photography if you
aren't going to enlarge the images at least as much as 35mm, and if you
aren't going to view them from a closer distance.  As it is, 35mm
photography already provides all the detail that the human eye needs in
full-size (uncropped) images viewed at a "normal" distance (equal to the
diagonal of the image frame, or more)--the eye requires about 6
megapixels, minimum, and 35mm provides 2-3 times that, easily.  So if
you go to MF, the implication is that you want the images to be examined
more closely, otherwise you are wasting a lot of detail.

If we assume that MF and 35mm are enlarged to the same degree, then, we
can also conclude that DOF is the same in both formats; so a DOF of 60
cm with an 80mm lens is the same in both formats.  The advantage of MF
is that it provides you with an image that is nearly four times larger
with the same magnification, and if the viewing distance does not
change, you see a much bigger picture with more detail.  If you are just
going to increase the viewing distance to match the larger image,
though, you may as well stick with 35mm.

I was looking at a backlit photo in a fancy clothing boutique recently.
It was displayed in several sizes.  The small sizes (about 40x40 cm,
viewed from 2-3 metres away) gave no clear indication of the format
used.  However, one size was floor-to-ceiling, and when you looked at
that from less than 2 metres away, it became obvious that the original
image was shot on MF, as the details were still smooth and clear.  The
thing to remember, though, is that this was true only because the
viewing distance didn't change for the biggest enlargement; if it had
increased in proportion, it still would have been effectively difficult
or impossible to tell whether it was MF or 35mm.

My interest in MF is that I'll be able to take pictures that will
tolerate closer examination.  I'll be able to print in A3, A2, or even
A1 and still show no loss of detail at viewing distances of 40 cm or so,
whereas a 35mm enlargement to those sizes tolerates close examination
poorly (although a good scan looks fine at A3, at least).  I really
don't see much point in MF if the only enlargements will be snapshots or
8x10 enlargements; nobody can see details that small, anyway.



From: Zeljko Kardum kardum@zagreb.cc
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Questions about medium-format vs. 35mm
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
> MF photographers too are different. Most use more than one brand, and don't
> suffer from the same partisan attitude so overwhelmingly displayed in
> rec.photo.equipment.35mm.

True.

After fiddling with various MF cameras for a past couple of years, I
find out that with MF equipment it' much more important what film you
use than which lens/camera brand ;-)

Kardum
http://www.kardum.com/


From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 


Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote ...
> "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com wrote ...
>
> > Not in the States... 6008i cost a fraction of a
> > high end Hasselblad ...
>
> But a 6008 kit costs $1300 (39%) more than a 501CM kit ($4400 vs.
> $3175).


???
In terms of features Hasselblad 501CM is not comparable even with the
entry-level Rolleiflex 6001 and the is more expensive (6001kit - $2700, 501
CM kit - $3200.00)

A 6008i kit (body, 120 back, 2.8/80 Planar) will set you back $3000.00, plus
1100 for the master control unit for the grand total of $4100.  A comparable
Hasselblad 203 FE kit costs over $6200.00 (plus 1000.00 for the winder-
total 7300.00 smackers!) and still falls short in terms of features
comparing to the 6008i.)

A 6001 (comparable to 555 ELD) kit costs $2700 vs. $3300.00 body only for
the 555 ELD (+ $1800 for the 2.8/80 lens and another $900 for a back. Total?
Close to $6000.00.)  Even the 503 with winder is almost twice as expensive
as the 6001.

I'm not arguing with your choices of cameras, just with your quoted prices.
I was very happy with a Hasselblad until I used a 6008 for a couple of
weeks.
;-)

Michael



From: Dave Wyman mt.man@bigfoot.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: choice 501cm or TLR rolleiflex
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 


Dawn Yancy wrote:

>You might find it fine
> for you to use a Rolleiflex for all your landscape shots, but for
> someone who intends to spend thousands on a camera primarily for that
> purpose it's foolish.

The orginal poster mentioned purchasing a used 2.8f or 3.5f Planar, or even a
Rolleiflex T. None of those would cost thousands of dollars. Any of these
cameras would work well with landscape photography. My primary interest in
photography over the past 25 years has primarily been with landscapes (o.k,
I've got a few photographs of my kids). I don't think my photography suffers
when I choose to use one of my Rolleis. And I don't think I've shorted my
landscape photography by skipping the purchase
of a Hasselblad, although I certainly wouldn't mind having one.

I do think the orginal poster's contention that he's "narrowed down my MF
choice" is anything but narrow. Choosing between a Hassy and a Kiev, or two
versions of a Hassy, now THAT would be narrowing down the choice. The choice
between a TLR Mamiya, a Rolleiflex and an Ikoflex (see what a fixed lens,
non-Rollei TLR can do at
http://www.pomona.edu/ADWR/Museum/exhibits/9899/lastories/lastories.shtml)
might be consider narrow. But the choice between a Rolleiflex and a 501 'blad
and a Rolleiflex is like comparing apples and oranges.

Dave Wyman
--
http://www.idrivebackroads.com (Guidebook to Northern California)
http://home.attbi.com/~wymanburke/Rollei_Links.html 


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: choice 501cm or TLR rolleiflex
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 

....

One thing no one pointed out was how much you can learn and develop your
"style" using a fixed focal length camera. It forces you to move around and
look for the right perspective to get what you want. I'm GLAD I was forced
to do this when I started in med format amd learned a bunch. IMHO for
landscapes you will be using f11-f22 and at these f stop ANY rollei TLR
from a xenar-tessar up will produce fine results. I'd also recomend
thinking about a minolta autocord as these are cheaper and work as good or
better for this type of work.

If you can afford a blad AND the other lenses, there sure is nothing wrong
with them as a tool. I knew I'd never be able to talk myself into spending
$1,500 to $2,500+ for each additional lens so found other things to use.

Just some things to think about.
--
  Stephe




From contax mailing list:

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: "coyote@outbackcoyote.com" 
To: "contax@photo.cis.to" 
Subject: [Contax] Really Affordable Medium Format

Ok,

Spent a few hours this weekend really trying to figure out what to do
about medium format ... which I want to get into ..

1 - Contax 645 kit for $3300.00. Can share my TLA360 flashs and if I go
w/ an N1 I can share the medium format lenses (which are pretty darn
expensive!). A 35mm 3.5 Distagon lens sells for $2395.00 or a 55mm for
1475.00

2 - Fuji ... a 645W or a GA-645x (1889.00) or a GSW-690 III (1410.00).
Ok different beasts but all pretty afordable and also offer the
advantage that you will not be salivating all the time for another lens.
They do not have interchangable lenses ... which in a strange financial
way can be good!

3 - Mamiya 645 Pro TL for $1599.00.  If you do not need autofocus ...
look how "affordable" the lenses are: 55mm 2.8 for $665.00.  Or a 35 3.8
for 1029.00. Compare tis to the C.Z. Distagon selling for 2395.00.

Guess when it gets down to it: Can you live without autofocus. Are the
lens quality of the Fuji or the Mamiya anywhere near the quality of CZ
glass.

Of course I love CZ glass, but when it gets down to it how great is it
that CZ may make an incredible 350 mm , but when it cost close to six
grand, does it really do you any good?

Interesting: Price comparisons:


Medium format: Auto Focus

Mamiya: 45 mm 2.8 for $1069.00 for 645AFD
Mmaiga: 43 mm 2.8 for $2599.00 for Mamiya 7II Rangefinder
Contax CZ 45 2.8 mm for $2249.00 for 645N
Pentax 45 mm 2.8 for $809.00 for 645N II
Bronica  45mm 4.0 for $665.00 for Bronica Rangefinder


Non AutoFocus:

Rollei: 40mm 4.0 PQ Distagon $4700.00 for Rollei 6000 series
Hassie 40 mm 4.0 CFE/FLE w/ hood $4324.00
Mamiya: 45mm 2.8 $839.00 for Mamiya 645 Pro TL
Pentax: 45mm 4.0 $929.00 for Pentax 67 II

Ok, I know some of these are 6x7 vs 6x4.5 but I thought the whole
comparison interesting. What a HUGE difference in pricing.

Comments?

michael.



Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: "jcasner3@comcast.net" jcasner3@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [Contax] Really Affordable Medium Format
To: contax@photo.cis.to, contax@photo.cis.to

We all like Zeiss glass.  For that reason, don't ignore the Pentax 645N
and/or the 67II.

Everything you've listed has merit.

I sold Hasselblad in favor of the Pentax 645 and zooms after running a
couple of rolls through the Pentax.

Jack Casner



From: Michael Londarenko [deleted]
To: "'contax@photo.cis.to'" contax@photo.cis.to
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
Subject: [Contax] RE: Really Affordable Medium Format

...

Add Pentax 645N II to this list. The first version of it is also very good
and very cheap on used market. One of the unbeatable advantages of Pentax
645 is HUGE selection of new and used lenses including ZOOM (!) lenses,
additionally there is also adapter that allows you to use 67 lenses on 645
(adapter is about $130)(and unlike Contax 645 to N-mount adapter (NAM-1)
this makes much more sense, since price differences between lenses for 67
and 645 are not as big as Contax 645 vs. Contax N-mount). Pentax also has
extremely reliable and nearly vibration-free shutter. It's bulky, but not
too big. It can "fit" 16 frames per 120 roll and 33 per 220 roll. The
battery life is longer than with Contax 645 and it uses "AA" type of
batteries. Flash sync is 1/60sec, which is really slow, so don't try to use
it handheld. Viewfinder is fixed, you may see it as advantage or
disadvantage, but you should keep it in mind. It uses interchangeable
inserts (but not conventional backs), although I don't see it as a big
disadvantage. Finally, it can do 2fps, while COntax 645 can do 1.6fps. And
of course, the important stuff - lenses are excellent.


Mike.



From: "Pat Perez" patdperez@yahoo.com
To: contax@photo.cis.to
Subject: Re: [Contax] Really Affordable Medium Format
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 

I got into MF awhile back on the cheap, and recommend it as the way to go
for other hobbyists. I had been mooning over the Fuji GSW 690 in my local
camera shop, but someone beat me to it. I waited. A few months later, while
in Prague on vacation, I came across a Pentacon 6 camera, and was able to
purchase it along with multicoated 80mm lens, and single coated 50, 120 and
180 lenses. All are Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, and all perform extremely well.
I'm not clear on what the exchange rate was, but I'm pretty sure I didn't
pay more than $350 for the total kit. I needed to have the camera CLA'd when
I got home, and the camera has worked like a champ since. You can get these
for only a little more on EBay. Is it the right camera for anyone else?
Maybe, maybe not.

What I like about the P6 is it has big film (6x6) and good lenses. For a
hobbyist, it does what I want. A working pro wouldn't be able to depend on
it. It is absolutely manual and has manual diaphragm lenses. That is, you
focus wide open, stop down, then shoot. I've been looking at new MF cameras,
but I really can't justify one in the sense that I can't, for all practical
terms, get demonstrably better pictures than I can with the P6. Sure, I can
get pictures faster and easier with a newer model, but not *better* (in
other words, the limiting factor in improving the quality of my pictures,
now that I can shoot 6x6 is me, not the gear). For fast handling, I have my
Aria.

I finally scratched the Fuji itch back in November, when I bought a Plaubel
Veriwide 100 off of EBay. It is wider than the Fuji (47 vs. 65 mm lens) and
shoots 6x10 instead of 6x9. I got it for $600. It is a viewfinder camera,
not a rangefinder, but for that wide, isn't really an issue. Quality of
images (when I remember to set everything ) is superb.

In short, there are lots of interesting choices out there for one wanting to
make the jump to MF, I guess before offering any advice on what to look at,
I'd say try to articulate at least to yourself what you want to accomplish
with it that you can't do now with 35. But my first instinct is to suggest
something cheap, just on principle, before you spend large amounts.

Pat


From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First medium format,  Hasselblad 203FE?
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002

RGD wrote:

> I'm going to buy my first medium format camera. I'm going to get a
> Hasselblad, and I'm leaning towards the 203FE. (used or a demo model)
> Do any of the more experienced users have any opinions on this model
> or recommendations they would care to offer. Any advice would be
> appreciated. Thanks in advance,

Why the 203?  Trying to find a medium format camera that has all the
bells & whistles that your 35mm AF camera does?  My advice is to save
your money and start off with a basic kit:  500 CM or 501 CM body
w/waist level finder, 80mm lens, A12 film back and a hand-held incident
light meter.  Learn to use the meter and shoot with camera for a year
before even thinking of buying anything else.

You'll learn that you shoot differently with medium format than with
35mm.  Mainly slower and more deliberate.  You only have 12 shots per
roll instead of 36, so you have to make every shot your best effort.
And that takes lots of practice.


While you're at it, learn to process and print your own b&w.;  You can
learn color later.


--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com



From: kevin_i@my-deja.com (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which three lenses for 6x6?
Date: 3 Apr 2002 


"Douglas Tourtelot" tourtelot1@attbi.com wrote 
> I still don't get it.  Why would anyone want to pay all that money for a
> great camera and then be afraid to use it?
>
> D.


It happens all the time, doesn't it?

A friend of mine has a 501C/M and 503CXi and two lenses which he only
uses around the house because he doesn't want to take them out into
the dirty world outside.  When he goes out, or when he travels, he
takes his Bronica S2A.

I know Leica guys who absolutely LOVE their cameras, but rarely use
them for taking pictures because they are afraid of damaging their
"investment".  For picture taking, some of them use Bessa's or even
ex-Soviet rangefinders.

Of course, this fear of damaging our treasure is not confined to
cameras.  It happens with all sorts of things... cars being one that
jumps to mind.  Do you know anyone who has lusted after a car, gotten
it through blood, sweat and tears, and then cherishes it so much that
he is afraid to take it out for a drive on anything but short
fun-drives?  I know more than a few.


Back to cameras...

I guess it depends on how you feel about your camera.  To many
professionals, their camera is their tool.  It is meant to be used to
put food on the table.  It is depreciable and deductable.  Wear and
tear, dings, dents, drops(?)... it's all part of the job.

To a hobbyist who has probably spent their precious, hard earned money
on a personal treasure, damaging that treasure is a horrible thought.
A treasure is a pleasure to possess and something to be protected.

Heck, if I spent $10,000 or more on a camera kit, regardless of who
made it, I think I'd be pretty protective of it.

-Kevin


From: "Steve Dunlop" dunlop@bitstream.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Portrait lens close focusing, Mamiya 7 vs others
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002


Hi.

My name's Steve Dunlop and I recently started reading
this group.  I post to misc.rural a lot and also some of the
comp.* groups.

I've been thinking about replacing my Yashica D with
something better and am considering, among others,
the Mamiya 7.  I read through the archives, and have
seen a number of the reviews and comments.  Thank
you all who wrote these as they are of value even though
I wasn't in on the original discussion.

One of the major criticisms of the Mamiya 7 is that
its lenses don't focus close enough.  The 150mm,
in particular, only focuses to 6 feet according to the
sales literature, which isn't close enough for a head
shot.


First question.  Do those of you who shoot a lot
of medium formats frame head shots in the camera?
Or is this a 35mm habit that I will have to grow out
of?  I like tight head shots, but is it better for the
framing to happen in the darkroom than in the camera?

--

Below I list the close focus distances for
portrait-length lenses for several major
camera systems.  I see that only the physically large
and heavy camera systems, such as the bellows-
equipped RB and RZ, have close focus that
is significantly better than the Mamiya 7.
The rest focus between 4'6" and 5'0",
hardly a major improvement over the 6'0"
of the Mamiya 7.


Second question:  Am I missing something?

Bronica ETSRi (6x45), SQ-Ai, etc (6x6)
... 135mm focuses to 3'3"
... 150mm focuses to 4'11"

Bronica GS-1 (6x7)
... 150mm focuses to 4'11"

Hasselblad 501 etc
... 150mm sonnar focuses to 4'6"
... 160mm tessar focuses to 5'0"

Mamiya 645
... 150mm (any of several types) focuses to 5'0"

Mamiya RB and RZ
... 150mm focuses 24" to 32" depending on type

Pentax 645
... 135mm focuses to 4'1"
... 150mm focuses to 4'7"

Pentax 67
... 167 focuses to 5'2"

Rollei 6000 series
... 150mm sonnar focuses to 4'7"

Rollei SL66SE
... 150mm sonnar focuses to 2'0"

--
Steve Dunlop
Nerstrand, MN



From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 645 shootout, what's your favorite?
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002

I'm very drawn to the Bronica RF645 too. I have a GA645 and while I
appreciate its automation and the superb Fujinon lens, the Bronica RF645
is superior in feel and controllability. Bronica has discontinued the
135mm lens and released a new 100mm lens ... I saw it at Tokyo Photo Expo
2002, it seems very sweet and handy.

Regards the SLRs, I had a Mamiya 1000S ages ago along with a Hasselblad
500C. Differences between them on image quality were very very small until
you reached the outer limits of enlargement. It's best to consider more
than just lens performance when choosing medium format cameras as they're
all very good on performance.

Godfrey




From: kevin_i@my-deja.com (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: what do you think about Kiev 60 and russian lenses?
Date: 7 Apr 2002


Wow.  Kiev 60 vs. Mamiya C220.  Apples to oranges.

Honestly, I have neither camera... but perhaps I can come close enough
with a Mamiya C3 and two Kiev 88-type cameras?

Like Jeff Sumner wrote, the Mamiya TLRs just work.  They are very
simple and that means there is little to go wrong with them.  Their
lenses are generally quite good too... but that's a loaded statement
because it really depends on what you're expecting and what you're
comparing them against.  If you're coming from 35mm and compare your
Mamiya TLR images, you'll probably be blown away.  If you're comparing
them against modern Zeiss T* lenses... well, I think T* has the nod
for sharpness, color, and contrast.

Downside to the Mamiya TLRs is that they are, well, TLRs...  In my
book, the biggies are: parallax problems in closeup work (unless you
get a Paramender) and using filters like polarizers and grads is a
pain.  On the plus side, they are quiet and vibration-free with no
mirror to move out of the way before exposure, and you have no image
blackout at (and after) exposure.

Kievs.  Kievs, Kievs, Kievs.  Lots of people hate them.  I love mine.
Why do I love mine?  Because I can actually afford to expand my system
and can afford lenses to use.  I recently had fun lining up my Kiev
88CM with its lenses for a photo for the opening page of
Kievaholic.com.  Aside from the 88CM body, film back, and Spot-TTL
prism, the lenses were: 30mm, 45mm, 50mm, 65mm, 80mm, 90mm, 120mm,
120mm, 150mm, 180mm, 300mm.  Total investment?  $1725.  Let's see...
for $1725, I can get a body, back, WLF, and one lens from a major name
brand MF maker...  If I shop used, maybe I can get a prism and another
lens?

Okay.  I'm babbling now.  Back to the subject at hand!

Kievs can be fun, or they can be frustrating.  If you want perfection,
please stay away from Kievs.  If you want to put food on your table by
shooting events, please stay away from Kievs.

But, if you don't mind funky (smelly) cameras and just take pictures
for your own enjoyment... well, then Kievs might be worth a look.
Just please buy one from a reputable dealer who will be there tomorrow
and gives a return/repair period (like Kievcamera.com) -- I just got
another e-mail from a guy who bought an old K88 off of eBay and it was
half-broken when he got it.  Boy do I feel sorry for him.

Back to why I use my Kiev...  I'm a hobbyist and I take pictures for
fun... when I want and of what I want.  I take my pictures seriously,
of course, but I'm not trying to pay the rent with them and banking on
my camera's reliability.

To be perfectly honest, I don't have absolute faith in my Kievs (some
people do... I don't)... so when I get asked to do some "important
shoot", I take my Bronica SQ-A kit... but when I'm shooting for
myself, I prefer the Kiev.  The versatility I have with my Kiev kit is
just unbeatable, and I prefer the chromes I get from my CZJ lenses
over the ones I get from my Zenzanon lenses.  That's personal
preference, but I for one see something in lens "bokeh" and the CZJ
lenses have wonderful bokeh.  Good 'ol Zeiss designs!

If you care to see some Kiev-taken photos, you can check
http://kievaholic.com/ or visit http://photosig.com/ and browse by
camera -- there is a fairly large Kiev representation on PhotoSIG now.
=)

What do you need from a camera?  Your choice should match the answer
to that question.

-Kevin


From: "G. Fenstermacher" gfen@rcn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie wants to get into MF with a TLR.
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002

"Iskandar Samad" is234@cam.ac.uk wrote 
> Ive decided to get a cheap TLR to learn abt MF.

Its how I started, I'm currently looking to pick up an SLR, but I know I'll
be holding onto that TLR anyways, because of some of the adantages it
presents.

> What are the main differences between TLRs, excluding the existence of a
> light meter and the quality of the lens. How does one differ from another.

Film type: Some only take 120 versus 120/220.

Shutter speeds: Some go higher than others.

Screen brightness: Some are much better, I guess the older Rollei screens
are pretty bad?

Build quality: Hey, you can get a Lubitel for dirt cheap, and save money to
spend on more when it breaks...

> Oh, what good cheap TLRs are okay to start on.


I was primarily looking at the Yashica TLRs, but wasn't adverse to a Minolta
Autocord or Rollei. The Mamiya C330 lets you change the lenses, but it was
much more expensive than the rest of the group, and I didn't htink I'd care
for changing lenses, anyway. I rarely change in 35mm. The only reason I find
my 124G doesn't cut it is because its waist-level only, and it gets
aggravating sometimes. I ended up paying $150 for a 124G with case in
perfect optical shape, and good physical shape.



From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie wants to get into MF with a TLR.
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002


There are many design differences between TLRs, but you cannot go wrong
with a good user Rolleiflex 3.5MX from 1951-1956 or so. These were made in
volume and are generally available in pretty good shape for $150-300. They
have either a Schneider Xenar 75/3.5 or Zeiss Tessar 75/3.5 lens, both of
which are excellent, and Rolleis are very well made of good materials.
Rolleicords are the simpler variant of the Rollei TLRs with fewer
conveniences and features but are still well worth the prices if you get a
good one.

The Minolta Autocords are another very good choice, usually available
quite inexpensively. Prices tend to be in the sub=$100 category. Parts and
service are limited, however.

The YashicaMats are also pretty good, although not up to the quality
standards of the above pair. They've become almost as expensive as the
Rolleiflex mentioned above in some cases. I'd take a '54 Rolleiflex over
an '83 YashicaMat 124G, all else being equal.

Godfrey




From: iaintnobody@nobody.com (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: interchangeable lenses - necessry??
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 


Once upon a time, I used to carry a big bag full of bodies and lenses for
every shooting session. As years went on, I've gone to fewer and fewer
lenses, and I'm happier and happier with my results. Now, I only own one
camera with interchangeable lenses and i've only got three lenses for it,
and I rarely use more than one of them. My other most used camera has a
fixed zoom lens, and I do use it, but I tend to use just two settings.

Necessary falls in the category  of question about what you shoot, how
flexible you need your equipment to be vs your eye. I work better working
within a constraint, it seems.

Godfrey



From: davehodge@aol.com (DaveHodge)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: interchangeable lenses - necessry??

just how crucial are interchangeable lenses to the task of good photography?

It all depends on what you want to photograph, or what equipment you happen to
have when an important shot comes up.

In 1989 I had the misfortune to break the antique MF camera I had been using
since 1970.  I did an analysis of my most recent photographs taken with a M645
system and found that better than 60% of all shots were made with the 55mm
lens.  So I purchased a Fuji GS645S camera (60mm lens, built in meter) and it
has worked out very well as a travel camera.  But up to then most of my travels
had been to large European cities and a wide angle lens was a good choice.

Now I am thinking about getting a Fuji GA645zi, as that would give me a
selection of focal lengths (not interchangeable lenses) in a relatively
lightweight MF camera.

Hope this helps, or at least is not too confusing.



[Ed. note: now this is different, here's someone wanting the same lens on _both_ cameras]
From: "David Grandy" dgrandy@accesscable.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Contax 645 Lens Choice?
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002

I just replied to the same question - pretty much - on a the Mamiya 
America users site.  For what it's worth, here it goes (somewhat 
edited):

I own the 35 and a 55 in Mamiya 645.  I've always found that the 45 or 
(28 mm for 35 mm cameras) focal length is in no-man's land. Too wide for 
groups and not wide enough to give you a journalistic look. A 28/45 is 
the kind of lens that I would recommend to someone who is only going to 
own one wide angle lens.

Although you have not much interest in groups I want to m,ention this: 
The key for group shots is to use the longest lens that you can. 
Normally I use my 80 for outside group shots but I have to be more 
concerned about flash coverage and lack of room inside. So while I use 
my 55 for inside wedding group shots, I'd feel that there would be too 
much foreground, ceiling and distortion if I had to use a 45. 

A wide angle requires that yuou have something of importance in the 
foreground, and for landscapes you have to be careful that you WANT to
use a wide angle.  I can't think of a way to make the mountains less 
majestic than to have tons of foreground leading up to them.  A 
telephoto will compress the compostion and make them more spectacular. 

The 55's are highly corrected and I often consider that focal length my 
normal lens. The speed of the lens is almost of no importance, since I'm 
going to use them in their middle apertures most of the time.  I do own 
an 80 f1.9 and there's times where that speed has been very important, 
but generally as long as it's bright enough to focus with then it's 
acceptable.

As for the 35, I've been very happy with that. It's sharp and contrasty 
and well corrected. When I would shoot a 35 mm commercial shot I'd often 
reach for my 20 mm lens and be frustrated not to have the equivalent in 
medium format. It has, without doubt solved a problem for me. 

But remember that it's also an ultra wide angle so it's probably not a
good idea to get someone's face near the corners!


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Just a Cherry Picking Minute
From: stanman2171@hotmail.com (Stan Randle)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 


John Stafford john@stafford.net wrote:
> Cut to the chase, the seat-of-the-eye kinda evaluation. For real life
> photography, how many people can _really_ tell the difference between a good
> Zeiss lens and an average one? (Mean performance lens.)? I submit that
> NOBODY can tell the difference.

The only Zeiss lens I have is the 35/3.5 Tessar-design Zeiss built into
my Yashica T5 point-and-shoot. I must confess that I get better looking
(sharp, creamier-looking) pictures with that lens that with any
comparable Nikon or Canon SLR lens I have used or owned. Made me
consider more than once to switch to Contax SLRs... though I never did.

I think that for the most part Zeiss really does make better lenses, but
to me isn't worth spending the extra $$$. A decent lens in medium format
tends to blow away the best 35mm results anyway, so I'd rather spend
$200 on a Rolleicord or Autocord or Yashica TLR (or $300 for an RB67 and
another $300 for a lens) than a small fortune on a M6 or R8 or Aria and
lenses.

Or, for a 'classic, try a Pentax Spotmatic and one of the old Super
Takumar (Pentax) screwmount lenses. (Total cost: maybe $150.) You'd
think you were looking at something shot with a Summarit.



From: Jeff four_season_photo@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF Introduction Camera
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002

A lot depends on what kind of gear you are most comfortable using: For me,
the tricky part was finding the MF camera that I would actually carry
around on a regular basis, rather than picking a camera that simply seemed
to have a lot of tempting options! Ten years ago, if you told me that I'd
be using MF rangefinder cameras with non-interchangeable lenses, and not
just as a backup to a Hasselblad or Rollei SLR, I'd have thought that
sounded kind of nutty, but that's exactly what I've gone and done, and you
know what? I'm shooting more rollfilm and getting better results now than
ever before!    

The (photographic) object of my affections is the Fuji GA645zi: An
autofocus, zoom 6x4.5 camera; basically a professional point 'n shoot. I
like the 6x4.5 format because I get tonality out of those negatives that I
have to struggle to get out of 35mm. I was so pleased with it that I went
out a year later and got myself a brand-new Fuji 6x9 RF camera as well, but
that's another story.

I haven't used it, but the Bronica RF645 looks seriously interesting too.
Similar capabilities to the "-zi", but in a more traditional package with
interchangeable lenses.

Both are available new (and duty-free if you ship via Air Parcel Post) for
under $1200 from

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk

Nothing against SLR cameras, but for me, the MF SLR is more of a
special-purpose instrument, and SLRs tend to be much bulkier and heavier
than my usual rangefinders. Nevertheless, you can get a fine deal (sub-$1K,
complete) on a new Mamiya or Bronica 645 SLR system, particularly if you
order from overseas.

Why 6x4.5? For my 8x10 and 11x14 prints, I think the 6 x 4.5 images gives
me a big quality jump over 35mm, yet the 6x4.5 camera is still pretty
small, and it gets a frugal 16 shots per roll of 120 film. With larger
formats, the image quality improvement is more incremental, and camera
shake becomes more of an issue. Beyond the 6x7 size, you are probably
looking into a large-format enlarger, and that can be expensive.

Have fun agonozing over this decision,

Jeff

Henricus wrote:
> I currently shoot 35mm as a hobby.  I really enjoy it and I am thinking of
> expanding into a man size negative. ;-)  Before I do, I am reading quite a
> lot and getting familiar with this vastly different arena.  I was shocked
> at the cost of the cameras and frankly I am starting to think I can't
> afford
> it.  Yet I am intrigued and will continue to research this subject.  What
> are some camera suggestions for a hobbyist venturing out into the MF field
> of photography?  I am mainly interested in landscape photography and very
> few portraits, if any.  I must confess that the largeness of the negative
> is
> what intrigues me.  I know that there are a few different sizes to
> consider, but I can't say which size I prefer as I would think this would
> be a consideration when selecting an affordable beginner camera.
>
> --
> Henry Chavez  


Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 
From: William Linne photoassistant@hotmail.com
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [medium-format] Re: which is best?

It really depends on what you want out of the camera. If you want a solid
dependable workhorse (and don't mind paying through the nose for it), get a
Hasselblad. You should try renting as many of the different MF cameras as you
can afford and see what works for you. Hasselblads are ubiquitous. Everyone has
them and you can  always pick out the Hassy photos. You buy one and you can
have work that looks like everyone else's. Think about how you will be using
the camera (landscapes, studio, portraiture, etc.) and do the rental thing and
you will find the best camera for your needs. For the record, I use  a Pentax
67 and a Graflex Norita for the personal work, and a Contax 645 for weddings.

Willam 




From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: at least i'm happy
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 


> > Money is of no interest at all when you're simply evaluating quality and
> > performance.
>
> Quality maybe. But how would you objectively measure the performance of
> a camera body, for instance?

Quality and performance are linked together.

Some points of objective evaluation for quality and performance
of camera bodies:

- features
- lens and accessory availability
- shutter accuracy
- focusing system accuracy
- build ... fit and finish
- reliability ... from the service records of similar products from
                  the same manufacturer
- repairability  ... service outlets, customer satisfaction ratings,
                     parts availability from this manufactureer
- exposure system accuracy (if applicable)
- noise in operation
- control capabilities
- control ergonomics
- weight and size

> Still, let's say we've all established that system XYZ is the best in
> terms of quality and performance, though I'm confident that this will
> never happen, here:

Saying something is "The Best" can only be done within the context of
specific goals or standards to achieve. Set those criteria, pick the
contenders in a class and then rank their performance according to the
above (and other) points of evaluation. Even then, you will likely get a
few ties. Price can be used as a means to rank such ties.

But okay, given that...

> What would be the consequences?
>
> What would those who didn't happen to own this system have to do? Stop
> taking pictures until they've discarded their old cameras and bought the
> 'right' outfit?
>
> Would anyone still using any other equipment be an inferior photographer
> for his lack of commitment to use only the best?
>
> Would you accept that someone uses another than the proclaimed best
> system because of practical reasons, e.g. he doesn't like to use 45
> degree prisms?
>
> What if you had to find that this best system wouldn't suit your way of
> doing things, at all?

This is the familiar issue of Consumer Reports test results. "What, you
said the Honda was the best? But I like the Nissan more even it does cost
another $1000! The Honda seat gives me a backache!" or "Darned if I can
stand the looks of the Subaru! Yeah, it's got a good motor and carries a
lot of gear, but I think the Honda's better looking even though it is $500
cheaper!"

First off, not everyone can afford the best, or wants the cheapest, or
whatever. There are a few dozen points of comparison that never make it on
comparison testing quality/performance charts because the metrics are only
loosely defined.

Second, just because something isn't the best there is doesn't mean that
it's not adequate to the task. Differences abound everywhere and can be
useful... I still take pictures with a 1938 Super Ikonta B ... That old
uncoated Tessar is far from the contrast/resolution leader, the shutter is
accurate only to a half stop or so, but it nonetheless returns a very nice
image rendition. The photograph is more important than the equipment that
created it, and the photographer is more important than the equipment too.
A photographer's skill is independent of the reputation of his equipment,
although the uninformed often make that association. Some photographers'
reputation comes from being associated with particular marques as well,
but for that association to be a true indicator of the quality of their
work is rare.

So I don't like 45 degree prisms and The Best only comes with a 45 degree
prism? Heck with that, it's not The Best for me... That's one of those
points of comparison that misses the chart of objective evaluation.

The long and the short of it is that just because by some arbitrary set of
criteria one thing might outrank or outperform another does not mean that
it is by any set of criteria the only acceptable choice. The ultimate
evaluation is manifold ... As a photographer, what gives me the
satisfaction in using it? As a buyer of photographs, what produces
satisfactory results? etc etc.


> > This is the rec.photo.equipment.medium-format newsgroup, not the
> > alt.consumer-reports.photo.equipment.medium-format newsgroup.
>
> This isn't rec.photo.equipment.medium-format.only-the-best either. Nor
> is it rec.photo.equipment.medium-format.hasselblad-rulez.yeah.yeah.yeah.

Never said it was either of those either. This newsgroup is supposedly a
place where people can chat about what they are doing, seek advice and
assistance when they have some difficulty, enjoin with others using
similar equipment to celebrate their enthusiasm, etc etc. It's also a
place for bench-racing and other adventure stories... If it were "only the
best", I'd be bored shitless. If it were "hasselflatz ruleaux", well, I
would rather be on the Hasselblad Users Group for dedicated H discussion
only.

> Aren't those purely academical discussions a rather fruitless exercise,
> in the long run.

Ratholes remain ratholes, yes. Some of the academic threads have their
moments of uncovering interesting facts that can help one out at odd
moments. Mostly, this newsgroup is for the entertainment of the
participants so to ascribe it a purpose of promoting Truth, The Facts and
The Staight Dope is kinda pointless.

> Or would you, Q.G., and the other H'blad users be happy if we simply
> agreed that H'blad is the best and everybody could return to the more
> practical questions of medium-format photography? In this case I'm sure
> we could all agree to do you this little favour. ;-)

LOL!!!

Godfrey


Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 
From: andy andy3717@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Vacilating - Used Hassy or New Bronica ?


i would suggest Hasselblad  because :

1) more and better choice on the used market
2) more value if you decide to resale a blad
3) better reputation of constructing, and better quality of construction :
my 500 C is 40 years old and works like a new one. blad also has very good
worshops for CLA and repairs.
4) extra lenses : not that expensive if you buy used lenses, especially the
C ones. if have just bought a 4/250mm, with a 6 month warranty, for 750
euros. the first slides i have made with my "new" lens are really superb.
you can have the 50mm or 150 mm for about the same price on the used market.

Dave CS a ,crit :

> Oy..

> some have called me stupid for wanting to go back to MF after leaving
> the 645 format behind about 1/2 year ago or so but I think a 6x6 would
> better suit my portrait needs and I think I would use it more than I did
> my 645.  That being said; I don't want to start a "Blad vs Bronica" post
> ( as per the recent -Why has no one improved on the Blad? - diatribe )
> I just want some sound advice on the two options I'm looking at:
>
> Option 1:  Used Hassy 500 C/M with the standard A12 back and 80mm lens
> (perhaps some extras ? - Polaroid back etc.)
> Option 2:  New Bronica SQ-B with standard back (120) and 80mm lens
>
> I've looked at both and price wise they're roughly in the same ballpark
> if you shop around and do your job as a consumer -
> I guess my question would be: What advantage would one have over the
> other ?  ( I'm aware of the quality of Zeiss glass as I own a Contax G2
> and love the lenses so image quality will obviously be one of them - or
> maybe not ?)  - Both, as far as I'm aware, are fully manual cameras - no
> metering - correct me if I'm wrong on this point.   Is there much
> difference in pricing of extra lenses ? (some people have told me
> "definitely" while others have said "nah.. not much")
>
> Any and all help is muchly appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave


Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002
From: Arthur Dent nomail@nospam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei or Hassy

"Joe Schimpanzi" JoeSchimpanzi@Monkeybusiness.com wrote:
>Hasselblad if you want all mechanicals (5XX series), better market
>saturation and huge investments of dollars to obtain all the advantages of
>the Rollei.



Take this from someone who experienced the pain of loss on a Rollei
system. I love it for all of the reasons you listed, but  I'm
frustrated with the lack of availability of good used backs,  and
lenses. Rollei is a niche product, and that niche is very small. I
tried without success several times to sell the system and go back to
Hasselblad, which I regret leaving now. Caveat emptor. Rollei builds
nice equipment, but be prepared to keep it. The used value is abysmal
compared to Hasselblad.  One other thing that frustrates me is the
battery issue. If you shoot events like Weddings, you had better have
more than 2 spares. They are NiCads, and they develop a memory and
lose their ability to hold a charge after repeated charging. Forget
conditioning, its a myth with NiCads. Last, if I'm in a Church that
has strict rules against flash or excessive noise, I'm limited on
shooting during the ceremony. My Rolleis with their integral motor
drive are MUCH louder the mechanical Hasselblads. So while I loved my
Rolleis for a lot of reasons, I hate them for many more. Hindsight?
I'd have stayed with Hasselblad if I were to do it all over again.



From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Looking for modern MF with 6x6 format
Date: 8 Aug 2002


Jack,

Sure, depends on how much you want to spend. I like 6x6 too - frames
are a little hard to find for prints though.

Hasselblad is a classic 6x6 SLR camera with interchangeable lenses. A
good used 500 CM will set you back about $1,500 with a back,
wast-level finder and a 80mm Planar. If you like a rangefinder, the
Mamiya 6 has astoundingly sharp lenses, a built-in non-TTL meter. You
should be able to find a decent one with the 75mm lens for a little
less than a grand. I have a Mamiya 7II (6x7)and it is impressive. Take
a look at the Bronica SQ-AI and the Hartblei Kievs (Hasselblad knock
offs). Rolleis are fine and expensive new.

If metering isn't important, you should consider older cameras - all
new ones will have meters except for large format-type cameras like a
Linhof Technika. The Mamiya C-330 TLR is a bellows-focusing system
camera with a good selection of interchangeable lenses, built like a
tank and reasonably priced. The lenses are good and have a wide range
of apertures and shutter speeds. Prices will run from $250-$500 for a
decent one with the 80mm lens. There's also the 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 Crown
and Century (or Speed) Graphics which can take 4.5x6, 6x6, 6x7, and
6x9 roll fim backs, take a variety of lenses, and have some movements
(no more leaning church steeples). They run from $250-$400 with a good
lens like the Schneiders or Kodaks - the roll film backs will set you
back about $100 each. I have one of each, they're competent and fun.
The Century or Crown will do almost 1-1 macro with the 105, as will
the Mamiya with the 55mm lens, but the TLR is a little harder to do
macro with because of parallax. BTW, you could also use a 4x5 Crown or
Speed Graphic, they're more plentiful and just as cheap (if not
cheaper), and throw a 6x6 roll film back on it. If you want to do
large format, just put a Kodak Quickload holder on it and buy a box of
Readyloads or Quickloads and presto! you're into large format. Just be
sure it has a graflock back, not a spring back (goes for the 2-1/4 x
3-1/4 Crown, but all Centurys had graflocks).


Thanks!

Steve

"JackBlack" JackBlackIsBack@hotmail.com wrote 
> Hi, all!!  Since starting with MF about six months ago with a nifty little
> Seagull 6x6, I moved to a Mamiya 645 1000s, and love it...  But there's just
> something about that 6x6 format that I love, more so than the 6x4.5...  Are
> there any modern MF camera models (good range of shutter speeds, metering
> not necessary) in the 6x6 format?  My little Seagull works great, but the
> limited range of exposure options (shutter speed, usable aperatures) is
> rather restrictive.  I shoot primarily landscape stuff, and never do any
> portraiture...
>
> I've considered 6x7, but with the cost of current models it's rather
> prohibitive without going into serious debt...  ;-)
>
> Jack


From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: medium equipment choice (newbie)
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002

I have no experience with the Kievs or Pentacon Six. They have a
reputation for highly variable quality control and reliability, but
especially with the Kievs, you can get some very good ones that work well.
Do a search for Hartblei as well ... They sell essentially remanufactured
Kievs with a lot of Hasselblad component compatibility, but they might be
too expensive for your budget. The Lubitel and Seagulls have a consistent
reputation of poor lenses.

My recommendation would be to find a good user Rolleiflex, Rolleicord,
Minolta Autocord or YashicaMat. The Rolleis tend to be a bit pricier than
the others but are beautifully made and have known excellent lenses.
Autocords and YashicaMats are often available for next to nothing.

Another option is to hunt down a good condition Zeiss Ikon, Balda or
Voigtl,nder folder ... many excellent cameras of this type were made in
formats ranging from 6x4.5cm to 6x9cm. I'm partial to the Zeiss Ikon Super
Ikonta A and B models, but the Voigtl,nder Perkeos have an excellent lens
and go for less money. I bought a 1938 Super Ikonta B for about $170 or so
from Ebay, that sort of thing comes up now and then.

The more modern Fuji 645, 670 and 690 cameras are worth looking into
(superb lenses) but tend to cost more. Sometimes you get lucky but don't
count on it.

What are the advantages? As soon as you start shooting with medium format
you should see them ... The big negative gives you very fine grain,
wonderful tonalities and sharpness, much lesser dust and scratch issues.

good luck!

Godfrey
"Micha3 Birnbach"
 wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>    I would like to ask you for help. I am using an 35mm camera but recently
>have been thinking about trying medium format. As it's just a trial I do not
>want to pay much for it and therefore my question.
>
>    Has anyone used old russian medium format cameras like Kiev 60, Lubitel
>166 or Pentacon Six? Is it worth to buy it? Prices are from 25$ for Lubitel
>to ca. 150$ for Kiev / Pentacon. 200$ is max. what I am able to pay.
>
>    What are the advantages (if any) to go into such system. Is the picture
>quality better than in 35mm? I mean if I compare Kiev with rather poor lens
>with my Canon EOS 3 + 28-135. Assuming that I want to shoot using Provia
>100F and enlarge to min. 15x21cm or to A4 (not more).
>I would be gratefull for any help / advise.
>
>Best regards,
>
>    Michael


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 
From: Anton Zackaria anzac@cbn.net.id
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1593

I work as industrial photographer for 10 years now, & I involve in many
different object of photography each time. (Geo Thermal Drilling,
advertising, catalog, people, machinery, interior, building, nightscene,
factory environment, etc,etc.) 

Most of the time I will use my Minolta
Flashmeter IV, which has the 5 degree spot attachment, flat , and dome
incident attachment, with reflective attachment as well. This meter has
analize function which other meters don't, but even to my cases, I rarely
use it, and just use all the general features in it. 

Talking about the
physical performance, this meter really stand the worst condition in all my
assignment. My situation is very very humid with 90+ level, hot weather,
alot of dust/debris, alot of fall down or bump into things around, and still
the meter work very well and accurate for years. 

My suggestion is, if you
live in humid area, do not buy Gossen or other German made meter, as I
learned that many of German made product have problem with the electronic
contact such as button etc, and it will cost you alot to have it fixed. 3 of
my friend who own Rolleiflex 6008 got the problem with the function switch,
shutter release button, and inside lens contact. (among others) And I also
heard from a friend how he bought a Gossen years ago, and it got electronic
problem, so he just sold it back. I try not to downgrade any of German made
product, because I work for commercial works and I have to rely on really
really good equipment, and I just can't prefer this or that because of just
personal taste. 

I opt for best equipment which will withstand alot of
abusive rough use.  German made product is good, but only for those living
in Europe, USA or any other where humidity is no problem. Alot of electronic
goods for photography just fail because of that. 

I use alot of medium
format, from Mamiya645 (500), SQ-Am, Mamiya RZ, SQ-Ai, Rolleiflex 6008E,
Hasselblad 503cx, even large format (Sinar F1), but my last choice over
everything here is Hasselblad 500CM or the other mechanical ones.
It's just plain easy to determine which camera will work best when you can
put on the simple philosophy  over alot of situation here.

What camera will withstand :
Humidity, hot, rainy, alot of dust, shocks, bumpings, mistreatments
(careless assistants), remote area where you probably can't find batteries
or supplies, no electronic shop near your assignment area,
problem with inside mechanical gears, the possibilities of short circuit
inside your camera caused by any humidity or water problem?

I have learned in many situation where I used other than Hasselblad cameras,
then I end up, shooting with irresistible questions, will the batteries
drained, will the shutter perform correctly, is there any shop I can buy
batteries (in cold areas, batteries drain in no exact time, it just died out
instantly), how if my electronic contacts got problem inside the lens, how
if the camera dropped, & many other questions which bother me, taking out
the thrill of photography out of me.

Thinking back to those years, I end up with conclusion that, using a totally
simple operation mechanical camera as Hasselblad does, leave you shoot with
no question at all, the only question is whether the result will be
excellent or not.

If you guys don't mind over my long story, read on please....
As with Mamiya, it has inner gear problem, if something happen at the end of
the film, you force to roll it up and the gear will break, you just have to
attach motor winder for the rest of your life to ensure long life camera
gear. The motor eat up your batteries too, & 1 of my friend got problem in
cold places up the mountain, the camera jammed ! In those places Hasselblad
is proven to be king of the medium. The picture quality of Mamiya is bad,
according to my experience using all lenses from Germany to Japan lens. Skin
tone not as good as Carl Zeiss's. The blow up photo still inferior to Carl
Zeiss.

As with Bronica, only SQAi perform quite good under normal condition, but
the lens also has a "cold" feeling, compare to warm, and "glowy"  quality of
Carl Zeiss lenses for people photography.

In some cases of my friends, some types of Bronica cameras, have problem with batteries, 
they drain the batteries out quickly, and I find out myself that the knob of
single/multi exposure are kind of lose it's rigidity, and not perform
normally over years or heavy use. The blow up photo is not bad, but still
inferior to Carl Zeiss.

As with Rolleiflex, 3 of my friends got problem with electronic inside, the
function knob, shutter release, lens electronic, etc, & the fixing cost +
parts is so expensive. You can't detach the motor, have to use tripod all
the time, oh yes, the back also got some problem . It sometimes can't figure
out that the darkslide is drawn up so it won't let you release the shutter.
The lens is good, but again, those "cold" feeling is there, not like Carl
Zeiss for the Hasselblad, even they are made by the same company (Carl
Zeiss). These my friends are shooting for commercial as well. One of the
case is problem encountered when shooting on the beach and got sprayed by
the mist of the water. The batteries of Rolleiflex is special made, not
conventional batteries and if you got problem on location, than you could
say good bye to those photo ops.

In the budget side though, I have to emphasize here , that as long as you
have a passion for photography, for a hobby which is artful, I think you
should struggle to get one piece of nice, qualified, and good system, and
you will get it one day. Because the hobby is something unreplaceble, so
nothing can beat/no parameters where somebody has to be rich or affluent in
order to own a Hasselblad. Anyway we can buy it second hand (used). I got my 500CM for 
only US$ 1368 with 80mm/2,8 planar and A12 back, in exellect + condition. (almost like new).

Many other friend of mine though, I think they actually loves Hasselblad as
much as we do, like the lenses and the result, but unwilling to struggle for
the best, they just pick other system (with alot of problem) and start to
complain here and there, saying that Hasselblad is just like any other
brand, the lenses are not sharp as Rollei's , if you forgot to cock the body
&attach; the lens, you jam the mechanical inside, no multiple exposure, etc,
which I think they will end up with unstable rightful decision over other
values of life in the years of theirs to come.

Watch over some person that say Hasselblad is the same or worse as any other
brand/system. They must be people that are not willing to struggle for the
best and to back their opinion (idea), they have to create this situation or
opinion that Hasselblad is worse, just "ordinary one", so to lessen
Hasselblad' value. I come up to this conclusion after many encounters of
funny behaviour from friends in relation to my just buying a Hasselblad
(change from other brand). They started to change the way they treat me.
They treat me like some new rich person in town driving a Rolls Royce or
something. It's kinda bad way of seeing / thinking in photography, fellas
......

I use Sinar large format camera and the lenses are very very sharp and
perfect, I use Rodenstock lens.

To my critical eye, Rodenstock only beat Hasselblad lens in the class of the
medium, as it is made for large format, but Hasselblad is made for medium
format. If you look closely and carefully with a good lupe or if you scan
the both result with good scanner, then enlarge in the screen to some
degree, you will find out that both Rodenstock and Carl Zeiss (for
Hasselblad) are both very very good lenses. I saw many other result of
different lenses and none of them can beat the quality of these German made
optics. 

FYI , I even see a blow up of (120mm macro lens) mural in 80x100
inches, side by side with the result of Fuji GX68 lens, as you see, Fuji got
6x8cm film, Hasselblad got 6x6 that cropped into 645 size, but the result
can't be cheated. Fuji's can't hold up the details definition, as Hasselblad
still can be printed to that size without losing it's nice details, warmth,
and sharpness, with the same grain size , I believe. Upon seeing that mural,
my confident on Hasselblad lenses add up to 1000%, I am not over
exaggerating here. 

Truly I've seen alot of prints of my other professional
friends in many area of photography, if they ever buy other brand instead of
Hassy, in most of the case they must be the budget, or not willing to deal
with precaution of attaching the lens-cocking problem. 

Many lenses are considered to be sharp, good optical design and quality, good tone capture,
but with bulky body, of troublesome/worrysome/many dependence, you could end
up with unending search for the best system on earth. But let's just combine
them (nice German lens with small body, battery independent, full metal
jacket body, simple operation/logical knobs, more than 50 years system, all
compatible old lenses to new, light weight body, fully ergonomic body (add
on the colorfull new bodies), and you got the nicest piece of equipment on
earth (even piece of art itself) !!

Sorry for my long story, but I live happily ever after now with my
Hasselblad 500CM, after searching for the most perfect system for 10 years,
quit thinking about finding other system on earth, and just 'go out &
shooting', keep the money flowing in.


From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Which Camera To Buy?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002

 Gadget Head wrote:

> I'm in the market for a medium format camera.  Most of my work will be
> B&W; landscapes, but I want something that's portable enought to use
> for kids,
> travel, etc. on occasion.  This is just a hobby for me.  I'm
> considering
> buying a Mamiya M645 1000s.  What little advice I have been able to
> find online indicates this is a good solid camera which is easily
> available for a reasonable price and has an excellent selection of
> used lenses on the
> market.  I also own a Leica R4, so I appreciate quality optics.
> However, a Hasselblad seems like overkill for my needs.
>
> Can anyone help me here?  Is there another camera I should be looking
> at?
> Is ebay an OK place to buy this kind of thing?  I have read that parts
> are
> difficult to find.  Should I buy a newer model?

Since photography is just a hobby, the Mamiya 1000s would be fine for
your purposes.

Although the 'Blad is an excellent camera, it is most likely more
camera than you'll need.  A friend of mine got the 1000s over the 'Blad
-- at my suggestion (I let him use my 'Blad just to be sure) -- and he
says it was the right choice for scenics, travel and portraits of his
kids.  He's been very happy with the quality of the pictures, and the
fact that he got an entire Mamiya setup -- 3 lenses, body, meter prism,
several film inserts and some filters -- for what a 20 year old
Hasselblad 500C/M, 80mm C T* lens and A12 back would go for on eBay.

--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com



From: "Matt Williams" kauai82@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Mamiya 645e vs Kiev 88
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002

With the new price drop of the Mamiya 645e ($629 special till 9/6 at B and H
out of New York) how does it compare to the Kiev 88 ? Which would be the
better unit for a starting person in MF ? Matt



From: "Sherman" sherman-remove_this@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 645e vs Kiev 88
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002


"Matt Williams" kauai82@earthlink.net wrote 
> With the new price drop of the Mamiya 645e ($629 special till 9/6 at B and H
> out of New York) how does it compare to the Kiev 88 ? Which would be the
> better unit for a starting person in MF ? Matt

Matt,
I think the answer to you question is "It depends."  I have no experience
with the Mamiya 645e system but I do own a Kiev 88cm system so I will
restrict my comments to that.

Here are some things to consider-
*  Kievs can be problematic, mine has had to be returned once to have the
slow shutter speeds repaired.  It is about 9 months old.  (Of course a
friend of mine had to take his new Nikon F back within a week of picking it
up so any camera can malfunction at any time.)
*  The Kievs are all older technology.  You won't get auto exposure (not
even coupling the lens to the light meter if you use a meter prism),
autofocus or any of those modern goodies.
*  Kievs are big and heavy and many of the lenses available for it are also
big and heavy.
*  Kievs smell funny when new.

On the plus side-
*  There are tons of very high quality lenses available for the Pentacon 6
mount (Kiev 88cm, Kiev 60) at very good prices.  The Kiev (Arsenal lenses
are generally very good, plus there are Zeiss and Schneider lenses that work
as well.  (I have several lenses for my Kiev and if I had gone with another
system I doubt if I would have more than one or two).
*  The negative is 6x6.  No need to turn the camera sideways to compose
either portrait or landscape format shots, and for those shots which really
look better square....
*  The cost of the system is low so you might be able to afford a backup
body as well.
*  It is fun to explain to people that the camera is from Ukraine!

If you are planning to use the camera professionally (heavy use) I might
lean toward the Mamiya, particularly if you would like to take advantage of
things like auto exposure, auto flash and all that good stuff.  If you want
a system that will make great images, doesn't cost an arm and a leg and you
don't mind doing stuff yourself (like setting exposures), the Kiev system
with P6 mount is great.

HTH,
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com


From: Peter Irwin pirwin@ktb.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format vs. 35mm
Date: 7 Sep 2002


Jeff Haddock liftwithyourknees@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have long wanted to use medium format for my photography but have
> heard conflicting things about it. I am hoping they are simply the
> ramblings of one who is married to the 35mm format and simply does not
> have the will nor the means to try anything else.

The means is actually pretty easy, a TLR or folder with a
Tessar type lens (I now have both), a suitable enlarger
(which I already had) and Tri-X and Pan-F at around $2 a roll.

> That being said, I have heard people stating that there is
> considerable depreciation of depth of field when shooting MF compared
> to 35mm. Does this statement have any merit?

The difference (given a 50mm lens on 35 and an 80mm lens on 6x6)
is very nearly one stop.  You just end up using f/11 when you
would normally use f/8. Since Tri-X makes great looking 8x10s
from 6x6, you can afford the extra stop and more.

> Beyond this supposed disadvantage, are there any other, real or
> perceived, that I should be aware of? In other words, is it, or why is
> it not, simply the exact same thing with more information because
> there is more negative to expose?

The film has got a very different feel to it, I find the
negatives a lot easier to handle, and a lot easier to judge
by looking at them. There seems to be way more overexposure
latitude than in 35mm.

The more affordable cameras, old TLRs and folding rangefinders,
handle quite differently from most 35mm cameras.

Most TLRs are remarkably lightweight for their size and
have waist level finders wihich take some getting used
to, but which I now prefer to pentaprism finders. The
image on the ground glass is reversed left-to right
and seems a little dim towards the corners, but it is
very nice for visualising how the print will look.
I also find it a lot easier to see how the light is going
to work in the picture with a directly viewed groundglass.

The folding rangefinder (I have a Moskva-5) seems to work
best when I have a pretty clear idea of the picture
before putting the camera to my eye. The overlapping spot
is a quick and easy way to focus (much faster for me than
the groundglass with magnifier.) The folding rangefinder
seems to be easier for me to handhold at slow speeds than
the TLR. This may be because I have more proctice at
bracing a camera with my face than holding it still against
my body.  At any rate, I generally load the folder with
Ilford Pan-F+ 50  and the TLR with Kodak Tri-X 400.

Peter.
----
pirwin@ktb.net




From: "James" 76eb@sympatico.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 roll film camera
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002

"LucaC" colombini8@interfree.it wrote
> Hi all,
>
>  what would you suggest for a 120 roll film camera to start with, at a
> reasonable price ?
>
> Thanks,
> Luca.


All these are, of course, used:

Twin lens reflex cameras, all priced at about $400 CDN including standard
80mm lens...

- Rolleicord (Vb is regarded as best, but others are very good)
- YashicaMat 124 and 124G
- Mamiya C3 and C33 (interchangeable lenses -- "black" series lenses are
considered best due to superior coating)
- Minolta Autocord

SLR cameras, priced at about $800 CDN, including w/l finder, 80mm lens, 120
back...

- Bronica ETR
- Mamiya 645M

For about $1300 CDN...

- Hasselblad 500C, finder, 80mm, back (this may seem like a bargoon but the
accessories will sticker-shock you)
- *NEW* Mamiya 645E w/prism finder, 80mm, 120 insert (made in China -- there
are reports of quality issues so be careful)

For about 40 bucks CDN...

- Holga (NEW)

The used cameras, especially the Rolleicords and the Mamiya TLR's, will have
been around the block a couple of times, so budget for a CLA at a shop which
is familiar with the camera.  Parts may be an issue; Mamiya has a good
reputation for supporting its older brands. Also, consider digging up an
owner's manual for your camera as the operation of many of them is not
exactly what you would call obvious.

HTH

James


From: bharen@bellsouth.net (Brian Haren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Best Option for Entry-level Medium Format
Date: 17 Oct 2002

All,

I'm seriously thinking of getting into medium format and am shopping around
for the best deal on new entry-level gear.  The two standout options for
entry level packages right now appear to be the Mamiya 645E and the Kiev
CM88.  Before making the jump I'd like to collect some (objective) opinions
from users as many as possible.  My key concerns (in order) are:

1. Affordability (haven't won the lottery - yet!)
2. Quality (mechanical and optical)
3. Expandability
4. Durability

Both of the above packages fall in the US$500 - $700 range.  If anyone has
good advice on an equivalent used package I'd love to hear about that, too.
The user (me) is a 'serious' amatuer who will expose the gear to
light-moderate indoor and outdoor use.  I realize in the mind of many that
the Mamiya package is the obvious choice in terms of quality, but recent
info on the web and in print indicates that Kiev has (for now, anyway)
cleaned up their QC act and is now putting out a well made camera.  If you
have direct experience with either or both systems I'd love to have your
comments.  Thanks in advance!

Brian


From: John Halliwell john@photopia.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best Option for Entry-level Medium Format
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002

...

I'd steer away from the Kiev, just because I've heard too many stories
with problems. The one thing I wanted first of all was consistent
results and access to a 'mainstream' system (large selection, easy to
find and lots of used options). I figured if you haven't got consistent
results, you're always at the mercy to chance, and life's hard enough.

The 645e is a very good starter package but it let down by the fixed
finder and back which may or may not be an issue (although used Mamiya
645 Super bodies aren't that expensive and give both). It is an
excellent deal if it offers what you need, and allows you to grow into
the rest of the Mamiya 645 system later if need be.

Going off UK prices (your local price structure may not be similar), the
other best decent new SLR is probably the Bronica ETRSi, at a similar
price to a 645e but with removable finders and backs, the drawback being
no metered prism at the start. I use a Mamiya 645 Pro myself, no
problems with it, but for a basic new starter kit (body, back, lens and
WLF) the ETRSi is better value for money (assuming you don't need or
want an AE prism - but they do help when turning the 645 format).

Looking at used kit opens up a lot more options, you should be able to
pick up a Pentax 645 for a similar amount, various Bronica 6x6 SLRs and
a lot more.

You have to work out what you're looking for and go from there.

--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk


From: ptempel2000@yahoo.com (Philippe Tempel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best Option for Entry-level Medium Format
Date: 17 Oct 2002


bharen@bellsouth.net (Brian Haren) wrote
> All,
>
> I'm seriously thinking of getting into medium format and am shopping around
> for the best deal on new entry-level gear.  The two standout options for
> entry level packages right now appear to be the Mamiya 645E and the Kiev
> CM88.  Before making the jump I'd like to collect some (objective) opinions
> from users as many as possible.  My key concerns (in order) are:
>
> 1. Affordability (haven't won the lottery - yet!)
> 2. Quality (mechanical and optical)
> 3. Expandability
> 4. Durability
>
> Both of the above packages fall in the US$500 - $700 range.  If anyone has
> good advice on an equivalent used package I'd love to hear about that, too.
> The user (me) is a 'serious' amatuer who will expose the gear to
> light-moderate indoor and outdoor use.  I realize in the mind of many that
> the Mamiya package is the obvious choice in terms of quality, but recent
> info on the web and in print indicates that Kiev has (for now, anyway)
> cleaned up their QC act and is now putting out a well made camera.  If you
> have direct experience with either or both systems I'd love to have your
> comments.  Thanks in advance!

You should probably try to think what format would best suit you.  The
two cameras you mention are different in that respect.  Also, do you
really need interchangeable lenses?  There are a lot of deals on used
TLRs and good folder cameras which would allow you to buy two of them
and still be in your price range.  I have two Rolleicord TLRs that are
easily in your price range taken together.  That's what I started
with.  But if you need interchangeable lenses, then that narrows the
field a bit.  The previous poster's idea of the Koni Omega range
finder was a good one.  For the 6x4.5 slr you can include a used
Pentax with the manual lenses.  For 6x6 slr, your options are pretty
thin.  I wouldn't go with a Kiev or Kowa if I could help it.  I'd
rather hold out for an older used Hassy 500C with the older 80mm C
lens.  The older Bronicas can be good values as well.  The SQ is nicer
but the S2A is really cheap and has some Nikkor lenses available for
it.  The Mamiya C220 and C330 TLRs are very good and have
interchangeable lenses that are also inexpensive.

Whatever your choice, I'd automatically budget another $150 for a CLA
(clean lube and adjustment) to go with your purchase.  It really made
a difference for a used Hassy 500C/M kit I recently bought.  Also, if
available, I'd look into getting a newer focussing screen.  It will
help with most WLF type cameras.  The older TLRs have even darker
screens which makes the replacement mandatory, IMHO.  I bought new
screens from Bill Maxwell and like them a lot.  Beattie is another
good supplier to consider.


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best Option for Entry-level Medium Format
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002

ptempel2000@yahoo.com (Philippe Tempel) wrote:

> For 6x6 slr, your options are pretty
>thin.  I wouldn't go with a Kiev or Kowa if I could help it.  I'd
>rather hold out for an older used Hassy 500C with the older 80mm C
>lens.

I considered this when I bought into the kiev line but the main
problem is, the cost of the "other" lenses. IMHO there isn't much
point in doing a blad if you can't afford anything other than the
normal lens. A rolleiflex can do the same thing at a much cheaper
price. That is what is SO tempting about a kiev/pentacon.

Stacey


From: ptempel2000@yahoo.com (Philippe Tempel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best Option for Entry-level Medium Format
Date: 18 Oct 2002

...(quotes stacey above posting)


True, the other lenses can be expensive.  There are
good deals once in a while, though.  I recently got
a used 80mm C lens for $200 and a 150mm C for $400.
A guy on the Hasselblad mailing list was selling his
entire kit.  For Hassy, they definately don't break
the bank.  A used extension tube for the 80mm will
give some cool close up shots without costing a lot
as well.  About the only drawbacks with the older C
lenses are that Hassy USA will charge more for repairs
with some parts unavailable (the Syncro Compur shutter
hasn't been in production for a long time), and the
lack of the T* multicoating in some cases (my 60mm CT*
has it).  But they aren't a big deal.  The advantage
is that they are cheaper and have the now absent self
timer (could never understand why Hassy got rid of it).
Let's be honest, if my photography was good enough to
need the T* multicoating, then I'd be able to afford
the latest CFi lenses since I would have already sold
work to clients for $$$.  :-P




Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 
From: Dante Stella dante@umich.edu
Subject: [Leica] Electronic vs. Mechanical

In my never-ending quest to find things to avoid going to my office the
day after Thanksgiving, I went through and evaluated the arguments pro
and contra in the never-ending struggle between electronic cameras
(say, M7s, Hexars and late Leica R series) and all-mechanical ones
(Leica M6s, Nikon Fs, etc.).

This is the link

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/mechanical.html

Does anyone have any other thoughts or arguments pro or con *not*
addressed there?  I am particularly interested in failure modes you
have actually experienced with electronic and mechanical cameras.

Regards
Dante



Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 
From: "Dizel" webmaster@fucha.pl
Subject: Re: [Leica] Electronic vs. Mechanical

> As for mechanical shutter accuracy - you all know best how good mechanical
> shutter is.

should be:
as we know that mechanical shutter is enoughly accurate for any photographic work,
if properly adjusted. Electronic shutter doesn't give a lot to photographer
working in manual mode. Also: when camera with electronic shutter shows
selected speed, it shows only a value it choosed. Please consider a led
shutter speed display - as in many older SLRs - you see '500' as
camera selected shutter speed. You decide to overexpose two stops and
turn exposure correction wheel until '125' is shown. Right?

WRONG! as in first case camera-selected shutter speed could be anything
from 1/375 to 1/750, in second case it could be anything between
1/90 and 1/180. So you corrected somewhere between 1 and 3 stops.. :)

Electronical shutter has some other drawbacks, depending of construction.
It frequently drains batteries on B setting. It is frequently a lot
more sensitive to dust than mechanical one, as electromagnets operate
in small distances from parts they hold and even small grain of sand
can stop them from functioning. More: electrolytic capacitors in electronic
cameras die very quickly or lose their capacitance.
- --
 St.


From: Martin Jangowski m.jangowski@phoenix-ag.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "TLRs, Kowas, and Kievs" Oh my!
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 


TWW tww@execpc.com wrote:
> Greetings,
> I am new to the medium format world, experienced only in searching
> sifting, and reading through a plethora of information on the web
> regarding medium format camera choices.  After plenty of reading, I am
> a tad more than confused in terms of the direction ZI should go for
> purchasing my first medium format camera.  So, I am soliciting
> opinions.  Here's the knitty-gritty.

> Interests:     Landscape & some portrait type photography, mostly
>                outdoors.  Amateur/pleasure only
> Budget:        ~ $200 best, $400+ would be a pinch right now but possible.


In my experience, a TLR would fit your budget best. Here in Germany
it's easy to buy a perfect user Rollei for about 150 Euro, so
it's not very interesting to look after different makes of TLRs.
After all, even the amateur-class Rolleis (the Rolleicords or the
Rolleiflex T) are the best made cameras you could buy in the 50' and
60'. The optical quality of all Rolleis (with the possible exception
of the old Rolleicord with Triotar) is still among the best you can
buy, I have several real big enlargements (up to 76x76cm) made from
Rolleiflex-T negatives (with it's 3.5/75 Tessar lens). I can make
direct comparisons, the Mamiya 6 lenses are only marginal better
(if you can close the Tessar 2-3 f-stops). Wide open, there are
certainly better lenses, but landscapes and portraits are seldom
made wide open.

Even so, with a starting investment of around 150 Euro, you can
certainly buy another MF camera, if you'll grow above the
features of the Rollei TLR. However, even owning a Mamiya 6 and
7 and a RB, I very often use the Rolleiflex T, because it packs
a lot of punch in a small case...

Martin


From: TP  tp@noemailthanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Independent Pro Lenses
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002


"Ed" EdEllks@NetZero.MyPants.com wrote:

>I have a Sigma lens and just got a used 70-200 f/2.8.  I'd suggest saving
>for the real thing.  While the other brands are pretty good, they're not up
>to both the speed and quality of Canon's glass.  It's a painful purchase,
>but wait until you see how fast it focuses and the quality of the images you
>get.  You'll forget all about the leg you had to sacrifice to get it.


That's sound advice, and it parallels the experience of most keen
photographers.  The problem is, only a tiny proportion of the people
posting to rec.photo.equipment.35mm would have even the faintest idea
how to tell the difference between the results of the two lenses,
Sigma and Canon.

If you use Kodak Gold film (or, heaven forbid, something with a
supermarket's own brand on it) and have it developed and printed to
4"x6" at the local shopping mall, you might as well use a Cosina SLR
with Cosina lenses.

Even Sigma is slightly better than Cosina, but with that film, d+p and
print size you would never know what lens you were using.

;-)




From: kfritch@aol.com (KFritch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 17 Jan 2003
Subject: Re: QUESTION: Need advice on affordable entry-level camera


The suggestion that you "save your money" and get a Yashica 124G is a bit
facetious.  They tend to be way overpriced and you can generally get a good
Rolleicord, an earlier Rolleiflex, a Minolta Autocord or a Ricoh Diacord.
Rolleis are probably the best built of the lot and were what the Japanese
manufacturers were trying to copy or do their own thing with.  Another very
reliable and well built TLR to consider takes the TLR to another level and
that's the Mamiya "C" series.  They have a range of 7 interchangeable lenses
running from 55mm to 250mm, interchangeble viewfinders etc and were a staple of
wedding photogs and other pros for years.  I still see them in use.  They offer
the advantage of a system that can grow if you like the format and there's lots
of high quality lenses, etc available for them at surprisingly reasonable
prices.  Oh yes, I've seen them go for less than some Yashica 124G's.  The
Yashica 124G has some merit.  It's light, well designed, and easy to use.  If
the mechanics of shooting is your only criteria, I think it's probably at the
top of the heap.  As far as optics and reliability, well behind Mamiya and
Rollei and some would argue not quite up to Minolta or Ricoh.  I've used
Mamiya, Rollei, Ricoh, Yashica, and Minolta and no longer have Yashica or
Minolta.  I use Mamiya the most and will probably dispose of most of the others
as they are collecting dust.



From: "Jonathan Hill" j.p.hill@blueyonder.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie going from 35mm to medium-format
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002


Most medium format cameras on market are ok, The russian ones are a nice way
to get an inexpensive body/lens to learn the kit with. as for manufacturers,
thats up to you

best ones for optics/mechanics
1: Hasselblad
2: rollei
3: Contax

these use Zeiss lenses, which needless to say are the best medium format
lenses in the world(personal opinion, feel free to contradict, I ain't
listening)

those that offer an excellent mix of reliability/optics

1: Mamiya(I personally use a 645, but have used one of each of these cameras
mentioned)
2: Pentax
3: Bronica
4: Pentacon(old SLR style, avaiable second hand)

Reasonable price, acceptable lenses, not perfect
1: Kiev's
2: Yashicamat

Dubius(not played with these)
1: lubitel
2: seagull


"Woo Chat Ming" cmwoo@hkucc.hku.hk wrote 
> 8x10 inch only ?
> You can try to use Fuji Reala film first before you invest on MF.
> Another way is to shoot slide. Blow it up on the wall. It has much
> smaller grain than print film. Also, you can scan the slide and
> let the lab to print it for you digitally. You will be surprised
> by how much the difference is.
>
> Ming.
...



From: Robert Stewart stewr@att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 6x9 used camera...
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002


You can probably put together a Mamiya Press system for that money, or maybe
just a bit more, especially if you settle for a knob wind back instead of the
rapid advance. IMHO, far superior to any of the folders discussed mainly
because
it avoids the issues of the front standard being parallel to the film plane and
bellows deterioration. Bigger and heavier than the folders, but I like its
ergonomics just the same and you have technology that's just one generation old
and typically solid Mamiya optics.

Gordon Moat wrote:

> Actually, looking for an AGFA Record, or Billy Record may be a more likely 6
> by 9 find. The 85 mm lens would have been more normal on a 6 by 6 AGFA. The
> easiest way to tell is to look at the back of the camera. A 6 by 9 should
> have the film advance (red) window along the edge, and off centre. If the
> window is exactly in the centre, then it is probably a 6 by 6. There are not
> many 645 old AGFA cameras (Isorette would be one), but some with two windows
> on the back are dual format, with one being 645, and the other as 6 by 9, or
> 6 by 6.
>
> I have an Ansco Viking made be AGFA. It was very cheap, and not working when
> I got it. With seemingly nothing more that I could do to damage it, I pulled
> it apart and cleaned and adjusted everything. Then I got an accessory
> rangefinder, to help my focus guessing. Armed with my Sekonic L-358 light
> meter, I have shot a few rolls of film with this camera. The results are
> simply amazing, and I would not believe they could be that good, until I
> checked some Kodak E200 under a 10x loupe on a light table.
>
> Now before you think these are a great idea, I should qualify that these are
> not easy to use. You could get away with shooting print film, and guessing
> exposure, and perhaps get good results. Since you only have eight shots per
> roll, this is a camera that will slow down your picture taking. The guess
> the distance focusing can be helped with an accessory rangefinder, but they
> are tough to find in good condition, and can cost more than the camera. If
> you want to shoot transparency film, I highly recommend an accurate light
> meter. The framing viewfinder is intended to be accurate beyond 3 m
> distance, so some framing guessing is necessary.
>
> Other than that, the lens hoods are somewhat rare, but could be helpful for
> some shots. Some of these allow you to mount filters. Some sort of filter
> mount could be really helpful, since some shooting situations will bring
> unavoidable flare into your shots.
>
> I think this is a great way to go, though you should have more than one for
> reliable shooting, and extra parts. If you stick with one brand family, like
> AGFA/Ansco, then many parts can be swapped. Some of the Balda line uses
> similar parts for shutters, or lens threading. The shutter mounts should be
> the same, and many of the lens elements can be interchanged. Try to get at
> least a 1/200 fastest shutter speed, which should help your shooting a bit.
> Try to get a version that has a built in accessory shoe. Also, try to get
> the later versions that have a flash sync post, since flash shooting expands
> your available uses for these cameras.
>
> Learn how to repair, or at least clean some parts. If you were paying
> someone to do this, it could cost too much in the long run. Plan on shooting
> a test roll, or two. Also, plan on regular checks of the bellows between
> rolls, since this is the greatest wearing part.
>
> Check some of the older threads on this group. There are some great
> resources on these cameras. The Zeiss and Voigtl,nder choices can run much
> higher in price, and are more collectable, but you may not notice much
> difference (if any) in the final images. Choose a price you are comfortable
> spending, then try to get two somewhat identical cameras. You may get two
> nice working cameras, but you should be able to get at least one really nice
> example from two donors.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> Alliance Graphique Studio
> http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html
>
> Kamox wrote:
>
> > That's what I found on eBay Italy:
> >
> > -AGFA ISOLETTE 6X9 LENS: AGFA/APOTAR 1:4,5/85
> > 80 euros to start.
> >
> > -(doesn't seem a 6x9, but sold as a MF camera) ZEISS-IKON MOD. CONTESSA L
> > 130MM. LENS COLOR.PANTER1:2,8/45
> > 30 euros to start, can be buyed for 130.
> >
> > What do you think about these cameras?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Kamox


From: Robert Monaghan
Sent: Tue 2/25/2003  
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: Re: Newbies and the Kievs

re: TLR ideal for every user?

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/features.html on what various MF features do
for you etc. The top table shows which type of camera (TLR, SLR, RF..)
does which tasks best (portraits, landscapes, architecture..). The point
of this page is that while many folks may be happy with a TLR for their
photo needs (e.g., portraiture), others need wider lenses or telephotos
or closeup capabilities of SLRs etc. so you can't say to every user that a
TLR is the solution to their medium format needs ;-)

re: seagull TLR

see mf/value.html - I don't recommend the newer seagull TLRs, see
mf/seagull.html esp. the poor lens resolution test performances, and
especially so given the high prices in the USA (much advertisements to pay
off); for half the asking price of many seagull TLRs ($100+), you can buy
a top performing rolleicord, and for the same price a rolleiflex, let
alone other quality clones by ricoh, minolta's autocords etc.

re: Kievs - many kiev problems are user problems, from not reading or
heeding the manual cautions. The kiev60 is more reliable, due to lack of
back problems and simpler mechanics, and matches the zeiss jena P6 mount
lenses directly. see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/zslr.html links on Kiev
buying, and http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kiev88.html Unless you really, really
need interchangeable backs, the Kiev60 is the more reliable kiev P6 body.

note the quote "I imported hundreds of Kiev cameras for years and had very
good to excellent results. My DOA [Dead on Arrival] rate was about
5-7%..." this is not what you would expect to hear based on web comments!

the bigger issue with kievs is that the competing budget 6x6cm SLRs are so
good that the kiev88s are less of a bargain than they seem at first, IMHO.
Noted Kiev user and former dealer Sam Sherman has a number of articles on
the kiev versus bronica issues, see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronica.html

The arsat lenses are very usable, but the bronica 75mm nikkor has
outscored zeiss hasselblad and rollei optics in my blind lens tests, and
is much more stellar in lens resolution tests than the standard low cost
Arsat normal lens (esp. wide open and in edges; my arsat is quite good by
f/8-f/11). The kowa 6 normal lenses outscored the hasselblad zeiss lenses
in both blind tests and scored 80+ lpmm in resolution tests (see
mf/kowafaq.html tables) - much higher than similar hassy lenses.
The kowa slr basic kits are in the $250+ range nowadays, providing leaf
shutter lens benefits along with stellar optics. The schneider and zeiss
jena lenses for kiev are the real bargain optics in terms of performance,
vs. the more common arsat variants, but prices on them are going up fast ;-(

my other issue with recommending the kiev kits is that in the USA, many of
the warranteed kits, and the reworked kits with mirror lockup and so on,
are now in the $750 US$ price range of used hasselblad kits, pentax 645s
and so on. You can also buy a new mamiya 645E for circa $750 in the USA,
with warranty. The used mamiya lenses are very good indeed, and such a kit
is little more than a similar kiev88 updated kit (albeit 645 vs 6x6).
There are also lots of good buys on older mamiya and pentax 645 glass etc.

In short, the falling prices of used pro gear, as pros upgrade to digital
etc., has made it much harder to justify Kiev and older classic bronica
and kowa kits; similarly, the new mamiya 645E with USA warranty at $750
makes it hard to spend $750-$1k on a kiev88 modified kit IMHO.

One compromise approach is to buy the kiev lenses, but use them with an
($30+) adapter on the mamiya 645 etc. You lose automation, not a big deal
with tripod mounted telephotos or fisheyes. You can still use these lenses
on the Kiev 60, which remains a best buy at $150+ for an SLR in 6x6cm ;-)



From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 25 Feb 2003 
Subject: Re: Newbies and the Kievs

A good condition 1952 model or later (f3.5 or f2.8) of Automatic Rolleiflex is
the best and most reliable camera to start into medium format with. Cameras
like these have taken some of the best shots in medium format photography. Look
up websites for "Fritz Henle" to see some great work.

After you are familair with medium format photography and want a 6x6cm SLR a
good condition used Bronica S2A is a super instrument.
Wanting to use the excellent Carl Zeiss Jena optics in a 6x6cm SLR
you might later consider a good condition Exakta 66 (post 1990),
Pentacon TL (near mint), a good condition Kiev 6, Kiev 60 or
Kiev 88 style with Pentacon 6 mount with a good warranty.
Good examples of all of these cameras can work very well.

- Sam Sherman


From: "Geoff Bryant" geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice for a Medium Format Newbie
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 

"Monica" thegirls@ucla.edu wrote 
> I have read many postings similar to mine, but there is the hope that
> answers to my specific set of questions will clarify things for me.
> Yes, I want to make the leap from 35mm to medium format. I have
> shopped online and in stores, held cameras, read postings, read
> manufacturer sites and I feel a bit overwhelmed. Just when I think I
> have made a decision, I read something and change my mind.
snip..

I don't think there's much doubt that you'll find that medium format is a huge
step us from 35mm in terms of the smoothness of tonal gradation, sharpness and
maximum enlargement size, and many medium format cameras handle much like 35mm
cameras, but one thing that you may find a little disappointing is medium format
macro.

I shoot mainly horticultural subjects and made the switch to 35mm around 3 years
ago. Now while I don't regret it for a minute and won't be going back to 35mm, I
have to admit that macro work was far easier with 35mm.

There are three reasons. First, there are simply more close-focussing lenses
made for 35mm and they're generally easier to use in confined spaces. Second,
the higher flash sync speeds of most 35mm cameras, third, and far more
important, the depth of field limitation with medium and larger formats.

After a brief period with 645 I now shoot 6 x 7, which means that for any given
coverage area I have to use a lens of roughly double the focal length I would
use with 35mm. For example, where you might use a 50mm macro for plants with
35mm, you'll need a 100mm lens in 6 x 7. To get a bit more working distance
you'll probably need something like 120-150mm, and that's what most 6 x 7 macro
lenses are. Now, if you own a 135mm lens for your 35mm system, look at the depth
of field it provides, even at f32, when used close up. It's not much.

And although a 135mm lens on a 6 x 7 camera provides a wider view than on a 35mm
camera, the effective DOF at any given magnification is still the same. In
everyday use that translates to having to stop down about 1.5-2 stops more to
get the DOF you're used to. Subjects you now shoot at f11 will need f19 or f22.
Even wide-angle lenses, which in 6 x 7 is 75mm and shorter, need to be well
stopped down to get adequate DOF.

This all translates to slow shutter speeds, increased risk of subject movement
and a greater need for patience. Sure, you can use faster films and still get
better results than 35mm, but that's not really the objective, is it?

Apart from the extra weight I think you'll find that the hardest thing to get
used to, though the results are worth it.

Geoff Bryant
For horticultural photography and related articles visit
www.geoffbryant.com


Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice for a Medium Format Newbie

Monica wrote:

> 1) 6x4, 6x6 or 6x7? Are their any limitations besides the obvious
> negative size issue to each of these?

With the smaller sizes, you get more shots on each roll of film. You
could have also mentioned 6x9, and that one is only 8 shots on 120 film.
The other issue would be framing, since 6x6 gives you a square negative.
With 6x6, you could either crop, or print square images.

>
> 2) I shoot primarily outdoors with slow films. I like close-ups and
> wide angles of trees and other things I may find on a hike, but not
> really the sweeping landscape. I have been know to do macro and
> portraits, as well. So, I still would like this flexibility.

Should be possible to do any of those shooting situations regardless of
format negative size. However, hiking with an RB/RZ67 would be quite a
workout, since these are large cameras. Even a Pentax 67 is a bit heavy
in comparison to some smaller MF gear. The Mamiya 7 series of rangefinder
6x7 is quite a bit lighter, though the lens costs are fairly high, and no
macro.

With 6x6, many more choices, including the ability to put a 6x4.5 back on
some. An old TLR would be fairly light and compact, with models like the
later Mamiya having a few lens choices. If you are only going to use a
waist level finder, then you do not have to rotate the camera when
shooting horizontal and vertical scenes, an can just crop later if
desired. The newer Rollei 6000 series have a rotating back for 6x4.5,
which can switch framing when needed, though everything about these
cameras is expensive.

In general, most 6x4.5 cameras are a little less bulky, and easier to
hand hold shoot. However, many of them are still somewhat square boxes,
and adding a grip can improve handling. There is also a newer rangefinder
from Bronica about the size of a 35 mm SLR, though with only a few lens
choices, and no macro.

>
> 3) I would like to put together a portfolio and possibly go to
> graduate school in the near future. So, does this definitely mean
> medium format?

If your images are compelling enough, 35 mm will be enough to show your
work. Medium format transparencies can look nicer on a light table, and
sometimes attract more attention, but they are not a necessity for entry
to a graduate program. Actually, since I am currently investigating
graduate programs, the only format I sometimes see a requirement for is
large format experience (4" by 5", et al). The only stated reason for
large format experience is familiarity with camera movements.

Check with a few colleges, and see what they recommend. If some courses
are needed, or experience needed prior to entry in a graduate program,
often the school may have you do a semester or two to get that
experience. After successful competition of the missing requirements,
then you would be admitted into the graduate program.

>
> 4) I like the handling of my 35mm, but not necessarily all the
> features. The only thing I use is metering and auto-focus, once in a
> while. So, I'm drawn to cameras that are more like mine in terms of
> look and feel, but my local camera guy says he favors a 6x6 Hasselblad
> (he shoots similar stuff).

Autofocus is fairly new in medium format cameras. Many of the cameras do
not have built in metering either, though it is possible to add it to
some with a prism finder. You would often be better off using a hand held
meter, especially if you are going to use artificial lighting at some
point. If you go the old camera route, a hand held meter is almost always
needed.

Hasselblad is probably the most common rental gear in medium format, and
may be enough reason to use one. The next most common gear I see for
rental is Mamiya, though usually only the 6x7 choices. Between those two,
you should be able to rent nearly any lens you may want to use, in most
major cities in the US. In Europe, you may find that Rollei gear is also
available, though it is not very common in the US.

There is a wide range of used gear on the market, and much of it selling
for a fraction of the new gear cost. While you might find yourself
needing to use fewer lenses with medium format than 35 mm, leave your
choice open to systems with useful lens ranges, especially used gear.
Check out <> for an idea used MF availability and
prices. EBAY is another route, though check KEH first to get an idea, and
do not expect to pay much less on EBAY for really good gear (perhaps 60%
is reasonable comparison for something without warranty).

>
>
> Well, thanks for taking the time to read this and any advice would be
> much appreciated.
>
> Sincerely,
> Monica

If your e-mail address is accurate, and you live in the LA area, try to
rent some MF gear. There should be a Calumet, or other large camera store
near you that rents MF gear. I found out through renting and borrowing
that I did not like the ergonomics of Hasselblad cameras, and that an
RB67 is really tough to use hand held. Of box shaped SLR cameras, I found
the Rollei 6008 with hand grip the easiest to use of the 6x6 cameras,
though it is unfortunately fairly expensive, even used (though little
used gear to be found).

The nicest of the newer cameras I have used is the Contax 645. It also
has autofocus, though I have little need to use it. This had a nicer
ergonomics than the Bronica ETRSi, though adding the speed grip to the
Bronica improved the handling a great deal. The worst thing about the
Bronica is that pressing the shutter button seems like a gun going off,
and might be the loudest camera I have ever used, but do check one out,
as they are a very good deal in MF with lots of used gear at reasonable
prices. The Pentax 645 system has nice ergonomics, and they also offer a
newer autofocus body, though there are some limitations to using these.

I also liked the Mamiya 6, 7, and 7 II rangefinders, and the Bronica
RF645. Unfortunately, macro photography is nearly impossible with these,
and there is little used gear available. The ergonomics are the closest
to 35 mm cameras, so these are easy to use, with reasonable weight. There
is also a range of choices in Fuji rangefinders, though most newer ones
are single lens cameras. There is one newer 6x4.5 Fuji with a zoom,
though it seems more like a large point and shoot camera to me. If you
are not use to rangefinder cameras, you might not like them.

The Mamiya RB67 is a good choice on the used market, with lots of
available gear. These are large cameras, but capable in a wide variety of
shooting situations. The RZ67 is more expensive, but give many automation
possibilities, with only slightly more weight. Since these are physically
bulky cameras, they are tough to hand hold shoot. A somewhat more
ergonomic 6x7 is the Pentax 67, which is like an overgrown 35 mm SLR. The
used choices for these are in the reasonable pricing range, and much
lower than Mamiya gear. The downside of the Pentax 67 is not having
interchangeable backs, though at ten shots per 120 roll, it may not
matter that much.

Okay, probably too much information, but I think ergonomics is the
biggest issue when using medium format cameras. There are other
considerations, but I find many of those secondary issues. If you want to
shoot strobe, or do fill flash shots, then leaf shutter lenses are nice
to use. Not having those needs means choosing other systems with focal
plane shutters. The next issue is whether you want to only use a waist
level finder, or if you want a prism finder. Some prism finders are not
as good as others, so be sure to check this if it is important. Often the
last consideration is film winding, since few motor drives or auto
advance features come on many of these cameras. Check how the camera
advances the film, especially if you intend to hand held shoot.

Last, look into large format gear. If you really intend to go to graduate
school, you should at least become familiar with this gear. You may have
already used it in some courses, but consider a 4" by 5" as a possible
purchase direction . . . depending upon future needs.

Ask some schools that you are interested in attending, what type of gear
they have for student use, or what they recommend. Find out what rental
gear is available near those schools. The more that is available for your
use, the less you would need to purchase.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 
From: "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Advice for a Medium Format Newbie

Hi Monica,

I do not know how much budget is an issue. So I will stay on the used,
inexpensive side. 

For portrait work, I have found nothing better than the Twin Lens Reflex
format (6x6). I have an old Rolleiflex and a Yashica A, which
complement each other nicely.

To get wide angles, you need interchangeable lenses, probably. So the
Koni Omega Rapid M (6X7), which also allows interchangeable backs is a
good consideration. Lenses are 58 mm, 90 mm, 135 mm, and rare and hard
to find, 180 mm. Except for the 180 mm lens, cost is reasonable. It
requires a backpack to haul the camera, three lenses, a light meter and
four film backs. (I have one of these as well.)

For 6x9s (and I do love those negatives), you can pick up a Zeiss Super
Ikonta 530/2 with 105 mm lens on eBay for about $200. It may be 70
years old, but it is a beauty and not likely to breakdown. (Yeah, I got
one.) For less than half that you can get the Zeiss Ikonta 521/2
without coupled rangefinder. Both require you have a separate light
meter, but that is true of most medium format cameras out there. The
glorious negatives are between 50 and 54 sq. cm. or over 8 square
inches of film surface. About 5.5 times the size of a 35 mm negative.

Francis A. Miniter
...


From: John Garand Garand_over_50@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbies and the Kievs
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) WROTE:
>the bigger issue with kievs is that the competing budget 6x6cm SLRs are so
>good that the kiev88s are less of a bargain than they seem at first, IMHO.

I've invested a little over $1k in my Kowa Super 66 over a number of
years. Superb optics, interchangeable backs, noisier than a Hassy.
For about $1200.00 I have body, WLF, 90 prism, 55mm, 85mm, 150mm,
250mm, 4 backs, 2 different grips, some focus handles and a tripod
adaptor. I know there have been others who have lucked into even
better deals.

OTOH, I also have a Pentacon 6TL, CLA'd and sold by a very reputable
foreign dealer. Base camera cost me $100.00 w/ CZJ 80mm (the moon was
in the wrong phase that day for the seller). Can't afford anything
close to the 30mm Arsat for the Kowa, nor the 500mm mirror lens either
(each of which cost me $200)! Gave $35 for bellows, "auto" adapter
and double cable release package, with another $8 for a lens reverse
ring (sometimes I luck out). It serves the purpose of providing those
things I can't afford with the Kowa, and I do pay attention to loading
film and winding film, advice readily found on the web. For the
limited uses, I think this serves admirably and within the budget.



Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 
From: "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie Needs Advice

Each format has its own benefits. I use all three and try to think each
day what is the appropriate camera to take with me. To work (I am a
lawyer) it is either a manual 35 mm or a twin lens single reflex medium
format camera, one of which, my old pre-1950 Yashica A, cost me only $20
[I love the images I get from it and it does double exposures]. Or I
may take both. But go anywhere without a camera? No. Large format I
use on scenes where I have given the image some thought. I put the
tripod in a golf bag mounted on a hand-pulled golf cart, and away I go.
The 4x5 and the 5x7 are old Burke and James Grovers and suit me fine. 


Per image, LF film costs more than 35 mm or 120, but per square inch it
is probably cheaper. Film processing is also a per square inch
expenditure. Do it yourself and save mountains. If you have not yet
found your way to rec.photo.darkroom, you may want to lurk there a while.


LF gives you something you cannot [practically] get in 35 mm or medium
format. A bellows! This is the most fantastic invention in the history
of photography and probably photography's best kept secret. It allows
you to take pictures that actually look right. Think of taking a
picture of a tall building with a 35 mm camera. The image tilts back.
Set up a LF camera and tripod, raise the front standard, and you have a
building that looks straight as it does when you see it yourself. 


Just Friday I was at the offices of an aristocratic law firm here in
Hartford, Connecticut. They had an oil painting of a building. The
image tilted back. I laughed out loud. The artist had taken a picture
with a 35 mm camera and painted from the photograph without correcting
the perspective!


Francis A. Miniter


jdunn wrote:

> I'm wanting to upgrade out of 35mm - I've looked at medium format
> cameras, but the prices are ridiculous. Just considering equipment -
> it seems to me that I could go to 4x5 for less money.
> Obviously the film & processing would be higher.
>
> Is this idea true ?



From: "dr bob" rsmith@dmv.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie Needs Advice
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 


The major advantage of photography with a large format camera is the
availability of camera movements to "correct" perspectives in scenes of
architecture and other items with parallel lines. The movements can also
allow better focus control in landscape scenes. Other advantages involve
the control of film development to adjust contrast and exposure aspects in
otherwise difficult situations of lighting, and easier use of the "Zone
System".

Disadvantages are: The equipment is obviously larger than other equipment.
But, believe it or not, it may be lighter than an equivalent medium format
system. It is my opinion that LF equipment is a much better "buy" than
medium format for considering real value versus cost. MF equipment is in
general a much more elegant and really a more workman-like system. I use a
MF twin-lens Mamiya with many lenses to a considerable extent (also a Koni
Omega Rapid, which I strongly advise you check out) for travel and portrait
work. Roll film does have advantages..

I began serious photography in 1950 with the local professional's Speed
Graphic. Today I use a similar Speed Graphic for 4x5s. The Speed does not
have all the movements of a field camera. For example there is neither lens
board drop nor forward rotation. In cases where this is needed I drop the
_bed_, then rotate the lens to suite. So far those movements available have
been sufficient.

Some closing thoughts: no batteries (except in light meters. My Minolta
Spot uses one AA-cell), and I can fix the equipment with a screwdriver and
pliers. Can't do that with my digital - must throw the d--- thing away if
(when) it breaks down. That's like throwing away money. Good hunting,

Truly, dr bob.



From: "Norman Worth" nworth@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie Needs Advice
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 

I shoot both large and medium format. I think the costs are comparable.
One thing to watch out for is that large format costs are more than just the
camera. You also have to buy lenses, film holders, substantial tripods
(what will hold a 35 may wobble all over under a 4X5), focusing clothes,
processing equipment (although you can use trays), light meters, and such.
Film is a bit more expensive, and the equipment is much less portable, but
it's more fun.
...


From: George Kenney [gdkenney@bellatlantic.net] 
Sent: Tue 6/3/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] 903SWC

Apropos of either/or. There was a good, longish post recently on
Photo.net explaining that if one wanted a kit that will do most everything,
you needed: 35 SLR for macro and mid- to long tele; 35 rangefinder for
quiet, portable WA/normal/short-tele, lowlight, and 'moment' shots; MF
for portable quality shots; and LF for certain types of really high quality
shots (still life comes to mind, but that's just me). That's only four -- to
that I think you could, today, reasonably add digital and possibly one of
the high quality small P&S; film cameras (like a T3). Of course some folks
will tend to like a particular format and use it for everything -- a lot of
shots, for example, in that advertising magazine that Leica regularly
sends out should have more properly been done with MF -- but if you
have a wide range of interests as far as subjects go it makes sense to
have a wide range of gear to accommodate that. Moreover, I think the
true learning curve is fairly steep, since it's not just about exposure and
printing, or development chemistries, or composition, or choice of
subject, but combining all that into the appropriate format at, yes, the
appropriate moment. Then there's the philosophical vision thing. Whew. It
all gives me pause and I'm glad that I'm only -- only -- in my mid-forties so
that I have some time left, giving me a chance to get half good at it.

Cheers,

G.


[Ed. note: besides being well known in the photo sales trade, 
Mr. Posner is a longtime pro photographer...]
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 
To: contax@photo.cis.to
From: Henry Posner henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [Contax] Re: B&H; 50f1.4 and 35f2.8

 you wrote:
> I am 100% satisfied with the MF gear and never want
>to part with it. Anyone shares that feeling?

Yep. None of my stuff has auto focus or auto exposure or TTL/OTF flash.
Heck, I don't even own any zoom lenses. My only concession to automation is
motor drives.
-- -
regards,
Henry Posner
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com


From: David Albrecht dNaOvSiPdAcMa@writeme.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Moving up to medium format ... 6x4.5 or 6x7?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 

"JohnDoe" someone@somewhere.com wrote:
>I'm an amateur photographer and I've been really happy with my 35mm
>camera(Canon Elan7). But I think I'm almost ready to move up to a medium
>format camera. I recently had a chance to use a Mamiya RB67 to test, and
>possibly maybe even buying it, so I took it to do some landscape shooting.
>Beautiful big slides when I got them back from lab and I was quite
>impressed. However, I found using the RB67 quite heavy and slow to use...
>maybe it just takes some getting used to. I'll probably be shooting mostly
>studio shots of people and maybe product shots, so I guess the weight and
>bulk shouldn't be an issue. However, I wouldn't mind getting something more
>"portable" whenever I get the urge to do some landscapes, or if I have to do
>location shots. I've been seeing quite a few 4.5x6 medium format cameras on
>Ebay, and considering maybe a Mamiya 645 or Bronica? My question, is the
>645 format really big enough and worth the upgrade from 35mm, to give up the
>luxury(autofocus/portability) of my 35mm camera? or should I jump all the
>way to 6x7? What's the maximum size enlargement from a 645 film frame,
>without noticable grain and loss of sharpness? what about a 6x7 format?
>
>thanks,
>Franco

It's really all a bunch of trade-offs.

645 - Lightest, closest to 35mm in handling, has very advanced SLR
models, less advanced SLR models, relatively lightweight rangefinders,
gets roughly 2.7 area of 35mm, uses the least film.

66 - Also has SLR and rangefinder models. Don't have to tilt camera
which makes it more useful with waist level finders. Film after
printing may provide more area if using non-traditional print
dimensions.

6x7,6x8,6x9 - Variety of models including rangefinders and SLR
look-alikes. The rangefinders can be quite lightweight, but the SLRs
tend to be somewhat heavy.

What should be noted is that while 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 give significantly
more film area than 35mm they give at most a 2x boost over 6x4.5.

The decision I would make is evaluate the cameras with how they fit
with your usability criteria and decide whether the 2x boost is worth
it if you find 6x4.5 more appealing in the usability department than
the larger formats.

Dave


[Ed. note: curious how the older mechanical features are rated higher than the newest ones?]
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Final Raw Results - SLR Functions/Features Survey
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003

Thank you to all who replied.

Numbers are below, sorted by average score of the desirability of the
function/feature. 17 replies compiled. 2 replies rejected for
formatting reasons (to laborious to re-format for entry into excel).

Replies came from:
4: Pro's
11: Serious amateurs
2: Beginner/amateurs

Next, I have to look for various correlation's in the data. If you spot
anything worthwhile, please e-mail with it.
If you want the raw data, e-mail me (it is an Excel spreadsheet).

=================================================================
A: Rank
| B: Score (Average score of all replies)
| | C: "Must have" replies on 17
| | | D: Function/Feature
| | | |

A B C D
=================================================================
1 9.47 16 > Manual Mode (exposure)
2 9.24 15 > Depth of Field Preview
3 9.18 9 > Viewfinder meter 
4 9.00 17 > Manual Focus 
5 8.65 11 > Exposure compensation (general)
6 8.53 13 > Aperture Priority 
7 8.35 12 > Hot Shoe 
8 8.35 11 > Exposure lock
9 8.06 10 > Auto Exposure
10 7.94 9 > Metal lens mounts
11 7.65 11 > Film speed control override of ISO DX-code
12 7.59 4 > Matrix metering 
13 7.41 6 > Cable release
14 7.41 5 > Bracketing 
15 7.24 9 > Speed priority
16 7.18 6 > Spot metering
17 7.12 6 > Centre weighted (or focus point weighted)
18 6.94 8 > Auto Focus
19 6.88 5 > Mirror Lockup
20 6.88 3 > Viewfinder "mode" info
21 6.59 2 > Low weight
22 6.53 9 > mid-film-rewind
23 6.47 2 > Exposure Compensation in 1/3 stops
24 6.41 6 > DX-code compatible
25 6.35 2 > 100% viewfinder
26 6.18 5 > Flash compensation
27 5.94 3 > Synch speed of at least 1/200
28 5.88 6 > film rewind with leader tip out option
29 5.71 2 > Viewfinder flash-OK, flash status
30 5.59 7 > PC synch terminal
31 5.53 6 > Slow Flash Synch
32 5.53 2 > Wireless flash control (not slave, but ability to TTL control a flash remotely
33 5.47 3 > Auto Bracketing
34 5.47 3 > All metal construction 
35 5.24 7 > "motor-drive mode" (eg: shutter blast)
36 5.24 3 > mid-flim-reload (eg: tell the camera where to automatically advance to)
37 5.12 5 > Self timer
38 5.12 3 > Rear Curtain Synch
39 5.06 3 > Multiple focus points
40 4.82 5 > Custom functions galore
41 4.82 4 > High shutter speed (1/4000 or faster)
42 4.82 2 > Multiple Exposure
43 4.53 2 > Vertical grip
44 4.41 3 > HighSpeedFlash (eg: 1/500 -- 1/8,000 capable with app. flash)
45 3.65 1 > Viewfinder DOF/action cues
46 3.47 1 > 5 FPS or higher motor drive
47 3.35 1 > Built in flash
48 2.71 2 > "P"rogram mode (icons for flowers, backlight, etc)
49 2.53 0 > Eye-control focus
50 1.24 2 > Date/time function (imprint date/time on film)





From: Bob Monaghan [rmonagha@engr.smu.edu] 
Sent: Thu 6/12/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert
Subject: Re: Final Raw Results - SLR Functions/Features Survey

re: Survey
most interesting ;-) But the clear winners seem to be the oldie
manual focus cameras with depth of field preview so often missing on
current autofocus cameras (which only half the users mandated AF).
If 15 out of 17 wanted DOF, this is a pretty selective feature, only
a handful of new 35mm SLRs have such features, and most of them are
high $ pro bodies in most lines.

I'd suggest the real film SLR camera market is:

a) entry level camera - lots of features, except the ones you really need
(like DOF, per above survey). The really heavily advertised stuff like
multiple sensors is stuff you really don't need anyway and won't use
much even if you could remember how to use them ;-)

b) prosumer cameras - non-system cameras (i.e., non removable prisms..)
with most needed features, at an irrationally higher price than (a), with
options to buy unneeded accessories like databacks and strobes that cost
more than most camera bodies, which you also won't really need ;-)

c) pro cameras - cameras which cost seven times as much for twice the
reliability, ability to remove things you never change anyway, and
features that used to be on every entry level camera (DOF, mirror
lockup..)

d) fun cameras with full manual controls - Leica rangefinders and clones
with minimalist features, TLRs, anything medium format, large format etc.
any manual SLR from the 1950-1976 period, no LCD displays allowed ;-)

grins bobm


From: bmattock@earthlink.net (The Bill Mattocks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photography issues
Date: 3 Jun 2003 

Might I recommend a used camera, but not a used AE/AF camera.
Instead, I'd like to suggest an older used 'classic' camera such as a
Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, or Olympus, with a prime lens such as a
50mm 1.8, a macro extension tube, a decent flash (like a Vivitar 283
or 285), a tripod, a remote shutter release and a decent light meter
(my favorite is a Sekonic L-358, but that's a bit expensive, a Sekonic
Digi-Six is a nice inexpensive choice).

These cameras work mechanically - no batteries required and they won't
stop working if the batteries go flat. However, they do tend to take
older outlawed mercury batteris for the meter - hence the external
meter in case you can't get a replacement battery or the camera meter
is inaccurate.

If you are careful, your total outlay will be less than one of the
newer SLRs you mentioned, and you'll have more initial capability -
the tripid alone will be worth it. The flash will far exceed the
capabilities of any on-camera flash for portraits and outdoor daylight
fill-flash.

You will have to learn more about photography to get reasonable
photographs - and I tend to think that's a good thing. You'll get
loads of naff photos - not just bad composition, but bad exposure and
focus, camera shake, and a whole raft of other problems. If you have
perserverence, you'll learn from your mistakes and slowly begin to
take properly-exposed photographs that are focussed the way *you* want
them.

If at that time you want to switch to a newer camera with automatic
exposure and focus, motor drive and etc, you'll be able to keep all of
your gear except your outlay on camera body, macro tube, and lens(es).
Those you should be able to sell for at least what you paid for them.

With your knowledge of exposure and focus, you'll know when and why to
over-ride your auto-everything camera's decisions and take control
yourself. If there is a problem with an exposure, you'll have a good
idea why. In the meantime, film cameras will continue to get better,
possibly cheaper. I personally feel that a lot of the new R&D; being
put into digital cameras (they require even tighter control over
exposure and focus) will bleed back into new film SLRs.

I feel we're on a cusp right now - a fork in the path, if you will.
We continue to see new film cameras being introduced with new
features, but we also see more, cheaper, and better digital SLR
cameras being introduced. This is just my opinion, but I think we're
on the verge of an explosion. Film will not disappear, but changes
are coming and coming fast.

If you invest your money in a single modern SLR and kit lens now,
you'll be able to re-use your kit lens with a same-brand digital SLR,
but your film body will have dropped in value. And you won't have a
high-quality flash, tripod, exposure meter, or the experience of
learning and understanding the science and art of photography.

Therefore, my opinion (and for what it is worth, I am just an amateur,
and not the best at that) is to invest your money in a really good
older mechanical camera as mentioned above.

Best of luck, no matter what you choose to do.

Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks



From K-cameras mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 
From: "Tom" tomtiger@xs4all.nl
Subject: Small article on Kmount

Hi,

I've finished a small article/buyers report on
my site www.tomtiger.net it is called
"K-mount shooting on the cheap" (under camera
articles). It has only one point. It is on my
site to prove that you don't need expensive
equipment to make a good set. Basicly you
can build a good K set for under 500 dollars
or less even.

L8tr... Tom


From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 
From: "D. Patterson" nye@fidalgo.net
Subject: Re: Re: 10 sharpest lenses

We haven't made an exact count of them, but it's actually somewhere in
the neighborhood of 174 Minolta lenses, more or less. We ended up with
so many because I'm getting multiples in the same focal length. Buying
used Minolta bodies often leads to multiples in the 45mm and 50mm focal
lengths and various maximum apertures: 50mm f/2.0, f/1.7, f/1.4, f/1.2.
Some of them are around simply because I haven't gotten around to
reselling them. I'm also buying some multiples for my wife's kit, so we
often end up with two of many bodies and lenses. Other multiples are due
to having an MC Rokkor-X, MD Rokkor-X, and an MD version of the lens.
The multiples are also handy at times when shooting different films
using the same setup of body and lens for the same shot. BTW, it's also
fun, except when carrying them .

Dallas


From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 
From: "Larry Ellis" saycheese@wave.net
Subject: Minolta's most contrasty lenses

Consider this a pre-survey question. In general, which Minolta
lenses do we consider to have more contrast than others? I'll start
with two of my favorites: the 85mm/1.4 and the 200mm/2.8.

Larry


From: Bob Salomon bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rollei SL66
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 

Randall Ainsworth  wrote:

> Hold the Hasselblad in your left hand and all the controls fall into
> place. Not so with the SL66.

With the winding knob on the right? The shutter release on the right?
You have some big left hand.

Cameras are personal choice. What satisfies you does not satisfy
everybody else.

You made your choice based on your physical attributes and requirements.
That is no reason to feel that someone else's choice isn't every bit as
logical and valid as yours.

And if you were to add the bellows to your choice and then compare
operation with a reversed lens (could you do it) you would see that
there are more factors to chosing a camera then how you hold it compared
to how I hold it.

And no I own or currently use neither. But have owned and used all blads
from the 1600F to the ELX and Superwide as well as the SL66 and all of
the 6000 series from the SLX to the 6008i. Also the Bronica ETR and EC
cameras and Mamiya 645 and RB cameras. Also did weddings with Koni
Omegas.

All have their advantages and disadvantages and your comments are simply
of no value as you state them.
--
HP Marketing Corp.



From manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 
From: Abdon abdon@sillypages.com
Subject: Re: [SLRMan] $300 budget pt. 2 

> >Still, if the aim is $300 bucks and instant gratification, I would have 
> >to look at the least appreciated bodies from the main brands whose lens 
> >I believe in. 
> 
> I wouldn`t. Bad reputation of particular body doesn`t come from nowhere. 
> Usually such bodies lack some important features, like manual exposure, DOF 
> preview. they may be also less reliable because of cheap technologies used 
> in production and so on... 
I was not referring to bodies that lack features, but bodies that are 
quite competent but that are not the darlings of collectors. In the 
super competitive sixties most manufacturers were building superb bodies 
to go after the the amateur market in force. In contrast the seventies 
was the decade of innovation through cheaper construction practices :\ 
Most people would take a Canon FTb (open aperture metering) over an FT 
(stop down metering) thus the FT can be had cheaper. The TX is just like 
an FT, but with a top speed of 1/500-sec. If you can live with 1/500-sec 
top speed, you can pick an TX for $20 bucks. The Nikon FM is a very 
desirable body. The FE (aperture priority, battery dependent) is a more 
capable, less desired body. The result is that you can get an FE for 
almost half of the price of an FM. Same thing with the Pentax. If you 
can live with stop-down metering, a screwmount body will give you access 
to a ton of M42 lenses. 
> 
> > In other words; I think the lens makes the system, not the 
> >body. 
> 
> Oh yeah? Then try shooting anything different from typical vacation shots 
> with Pentax ME or MG. Sure, it can be done, but how much time it consumes 
> sometimes... And how bothersome it is in the long run. 
> 
I said less appreciated, not less capable. All manufacturers have those; 
Nikon EM, Pentax MG, Minolta XG-A, so on so forth. Then again it boils 
down to how one uses camera gear. I do most of my photography with a 
Nikon F and plain pentaprism. Without a meter, power winder, or 
autofocus, I can still be as quick as anybody with an auto-toy. 
I would not care to use a camera I have to fight with in order to get it 
to do what I want, namely manual speed/diaphragm control. 
> Considering the above, I see that Pentax lenses fans are in better 
> situation than Nikon, Canon or Minolta users - independent manufacturers 
> produce(d) not only alternative K mount lenses, but also alternative K 
> bodies, sometimes superior to 95% of original Pentax ones. There`s 
> virtually no Pentax MF body as feature-loaded as Chinon CE-4 or CE-4s, or 
> Ricoh KR-10 or XR-X... And they`re usually much cheaper than any Pentax. I 
> was holding on my two Pentaxes for a long time, but since I got Chinon 
> CE-4, I understood it was a mistake. Will sell them ASAP and buy one or 
> two SMC primes. Or another Chinon body. 
> 
I think this the key question is what features somebody is after. If 
somebody wants aperture priority that pretty much cancels 80% of the 
choices I would consider. It would even rule out entire brands as those 
features are not on their less expensive bodies. 
> >And of course I would try to reserve around $150 ~ $200 for the Vivitar 
> >Series I F/2.5 90mm macro lens in a mount for the body of choice :) 
> 
> You seem to like this lens pretty much, must have very good experience with 
> it :-)) I have one, unfortunately in FD mount, so I took only two pictures 
> with it so far, holding it against Pentax body. Even though I like the 
> results. I bought it very cheap ($10) in very good condition, and now 
> wonder whether to pay a turner to make me PK adapter for it, or buy Canon 
> AE-1 or similiar to fit the lens :-) 
> 
> Regards, 
> Tomasz. 
One option you got is to cash it out and get a Tamron SP 90mm F/2.5 in 
Adaptall mount. Same formula as the Series I with the versatility of the 
Adaptall system. Then if you get invested in adaptall mounts, you can 
get the superb 300mm F/2.8 Tamron SP lens, which rivals the ones Nikon 
and Canon did, plus can be used in a good number of disparate bodies. 
- Abdon 



From: T P tp@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 

Colin Brendemuehl wrote:
>In 2002 Herb also compared the Tak 35/2 to a modern Nikon equivalent and
>found only slight improvement in the corners and some contrast improvements
>probably due to coatings improvements.

No surprise there. The 35mm f/2 Nikkor is a very unremarkable lens.
Its optical performance is mediocre. Its only virtue is its compact
size; there is simply no other reason to recommend it.

Keppler would of course have discovered very different results had he
compared examples of the Pentax K, M, A, F and latest Pentax FA 35mm
f/2 lenses to their Nikkor equivalents. All differ slightly in their
optical design, but all are optically demonstrably superior to the
Nikkors in all respects except perhaps rectilinear distortion

That of course has always been the Achilles' heel of Pentax lenses,
and is rarely mentioned in any of Keppler's comparisons - probably
because it would demolish his hypothesis.


From: contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 15 Nov 2003 
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss

>Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
>From: T P tp@nospam.com
>Date: Fri, Nov 14, 2003
>contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>>I owned the A 50/1.7 when I owned a Pentax Super Program and it is also superb
>>in both the clarity, the saturation of the color and the super smooth bokeh. If
>>I ever get into Pentax again I'll have to pick it up, along with an MZ-S, that
>>"Leicaesque +" 31mm Ltd. and that 23mm f/2.4 Ltd. lens (OK, I'd "settle for a
>>24mm f/2 AL, for now... until they come out with the smaller 23mm ;-))
>:-)
>
>I agree with your assessment. The A 50/1.7 is a truly remarkable
>lens. Personally, I slightly prefer the ultra-smooth bokeh of the A
>50/1.4, but that is obtained at the expense of a small reduction in
>apparent sharpness. The A 50/1.7 has an almost unique combination of
>sharpness and bokeh and - unusually for a Pentax optic - very well
>controlled rectilinear distortion.
>
>I am in the habit of duplicating my favourite lenses in case of loss
>or damage, and for that reason I have two spares each of the A 50/1.7
>and f/1.4. By implication, that's praise indeed.

Despite what others may think because of my use of fisheye and other more
rectilinear wideangle lenses, I am a fan of the 50mm focal length (though my
favorite all round focal length would probably be a 24mm closely followed by
both the 50mm and 16mm fisheye focal lengths), especially for portraiture when
used from about mid-chest/slightly above the waste and further away (also for
closer up "character" portraits). If asked to choose between the Pentax A
50/1.7 and the Nikon Series E 50/1.8 (my other favorite lens because of its
bokeh and 3D lens signature) I'd reach for the crazy glue and try to weld them
onto my Minolta and Contax ;-). Minolta's new 50/1.4 Maxxum lens has internal
vignetting that causes "football" shaped oof hilights. A real shame. One of
these days I'm going to get a converter to attach the Nikon (or the Pentax?,
when I get one again) to my Maxxum 7 ;-).

Regards,

Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm


From: T P tp@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 
contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>
>I owned the A 50/1.7 when I owned a Pentax Super Program and it is also superb
>in both the clarity, the saturation of the color and the super smooth bokeh. If
>I ever get into Pentax again I'll have to pick it up, along with an MZ-S, that
>"Leicaesque +" 31mm Ltd. and that 23mm f/2.4 Ltd. lens (OK, I'd "settle for a
>24mm f/2 AL, for now... until they come out with the smaller 23mm ;-)) :-)


I agree with your assessment. The A 50/1.7 is a truly remarkable
lens. Personally, I slightly prefer the ultra-smooth bokeh of the A
50/1.4, but that is obtained at the expense of a small reduction in
apparent sharpness. The A 50/1.7 has an almost unique combination of
sharpness and bokeh and - unusually for a Pentax optic - very well
controlled rectilinear distortion.

I am in the habit of duplicating my favourite lenses in case of loss
or damage, and for that reason I have two spares each of the A 50/1.7
and f/1.4. By implication, that's praise indeed.



From: "Malcolm Stewart" malcolm_stewart@megalith.freeserve.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 
"Lewis Lang" contaxman@aol.comnospam wrote ...
> >Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
> >
> >As someone who has an outwardly pristine 45 f2 MD Rokkor, I'd recommend that you
> >make sure that you can return a poor sample. Mine is by far the worst lens
> >(from a camera company) in my extensive collection. My other Minolta lenses are
> >some of the best performers in the collection which includes Nikkor, Olympus,
> >Pentax M & Canon L range.
> >M Stewart

> Which of your Minolta lenses perform better than the Canon L, Malcolm?
> TIA
> Regards,
> Lewis

It's not strictly a fair comparison with my L lenses which are all teles (135f2,
200f2.8, 300f4), but I'm very impressed with my copy of the Minolta 85 f2 MD.
Can give a somewhat 3D impression on slide film - and I think it's my only lens
which has brought (complimentary) comments about sharpness from
non-photographers.
My SMC Pentax 50 f1.4 M doesn't disappoint.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm


From: dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
Date: 12 Nov 2003 

Nice to see someone who understand the difference between
the results of a lens and the results of a marketing department.
Not only are the old Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses oustanding
(the best of the era??) but even the modern Pentax glass is outstanding.
The Pentax-A 50/1.4 and 1.7 are < $100US and < $50 repsectively and
produce excellent results. Color correction included.
The cooler coatings of the A series enhance contract nicely.

Interestingly, the Pentax FA Limited series went half-way wit the coatings.
They're not quite so cool, but not as brownish as the older Pentax-M
or Nikon lenses. They reflect a little blueish, a little brownish.
They've got good contrast and product more than excellent results.

I've got the 43/1.9 (can't afford the others) and prefer to shoot it at
f8 to f16, getting the best results that this optical design is capable of.
(It does lack in some areas but stopping down reduces that significantly.)
My favorite lens set has been the 43mm and the Pentax-A 100/2.8.

In the 1950s one might have been able to say that Leica had the best glass
(in 135 film format) and in the 70s one might have been able to say the same
regarding Zeiss in 120 film format cameras. But times have changed.

But today Pentax, Mamiya, Fujinon, Nikon have the best stuff around.
Canon is ok. :)
Minolta & Olympus, even the older stuff, is nothing to sneeze at, either.

In 2002 Herb also compared the Tak 35/2 to a modern Nikon equivalent and
found only slight improvement in the corners and some contrast improvements
probably due to coatings improvements.

I do think that the brand-loyal posting here are humorous.
Once I began to use large format, alll that bantering became meaningless.

Besides, pictures are composed of the gray matter behind the camera..

If I wasn't using Pentax, some Rokkor-X glass would be really tempting.
That 45mm seemed pretty under-rated.

Collin

rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan) wrote 
> you can see lens test charts for both contax and leica lenses at
> http://medfmt.8k.com/third/variations.html - note these are resolution
> only comparisons. SOme of the modern photo mag tests also included
> contrast, which you can look up if you are so inclined (see dates on
> charts)...
>
> the more important issue highlighted by my article is that 50mm lenses
> vary more within production runs and batches than they do between brands;
>
> Pop Photo's Keppler compared the latest kilobucks leica M6 with 50mm f/2
> against a cheapy 50mm f/1.4 pentax spotmatic and super takumar lens from
> 1964 on Tmax in May 2001 (p.26-7). Per Keppler, they produced "virtually
> identical prints" at 8x12"
>
> at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rangefinder.html I compare the standardized
> test results for a pair of cheapy 50mm f/1.4 pentax lens against a Leica
> SL2 with 50mm f/2 - the faster cheapy lenses outperformed the Leica lens
> at many f/stops, esp. in the center of the lens (see chart at URL). Oops!
>
> there are other issues besides resolution to consider, but my point is
> that when you look at lenses, they vary a lot, and you can't know if yours
> is one of the better ones produced, or one of the not so good ones ;-)
> if you get a good example, most 50mm lenses will turn in an astonishingly
> good performance, almost regardless of cost and brand. Similarly, each
> line has some great lenses in it (e.g., 105mm nikkor f/2.5), but then,
> also some not so stellar optics.
>
> If you really need the highest possible image quality, it is a lot cheaper
> to get it with medium format or LF than with 35mm. You might pay ten times
> more for 10-15% better performance (e.g., contrast..) with the pricier
> 35mm lens lines. But you will get several TIMES better performance with
> med fmt, even with relatively low cost setups ;-) 
>
> in any case, don't worry about it - chances are very high that you
> couldn't reliably pick out the shots from the high priced lenses against
> less costly competitors in a blind lens comparison test - I can't with my
> medium format lenses (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindresults.html) and
> so far nobody has either despite lots of volunteers and tests ;-)
>
> regards bobm


From: "Jeremy" jeremy@nospam.thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 

> I wholly agree with that. My point only was that you, to paraphrase,
> generalised "Cheap lenses can be just as good as expensive ones"

I suppose that few people buy cameras and lenses with the intention of using
them for a long time, anymore.

But, I did just that three decades ago, when I accumulated my Asahi bodies
and lenses. They have all performed flawlessly, and have given me a very
long time of enjoyment and satisfaction.

They were a bit pricey when they were new, relative to other brands. But,
considering that I still use them 30 years later, I got incredibly great
value for the money I spent.

Viewed from that perspective, those pricey Leica R lenses might not be such
bad bargains after all. Puts noted in one of his columns that he routinely
saw well-used Leica lenses that came in for repairs and adjustments that
were right-on within spec.

British landscape photographer Brian Bower, in his book, "Lens, Light &
Landscape" raises the same point. Several of his Leica lenses were over ten
years old, and had been well-used during that time, yet were still
performing like they did when they were new. He mentioned that some cheap
zoom lenses tended to get "loose" and lose focus over time, whereas his
Leicas never did.

I have had the same experience with my Takumars. The fit and finish were
superb, and they have all retained that smooth focusing action, for which
Takumar was famous, all these years. I have a few off-brand lenses, a Fuji
normal lens, a Lentar 25mm wide angle, a Sonagar (Wall Street Camera house
brand) 85-205mm zoom, and they have all become stiff and are virtually
unusable now (not to mention that their image quality was visibly inferior
to the SMC Takumar shots--it could be easily seen with the naked eye).

Admittedly, this is all subjective. My point is that sometimes, the price
is soon forgotten but the quality remains--for many years.

I picked up a plastic-bodies Canon camera a few weeks ago, and it felt like
a cheap toy. I know that it isn't a toy--but to someone that was raised on
metal, mechanical cameras, it didn't inspire much confidence. I just can't
imagine that electronic gizmo still performing when it is 30 years old.

So, as much as we take jabs at Scarpitti, there is a kernel of truth in what
he says--quality that lasts can actually be somewhat cheaper in the long
run.



From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax Lens Bokeh
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 


"Collin Brendemuehl" dpcwilbur@excite.com wrote ...
> contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote 
[SNIP]

> I have the 43/1.9.
> And while the compromise in design produces an unappealing bokeh wide open
> it's really a very, very nice lens @ f8.
>
> Pentax has unfortunately had some dogs like the M28/2.8 and A35/2.8.
>
> But the outstanding lenses include that A15, K30/2.8, FA24/2, FA35/2,
> FA31/1.8, A35/2, A50/1.7 (yes, that cheapie is very under-rated!),
> FA77/1.8, FA85/1.4, and a few other very outstanding examples.
>
> IOW Pentax glass is a good choice if one picks from the nicer lenses.
> Avoid (as with Nikon, Canon, etc) any of the cheap package zooms
> and one will get a nice lens. Or, get one of the outstanding ones
> and let the Nikon/Canon/Leica/Zeiss true believers fight it out
> and spend more timie arguing than shooting.
>
> I worry little if any about test results and comparisons.
> If the pics are sharp enough then they're sharp enough.
> Let the geeks argue specs.
>
> Collin

Good sense. Can I add to your list of 'Pentax Greats'?

A20/2.8, K28/3.5, K35/3.5, K or A 50/1.4, K85/1.8, A*85/1.4, K105/2.8,
FA100/2.8 Macro, A*135/1.8, FA*200/2.8, M* or A* 300/4, FA*300/4.5

All of these are first class lenses. There are some fine zooms too.

I agree with you about the 30/2.8 - excellent lens and sometimes quite
cheap: people who don't know what a fine performer it is can price it down
because of the unusual FL.


Peter



From SLRMAN manual SLR mailing list (topica)

Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 
From: Nigel Utting nigel@utting.org
Subject: Pentax database - now you can list lenses!



After a 3-month gestation period, I have finally put together the pages
which will allow Takumar lens owners to enter details of their lenses
into the Pentax Screw Mount Database.

Please go to: http://www.m-fortytwo.info/SubmitLensData1.php

The database currently contains details of 675 cameras (more please!)
and 30 lenses (lots more please!).

Comments regarding the list of Takumar lenses will be welcome.

Have a restful holiday.

Nigel



From SLRMAN mailing list:
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 
From: Nigel Utting nigel@utting.org
Subject: Pentax Screw Mount database - update



Dear All,

The fortnightly update! The database currently contains details of 654
screwmount Pentax cameras. 

Whereas previously I had to update that number manually in the
"Explanation" page, I have - with assistance - been able to add code to
the page which counts the records and displays the up-to-date figure
automatically. Ah, the joys of web programming!

Cameras can now be viewed as follows:
(a) the entire list in serial number order
(b) the entire list in model order
(c) by model
(d) by family of models e.g. all the S2 variations, all the Spotmatic
variations

Work on the input pages for Takumar lenses continues, but it is a far
larger task than the camera body input pages!!

If you haven't input details of your M42 Pentaxes, this is an
invitation to do so! Just go along to
http://www.m-fortytwo.info/RequestContributorID.php to request your
Contributor number and password.

Copies of Gerjan van Oosten's "Ultimate Asahai Pentax Screw Mount Guide"
continue to sell well. Prices still the same: GBP18.00, _28.00 or
USD39.00 including airmail shipping. Just contact me at
nigel@utting.org

Just print off a copy of this message and leave it somewhere promient
for your partner/family/friends/Santa Claus to see!

Regards to all,
Nigel.



From SLRMAN at topica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 
From: Stephen Gandy leicanikon@earthlink.net
Subject: Most Underpriced Manual Focus 35mm SLR Systems



I look the cameras in terms of what I can do with it. Small hard to
find camera systems are great for collectibles, but not shooters.

Right now manual Focus Nikon and Canon FD are selling at historic lows,
and both offer far larger lens and accessory choices than we can really
use. Personally my favorites are the Nikon F, F2, FM-2n, FE-2, FM-3A,
Canon F1, T90.

Minolta MC/MD, and Pentax K/Screw mount are not far behind in
versatility, and generally sell for slightly less than Nikon/Canon. My
favorites are the many and various Minolta SRT 101 series in all their
variations, XD-11, X-700, Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax MX, Chinon CE-II,
CE-3, Fujica screw mount lenses (but not the bodies), Pentax Screw Mount
SMC lenses.

The Leica R system has great wonderful glass, and often sells very
cheaply compared to new, so long as you can tolerate the Leica SLR
bodies which are always two decades or more behind their contemporaries
from Nikon or Canon. I have been suggesting to Leica for years to
manufacture the glass in Nikon and Canon manual focus mounts to no
avail.

The Contax/Yashica RTS. system also has wonderful glass, but the body
designs don't live up to the lenses so far as I am concerned. With this
system all but officially discontinued, bargains can be found. This is
another lens lens that could benefit sales way with their glass in Nikon
or Canon mounts, but it won't happen.

I like Olympus OM and Konica Autoreflex cameras, but they have achieved
a cult status to their followers, resulting in some lens prices much
higher than they should be compared the equivalent from Nikon/Canon.
That is good for collectors, but bad for users.

different people do have different opinions. in the end just buy what
you like and hope for the best.

Stephen


From: "Dennis O'Connor" doconnor@chartermi.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: GAS - gear acquisition syndrome ;-) Re: Great Wall
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 

Case in point Bob.. I started with a Brownie and later a Yashicamat in the
late fifties (couldn't afford a Rollei or a Hassy then, now I can but I'm
too tight!)... Moved up to a Mamiya TLR in the 60's, which I still have and
still shoot regularly, and for which I still acquire occasional extras...
In that time period I have gone through numerous other cameras though,
especially 35mm where I have a six foot cabinet stuffed with three different
systems... But, the clunky, old technology, machined steel body, TLR
soldiers on and will do so until the day my heirs decide to put all those
'junk' cameras out in the dumpster...

My capital investment in the TLR ceased to matter long ago, and the cost of
operating the system is what matters today... I have three lenses waiting to
go out for routine CLA as soon as the holiday shipping rush is over... And
one body is showing mild variation in the frame spacing, so I have succeeded
in wearing out yet another set of gears, that will be have to be replaced...
Happens about every thirty years... Jeez, you would think that for $250
Mamiya would have built it better!

Big grins ... Denny

"Bob Monaghan" rmonagha@engr.smu.edu wrote
> ;-) you probably want to separate running costs from investments; once you
> shoot ~100 rolls+, your cost per roll for TLR ownership will be down to a
> few pennies per shot (allowing for resale value), and film costs will
> predominate.



From lenses mailing list:
From: Brian Sweeney [brianvsweeney@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wed 11/5/2003  
To: Lenses@topica.com  
Subject: Re: [LENSES] Quiz


 
If you go with the F2 Photomic with the DP-1 finder in, you could probably
put together a system with a 24mm f2.8 Nikkor-N, 50mm F1.4 "IC" series
(Integrated Coating, rubber inset focus), and the 80~200 F4.5 for about $300,
all in about EX condition from good EBay dealers. I have picked up a 55mm f3.5
non-AI Micro-Nikkor for $25, a 50mm F1.4 IC for $25, the 80~200 F4.5 for $30,
and have seen 24mm F2.8 non-AI for under $80. The F2A and F2AS command a good
bit more as they can use AF lenses w/o putting on bunny rabbit ears.

The F2 is without a doubt my favorite SLR. It and the M3 are my idea of camera
perfection. I have an F3 at home, and two of the last F3's (SN over 2M) at
work.
I prefer the F2. Mechanical Perfection.

I also have an F2S+DS1 with and its matching CH11 case. Electro-Mechanical
Extreme.




Brian	 



From lenses mailing list:
From: Brian Sweeney [brianvsweeney@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wed 11/5/2003  
To: Lenses@topica.com  
Subject: RE: [LENSES] Quiz


 
I have used both the 80~200 F4 and currently own the F4.5 versions.
From my days working in the camera store working through school: The Nikkor 80~200 F4.5 was one of the first zoom lenses to compare in sharpness with fixed focal length lenses. The 80~200 F4 that replaced it was (at least) as sharp, but much larger. It did not gain the positive reputation as did the F4.5 version. I personally think this was due to the use of 62mm filters vs 52mm on the F4.5 version, and the fact that the "novelty" of a truly sharp zoom had worn off by the early '80s.

Both lenses are available on EBay at bargain prices. I have picked up two "user" 80~200 F4.5 Nikkor's for under $30. I use one, and passed the other off to a friend. I used the 80~200 F4 at work for making slide presentations in the '80s and early 90's.

Lately I have been using mostly the older fixed focal lenght lenses on RF cameras. But I am always pleased with the results of the 80~200 F4.5.

> Any comments on the lens? Do you want me to post details?
> Note that at high magnification the mountain is clearly, though
> slightly, out of focus.	 



From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Camera suggestions?
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 

"Lunaray" yar@easystreet.com wrote:
> I'm about to retire and I want to get serious again about Photography!
>
> I have this old Rolleiflex TLR 2.8 Planar that I just love,

Don't give up the Rollei! but:

> but I'm thinking that I might want to pick up a used SLR
> (Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc.) but I'm on a budget and probably can't afford
> much more than a price range of $1000 - $1500 and I definitely don't want to
> settle for anything less (image quality-wise) than my trusty old Rollei.
> Any suggestions, things I should consider, etc.

While you can get a 'Blad for that much money, you'll never be able to
afford another lens, and the main point of an SLR is the other lenses.

I'd recommend either a used Mamiya 645 Pro (don't bother with the "TL"
version) or a new 645E. From KEH, the 55/2.8 lens is US$275, and the 150/3.5
is US$286 (both "excellent" condition but the older model (the models with
the "N" are the latest versions, but most of the older lenses are the same
optics). The 110/2.8 (a wonderful focal length for MF) is US$199.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Le Grande Raoul raoul@olympus.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Making the jump
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 

> > : rafe b.
> > : http://www.terrapinphoto.com
> >
> > In my never humble opinion Hassalblads are over priced. Like Leicas they're
> > not worth the money. I've found that Mamiyas bought used on ebay to be a
> > much
> > better bargain. The bodies are well constructed and the glass is top of the
> > line.
>
> overpriced.. maybe. Not worth the money.... NO!

Usually it's the guys who don't have a Hasselblad are the ones who say
they aren't worth the money...

If you don't mind buying used (I don't) Hasselblads are much cheaper
that way. And, looking at the prices, are getting much more so...

There's also a word which makes Hasselblad a good value: rental. It's
possible to rent most any piece of Hasselblad gear most anywhere with a
pro camera outlet. True, some outlets rent other brands but all rent
Hasselblad. Need that 40mm lens for one day? Rent it. 350mm? Rent it!

Back to the original poster:

These days, a Hassy 500C/M with an 80 and an A-12 back will run about
$1500 from an established dealer- less via e-bay. A-12 backs are going
from 300-500+ and 50mm/4s go from 600-1500+. 150/4s go from 500-1300+.

E-bay: cheaper but you takes ya chances. Established dealer: a little
higher but there's an established business standing by your purchase.
That's what you get for the extra money.

I usually buy from KEH (www.keh.com) Not the cheapest but few problems
and, when there has been a problem with the gear (or I decided I
diodn't want something in BGN condition after all) they handled it
quickly and satisfactorily.

Jeff



From SLRMAN mailing list:
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 
From: Robert.Merritt@us.ing.com
Subject: RE: $300 budget 

I'll chime in with several others that probably the best buys are in the 
Pentax line, with Super Takumar lenses being a better buy than the S-M-C 
Takumars. But a Canon FT or FTb and FD or FL lenses are a great deal 
too, and I think Minolta SRTs are wonderful cameras and the Rokkor 
lenses are first rate. Figure on $100 or somewhat less for any of the 
bodies and maybe a semi-fast 50; commonplace lenses like 28/3.5 and 
135/3.5 you should be able to get for $100 total. So you still have 
$100 for something like a 200. 

Finally, nobody seems to have mentioned Konicas -- while not as common 
as the systems mentioned above, the Autoreflexes are indestructible 
cameras, and the Hexanon lenses are the equal of anybody's from that 
time. 

Nick 
Dante Stella wrote: 
> 
> If $300 were your budget, which MF SLR system would you buy (i.e., 
> body, lenses, etc.) and why? I am interested in seeing where people 
> come out on this, since that could be a body and a bunch of lenses in 
> one system or barely one body and one lens in another. 
> 
> Cheers 
> ____________ 
> Dante Stella 
> http://www.dantestella.com 

Subject: Re: [SLRMan] $300 budget 

 you wrote: 
>If $300 were your budget, which MF SLR system would you buy (i.e., body, 
>lenses, etc.) and why? I am interested in seeing where people come out on 
>this, since that could be a body and a bunch of lenses in one system or 
>barely one body and one lens in another. 
Three hundred bucks... Let`s see... 
Chinon CE-4 (PK) - $40. Pentax 50/1.7 - another $40. Komura 75-150/4.5 
macro - $13. Enna Ennalyt 24/4 - $40 (after cleaning quite nice lens). 
Braun 28-70/3.4-4.8 - $60. Meyer-Optik Orestegon 29/2.8 - $25. Exakta 
70-210/4.5-5.6 - $25, Quantaray 500/8 glass - $25, Cosina 135/2.8 - $12, 
and still got $20 left for my favourite Kiev RF and 35/2.8 for it :-)))))))) 

I think that K bayonet equipment is best considering price, quality, 
accessibility, interchangeability and comfort and this would be - and is - 
my choice for "tight budget gear". All lenses mentioned above have their 
limitations, but they are completely acceptable for regular amateur 
photographing. I like old lenses, especially primes, 20-30 years old, 
because they come from times when manufacturing bad lens wasn`t cheaper 
than manufacturing good one, so I guess it`s rather hard to find really bad 
prime from `70s and early `80s. However, I wouldn`t buy Pentax bodies. I 
have Pentax ME and MG, know all other manual ones, and there are only two 
manual Pentax bodies I would buy: K2 DMD and MZ-M (ZX-M). First one hard to 
find in good condition for a good price (saw it going for $200), the second 
- too new, too expensive, too plastic, however good screen and lots of 
functions. The rest are just crap: they all lack something important. For 
instance my ME and MG have no manual exposure setting, but I`d live with it 
if they had exposure lock. Of course they haven`t. I just bought a Chinon 
which has everything I need. One Pentax body will go soon, and when I find 
another Chinon or Ricoh or Cosina with functions I need for acceptable 
price, the other will go, too. 

I always tried to go cheap - most of my equipment comes from flea markets 
and junk shops, but I have no inferiority complex because of that: I know 
what this equipment can do in my hands, and I know how much money I saved 
for films, devs and paper. 

Regards, 
Tomasz. 



From: "Jeremy" jeremy@no-spam-thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon AI vs. Super Takumars
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 

"Hickster0711" hickster0711@aol.com wrote ...
> I've never found anything to equal the older Pentaxes. When I sold my first
> camera, almost 30 yrs ago, an ES, I was very annoyed to find that nothing that
> came after was as good. Not to find fault with Nikon, but they just ain't
> Pentax. Bob Hickey

The SMC Takumar lens series is now over 3 decades old. The glass was
wonderful, the fit & finish were superb, the wonderful feel of
smooth-turning focus ring is a joy, BUT these lenses cannot be relied upon
in heavy-use situations, such as professionals will encounter.

They are no longer supported by Pentax, new repair parts are not available,
and used lenses, while generally in good condition, are a risky proposition.
Buying them in new-in-box condition is impossible.

For weekend shooters, like me, they are a great value. I believe that the
Asahi SMC Takumar series offers more value per dollar spent than any other
lens system, IF the photographer can live with the limitations that
accompany older lenses.

I have taken very good care of my equipment, and most of it looks in
almost-new condition. If I were shooting professionally, they just would
not meet my needs, because they are not easily replaced--at least, not in
the excellent condition that my equipment is in.

The screw mount is no big deal--unless the photographer has a need to change
lenses quickly. The cameras are built like tanks--except for their quirky
metering systems, which seem to stop working (I have 5 bodies, and have
never had a problem with any of my meters.) And now that Cosina has
released a screw mount camera, it is possible to get brand new bodies, with
warranties, to replace or augment one's existing Pentax bodies.

I have over a dozen genuine OEM lenses, and combined, they didn't cost me as
much as one new Leica lens. Everyone is familiar with the tests run by
Kepplar where the Takumar beat out the sharpness of the Leica lens. In
addition, they have the creamiest bokeh you ever saw.

Still the major obstacle to my giving them a recommendation is that it may
not be a good idea to commit to an obsolete system. As much as I love my
Pentax gear, if I were to start today, all over again, I'd go with
Leicaflex. If I needed new equipment, at a more reasonable cost, I'd go
with Nikon. If Pentax still made the LX camera bodies, I would have gone
with that. I am tempted to suggest Contax, but the RTS series hasn't had
many incarnations since it was first introduced, and I keep thinking that
the series may fizzle away. Maybe it's all in my head . . .

To summarize, if you MUST go cheap, and if you can accept the limitations of
old lenses, the SMC Takumars are the hands-down winner in terms of low price
and high quality results. If you expect to use your gear for over a decade,
and to add to it over time, it's hard to argue with Nikon's long-lived lens
mounts.

Fortunately for me, I have accumulated everything I want, and I did it when
it was available brand new. My 2 point & shoots, and my digital camera just
don't compare to my Spotmatics and ES bodies and accompanying lenses, in
terms of image quality or of tactile satisfaction. I bought my stuff at the
right time, and it has been one of the most satisfying series of decisions
that I ever made.


From: "David Ruether" rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How many lenses in your kit?
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 

"jriegle" jriegle@att.net wrote 
> As a non pro, I use a 28, 50 and a 135 (all Pentax M) in my film kit.
> On the D rebel, I have the 18-55 zoom, 80-200 and the 50/1.8 I plan to add
> the 300/4 L for wildlife work.
>
> Back when I was shooting much more, I had a 19, 28-70 zoom, 50, 200 and a
> 400. This is the most lenses I've had together in a kit at one time.
> Favoring primes, it looks like I have huge gaps in my range, but it never
> felt that way.
>
> What lenses do you carry in your kit?
> John

'Pends on what I'm shooting...;-)
For architecture, 8/16-fisheye, 15, 20, 28PC, 35PC, 85.
For "journalism/events", 16, 20, 24, 35, 85, 24-120/80-200/75-300.
For landscapes, 16, 20, 28PC, 35PC, 85.
For "fun", 12, 15, 20, or 28PC.
For travel (compact), 16/20, 35-105.
--
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether


From: Christopher Loffredo Speleo_karstNeuter_Spammers@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How many lenses in your kit?
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 

jriegle wrote:
> As a non pro, I use a 28, 50 and a 135 (all Pentax M) in my film kit.
> On the D rebel, I have the 18-55 zoom, 80-200 and the 50/1.8 I plan to add
> the 300/4 L for wildlife work.
>
> Back when I was shooting much more, I had a 19, 28-70 zoom, 50, 200 and a
> 400. This is the most lenses I've had together in a kit at one time.
> Favoring primes, it looks like I have huge gaps in my range, but it never
> felt that way.
>
> What lenses do you carry in your kit?
> John
>
>

Rangefinder kit:
15mm
21mm
35mm
90mm

All fit into a compact hip bag.

SLR Kit (various brands):
35mm
85/105mm
+ 21mm or 24/25mm (depending on mood)
(fits in before-mentioned small hip bag)

Depending on specific needs I'll add (in order of likelyhood:
180, 200 or 240mm
16mm fisheye, 17mm
300m or 400mm
Macro & PC lenses

As needed...

Chris


From: TP tp@nospam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pro Lenses : Nikon or Canon 
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 

"Bhup" bhup@nospam.com wrote:
>I actually switched from pentax to Nikon some the Nikon glass is
>exceptional. but I do miss the pentax system
>there has been a lot of hype regarding the Nikon 50mm and f1.8 nikkor . I
>bought one its not as good as the pentax 50mm f1.4 lens in my view. the
>pentax was also metal bodied but more ergonomic and smaller . right now
>I'm looking at getting my self a small pentax system Super A and 50mm f1.7
>or f1.4. I wished I had just gone to the pentax AF range the exercise would
>have been a lot cheaper. Moral of the story is look before you leap.. The
>LX and the Pentax system is one hell of a system..


Bhup beware. 

The Pentax AF range includes some very flimsy plastic lenses, albeit
with good to excellent optics. The best build quality is definitely
in the manual focus lenses, although some of the very best AF lenses
do come close.

As someone who changed in the reverse direction (Nikon to Pentax) I
would say that Pentax has optically excellent fixed focal length
lenses in just about every focal length range, whereas Nikon has some
disappointing optics. 

I should define what I mean by "optically excellent", because it means
different things to different people. I mean good sharpness, natural
out-of-focus effects, good resistance to flare and moderate to low
distortion. Pentax are much stronger than Nikon when it comes to
out-of-focus effects (good "bokeh") but Nikon fixed focal length
lenses are often better than Pentax for distortion.

Nikon seem to specialise in over-sharpened designs, gaining apparent
sharpness (and higher MTF) at the expense of some harsh, unnatural
out-of-focus effects. For a shooter like me who places a priority on
natural out-of-focus effects there is very little (or no) choice in
Nikkors in key focal lengths such as 35mm and 50mm, unless you choose
the small maximum aperture 45mm f/2.8 AI-P which also handles badly.

If you want good bokeh, you have to choose carefully between Nikkors.
The 45mm f/2.8 AI-P, 85mm f/1.4 AI(-S) or AF-D, the 105mm f/2.5 AI-S,
105mmm and 135mm f/2 DC AF-D and the 180mm f/2.8 AI(-S) and AF(-D) all
have good to excellent bokeh, as do several of the Series E lenses.
But there is a dearth of lenses in other focal lengths with natural
out-of-focus effects.

And that's why I chose Pentax over Nikon.

But I do recognise that Nikon's pro zooms are superb, and Pentax has
very little with which to compete. I do miss my f/2.8 zoom Nikkors;
the 20-35mm, 35-70mm and 80-200mm zooms made for an excellent all-zoom
outfit - and the bokeh wasn't bad either. It is also true to say that
Nikon pro zooms have less distortion than many Pentax fixed focal
length lenses.

Many people claim that Pentax fixed focal length lenses offer almost
Leica-like qualities of sharpness and bokeh at a fraction of Leica
prices. There is a lot of truth in that, unfortunately the penalty to
be paid is distortion that is higher than Nikon and Canon designers
would be prepared to accept, and much higher than would be tolerated
by Leica and Zeiss. 

This particularly afflicts the M42 screw mount (Super-, SMC-)Takumar
lenses ... Pentax did begin to get their act together when they
changed to the K bayonet mount and made small but significant
revisions to many Takumar optical designs ... but some of the
*current* range exhibit levels of distortion that would startle some
Nikon, Canon and Minolta users ... let alone Zeiss and Leica users,
who must smile (laugh out loud?) when the claims of the screw-mount
Pentax afficionados are re-stated, over and over again!

;-)


From: John Navas spamfilter0@navasgroup.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pro Lenses : Nikon or Canon 
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004

TP tp@nospam.net wrote:
>"Paolo Pizzi" paolopizziNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>You're comparing apples to oranges.
>>
>>Try the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4.
>
>The 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors are all over-corrected designs that perform
>poorly at the edges wide open (and down to about f/5.6) and exhibit
>some of the harshest out-of-focus effects that you will ever see in
>any 50mm lens. Only the later 50mm f/1.8 Nikkors are worse.
>
>The 50mm f/1.4 Pentax lenses vary, depending on design, but the best
>of them - the 50mm f/1.4A Pentax is as sharp as any of the Nikkors in
>the centre, sharper at the edges at wider apertures **AND** offers
>superbly smooth rendition of out-of-focus elements of the shot. It
>has outstanding bokeh and very good sharpness, and distortion (a
>Pentax bugbear) is quite well controlled.
>
>The Pentax AF version is optically similar.
>
>These lenses simply blow away any of the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors. In fact
>most manufacturers' 50mm f/1.4 lenses are far superior to the Nikkors.
>
>But please don't let mere facts get in the way of your unquestioning
>brand worship.

http://www.photodo.com/:

Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Canon EF 50/1,4 USM 
Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Canon EF 50/1,8 II

Grade: 4.5 35mm/MF Contax Planar T* 50/1,4 
Grade: 4.6 35mm/MF Contax Planar T* 50/1,7

Grade: 4.3 35mm/MF LeicaR Summilux-R 50/1,4

Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Minolta AF 50/1,4

Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Nikkor AF 50/1,4D <=====
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Nikkor AF 50/1,8

Grade: 4.2 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-FA 50/1,4 <=====
Grade: 4.6 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-F 50/1,4 
Grade: 4.4 35mm/AF Pentax SMC-F 50/1,7

--
Best regards,
John Navas


Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 
From: Lisa Horton Lisa@lisahorton.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Young people and their camera preferences

A side interest of mine that relates to 35mm equipment is helping young
people get hooked, er, I mean interested in photography. What has
surprised me is how over and over again, teens and young twenties
strongly prefer a "mechanical" SLR over a modern AF SLR. I use quotes
because some of the cameras they like aren't very mechanical, but do
have manual focus and wind.

Now, remember that many of these people have, for example, never used or
perhaps never even seen a TV with a mechanical channel changing dial.
They have grown up with and are completely comfortable with digital
technology, and "operate by wire" devices.

In talking to them, it seem that what attracts them about these older
SLR's is mostly two things: Doing things like focussing and winding
themselves, and the fact that when they operate the controls, they can
tell by sound and feel that the controls are adjusting a mechanism
inside the camera. Like the gear train for the shutter speeds. At
least some kind of connection to the machine.

Or maybe they just like stuff that's cheap enough for them to afford :)

Lisa



From: bmattock@earthlink.net (The Bill Mattocks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How many camera bodys do you have?
Date: 18 Jan 2004 

"Jim Waggener" jimw@visi.net wrote 
> I have kept several around for years that I still use.
> Nikon F2, FE, D100 and Minolta Maxx 5.
> I take all of them with me on a shoot.

SLR:

1 Canon FTbN (black)
2 Canon FX
1 Fujica ST-605n
1 Fujica ST-705
1 Vivitar 400/sl
1 Minolta SRT-101
1 Minolta SRT-102
1 Minolta SRT-303
1 Minolta X-9
2 Bronica C

Rangefinder (removeable lens):

1 Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa R
1 Fujica G690
19 Braun Super Paxette (I'm a little obsessed with Paxettes)
1 Wittnauer Professional
1 Diax IIb
1 Diax IIa
1 Diax Ia
4 Argus C4 Geiss-modification

I usually take at least one fixed-lens rangefinder with me, with an
SLR and a couple of lenses. Or, since I just recently got my Bessa R,
I might take that, some lenses for it, and an SLR or another
fixed-lens rangefinder. Generally at least two cameras of some kind
or another. Sometimes more.

I use ALL of them when and as I can. Sometimes I have to put them
into a rotation, but I've shot each of them at least once.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

http://www.growlery.com/too_many_cameras_01.jpg
http://www.growlery.com/too_many_cameras_02.jpg



From Manual Minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 
From: rs-11@webtv.net
Subject: Fun Idea

How about us doing a Roll Call kinda thing, and we tell when we got our
first Minolta, what it is, and what other Minolta Cameras we own?

I got my first Minolta in 1983, it's an XG-1n and I just restored it.
I also own the following;
SR-1s
SR-7v
SRT-100 chrome
SRT-100 black
SRT-100X
SRT-100B
SRT-101 chrome
SRT-101 black
SRT-102
SRT-200
SRT-201
SRT-202
SRT-303
SRT-MCII
SR-505
XG-1n

Now all I need is a day when it isn't raining with a little sunshine!

Randy Earle



From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Asking advice
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 


Bugs Bunny wrote:
> Group,
>
> Been all my life fascinated by Hassy but never had cash reserve to buy one.
> So this has led me to question very similar like Hamlet
>
> a) buy ARAX88 (Kiev) model with lenses I consider fullfilling the
> basic photographic subjects - pets, persons, scenery, architecture
>
> b) or tighten the belt one notch more and save save save and buy
> refurb Hassy 500CM or similar and couple lenses
>
> Advice is asked - to B) or not to B)

If all your life, you've wanted a Hassie, getting a Kiev instead will be
a monumental mistake and a waste of good money. Better you buy a used
Mamiya C-220. Yes, it's not an SLR, but it does have interchangeable
lenses that are way better than Keiv lenses.

If you want a medium format SLR, and can't justify the cost of the
Hasselblad, the Mamiya 645 1000S is an excellent alternative. A friend
of mine, too, always dreamed of having a Hasselblad, but in my opinion,
it was just more camera than he really needed, and I told him so. He
was your average, talented amateur (didn't develop or print his own
stuff) whose photographic interests were similar to yours. I suggested
the Mamiya 645. He was dubious. He WANTED a 'Blad. I even loaned him
part of my Hassie system to use for a weekend just so he could be sure,
he really needed one. (I'm a pro and, so, can justify the expense of
owning 'Blads.) To make a long story short, he got a complete, used,
like new Mamiya 645 with meter prism, W/L finder, 45, 75 and 150 lenses
with hoods, several each 120 and 220 film inserts, plus a few other
minor do-dads of eBay for what he would have paid for a basic used
Hassie outfit -- 500 CM with W/L finder, 80 C non-T*, 120A back. I
think he paid just under $1000 US total for the Mamiya outfit. (This
was a few years ago.) He's still happy with it, and not at all
disappointed that he doesn't have a Hasselblad.

--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com


From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax drops production of 35mm film cameras.
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 

"Lewis Lang" contaxman@aol.comnospam wrote...
[SNIP]
> >Peter
>
> Which lenses of Pentax do you think are Pentax's best, Peter
> (besides all of them ;-))?

You don't like asking easy questions, do you Lewis?

First off, I haven't used every lens Pentax ever made, and I haven't used
every competitor's lens to compare them against. Also, my work majors on
landscapes and plants and gardens. That means I don't shoot wide open as
often as some people might, and I care a lot about background bokeh (for
close-up plant work) and about (stopped down) resolution and micro-contrast,
but maybe less about some other issues. Someone else might have other
priorities.

So (apart from 'all of them'!) some favourites _for what I do_ :

15mm f3.5 A - a super-wide that has all the 'compositional' issues such
lenses have, but seems to me contrastier and lower in distortion than other
super-wides I've encountered.

20mm f2.8 A - another very wide lens, and such lenses are over-used these
days. But this one seems to me contrasty and sharp, with better corner
resolution than most, and very good drawing.

28mm f3.5 K - all the Pentax 28s seem very good, especially stopped down a
bit (all Pentax lenses seem to benefit from stopping down - even half a
stop - to a greater degree than many other manufacturers') but the 3.5 K
seems the sharpest to me.

30mm f2.8 K - possibly (even) sharper than the 28/3.5, and definitely (even)
contrastier. Hard to find, but frequently under-priced when you do find it.

31mm f1.8 Ltd - outstanding. Not sure why I still have the 30mm as well,
but they 'seem' different: I need to do some detailed comparisons... The 31
is exceptional in night time performance, with its remarkable coma control.

35mm f3.5 K - as with the 28s, all seem good, this one seems best. I have
an f2 M which is good, but this I think is a little sharper and am sure is a
little contrastier. For a stop and a half extra speed (and a lot more
weight) the f2 is useful indoors, but the 3.5 is a 'take-everywhere' lens.

40mm f2.8 M - OK, it isn't truly outstanding, I just like the aov...

43mm f1.9 Ltd. - I know this is a controversial lens, but its resolution and
micro contrast in landscape situations are remarkable. Another good night
time performer too.

All the 50s... I loved my old screw-mount f1.4 and want to replace it with
a KA but haven't done so yet. The f1.2 has lovely character wide open, but
is certainly not as good 'all round' as it's more modest speed brethren.

77mm f1.8 Ltd - Outstanding.

85mm f1.8 K - I know the 1.4 A* is supposed to be magical, but I don't have
one and as only an extremely occasional portraitist don't really need one.
The f1.8 is very small, fast enough to use indoors for events, and amazingly
sharp.

100mm f2.8 FA Macro - possible contender for the world's ugliest lens prize.
But incredibly sharp and with beautiful bokeh. Good for distances as well
as up close.

120mm f2.8 M - fast for its size and weight, very contrasty, I just happen
to like it.

135mm - all are good (except the K-Tak, of course) - this is a real Pentax
strong point. The f3.5 M is very sharp for its size and weight and
extremely flare resistant. The f2.5K is a little sharper. The f2.8 FA is
another ugly lens, but for a quick handling AF, its sharpness and contrast
blow away any zoom I've ever seen. The f1.8 A* is my favourite, but is a
bit big and heavy to use all the time - I settle for the f2.5 K more often
if travelling. The F1.8 A* is astonishingly sharp though, and its bokeh is
beautiful.

200mm f2.8 FA* - pictures taken with this have sharpness and contrast to
match most 50s - the contrast is particularly an impressive feat. The
handling is lovely too - makes me want some more FA* glass...

300mm f4.5 F* - not quite as contrasty as the 200mm I have, but a wonderful
lens for its fl. The 300mm f4 A* is better to hand hold, but I think the
f4.5 is just a tiny bit sharper, even if the contrast is about the same.
Unlike the FA* ( and the A*), the F* has a tripod foot.

600mm f4 F* - As fabulously sharp as these lenses tend to be from any
manufacturer, and with contrast that truly belies its fl, what amazes me
with this lens is that I actually like its bokeh. Big glass with attractive
bokeh - supposedly an oxymoron, but here it is.

I really don't love zooms nearly so much, but the 24-35mm f3.5 M, 24-90mm
f3.5-4.5 FA, 28-70mm f4 FA, 35-105mm f3.5 A, and 75-150mm f4 M all deserve
'special mention'.

I like the 85mm f2.8 F Soft too. A soft focus lens is not for everyone, and
I'm not sure I like the effect 'in general', but some of my flower work
benefits from it (in sales terms), and the effect this lens gives offends me
less than most soft effects! (Must remember to pack it next time I go to
see Sharon...)

Finally, the 400-600mm f8-12 Reflex K. I just happen to think that _for a
reflex lens_ - still more a reflex _zoom_ lens - this is a remarkable
achievement. Sure it's painfully slow, but the point is that it actually
has usable contrast. Almost unimaginable in such a lens ;-)

Well, like I said, this is just my opinions on my 'favourites' - so they may
or may not appeal to anyone else, and may or may not compare to rivals for
the work anyone else does. There are also Pentax lenses that are not on the
list because I've never used them, which may be fabulous, I just don't know
(yet!)

And, believe it or not, this isn't every Pentax lens I own, or even every
fl. I'm the exception that proves the rule to that old aphorism about pro.s
not succumbing to too much glass. And I still have a wish list...

;-)
Peter


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 
From: xkaes@aol.com
Subject: Updated SLR table

Thanks to the help of a couple of dedicated fans, the SLR table on MINMAN has
been updated. It's still only about 95% complete, but it's a far cry from
what it was before. It's more compact now, so it can fit on your computer
screen at the 1280 resolution level. A few columns have been dropped, new ones
added, and several merged. Color-coding has been added so that more information
can be packed into as small a space as possible.

It will be updated as needed, so if you happen to have any of the missing
data, please let me know.

Check it out at www.members.aol.com/manualminolta/slrtable.htm


From: Andrew McCall mccall@h2o.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: I just got my second medium format camera!! (Eeek!)
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 

Wise Ass Poaster wrote:
> "Art" begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com wrote:
> 
>>Next time do your research first. You paid a bit too much for a nice camera
>>that is missing several features that you might need. Check posts from
>>earlier in the week for details.
>
> Me thinks "Art" is too damn lazy to offer any real help.

Its OK, I should have done more research myself. I have done now, and I
think thats it is a good deal, but choosing which one to keep is only
harder! The camera normally goes from o100 - o200 on eBay in the UK,
but this comes with a few extras which make the deal fair.

As to comparing the Yashicamat to the Mamiya - their two different
cameras which makes it almost impossible to compare. I can imagine I
would like to use both at some point, but unfortunately one has to go :(
Because of this, I think I am going to keep the Mamiya. The
Yashicamat 124G seems to be an excellent camera and has everything I
need, but is limited in expansion. If I keep the 645J I can buy extras
for it as and when I need them and eventually upgrade the body to a 645
1000s and still keep my investment.

The features the 645J miss over the other 645's are:

o Mirror lock-up function
o Second shutter release button
o Shutter speeds longer than one second
o FP flash contact
o 3/8 inch tripod socket

But I will be able to get by without them, when needed I will upgrade
the body to the 1000s and keep the 645J as a spare. I do have a few
questions though:

Does the lack of a 3/8 inch tripod socket mean I can't connect it to a
tripod at all, or just one with a 3/8 inch mount?

Similar question for the FP flash contact - does this mean I can't
connect a flash at all?

Hmmmm.... I still have a soft spot for the Yashicamat though.....

Thanks,

Andrew McCall



Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF costs more cuz its much better ;-) Re: MF's bright future?

[snip]
> In exchange for these
> (really sincere) compliments, would you tell us what cameras/scanners
> you used ?

Okay, I am guessing you are just curious about what equipment was used for the
images I have posted. I should mention that I consider the gear largely just a
means to an end, and that I do not keep notes on specifics. With that in mind, I
can often recall what I used for many of the images, so here goes . . . . . . .

Most of the images on my web site originated with 35 mm equipment, largely chosen
on lens selection and ergonomics. Some of the older images were done with a Leica
M3 and a few 50 mm lenses, and sometimes a 35 mm f2.0. A larger portion of images
was done using various Nikon SLRs and manual focus lenses, usually no longer than a
180 mm. The majority of those 35 mm images were done hand held, though sometimes on
a tripod. I have also used some Yashica 35 mm gear, Canon manual focus and
autofocus, and some Pentax manual focus. I choose Nikon gear largely on the vast
availability of rental gear, and large selection of used gear at decent prices.
Lenses quality is vastly more important, and when a lens does not satisfy my
vision, it is not kept.


With medium format gear, I have used Bronica 645, Mamiya 645, Contax 645,
Hasselblad 6x6, Rollei 6x6 (6008i), Mamiya 6x7 (usually RB67), Pentax 6x7 and a few
old oddities that do 6x9. Most of these were rented, some borrowed, and a few
owned. I would need to check more, but I think it is fairly safe to state that most
of the medium format images I have posted are either 645 or 6x6 originated, and
mostly cropped. Most of these only had the standard lens in place when I used them,
the exceptions being the Mamiya 645, of which I had a fairly large kit, and the
Contax 645, which I rented with two lenses. Unfortunately, I use a category system
of organizing images, so it is hard to state which camera was used for which image.

General comments about all these; I found the Contax 645 and Rollei 6008i the most
ergonomic and easiest to use hand held. The Hasselblad system is much more common
with rental places, though I have never really liked the ergonomics hand held. The
old Mamiya 645 was a system that I got used, and was never entirely happy with it.
I sold it out of frustration, and it almost made me not like Mamiya at all. After
renting an RB67 a few times, I have a greater respect for the Mamiya system, though
and RB67 is tough to use hand held. The Bronica ETRS, and ETRSi, are somewhat
common amongst some pros I know, and light enough for hand held shooting. They tend
to work better with the grip, and are unfortunately somewhat loud on the shutter
release (mirror sound). Nice prism finders, and decent lenses make the ETRSi are
little workhorse camera. The question of future continued Bronica production, and
possible lack of parts support, means these might not be good systems to continue
using. Of course, that might be true of other companies in the near future.

I also use some odd old gear, like folder cameras, Polaroid pack film cameras, an
SX70, and some strange box contraptions. These are all mostly creative experiment
cameras, and are chosen for unusual results, rather than the ultimate in resolution
or colour.

With large format, I have used Toyo and Calumet. These are largely used with Nikon
lenses, though I have had the opportunity to assist on shoots, in which I was able
to use some Sinar and ArcaSwiss gear, largely with Schneider lenses, though a few
times Rodenstock. Not sure if I have any images posted from large format usage. I
use to do more large format when I was shooting architecture, but I rarely do that
anymore. The assisting was usually for product photography, though much of that has
moved to scanning back systems, or is just not done that often anymore.

Scanning experience ranges from Polaroid, Nikon, Canon, and Imacon film scanners,
to Howtek and Heidelberg drum scanning gear. The flat scan systems I have used
include older Scitex, AGFA DuoScan and Linotype Hell flat scanners, which are still
very good systems. Newer flat scanner experience has been with Epson and Canon,
though these are usually just borrowed/rented when needed (not very often). As I
get more involved in Polaroid imagery, it is looking that I may need to add a
permanent flat scanner to my office gear.

I am still working on the latest update to my web site, including more Polaroid
imagery, and more medium format work to be displayed. Most of that is colour
imagery, though I retain a fondness for B/W. It is unfortunate that few clients
want B/W anymore. The last work B/W was done for a band:

http://www.bigtimeoperator.com click on Gallery; all images except those from the
movie Pearl Harbor where shot by me. This is largely all 35 mm and hand held.

Thanks for the nice comments, and feel free to ask more questions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


[Ed. note: these items are sold long before you read this, but I wanted to show an
example of the low prices for 35mm SLR and related film photo items online and EB*Y]
From: sbrendemuehl@excite.com (steveB)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: minolta stuff
Date: 22 Jun 2004 

I have
1 minolta srt 101 with manual
1 minolta srt100
1 minolta xg-9 
1 minolta x-370 with manual
1 minolta md 50 1.7
1 minolta rokkor 55 1.7
1 minolta rokkor 50 1.7
1 minolta 45 2
1 minolta rokkor 50 2
1 starblitz 28mm 2.8
1 minolta rokkor 135 3.5 with case and hood
1 minolta celtic 135 3.5
1 rexagon 28mm 2.8 with case
1 Focal 80-200 4.5
1 cpc 135 2.8
1 Vivitar 135 2.8
2 minolta t-mount
1 venmar 2x

Ill take $260 for all
I might consider selling just part for the right price.

steve
kc8tpr



From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stick with Hassy or go Bronica?
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 

Angry Angel wrote:
> What do people think are my best options? Keep the Hasselblad with just
> the 80mm and keep wideangle for 35mm? Keep it and buy an expensive 50mm CF
> lens? Sell it and buy a Bronica outfit?

This is why I didn't buy a hassy. I just couldn't stomach the lens prices.
I'd need a 40mm and I know I'd never be able to aford one. If I am going to
be "stuck" with one lens, I'd use a rolleiflex or a fuji rangefinder.

Do you really need 6X6? I too like it but added a mamiya 645 to my kiev
collection and like it so far, used older models are super cheap, I paid
$150 for a M645 body from KEH in excellent condition. Also I can use all
the P-6 lenses (and others with hacked mounts) using adapters, which opens
up all sorts of options using CZJ lenses, arsat shift etc. I can relate to
the "love/hate" thing when a machine isn't trustworthy. I finally have some
kiev bodies I trust but I went through several to get there! :-)

--
Stacey


From: Michael Benveniste mhb-offer@clearether.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: [Survey] -Prime Lenses in the kit
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 

Alan Browne alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca wrote:
>So, what primes do you have? What do you use that particular
>prime for? Comments?

Format: 110
Manuf. FL Aperture Use Comments
Pentax 18mm f/2.8 Wide Goofing Off
Pentax 24mm f/2.8 Normal Goofing Off
Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Portrait Goofing Off
Pentax 70mm f/2.8 Tele Goofing Off

Format: 35mm
Manuf. FL Aperture Use Comments
Nikkor 20mm f/2.8AF Landscapes, Architecture
(Nikon, make a 28mm f/2 AF!)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8AF-D Couple Portraiture, B&W;
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8AI Standard for Nikon FA
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8AF-D Portraits
Tokina 90mm f/2.5 (MF) Macro, short-tele
Nikkor 180mm f/2.8AF-D Portraits, travel tele.

Format: 645
Manuf. FL Aperture Use Comments
======================================
Pentax 75mm f/2.8 Still Experimenting
Pentax 135mm f/4 Portraits, Leaf Shutter.

I also own a Rolleicord and a Nikkor EC-8B for my Coolpix, but I don't
know those fit into your survey.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com



From: jimedbrowne@hotmail.com (Jim-Ed Browne)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Camera repair track records?
Date: 17 Apr 2004 


The mechanical cameras need periodic attention, whether from the
dedicated hobbyist or a pro, but as long as a few high-wear parts are
available they go a very long time. Electronic cameras will work
longer, in many cases, with no attention but failures are catastrophic
as repair is often on the module level only. No module-no camera.

The electronic cameras are cheaper to build in quantity, and everyone
knows it. That's why we have highly electronic cameras. There are
advantages,as well as disadvantages, but build cost is the deciding
factor.

The popular quality cameras made between 1955 and 1980
,approximately, are superior in many respects to most of those on
offer today. The Pentax K-1000 was an especially good value,as was the
Yashica-Mat TLR, neither were the best cameras ever made but both were
good cheap cameras. The M Leica is probably the greatest of all 35mm
cameras but it is overpriced. If you honestly wear out any camera you
are an unusual person.

Digital will have the good effect, in my opinion, of getting rid of
low end consumer snapshot mentality photography with minilabs and APS.
Photography with any kind of film will be like large format
photography is today. I am looking forward to it.


Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Your favourite non-zoom lenses of all time...

Martin Francis wrote:

> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?

Nikon 105 mm f2.5 AIS. I like the defocus rendition, and the wide open
aperture performance. Also, the tactile feel of the focus ring, and
width of the focus ring work nicely with my large hands. The only
complaint is that the extendable built-in hood is getting a little worn
out.

Leica 90 mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit M (2nd version, mostly Canada labelled).
Used very briefly (borrowed), but made a big impression on me with the
flattering rendition of portrait subjects, and the nice defocus (even at
f4) rendition. Tactile feel fairly good, and fits the hands nicely. One
of the lower priced Leica lenses on the used market.

Nikon 180 mm f2.8 (any manual focus version). I rented many of these
prior to finally buying one (used). The separation of the subject from
the background is amazing. Also, this lens works great really stopped
down and used for panning shots. Only complaint is that the older
version I have now is somewhat large and heavy, which is one reason I
rate the 105 mm higher.

Nikon 50 mm f2.0 AI (long barrel version only). Took a while to find a
good one of these, since it is mostly a one year lens, and the short
barrel version was more common. After much searching, I am very happy
with the results in the images. As usual, I use this mostly wide open,
and the backgrounds are very smooth. More than that, I like the
separation of the subject from the background, since the falloff of DOF
is very short with this lens. My guess is that it would be not so good
when really sharp images and stopped down images are desired, though I
have a 50 mm f1.4 AIS (good one after many marginal ones) that covers
that realm better. The long barrel works really well for grip
ergonomics, and shades the lens well in most situations, though I really
think it helps to have the proper lens shade; after another search, I
found an old metal lens shade for it.

Leica 50 mm f2.0 Summicron (2nd version). Almost regret selling it. Nice
lens for urban imagery, and better slightly stopped down than most 50 mm
lenses. Tactile feel of the focus ring could have been better, but this
was a very old lens when I first got it. Sold after bad failure of my
M3, though I would consider getting another.

Nikkor 35 mm f2.8 PC (shift lens). Amazingly good and very useful lens.
Even without the shift provision being used, the results are very
satisfying. At f2.8, it actually makes a good low light lens, with just
enough DOF, smooth defocus rendition, good flare avoidance, and no
visible distortion. Stopped down, or shifted results make you wish every
lens was a shift lens. Complaints are that the scalloped focus ring
could be thicker, and the aperture ring is a little loose (same on every
one of these I have ever seen, which makes me think it was designed that
way). While this lens can slow you down, and be tough to use, I find
that it gets used frequently, and not just for architecture.

That is all for the ones I have owned, borrowed, rented, or used
briefly. Of lenses where I have seen results from the images of other
photographers, I find a few that I have liked greatly. The older manual
focus Pentax 85 mm f1.4 is one of those. The newer Voigtl,nder 15 mm and
21 mm for Leica screw mount are two others that really impress me.
Additionally, the Hasselblad Xpan 45 mm and 90 mm images I have seen so
far I have found much to my liking, enough so to interest me in getting
an Xpan. The Leica 75 mm f1.4 Summilux has impressed me with the few
images I have seen from it, though not with the very high pricing (even
used). The ultra rare Noct Nikkor 58 mm f1.2 is another on my desire
list, but likely I would never get one due to the high used prices.

Outside of the ones I mentioned, there are a few medium format and large
format lenses I really like, and a few others that I would like to own.
Of course, cost structure is very different, and this is a 35 mm group,
so I will not mention any of those.

As you can probably tell, I like lenses that work well wide open, unless
they are wide angle lenses. I like great stopped down performance with
wide angle lenses. So I probably could use a slower wide angle zoom
lens, and I might be happy with one, though the ergonomics of an extra
turn ring have never been to my liking. I have a similar feeling with
longer focal length zoom lenses, though that other issue is that they
are often a smaller maximum aperture than I want to use. The Nikon 80 to
200 mm f2.8 is almost an exception, going by the few I have rented, but
I doubt I would ever buy one. I also really like manual focus, since I
am a control freak.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


From: TP tp@nospam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Your favourite non-zoom lenses of all time...
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 

"Tom" seaskate32043@removethis.yahoo.com wrote:
>Nikkor 105mm f2.5
>Without a doubt, the best 35mmm portrait lens of all time.


There speaks a man who has never used the 85 mm f/1.4 AIS or AF-D, the
105mm f/2 DC AF-D, the 135mm f/2 DC AF-D, the 180mm f/2.8 ED AI(S) and
AF(-D), ...

... plus almost any modern portrait lens from Carl Zeiss or Leica ...

... plus many more from brands such as Pentax and Minolta and even
some independent brands, notably the 90mm f/2.8 macro lenses from
Tamron, Vivitar, Sigma and Tokina and the legendary 105mm f/2.5 Kiron.

The 105mm f/2.5 AI(S) Nikkor is a great lens, for sure, especially
coming from a brand of lenses whose out-of-focus effects are so often
very harsh. But there are a great many portrait lenses that will beat
it ... and some by a huge margin.


From: "Tom" seaskate32043@removethis.yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Your favourite non-zoom lenses of all time...
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 

"Martin Francis" mcsalty@com.btinternet wrote 
> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?

Nikkor 105mm f2.5

Without a doubt, the best 35mmm portrait lens of all time.

Manual focus, and this lens is the only reason I kept a Nikon around after
switching to Canon (after shooting Nikons for 32 years).

I want to be buried with that lens.

For medium format, it would be my 180mm Zeiss Sonnar. No other lens can get
that 'look'.

Tom


From: Chris Loffredo me@privacy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Your favourite non-zoom lenses of all time...
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 

Martin Francis wrote:

> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
>

Zeiss 35 f/1.4: Great "atmosphere" & 3d rendering.
Zeiss 25 f/2.8: Look Mom, no distortion!
Schneider Curtagon 35 f/2.8: Very massive & solid rendering.
Zeiss Jena 200 f/2.8: East German miracle.
Nikkor 55 f/2.8, 105 f/2.5, 180 f/2.8 ED, 200 f/4.0: The best of Nikon.
Voigtl,nder/Cosina 15 f/4.5 & 21 f/4.0: Great value.
Leitz Summicron 35 f/2.0 & Tele-Elmarit 90 f/2.8: Tiny & excellent.
Vivitar 17 f/3.5 (older, very retrofocus, non-multicoated version):
Excellent, believe it or not!
Meyer Telemegor 300 f/4.5 & 400 f/5.5: Huge & heavy but sharp.

Several lenses in the 85mm to 105mm range, all of which tend to be
excellent (Nikkor, Zeiss, Leitz, Jupiter (Soviet), Voigtl,nder (the real
one))


From: Christoph Breitkopf chris@chr-breitkopf.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Your favourite non-zoom lenses of all time...
Date: 07 Jun 2004 


Scott Schuckert scotts13@comcast.net writes:
> 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor (First AI version, typically used on an F2)
> unbelievable sharpness, easy to focus - and I like short teles. I had
> later versions of the lens, and the contrast was higher but never
> seemed quite as sharp.

There were no changes to the lens' optics since 1971 - long before AI.
Only the coating might have improved. So you probably saw sample
variations.

Regards,
Chris
--
Bokeh test images: http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html



End of Page