Mamiya Universal, Super 23, and Mamiya Press Rangefinders
Rangefinder Medium Format Cameras
by Robert Monaghan
Rangefinder Medium Format Cameras
by Robert Monaghan
Index:
Related Local Articles and Links:
Koni-Omega Rapid Rangefinder Press Camera
Mamiya Universal Rangefinder Press Camera
Mamiya Super 23 Rangefinder Press Camera
Medium Format On a Budget
Rangefinders (35mm, MF, mostly Russian..)
Leica Clones (LTM clone lenses, mostly Russian..)
MF Rangefinders.. (Michael Liu, Fuji G690..)
Related Links:
Rangefinder Related Posts on Medium Format Digest
Rangefinder Renaissance 35mm.. (Bob Shell, Beststuff.com) [8/2002]
Describe MF Rangefinder (RF) Cameras
Rangefinder cameras use an optical viewfinder to suggest the image that
you will record on film. Some MF rangefinders have interchangeable
lenses, often necessitating complex cams and other tricks to off-set the
viewfinder image to reflect the lens area of coverage in the viewfinder.
Rangefinder advantages include lighter weight than SLRs and lower noise,
both due in part to the lack of a moving mirror. Without a mirror, lenses
can be mounted closer to the film plane, without complex optical
retrofocus designs. More compact designs can mean lower weight and
smaller size too.
Rangefinder disadvantages include the inability to know precisely what
will be on film. Lower end rangefinders forego the complex cams and
viewfinder masks in favor
of bright lines indicating lens coverage in the viewfinder.
Most MF rangefinders come with only one fixed lens. Where interchangeable
lenses are available, the number is usually limited and very model
specific (partly due to the coupling cams). Typically, you get a
normal lens, a moderate wide angle, and a moderate telephoto lens
option. A number of MF rangefinders such as the Koni-Omega and
Mamiya Press and Super 23 cameras use interchangeable lenses.
Some rangefinders such as the Mamiya Universal permit using
interchangeable backs, including a Polaroid back. A ground glass back
makes precise focusing possible, sometimes with associated view camera
like movements. You may be able to use multiple formats too, such as
6x4.5cm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and even beyond with the right interchangeable backs.
The camera body shell just holds the back and lens together with the
viewfinder, and usually features an accessory hand-grip or strobe mount
option.
Naturally, there are also many lower end rangefinder roll-film cameras
that fit in the gap between collector status and low end user cameras. Be
wary of problems, as repairs are often difficult or impossible without a
parts
donor camera.
The Mamiya and Koni-Omega
rangefinders can often be purchased for as little as $150 US and up.
But be sure to check out the cost and rarity of desired lenses and
backs and accessories before buying! Some models are much more
flexible in terms of the backs they take (e.g., Mamiya Universal).
This approach can be a very satisfying way to enjoy a low-cost, light
weight MF camera with multiple lenses and many format options through
the use of low-cost standard backs.
See the listings of current medium format rangefinders, particularly the
Mamiya 6MF
(6x6cm and masks for 6x4.5cm and 24mmx54mm) and Mamiya
7
(6x7cm) rangefinders for the high end.
Mamiya
offers a 43mm f/4.5 (21mm equiv on 35mm), 65mm f/4 (32mm equiv on
35mm), normal 80mm f/4 (39mm equiv on 35mm), and 150mm f/4.5 (71mm equiv
on 35mm) lenses. Costs are similar to high end current Hasselblad systems.
From: "Tony" tnt@voyager.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any other 6x7 camera with Polaroid back? Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 >Hi, I just wonder is there any other 6x7 camera with Polaroid back >besides Mamiya RZ67 and RB67? > Mamiya 7
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Jerry Houston" jerryh@oz.net
1] Re: Desiring medium format--help!!
Date: Thu Apr 16 21:45:58 CDT 1998
James M. Cate wrote... > >What exactly is a "rangefinder camera"? Is this a twin lens, or SLR, or bellows >type, or what? Sorry for the lack of knowledge about this subject.Also, is it >correct that these rangefinder cameras were made by several manufacturers over >the years, and are available used for around $400. I understand that they may >use one of the medium format roll film sizes still widely available.- What >size?
An optical rangefinder is a device that combines two images into one when it
is adjusted to match the distance to the subject. In the very early days,
rangefinders were sold as small separate instruments that could be used to
determine how far away a subject was, so you could accurately set the
distance on the focus scale of a camera. Some were designed to fit into an
accessory shoe (like a flash shoe) on top of a camera.
Later cameras were designed with built-in "coupled" rangefinders, so that
as you adjusted the focus, a double image seen through the viewfinder
would appear to "come together" when you got the distance right. That's
the kind that most people refer to when they speak of a "rangefinder
camera."
Typically it means a camera that is not a reflex camera, that is, you do not
look through a taking or viewing lens to focus, but look through a
viewfinder instead. Compared to an SLR, a rangefinder camera is usually
quieter and operates with less vibration, since there is no mirror
movement - only the shutter blades operate when you take a picture. (Of
course, SLR's have their own important advantages as well.)
Your other conclusions are correct. Nearly all medium format rangefinder
cameras use 120 film, and many are also able to use 220, which is twice as
long and offers twice the exposures per roll. Typical negative sizes are
from 6x4.5 cm to 6x19 cm, with 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 the most common. They're
all 6 x
Many companies have made medium format rangefinder cameras, and some still
do. Some were designed for amateur "tourist" type use, but many were meant
for hard and critical use, by photojournalists, wedding photographers and
other professionals. Some of the better older ones are available in good
usable condition at very attractive prices today, and those are the ones I
had in mind when I posted that original message.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Victor Balaban vbalaba@emory.edu wrote:
Rangefinder pros:
Rangefinder cons:
I use a Mamiya M7 for studio and environmental portraits, and find it to be
excellent for that purpose.
Chris Ellinger
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
First of all, yes, there are other rangefinder medium-formats.
Specifically, Fuji makes a wonderful line of cameras, from 6x4.5 to 6x17
panoramic. I have the GA645 and the GSW690. Superb optics.
First of all, yes, there are other
rangefinder medium-formats. Specifically, Fuji makes a wonderful line of
cameras, from 6x4.5 to 6x17 panoramic. I have the GA645 and the GSW690.
Superb optics.
The distinction and tradeoffs between rangefinder and SLR are exactly the
same as in the 35mm world. Rangefinders are relatively less popular than
SLRs for the same reasons: fewer lens choices, no macro, no zooms (one
exception), no long telephotos, difficult to frame precisely, difficult to
use polarizing filters. Rangefinders in medium format also have the same
advantages as in 35mm: quieter and often more appropriate for street and
theater photography, usually smaller and lighter, and in some cases easier
to focus in low illumination.
Rent different cameras before you buy.
Don Keysser
From: ellinger@umich.edu (Chris Ellinger)
Victor Balaban vbalaba@emory.edu wrote:
I use a Mamiya M7 for studio and environmental portraits, and find it to be
excellent for that purpose.
Chris Ellinger
[Ed. note: while not med fmt rangefinder, I thought this post on the
revival of the Leica classic rangefinders might be of interest to you
too?]
Dante Stella dante@umich.edu wrote:
It looks like you can't. If you'd have dug a little deeper through
the links you'd have gotten to these web pages:
http://www.yasuhara.co.jp/t981-e.html
Apparently they were originally going release at the end of 1998 and
only in Japan. They were planning on only selling 100 per month. They
opened a reservation system and within 3 months they had 2300
reservations (in Japan only). As a result, they decided to change
their manufacturing to handle a larger volume which in turn created a
delay for the actual release date so they hope to start shipping within
Japan this spring. When they opened an English language web page they
started getting more email from outside Japan than inside. They don't
currently have a system set up for those of us outside Japan so they
say to check back to their web page periodically until they do. If you
want one, you'll probably have to talk to a dealer in Japan.
One thing to note about this camera is that since it uses a 3rd party
SLR shutter, it's not quite as light tight as one would like for a
rangefinder so they recomend that you keep the lens cap on except when
you are metering (it's TTL metering) or shooting to avoid fogging.
The price is 55000 yen (about $463) and they aren't making lenses.
Initially the intent is for people to use use old Leica L screw mount
lenses. They say they plan to eventually also offer new lenses. This
would be nice as old lenses don't have modern anti-flare coatings (and
I'm assuming their new ones would).
Still, it's cool to see a new affordable rangefinder with some nice
modern features (TTL metering, 1/2000 top speed, 1/125 flash sync)
available. They state that the intent is for this to be a nice casual
use camera and keeping the price down is one of their stated goals.
They also want to avoid being collectable. It's a camera that's meant
to be used rather than admired. I hope the company does well enough
that they can afford to develop a more light tight shutter and offer a
nice array of modern lenses; at that point I'll probably be
interested.
--KAS
From: "John Shafer" john@consumerreview.com
I have a Mamiya Universal 6x7 rangefinder. For good landscapes you have to
be able to use a polarizer, so I've got some experience here.
It's kind of cheesy. but there's no other way really- you have to hold the
filter up to your eye and rotate it for the amount of filtration you want,
and then hold it in front of the lens. You can't actually screw it onto the
lens, because then you won't have the same amount of polarization anymore.
However, I've been doing this for a few years and the results are good.
Every once in a while I don't get full coverage or a little vignetting, but
I expose extra film just in case that happens.
Good luck!
John Shafer
From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam)
You need to put an index mark on your filter if it doesn't
already have one, and then you can repeat the alignment after
screwing it on. If you don't mind an extra filter in the pack,
carry two polarizers with matched index marks, then you can view
through one filter and turn the other to match.
--
Josh@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
[Ed.note: regarding compact modern small rf/vf...]
You'll find a used GS645 fold-up body to be
selling for about the same price as a used
GA645 autofocus body. The GS has slightly
faster lens and folds up to half the other's size.
The GA gives you AF and program modes.
The GS will give you better focus control as
you focus with the standard double-image method.
The GA gives you a cropping mask in the finder.
It works pretty well, but doesn't keep the center
AF spot always in the middle. (It has to adjust
for distance somehow, so you use focus lock and
then reframe as required. Focus lock is achieved
simply by holding the shutter release button 1/2 way.
The metering and focus both lock with this action.)
I have a GA645, but a GS would be a nice addition.
Maybe I'll give up my Pentax 35mm .... na.
Date: Fri Mar 31 17:42:49 CST 2000
I've got one (GA645) and just love it.
For landscapes it might be difficult, though, as the format is
vertical -- ideal for people. It is, though, easy to hold
horizontally.
Do these cameras hold up well?
I've had mine only a few months. No signs of looseness or other
preliminary indication of problems
*Are the lenses of reasonable quality?
Extremely high quality. The only shortcoming is the
speed. At f4.0 it's difficult to play with DOF and do work
requiring extremely shallow DOF. But in general it's sharp,
contrasty, and clean.
*Are the meters accurate?
I shoot print film, usually the Kodak VC.
Excellent results.
You've got a big enough neg that the slightly wide GA645, @ 60mm,
is like putting a 35mm on your 35mm camera. It will give you
a nice wide image and won't lose detail because of too much in
the image.
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999
I got a Mamiya Super 23 (precursor to the Universal Press with a bellows
back) two months ago and am so far very happy with it. I will mention
that it is my first professional-level camera and my first totally manual
camera so I am still getting used to it and can't really compare it to
anything but my 35mm equipment. I have the 100, 150 and 250 f8 lenses and
all seem very good compared to my Nikon 35mm lenses. I have the regular
ground glass back, the right-angle finder back (very useful for macro
focusing when it's bright out), 2 6x9 backs (a 6x7 back and a 6x7 multi
format back on order), and the extension ring set. All the pieces are of
very good quality. The main thing you have to look out for with the film
backs is that the original light seals tend to be worn out. You can get
them replaced or do it yourself, I've seen a description of what to do I
believe on Robert Monaghan's site.
There are a number of good lenses (50, 65, 90 and 250 f5) and accessories
out there for the Mamiya Press/Universal system and they can generally be
had for a decent price. The main "drawback" to the Press/Universal system
is that you always have to remember to cock the shutter, remove the dark
slide, make sure you advanced the film, etc. I think on my first roll of
film I had about 2 images that hadn't been screwed up to some degree. I
still occasionally forget to remove the dark slide, but at least if I
notice before I advance the film, I can just re-shoot the image! I put
"drawback" in quotes because while this does mean that shooting quickly is
difficult, it does make you plan out your shot more. I find myself
putting a lot more time into composition, etc. than I had been, so my
photography overall has improved.
I too was making a decision between the KO and the Press/Universal a few
months ago and I basically decided by getting the first excellent
condition system for a good price that came along, it happened to be the
Mamiya.
Good luck with your decision!
Benno Jones
greg kerr wrote
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
I have both - the Plaubel Makina 67 and the Fiji 6x7 - Both are excellent
cameras - the Plaubel is more compact being a folder than the Fiji - If
you
don't need interchangeable lenses either camera will give superb
photos. Prices
range from $750 to $1000 usually - with the Plaubel being a bit more
expensive
than the Fiji.
Ed T
From: John Coan jcoan@alumni.duke.edu
I used to own a great 6 x 9 *folding* rangefinder camera made in the
50's that would have been great for travel. Literally, I could collapse
it and fit it in my inside suit jacket pocket. It was a Voigtlaender
Bessa II with 105/3.5 Color Skopar lens. No meter, unfortunately, so
unless you are good at sunny 16 or guessing you'll need a small meter.
Not real fast to load, and to advance film you have to keep watch on the
ruby window while turning a knob. However.... this camera took
*wonderful* pictures. The 6 x 9 cm format produces a really big
negative that gives creamy sharp enlargements. A few facts: the camera
gets only eight pictures on a roll of 120. The cable release socket
takes a tapered thread release. Once you cock the shutter don't move
the speed to the top speed, do this beforehand. If you forget, you can
cover the lens and fire the shutter and set the speed then recock
without wasting a frame (no film advance shutter interlock). I sold
mine to get some cash to go towards another type of camera... these
aren't real cheap unfortunately. I imagine there are other folders of
this vintage that would be equally suitable for a traveling medium
format rig -- as long as you don't need speedy operation or
interchangeable lenses...
....
From: Grant Goodes ggoodes@ramtex.dk
I own a Plaubel Makina 670, and my friend had a Fuji 690 (since sold).
We went head-to-head several times. Optically, they were much the
same, and of course, the 690 is a bigger negative. Size-wise, the
690 is quite large since it doesn't fold flat like the Plaubel. The
Fuji has more plastic in its construction, but in fact is probably
more robust than the Plaubel, since the Plaubel (unfortunately) uses
a lot of brass in the film advance, and is prone to stripping if
you're a bit rough with it (and parts are scarce to non-existant).
I dropped my Plaubel about half a meter (IN a padded case) and totaled
the advance mechanism. All-in-all, given the exhorbitant prices being
asked for a Plaubel these days, I'd go with the Fuji (and get the 690
since the 670 body is physically the same size, and you might as well
get the bigger negative while you're at it).
grant..
From Rollei Mailing List:
I'd read reports that the Minox 110 cameras were also made by Balda,
which, along with the news that the Vito C was from their plant, comes as
a suprise to me. I'd never imagined that Balda survived as long as that.
Kind of a shame too, because I'm quite fond of several late-'50's, early
'60's Baldessa models I have in my collection. I probably paid a total of
$60 for all three, but they're genuinely decent performers, feel great in
the hand, and have nice finders and lenses. The Baldessa Ia in particular
is a charmer, with its finger-tip focus wheel positioned right next to
shutter release and bright rangefinder. Of the vintage compact rangefinder
in my collection, it's one of my favorites.
Cheers,
M. Phillips
Ron wrote:
Hi Ron. The Graflex XL is a system camera with interchangeable lenses,
backs, viewers, etc., so the price of an outfit could vary considerably
depending on components. A standard RF body with grip, a Zeiss 100mm 3.5
Tessar and a Graflex RH 10 back could be had for around $300. If, however
you opted for the Rodenstock 58mm Grandagon and a Horseman 6x9 eight
exposure back you could probably triple that, may be more.
The XL is a very versatile camera, but I'm not sure it's the best one
for what you intend to do. It doesn't allow for movement to control focus
or perspective, and the focus mechanism can be difficult to use in cold
weather. I would suggest that you consider a technical camera like the "
baby" Linhof, or a press camera like the Graflex Crown Graphic. The Linhof
is orders of magnitude above the Graflex in sophistication, build quality,
and of course expense, but if you use Zeiss that's nothing new to you. I
have a Graflex Crown Graphic in 4x5 format with a rodenstock 135mm lens.
It has proven capable of excellence and absolutely reliable. That being
said I lust for a Linhof. My acquisitions are often driven more by emotion
than reason, but that's fine with me. I've never regretted buying a
camera. I wish you the best of luck.
Sincerely,
J. De Fehr
From: bandhphoto@aol.com (BandHPhoto)
Is there anybody has experience on this MF?
I handled a production sample for about an hour last week. The design and
construction seem very very good. My only complaint was that the tele lens
didn't have sufficient min focus for tight head shots, but then again,
neither do the tele lenses for the Mamiya 7, the other interchangeable
lens med format rangefinder on the market.
===============================
regards,
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001
This has always been a weakness of rangefinder systems, but, then again,
rangefinders are not really associated with taking of tight headshots.
This has been one of my complaints about the Bronica 150mm for the ETRS.
Not the PE, but, the earlier models. You can't get close enough for a
true tight closeup of a face. In my opinion, this is a design flaw that
is all too common.
Jeff
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001
The rangefinder cameras have advantages and disadvantages.
Adv's:
No mirror vibration. This is the big one. Pics are amazingly sharp.
Flash synch at all shutter speeds with leaf shutter lenses.
Rangefinders are very easy to focus, especially with old tired eyes like
mine.
Lightweight. Smaller and lighter than any MF SLR packages that I can think
of.
Disadvs:
The viewfinder is always slightly off center of the lens. This only
matters in
close-ups.
Some rangefinders don't focus that closely. This may be a problem for
some, but it wouldn't be for doing cityscapes.
Doesn't meter through the lens, so it takes a bit of getting used to.
There is more image in the viewfinder than what will show up on the film.
You have to use the framing lines in the viewfinder. I like it, some
don't.
Filters must be compensated for since it's not metering through the lens.
All this said, I tried several MF systems and just recently bought a used
Mamiya 6MF. I love it. The lenses are some of the best in terms of
sharpness. It's light, very easy to carry around. I have a small camera
bag that's about 6" square. It holds the body, a 75mm, a 150mm, a couple
propacks of film, and a few accessories. There's even room, I think, for
the 50mm lens that will be coming soon.
I think you should rent one and give it a try. It may not be your "thing",
but it's worth checking out. If you can stand just one lens, a Fuji is a
great camera.
Ron wrote:
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Are we talking about film mm by film mm or in terms of the finished
prints?
The closest comparison is the Fuji G690 vs the 35mm RF. We'll say the
100/3.5 EBC Fujinon vs. a 50/2 Hexanon (or Summicron - there's no
demonstrable difference).
In terms of finished prints of any size, the 6x9 tonality blows the 35mm
right out of the water. In 6x9, Tri-X is a fine-grained, glowy film with
creamy tones. In 35mm. Tri-X looks like oatmeal. Do this with Verichrome
Pan (120) vs. Plus-X - or anything else 35mm, and again, no contest.
In terms of real resolution per film mm, I think the 6x9 lens is about
two-thirds of 35mm, but the limiting factor is really the film. If you
take Tri-X in both formats, a 5x5mm section looks exactly the same.
Consider that the 6x9 is enlarged about 1/3 as much as a 35mm frame, and
you see why in practical use the MF delivers more. Of course, balance
that against the huge size and weight of a Fuji 690 (especially an older,
metal one) and you think a little harder.
In 645, the Fuji Super-EBC 60/4 (on the GA645) compares very favorably to
any 35mm (on 35mm) SLR lens, in part because it is not retrofocus. This
lens has elements small enough (element size plays a large role in
resolution limits) to deliver massive resolution wide open. You can still
get stellar results from one of these loaded with TX (at 1250), with less
grain and greater sharpness on paper than a 35mm with TMZ or Delta.
So, long story short, it's an apples to oranges comparison.
Jeffery Smith wrote:
From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Hi Austin -
The Fuji situation is one where it is really easy to overgeneralize.
The newest Fuji lenses are very, very sharp, but like you said, harsh.
The original 6x9 100 3.5 is a Tessar and is actually quite pleasant (the
current 90mm is a Planar-type). The other lens I have for it, the 180/5.6
has very nice focus falloff, and from the coma I would guess that it is a
telephoto Sonnar (Fuji is very tight-lipped about its formulae - and I
believe the 180 is the same one on the GX680). The current 60/4 is
miserable as a portrait lens (too sharp, bokeh too wiry) but fantastic for
travel use.
The speed issue is there, but you can shoot 3200 Delta in 120 with the
same results you get with 400 Tmax in 35mm. That's a 3-stop speed gain,
and the MF lenses are only 1-1/2 stop slower (3.5 on average vs. 2).
There should be less DOF on the MF cameras, but not by much. Of course,
you have to use shorter shutter speeds.
Cheers
Austin Franklin wrote:
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001
I have been doiing some still life work with my 4x5 Speed Graphic and
a roll film back. Using the rangefinder was a chore due to the low
ambient lighting. I remembered an accessory you could get that
projected a beam of light through the top of the rangefinder and when
the two dots met you were in focus.
I decided to try to use a small flash light with limited success then
tried my laser pointer and it worked just fine. The red dots were very
easy to see. Cheap solution that worked. Thought I would pass it
along.
I certainly would not recommend this technique for portrait work,
laser light and eyes do not mix.
R.
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002
From: Mike miaim@mebtel.net
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [medium-format] newbie questions
you wrote:
> I recently corresponded with an enthusiasic user
> of the FUJI 645s and we both discussed why so little
> he says his
>"" is fantastic and a best kept secret.
After having several very disappointing experiences with older leaf
shutter, SLR MF cameras, (mostly Kowas), I got a Fuji GS645S Pro fixed wide
60mm rangefinder. It's everything that "serious" pro wannabes tell you
never to get. It's lightweight. It's plastic. It's stuck with only one
lens. It's a rangefinder. It's not expensive, trendy or in high demand.
It's also one of the best cameras that I've ever had or heard of. I truly
love this little camera and it's built-in simple meter. This one is not one
of the newer auto-focus, point 'n shoots, but rather is so easy to use in
it's all manual mode that once one gets accustomed to it, it's like an
extention of the photographer. Personally, I like the fact that I don't
have to keep up with extraneous gear or worry about what lens to use with
it or haul around a luggage case to keep up with doodads for it. Just the
small, lightweight camera in a fanny pack is enough. While 6x45 is not my
favorite mf film format, I like this little camera so much that when I
eventually get another mf camera, I'm pretty sure that it'll be another of
Fuji's fine range finders.
Mike Swaim
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica Issues?
I have compared the Mamiya and Bronica rangefinders several times. Both
seem to fit well for hand held shooting, though there are noticeable
differences. The biggest difference is the landscape bias of the Mamiya,
and the portrait bias of the Bronica. I found that both can be
repositioned for the other type of shot, though as a left eye shooter, I
was more comfortable with the Bronica. If you were to do one type of
shooting more than the other, than that might be a good reason to choose
one.
The viewfinders are also very different in the amount of information they
display. The Bronica tells you much more of your settings than the
Mamiya. This may or may not be important to you. I also thought the
winders were fairly similar, though some of the other controls are
noticeably different. I think the large grip on the Mamiya is a bit more
comfortable than the Bronica. I like the exposure compensation dial
placement on the Bronica.
With the lens selection, the lines are somewhat comparable. It would be
nice to find a 135 mm for the Bronica, though it is apparently hard to
focus accurately when wide open. The 150 mm for the Mamiya does not have
a very close focusing distance either, and it is tough to frame and focus
through the viewfinder (maybe why there is an accessory finder). If you
really want to shoot short telephoto, or any telephoto, an SLR would be a
much better choice. I am more disappointed that neither company is
exploring more of a super wide option, more like the Voigtl,nder 15 mm
for 35 mm format rangefinders.
Shooting normal and wide seem to be the best aspects of these rangefinder
cameras. If your shooting would mostly fit into those realms, either
would be a great choice. I find some of my photography conveniently
within the framing from normal and wide lenses, so I am considering both
for future acquisition, and I think both would make excellent full body,
and portrait cameras. When I want to do a tight head shot, or shoot from
a great distance, I will use an SLR, or grab my 35 mm gear.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html
Craig Schroeder wrote:
> I had decided that 90% of the pictures I have done in the past 5 years
> could have been handled by a medium format rangefinder and have grown
> tired of lugging my P67 kit around (or worse, leaving it home too many
> times).
>
> My little Fuji folder 645 has served me well over time and I decided
> that the 645 Bronica RF was sufficient for my work (never over and
> rarely even, 16X20) from that experience. I was a little flustered
> over their 135mm issue and abandonment as it showed the corporate
> attitude toward commitments to their marketing promises. Magically,
> the UK people and distributor could handle the specifics to making
> this work but I've delayed my decision too long now and the 135's are
> depleted. I've learned the hard way in other things that when the
> bean counters get too much control, the customers tend to be who
> ultimately pays and it spells the end of many good companies. Now I
> hear (not substantiated by me) that they are abandoning the GS-1 line.
> I'm becoming very paranoid about getting in bed with this outfit! The
> GS-1 was one of my options when I went with the P67 system and the
> decision was made on the Pentax almost by accident from having an
> unused system come out of an estate settlement and into my lap.
>
> My Pentax (most of it) is ending a week of eBay listing this evening
> and I was planning on buying a little used Bronica RF645 system from
> an individual and ordering the remaining accessories from Robert
> White. I handled a Mamiya 7 yesterday and was impressed by its
> relative light weight and compactness. The glowing reviews of the 7's
> optics and my comfort level with 6X7 experience has got me re-thinking
> my path. Add to this, the Bronica/Tamron business decisions of late
> and I'm becoming less convinced of my Bronica purchase. Any thoughts?
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Range Finders
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002
First of all there are afordable rangefinders, not just the
stratospheric RF's. (Bessa-L is very cheap; Contax G1 in the middle).
RF's advantages (v. SLR) in no particular order:
-compact body arangement (no mirror or prism box)
-lens sizes smaller for same f and a (since they are closer to the film
plane)
-because of the preceding point, easier to get higher quality in the
glass for a given spec'd lens
-quiet: no mirror slapping around (and they are manually cranked)
-low light use: there is no mirror and prism sucking up the image. It
is easier to manually focus in low light.
SLR advantages:
-generally lower priced due to mass appeal
-wider range of lenses and other accessories
-no paralax issues (RF users will say "what issues?". Generally at 10
feet or more away, no problem; at close ranges you need to be cognizant
when composing (or leave room to crop))
-greater range of "features" in the cameras (which may or may not be al
that useful)
-metering modes
-AF (The Contax RF's (G1, G2) state they are AF but in terms I don't
understand: "Passive AF", "Active AF" which may mean optically and with
some assist like an IR beam of light?)
Others may pitch in other pros and cons (for each system), but the above
is a good general roundup. Flippantly, you can only walk around with a
smug superior tilt of the nose if you have a Leica. I've only tried an
RF once and it is not that great a mystery. But it would take time to
achieve real comfort.
Cheers,
Alan
Jim Richardson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> What is the big deal with Range Finder 35mm cameras? I have recently gotten
> back into using my old manual focus 35mm SLR and have been seeing a lot
> about range finder cameras. I do like the size and the focusing sounds
> nice, double overlaid images. The prices seem outrages.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim R.
>
> P.S. Just curious...
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Range Finders
There are quite a few 1970's era rangefinder cameras available for very low
prices. Almost all of them were fixed lens designs, though several could
produce quite nice results.
Low light shooting is one advantage over many SLRs. Some people also find them
somewhat easier to focus than SLRs. There is also a slight potential lens
design advantage for wide angle lenses, due to the lack of a mirror, allowing
the back of the lens to mount closer to the film plane.
A rangefinder can also be more compact for the same reason (lack of flip up
mirror), though not by a great deal with the more modern offerings. The very
old pre-WW2 and early 1950's Contax, Leica, et al, are very compact rangefinder
cameras, and can easily fit into a coat pocket. Collapsible lenses were also
popular with some of these, with a few modern versions still available.
More than the construction characteristics, the shooting methods are the big
difference to an SLR. There is no black out of the viewfinder when the shutter
button is pressed. Also, without a mirror to move, the shutter lag is often
shorter than the majority of SLR cameras. The other viewfinder difference is
the ability to see the scene just outside of the framing area of the lens. This
slightly wider overall view can sometimes be an advantage for image
composition.
The current high new cost relates to a lack of competition in the rangefinder
market. The focusing mechanism is actually fairly complex, requires some
individual production line adjustments prior to shipping, and involves a
substantial number of parts compared to many SLRs.
Owning a rangefinder may be a good complimentary camera for many SLR users. A
easy and inexpensive way to find if that method of shooting is right for you,
is to buy an old fixed lens rangefinder from the 1970's. You may find out that
you like it . . . or not . . . .
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: MF rangefinder ???
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 200
Le Grande Raoul wrote:
> Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Slavko Eror wrote:
>>
>> > Good for you.
>>
>> I'll ignore that.
>>
>> Instead of the Fuji GA645, why not take a look at a used Mamiya
>> C-220? Yes, it's a twin lens reflex and not a rangefinder, but
>> does have interchangeable lenses of very good quality, and you
>> could get a
>> nice setup -- body, 2 or 3 lenses -- for $500, if you shop. And
>> it's
>> not any bigger or heavier than the Mamiya 6. And it's a 6x6, too.
>> I used one professionally for about 8 years.
>
> Again, good for you. Some people are adverse to waist-level viewing.
> Add a porroprism and it's much bulkier and heavier. A good camera
> but not within the specifications.
When cost is the major deciding factor for a camera purchase, most
times you're not going to satisfy all your specifications. Since he
"liked", but couldn't afford the Mamiya 6, a 6x6 format and a
rangefinder, I suggested an alternate 6x6 that was about the same
size and weight, but a reflex. The Fuji GA645 isn't a rangefinder,
either, which was what he mainly wanted, but is eyelevel viewing.
>>
>> FWIW: A few years ago, I had considered getting the Fuji as a
>> compact, lightweight travel camera with professional grade optics
>> for
>> shooting stock. After handling one, I passed on it. Too
>> "delicate."
>> I figured either the AF or film advance motors would be the first
>> thing to go, turning it into a very expensive doorstop.
>
> FWIW2: I had one. Used it hard. Gave it to 15 year old kids to use
> for the school newspaper. Wore like iron. Strong, strong,
> strong.... Only sold it because it no longer served one of my
> purposes easily- as
> a utility camera to shoot color negative film of the nephews. Now
> use 35mm for that.
Yes. You said in response to my query on this camera that you had it
for 2 years and put about 100 to 150 rolls through it in that time.
I don't consider an average of 4 to 6 rolls per month "hard use."
I also don't find "auto" cameras very reliable under the rigors of
professional shooting. Too delicate. I hear from pros, who are
always complaining about how this AF lens or this AF body is down for
repair. Such frequent complaints are not glowing endorsements for AF
equipment, even the pro level stuff, and that, more or less, keeps me
from making the sizeable investment to switch over from my all
manual, all mechanical Nikons, which in the 25 years I've been using
them have only had two failures: one motor drive broke a gear; and I
wore out the shutters on 2 FM bodies. (Replaced them with FM2n's.)
I have no idea how many rolls I've put through them. Thousands.
Many thousands.
I doubt MF AF equipment is any more reliable than the 35mm variety.
I suppose one day, when there's no such thing as "manual" cameras,
I'll have to take the plunge. Maybe, I'll die before then. ;-)
--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 29 Jun 2003
Subject: Re: Mamiya?
The Mamiya Universal is a good solid but dated camedra with dated optics. I
don't know what you mean by blowing out the wallet but you can get a Fuji
GS690II or III (same lens slightly different body design) or GSW 690 II or III
with a great contrasty rangefinder and one of the best lenses on the market
today in the range of 600 used if you shop carefully. You can actually find
the camera in the 900 range new sometimes.
You can see results from a wide variety of photographers at
www.fujirangefinder.com
Ted Harris
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 6 Purchase
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003
"Mike Jenkins" mcjenk@earthlink.net wrote:
> Hi, I'm thinking of purchasing a used Mamiya 6. I previously owned a Bronica
> Etrsi 645. I now realize I should have gone 6x6. I'd like some opinions on
> the advantages and disadvantages of the rangefinder vs. the slr type med.
> format.
What will limit you and what not is very personal of course, but some
rangefinder points to consider are:
+ lightweight
+ compact size
- no DOF-check
- use of some filters is difficult or impossible (grad and pola)
- no close-ups
- smaller system of available lenses/motordrives etc.
+ very bright viewfinder, but:
-/+ rangefinder focusing isn't for everyone... (maybe try before you buy...)
- viewfinder image is small with telephoto lenses.
+ you can see the flash in the viewfinder, with flash-photography.
Personally, I think a DOF-preview (or better: a bokeh-check...) is
essential for at least some of the portraits I take. I also use my
extension-tube a lot, and I sometimes use a polarizer. But, if you can
live with the limitations and benefits it could be a great choice.
;-)
Lourens
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 6 Purchase
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003
6x6 wouldn't be my choice for either landscape or portraits but you seem to
have already decided on the 6x6 format and now are concerned only with slr
vs. rangefinder. Rangefinder cameras and their lenses tend to be smaller,
lighter, and quieter than slrs so they're good for situations where those
features are important (e.g. on vacations where you're doing a lot of
walking, in a theatre or other gathering where you want to be unobtrusive,
etc.). Landscape and portraits don't really fall in those categories except
to the extent that you do a lot of lengthy hiking for your landscapes.
The image also doesn't black out when the shutter is tripped with a
rangefinder camera, which some people think is an advantage. Another
advantage sometimes mentioned is that you can see outside the frame of the
image produced by the lens that's on the camera so it's easier to envision
other possibilities for the image, you can see people or things moving into
the image, etc. OTOH, some people think the fact that you're not seeing what
the lens is seeing, as you are with an slr, is a disadvantage.
Downsides include the fact that accessories are limited, very long lenses
usually don't exist, and wide angle lenses tend to be awkward to use. In a
nutshell, I think of rangefinders as good for the mid-range of photography
but not so good for the extremes - i.e. closeups and distances.
If you explained what it is you don't like about the 645 format you're now
using and why you think 6x6 will be an improvement you might get responses
that are more tailored to your specific situation. You can learn the
general advantages and disadvantages of rangefinder cameras vs. slrs with a
few minutes reading in any basic photography book or probably on many web
sites if you do a Google search.
--
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
"Mike Jenkins" mcjenk@earthlink.net wrote
> Hi, I'm thinking of purchasing a used Mamiya 6. I previously owned a Bronica
> Etrsi 645. I now realize I should have gone 6x6. I'd like some opinions on
> the advantages and disadvantages of the rangefinder vs. the slr type med.
> format.
>
> Some questions I have are: How's the mamiya 6 do with portraits?
>
> Weddings?
> Landscapes?
> Black & White artsy stuff?
> Street shots?
> Whatever you feel might enlighten me will be most appreciated. Mike
From: Roman J. Rohleder rjrgroups7@gmx.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rangefinder ???
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004
"Mike Jenkins" mcjenk@earthlink.net schrieb:
> My question is: What inexpensive MF rangefinder is a good camera to goof
>around with while I decide if I really want to spend a lot more money on a
>good rf?
In the same situation I decided to go with one of the classic folders
without rangefinder - I was gifted a Adox Golf (6x6) and added a Adox
Start and Agfa Billy 6,3 (both 6x9) to it. When I learned that I liked
the handling and the image they produced, I got a Moskva5 - actually
two. The first had bent folding struts and now serves me as a "toy
platform" - for experiments like a pinhole-folder. Not bad for 12 EUR.
;-)
The other was a gift by a fellow in Minnesota, he decided that I
needed it more than him and send it over the big pond. :-)
Now, thats a decent camera - fine rangefinder, albeit a bit too tiny
viewfinder, quite compact, rugged with the chrome protective cap. 6x6
and 6x9 option, a good tessar derivative lens (Industar 24Y), sharp
and contrasty images.
The others still see usage, since they are smaller and lighter.
The only limitation is the focal length - there are no wide angle
folders.
To get an overview over the various models, have a look at the
"Klappkamera ABC" ("Folding camera ABC"). It's in german, but if you
follow my link and have a look at the images, you'll see the cameras
and sample shots taken with them.
http://www.corff.de/Klappkameras/Klappkameras-8.html#ss8.1
> I do like the 6x6 format, but that's not really that important right now. I
>know there's Russian cameras and numerous others. I just don't have a clue
>as to their quality and ease of use.
>Mike
Gruss, Roman
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004
From: Jim Williams jimwilliams1@cox.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] RF tech question
marcus wrote:
> How come most rangefinders have the fuzzy edged RF
> spot compared to Leica and Cosina which have the super
> bright straight edged spot? Is it a much more complex
> accomplishment or what?
Yes, it's much more complex. The recipe:
-- For a basic rangefinder optical system (no viewfinder) all you need
is a fixed, diagonal semitransparent mirror (aka beamsplitter) and a
pivoted fully reflecting mirror (or prism.)
-- For a basic viewfinder (of the usual 'inverted telescope' type) all
you need is a negative lens at the front, to 'minify' the view so it
corresponds with the angle of view of the lens, and a positive lens at
the back to help focus your eye on the image from the negative lens.
(If you didn't mind the camera being 10 or 12 inches thick, you could
dispense with the positive lens entirely, and just have a peep sight to
line up your eye correctly behind the negative lens.)
-- To combine these, all you have to do is stick the beamsplitter
between the negative and positive lenses. Then, to make the rangefinder
image and the viewfinder image focus in your eye at the same distance,
you add another negative lens of the same power somewhere between the
beamsplitter and the rangefinder image. (Sometimes it's in front of the
rangefinder mirror, sometimes it sits crossways in the middle of the
light path -- doesn't matter as long as the viewfinder image and the
rangefinder image have the same total diopter.)
Now you've got the traditional "fuzzy spot" range/viewfinder. The edges
of the RF spot are fuzzy because the edges of the RF window are much
closer to your eye than the apparent distance of the actual viewfinder
and rangefinder images -- so, your eye can't focus on both the edges of
the spot and the actual image at the same time. That's not aesthetic,
but it does make it possible to design a very effective
range/viewfinder without a lot of parts and delicate adjustments.
Now, though, think what happens if you want the viewfinder image, the
rangefinder image, AND the rangefinder patch edge all to come to focus
at the same distance to your eye. Now you've got to have the negative
lens at the front, as before; the positive lens at the back, for the
eyepiece; the extra negative lens to bring the rangefinder image to the
same focus; PLUS a mask for the rangefinder image, to define the sharp
edge, and an additional lens with a hole in it, so it focuses the mask
image WITHOUT affecting the focus of the rangefinder image passing
through it. Again, the trick is to make all the total diopters add up
-- but now you've got to balance three numbers (viewfinder image,
rangefinder image, rangefinder mask) instead of just two.
Add in a parallax-compensated projected frameline, and now you've got a
FOURTH thing to focus, so now you need an extra mirror (to reflect the
framelines into the viewfinder path) and an extra lens (to bring them
to the same plane of focus as everything else.) For an even higher
degree-of-difficulty rating, add a meter readout into the mix!
Of course there are lots of variations on these themes. For example,
Canon's switchable-magnification finders put the whole rangefinder
optic system, including the beamsplitter, in FRONT of the negative lens
for the viewfinder; they pulled off this trick by using a beamsplitter
that was semitransparent only in the middle, for the rangefinder spot,
and clear around the edges. Doing it this way let them switch
viewfinder magnifications (via a rotating optical box) without having
to switch rangefinder magnifications at the same time -- since the
rangefinder was out front, it didn't care what was happening behind it.
But if you look at the basic problem -- bringing objects at different
distances to the SAME focus in your eye -- you can see that the more
things you're trying to focus, the more lenses you need and the
trickier it is to design the system. That's one reason high-end RFs are
more expensive than SLRs with the same mechanical specs!
From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: looking for a good MF option
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004
"Stefan Patric" tootek2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Now, with all that said, and if all you really want is a medium format
> "point-n-shoot", take a look at the Fuji GA645z. It's a 645
> auto-everything, viewfinder camera, but quality, with a 55 to 90
> powered zoom. Very small. You might also look for the earlier models
> the GA645 that came with a 60mm autofocus lens, and the GW645 (or
> GA645W, can't remember which) that came with a 45mm lens. I don't
> think they are made anymore, but are still available new or used.
The GA645z lens is a tad on the slow side, and the zoom range is narrow
enough that a couple of steps forward or back will do about as much. There
were also non-automagic Fuji 645 cameras prior to the GA series. The GS645S
is a rangefinder with meter (that works surprisingly well) and a painfully
sharp 60/4.0 lens. The 75/3.8 is a (early 1980s!) folder, and there's a
45/5.6 scale (or zone) focussing model. These three are all in not the
strongest of bakelite/plastic bodies, and so aren't up to GS690 standards of
mechanical reliability. Sigh.
> Now, if you want something less auto, but still small and 645, look at
> the Bronica RF645. Not a "point-n-shoot", but a true, professional
> grade, 645 rangefinder with excellent lenses. (www.tamron.com and
> click on Bronica, then Bronica RF645) FWIW: I think this camera will
> soon be discontinued. It is only available through B&H; as a special
> order. Additionally, it has a $450 manufacturer's rebate. That
> indicates to me, that it hasn't been selling well. Though it's still a
> nice, compact 645 with electronically controlled leaf shutter lenses
> and built-in meter with auto-exposure. No. No interchangeable backs.
The Bronica RF645 has the best rangefinder I've ever put my eye to. The
problem, though, is that the 45mm lens requires an outrigger viewfinder and
the 100mm lens isn't long enough to be a good portrait lens. If you see it
with just its 65mm lens as a vastly improved version of the (cheaply made
plastic) GS645S, it's a lovely camera.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004
From: Gene Poon sheehans@ap.net
Subject: Re: Re: SLR focusing vs. RF focusing
Rick Oleson wrote:
> Actually, I JUST got done dealing with this problem on my VXIIB. The
> mirror has a very thin, flimsy little tab on the left side that
> catches on the release pawl thing, and establishes the down-position
> of the mirror. This can be expected to bend a bit in normal use and
> throw your focus off... I noticed it when the Xenon lens appeared to
> not focus to infinity, which didn't seem likely. The amount of error
> at the little tab was only .004", but it was enough to notice in the
> finder.
>
> The only other camera I've encountered a mirror position problem in
> is a Zeiss Contaflex... I never really figured out the cause of that
> one, it was off beyond the end of its adjustable stop range and I
> wound up having to shim the focusing screen up a little to make it
> right. Most SLRs have very robust mirrors and don't cause problems.
Rick's correct on that. Most of the SLR mirror mechanisms have positive
stops. However, some are prone to "screwdriver drift" which will throw
off the focusing accuracy; and one never knows who has been inside an
unfamiliar camera. At least one, the otherwise-well regarded Pentax LX,
uses a rubber pad on the 45-degree stop, to reduce vibration as the
mirror returns to rest position...where it doesn't matter! After many
years, the pad goes the way of all things rubber, and takes a set, so
the mirror sits low and focus is inaccurate. In advanced stages, the
mirror is said to actually stick to the decaying rubber pad, hence the
"Sticky Mirror Syndrome."
-GP
From: Matt McGrattan matthew.mcgrattan@bnc.ox.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Question on MF Rangefinder
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004
"David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com wrote:
>"MATT WILLIAMS" kauai82@verizon.net wrote
>> I am interested in getting a MF Rangefinder and have a couple of questions.
>> I am thinking about a Fuji GS645 with a 60mm or maybe if I could find one
>> with a 45mm. lens. I have a Mamiya M645 now and love it except for the
>> weight. I do a lot of hiking in very high altitudes (California Sierra
>> Nevada) and would like to save a couple of pounds in weight when
>> backpacking. Would the Fuji come close to the quality of the M645 ?
>
>The 60mm f/4.0 Fuji lens is, if anything, sharper than the Mamiya 55/2.8.
>The Bokeh's pretty ugly though. The viewfinder's good but the rangefinder's
>terrible.
I have one of these - the GS645S - and I can confirm that the
rangefinder is terrible. 90% of the time it's impossible to see the
rangefinder dot in order to focus.
Since I'm mainly using it for landscapes this isn't a problem since
90% of the time it's set to infinity or I'm focusing to the hyperfocal
length anyway.
The couple of rolls I've had through it so far have been nice and
sharp though...
Matt
From: ellinger@umich.edu (Chris Ellinger)
[1] Re: rangefinder 6x6's?
Date: Tue Jan 19 14:51:02 CST 1999
> What do people find to be
> the advantages/disadvantages of rangefinder & non-rangefinder medium
> formats?
Good low-light focusing and framing.
Continuous view of subject.
Small, quiet, and lightweight.
View not affected by dense filters.
Advantageous for wide angle lens designs.
Frame is only approximate.
Needs parallax compensation for close focus.
Focus only in center, may require re-framing after focusing.
No depth of field preview.
Difficult to use polarizer.
Inaccurate at long subject distance.
Ann Arbor, MI
From: dkeysser@aol.com (DKeysser)
[1] Re: rangefinder 6x6's?
Date: Sat Jan 30 16:40:31 CST 1999
>I am thinking to buy a medium format (finally) and am still trying
>to get familiar with what's out there. I noticed a Mamiya 6 in a shop
>the other day & it occurred to me that I hadn't really seen any other
>rangefinder 6x6's out there. Are there any other makes out there besides
>I am thinking to buy a medium format (finally) and am still trying
>to get familiar with what's out there. I noticed a Mamiya 6 in a shop
>the other day & it occurred to me that I hadn't really seen any other
>rangefinder 6x6's out there. Are there any other makes out there besides
>the Mamiya 6? Why aren't they more popular? What do people find to be
>the advantages/disadvantages of rangefinder & non-rangefinder medium
>formats?
>
> Thanks,
>
>Victor
>the Mamiya 6? Why aren't they more popular? What do people find to be
>the advantages/disadvantages of rangefinder & non-rangefinder medium
>formats?
> > Thanks,
> >Victor
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: rangefinder 6x6's?
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999
> What do people find to be
> the advantages/disadvantages of rangefinder & non-rangefinder medium
> formats?
Rangefinder pros:
Good low-light focusing and framing.
Continuous view of subject.
Small, quiet, and lightweight.
View not affected by dense filters.
Advantageous for wide angle lens designs.
Rangefinder cons:
Frame is only approximate.
Needs parallax compensation for close focus.
Focus only in center, may require re-framing after focusing.
No depth of field preview.
Difficult to use polarizer.
Inaccurate at long subject distance.
Ann Arbor, MI
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: billda@West.Sun.COM
[1] Re: rangefinder leica alternative?
Date: Wed Mar 31 15:12:30 CST 1999
>Wow!
>> http://www.cameraquest.com/yasuhp.htm
>Where can I get one?
http://www.yasuhara.co.jp/reserve-e.html
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Using Filters with Rangefinders
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999
john@photographyreview.com
www.photographyreview.com
www.consumerreview.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Using Filters with Rangefinders
Date: 6 Aug 1999
>It's kind of cheesy. but there's no other way really- you have to hold the
>filter up to your eye and rotate it for the amount of filtration you want,
>and then hold it in front of the lens. You can't actually screw it onto the
>lens, because then you won't have the same amount of polarization anymore.
Date: Fri Mar 31 22:33:35 CST 2000
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: LoveThePenguin dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
[1] Re: Fuji Medium Format Rangefinders
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: LoveThePenguin dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
[1] Re: Fuji Medium Format Rangefinders
From: "Benno Jones" quix@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Koni Rapid Omega 100/200 vs. Mamiya Universal Press
>I am looking on moving up from my first medium format camera, a
>Yashicamat 124G to something offering more versatility. I fall into the
>serious amateur wanting to turn part time semi-pro catagory with my main
>interests being landscape, portrait and weddings. For now I am trying
>to find an affordable camera that can attempt to do it all. The C330 is
>in the running but I have also been researching the Koni Rapid Omega and
>Mamiya Universal Press cameras. I tend to be somewhat enthralled with
>6x7 and am wondering what opinions are on either of these cameras. I
>could be wrong but they seem more versatile than an older Pentax 6x7. As
>these are older cameras are they still easily serviced. I haven't as yet
>held either of these cameras in my hands so any opinions on how user
>friendly they are is most appreciated. Please remember that I am on a
>budget so I will likely be restricted to older equipment.
From: rosedco@aol.com (Rosedco)
[1] Re: Most recent Plaubel Makina
Date: Tue Apr 25 21:58:28 CDT 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000
Subject: MF Folder for Vacation?? WAS:Re: 35mm vs. 645 when travelling on
vacation
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Fuji RFs vs. Plaubel Makina
> Is there anybody out there who's owned both of these who'd like to
> comment on their suitability and durability as carry cameras for an
> active amatuer photojournalist?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000
From: Matthew Phillips mlphilli@hsc.vcu.edu
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Balda, was Vito C
From: kayad@pop.bois.uswest.net
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which MF for a newbie?
> How much does a Graflex XL run?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 07 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645
Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
henryp@bhphotovideo.com
From: "Jeff Novick" jhnovick@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica RF645
From: Terry Smith tasmith@flash.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which MF for a newbie?
> Something I'm very confused about: the difference between Rangefinders and
> "regular" MF cameras. Someone here answered my questions regarding this, but
> I am still confused: I've rented a Mamiya 645. It's great, no doubt about
> it. But the construction is very different from a 35slr. I just looked at
> the Mamiya 7II. It looks exactly like a typical 35mm slr. Is it "superior"
> to the 645? Is there some inherent advantage in the bulkier format (like,
> for instance, the top viewing Rollei 6001/3/8)? The 7ii seems, just by
> looking at an image on the computer screen, to be much more versatile. Am I
> missing something? (I will of course try it out in my rental spree).
>
> RON
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001
From: "Dante A. Stella" dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [RF List] Medium Format Rangefinders
> There are several relatively recent medium format rangefinders on the
> market, including several from Fuji, Mamiya, and now Bronica. I had a Mamiya
> 35 mm (500 TL) SLR in the 1960's, and a C330 (6x6 TLR) in the 1970's, and
> wasn't really that impressed with their optics. Has anyone scrutinized how a
> medium format rangefinder's optics compare with those of the 35 mm
> rangefinders of today (Leica, Konica, and Voightlander)?
>
> Jeffery Smith
> New Orleans, LA
> jsmith@dcc.edu
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001
From: "Dante A. Stella" dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [RF List] Medium Format Rangefinders
Dante
> > In terms of finished prints of any size, the 6x9 tonality blows
> > the 35mm right
> > out of the water. In 6x9, Tri-X is a fine-grained, glowy film with creamy
> > tones. In 35mm. Tri-X looks like oatmeal.
>
> I agree with everything you said. My biggest complaint with MF lenses, with
> the exception of Hasselblad, and possibly Rollei...is they have very coarse
> bokeh. I do not like the Fuji bokeh. It is nothing like that of my Leica
> or even my Contax 35mm. MF also just isn't fast enough...the fastest MF
> lense is 2.0...which has significant DOF compared to 1.4.
From: rankbeginner@pppweb-solutions.net (Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Focus Tip
From: "Jerry Fusselman" cmesa@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: ND filter and Rangefinder Mamiya 7 II
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
Robert Monaghan writes:
>
> for closeups, the solution is easy, a wire framer that goes under the
> camera (eg tripod mount) and out to produce a U shaped frame at the
> precisely in focus distance (with lens set at infinity); tables are at
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/diopter.html for doing this easily
>
> for ND filters, you need a standard holder (Cokin..) modified with scales
> on both the filter(s) and side of the holder so you can line things up
> exactly and repeatedly. A series of test shots at various apertures, or
> sketches listing position and f/stop, can be used to generally place the
> zone of transition at various f/stops and for various compositions (rule
> of thirds etc). And bracketing helps in critical shots... ;-)
>
> similarly, you can calibrate a polarizer (many are already marked) and
> simply transfer readings from an eyelevel polarizer to those on the camera
> lens (or move the polarizer on and off preserving position).
Thanks Bob. Great ideas and an excellent strategy. You counsel testing for
advance preparation rather than a ground glass in the field. I would think
the advance testing you describe could be done, initially at least, with a
ground glass instead of film. Then you could test some of your conclusions
with actual film to be sure, yes?
That wire framer for closeups that you describe, would it be a self-made
item? What kind of wire? For hiking, I wonder if long pipe cleaners might be
made to work. I really want something that would pack small and light and
still be accurate for proper distance and framing. I guess it should be
collapsable. Sounds difficult---am I asking too much?
Jerry Fusselman
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT RFI: Super Ikonta
you wrote:
>Hello Rollei users,
>I have purchased a super ikonta A. I am curious as to
>the approximate year of manufacture. (Since the lens
>is a Jena Tessar in Compur-Rapid, surely no later
>than 1945.) I recall a web page listing tessar
>serial numbers and years but I can't find it.
>Can anyone give me a URL?
>Imre Karafiath
>Texas
Harry Fleenor has a list of pre-war Zeiss serial numbers on his web site:
http://www.jps.net/hfleenor/
Dating a camera by its lens requires the
understanding that the lens may have been made some time before the camera.
Lenses are usually made in batches and bought in the same way. So, its
common for the lens to be a year or two older than the camera.
According to McKeown's Guide the Super Ikonta A, also sold as the Super
Ikomat, originated in 1934 and was made in various models until 1956. There
should be a model number stamped into the handle or back. #530 dates from
1934 to 1937, #531 from 1937 to 1956. #530 has a direct frame finder, later
models have Albada finders. #530 has a body release after from 1935. #531
made from 1950 have synch shutters and coated lenses. McKeown states that a
few cameras were made with Zeiss Novar lenses and some just post-war
cameras (c.1948) with Schneider Xenars.
I am sure Marc has more, and perhaps, more accurate info. These look like
perfectly practical cameras and are ceratinly small and light.
The rangefinder used in the Super Ikonta series is very simple and quite
accurate. The only moving part is a rotating wedge coupled to the front
element of the lens. I believe the reputation for sharpness of Super
Ikonta's is largely due to this excellent rangefinder.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Duncan Ross Duncan@DuncanRossPhoto.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian Copies of Super Ikonta C
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
Save yourself some time and go right to a Fuji or Mamiya. The difference in
sharpness is huge.
Having said that, sharpness is not everything and one of my most popular images
was taken with a Zeiss Super Ikonta C.
(http://duncanrossphoto.com/Catalog_of_Photographs/Niagara_Falls_Area/100214/100214.html)
The slight softness adds to the image, but with another subject it could
detract. My "hit rate" with the Mamiya 7 is 4 to 5 times higher than the Zeiss
was. Framing, color rendition and sharpness are all improved. The Mockba was
not worth using. At some point with the Zeiss or Mockba you will probably get
frustrated that so many images did not turn out the way you wanted due to
framing, flare, etc.
John Blodgett wrote:
> Has anyone heard anything good or bad about the Moskva 5 copies of the Zeiss
> Super Ikonta C? I'm looking into either one, actually; of course the Zeiss
> is preferable, but then I've a penchant for Holgas and Wocas so why not
> Ruskies. ;-)
>
> I see a couple on eBay right now at good prices; curiously, though, one
> shows the lens-mount part of the RF upside down, as if mismounted.
--
Duncan Ross
http://DuncanRossPhoto.com
From: Andrei.Calciu@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 2.8F vs. 2.8GX vs. 6008i vs. Mamiya 7
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001
Have you considered using the Fuji GW 670 III or GW 690 III rangefinders?
They are equally light and have fantastic lenses. These cameras come with
either a wide angle lens or a regular lens. You need two bodies if you want
both focal lengths, because
There is an older version of this camera the G690 a 6x9 rangefinder which
came with interchangeable lenses from 65mm to 150mm. It is much heavier
than the new versions, but still incredibly capable.
Recently I acquired a GW 670 III and I can tell you from direct experience
that it is a great camera to handle and light to carry. My pictures are not
back yet, but they soon will. One note of caution with rangefinders - take
the lens cap off. I forgot to do it on a couple of shots, to my
embarrassment.
Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)