Related Links:
Advice on Buying Older Medium Format Cameras
Budget Guide To Medium Format
Choosing a Medium Format System (photonet)
Kodak Special 620 folder (Chris Perez, low $$ hi res)

Many amateur photographers get discouraged by the high prices for the cameras, lenses, and accessories they think they need for their photography. The truth is that you don't need lots of money to enjoy photography. Money generally buys you convenience, but it won't make you a good photographer. Here is a guide to some of the great values I have found in photography.

Challenging Conventional Wisdom

On the other hand, noted lens tester Chris Perez documents a huge variation in costs and medium format lenses. Chris Perez's tests indicated that the best buy in medium format was probably the Kodak 620 Special which delivered 63 lpmm for only $15 (used). As you can see, the Kodak special performed as well as the Bronica SQAI 6x6cm SLR ($3,000+) with its well regarded normal 80mm lens. If you had researched Kodak's Ektar lenses, you wouldn't find this too surprising. But if you had just followed the photo magazine reviews and spent $3,000+ on a fine Bronica 6x6cm SLR camera, you might wonder why it didn't outperform the $15 junk box special.

More modern equipment offers many features and conveniences. But you often can't tell the difference in the results between a high end kilo-buck camera and the right older hidden value cameras. The trick is to know where some of those under-valued nuggets lie, and how to tap into them.

A Tale of Two 6x7cm Rangefinders

What I expect will surprise you is that the other 6x7cm rangefinder that performed so well on resolution tests was a $150 used Koni-Omega Rapid 200 6x7cm rangefinder with 90mm normal lens. The equally impressive interchangeable 58mm and 180mm leaf shutter lenses will only set you back another $350-400+ US. While the Koni Omega rangefinder is a lot more bulky than the Mamiya 7, you can use $70+ interchangeable backs on some models, enabling you to swap out film in mid-roll. To do something similar on the Mamiya 7, you would need another $2,000 body. Granted, you will need a handheld meter to set exposures on your Koni Omega Rapid 200, but with these savings you can probably afford one easily.

Certainly the newer Mamiya 7 will be lighter, more compact, and more convenient than the older Koni Omega rapid 200 model. But the images are likely to be hard or impossible to tell apart on film. The Koni Omega is much more rugged, thanks to its all metal design.

So we have a case where the alternative rig costs less than the sales tax on the current model. Did I get what I paid for when I bought my KO Rapid 200 for $150 (with 90mm lens)? Did I get more? A lot more? Is the three lens Mamiya 7 kit worth $7,000 more?

Poor Man's Hasselblad

So naturally I was interested when I read the Kowa 6/66 system described as the "poor man's Hasselblad". The big attraction of the Kowa 6/66 system was the availability of leaf shutter lenses for fill-flash portraits for ten-fold less than similar Hasselblad lenses.

I started out with a $300 Kowa 6 and 85mm lens kit in the 1980s. I recently expanded my Kowa 6/66 system, complete with high quality leaf shutter Kowa lenses. Kowa Industries was and is one of the world's foremost lens designers, and the Kowa 6/66 had the first 6x6cm macro lens, the widest fisheye ever available in medium format (19mm!), the first 6x6cm SLR lens below 40mm (their 35mm optic), and many other achievements. The Kowa 66 uses an improved film path to keep film flat and improve resolution over the Hasselblad style "reverse curl" backs.

In under a month, I managed to buy a rather complete Kowa 6/6MM kit consisting of:

• Kowa 6 body, 85mm lens, waist level finder
• Kowa 6/MM backup body, 150mm lens, waist level finder
• Kowa 110mm f/5.6 macro flat field lens
• Kowa 35mm ultrawide and 55mm wide angle lenses
• Kowa 150mm portrait telephoto and 250mm long telephoto lenses
• Kowa 90 degree prism and Kowa 45 degree prism
• Kowa extension tube, grip, lens tripod mount, quick focus handle, strap, 85mm lens for parts...

The total cost for the above package was under $1,500 US, which is roughly what a single Hasselblad lens (e.g., 150mm) would likely cost on the used market. Yet with a Kowa system, this same sum bought me two bodies, two prisms, seven (7) lenses from 35mm to 250mm, and a lot of accessories.

Personally, I can't tell my shots taken with the Kowa 85mm from my Zeiss planar 80mm shots on the Hassleblad. Both cameras are very high quality, and rugged, professional equipment. Even if you accept that the Hasselblad is better, is it worth fifteen or twenty times more money?

Here again, we find a pair of great systems, only you can buy one for less than the cost of the sales tax on the other system.

Point and Shoot

Surprise again! After testing scores of cameras, Popular Photography experts were surprised to discover that there were two outstanding buys amongst the point and shoot camera category. The Olympus Epic Stylus blew away its competitors, thanks to a high quality 4 element fast f/2.8 35mm lens. The Olympus camera is also shirt pocket sized, features autofocus and other advanced features including electronic flash and red-eye reduction, and uses regular low cost 35mm film. The f/2.8 lens is much faster the the majority of point and shoot cameras, especially those with zooms.

The most outstanding features of the Olympus Epic Stylus is the low price and high quality of the pictures from its fast and very sharp fixed lens. Yet this camera is at the low end of the price range - at $80-90 US new with warranty. You would have to pay twice as much for the next best camera in Popular Photography magazine's tests. Even five or ten times more money for the most pricey camera would not buy a better camera, but rather a worse one according to these tests.

Hasselblad Clones - Japanese

As a clone of the Hasselblads, these Japanese cameras featured the same system camera concept with interchangeable lenses, viewfinders, and film backs (except C/C2 models). One attraction of the classic Bronicas is the large number of medium format lenses available.

You would be understandably surprised to learn that many Bronica medium format lenses were made by Nikon Japan. You would likely be even more suprised to discover that these 6x6cm medium format Nikkors for Bronica S2/EC often sell used for $100 to $400 US and up. You can also find a series of prime 6x6cm Komura lenses for Bronica S2/EC, often at discounts from the Nikon/Zenzanon equivalent optics.

Last year, I expanded my Bronica S2/EC system to include eleven new lenses, yielding a lens range from 45mm (2) ultrawide Super-Komura lenses through 50mm, 75mm (3), 135mm (2), 150mm, 200mm, and 400mm. The average cost of these lenses was in the $100-150 US range. This price is less than I would expect to pay for similar 35mm used Nikon optics, let alone medium format Nikkors. I also hacked another dozen lenses of my own, including closeup and leaf shutter optics through 500mm f/8 lenses. For just over $325, I added a Bronica EC in exc+ condition from a dealer, an EC meter prism ($100), two prisms ($125 for both), and 3 120/220 backs ($160 for all three).

My point here again is that for an investment that would be less than the cost of one of those Zeiss lenses for my Hasselblad, I ended up with ten prime medium format lenses ranging from 45mm to 400mm, plus a Bronica EC with lens, back, metering prism, and various accessories. Did I get what I paid for? I suggest that it would take at least ten times this investment to achieve similar flexibility and lens coverage in other high quality 6x6cm systems. Yet the images from my Bronica Nikkor lenses are impossible for me to reliably tell from my Kowa 6/66 or Hasselblad 500c shots.

Hasselblad Clones - Iron Curtain

The big attraction of the Kiev-88 is the low cost of some very fine optics, including many which are "clones" of Zeiss designs. The Arsat 30mm fisheye lens for medium format is particularly well liked, and shockingly inexpensive (at $200 US) compared to the equivalent focal length 30mm Zeiss optic for the Hasselblad 200/X series or 500C/CM. But you can also buy three (3!) shift lenses for the Kiev-88 mount, compared to only one shift lens for most of its competitors. The other wide angle and telephoto lenses are also raving bargains against other competing Japanese and European lenses. You can even buy a Kiev-88 with the Pentacon-6/Kiev-60 lens mount, and share lenses with that line of cameras too (see benefits described under Kiev-60 below).

Various pages on my medium format website discuss the pros and cons of buying the Kiev-88 cameras, including issues with quality control. But the fact remains that probably 90% of the buyers end up with a system camera which is capable of taking surprisingly great photos from surprisingly low cost optics. Here again, are you getting what you paid for if you get a 30mm fisheye lens for only $200 US?

Kiev-60

The real attraction of the Kiev-60 SLR is that it can use the Pentacon-6 mount lenses made by Zeiss (CZJ) using Zeiss designs and rather higher quality manufacturing in East Germany in the post-war years. These lenses are highly regarded, and many consider them excellent bargains for the money. You can also buy surprisingly inexpensive Schneider made lenses in the Pentacon mount. Again, these lenses are usually priced in the low hundreds of dollars rather than kilo-buck range, which can do wonders for your budget. Once again, are you getting what you paid for when you buy a Zeiss or Schneider 6x6cm lens for a Kiev-60 for $250 US?

Leica Clones

Fortunately, the Russians again copied the Leica models in a series of Fed and Zorki.. rangefinders, rather exactly at first. You can now buy these Leica clones for prices starting at $49 US and up. Similarly, you can buy Russian lens clones of the Leica screw thread mount lenses for modest prices too. Here again, the quality of the Russian clones isn't going to rival the originals, but for less than the price of sales tax on the originals you can experience similar rangefinder photography.

You can cheat too. Do you believe that the lens takes the picture, and the camera is "just a shutter and a box"? If so, you can buy a Russian clone body and put most of your investment into Leica quality lenses. Or you can buy a Leica rangefinder and standard lens, employing our 80% solution. Now add lower cost Russian accessory optics for wide angle and telephoto needs. You will have a real Leica rangefinder for most of your shooting, and extra lenses at rational prices for those more infrequent shots.

Personally, I am glad that budget buyers have an option to try out rangefinder cameras similar to the Leica models but at less than camera collector prices. I don't see these Russian and Ukrainian rangefinder cameras as being the equal, mechanically or optically, of the original Leica models. But they do offer a very low cost alternative, and many Leica owners on a budget also have a few of these clone lenses and related accessories (e.g., Russian viewfinders) in their camera bags too!

Leica Rangefinder Clones - Japanese

Some of the very wide 15mm Heliar/Cosina Leica mount clone lenses, and even items like wide angle finders, are being snapped up by Leica owners seeking modest cost optics and accessories. You can save significantly too by buying the new Leica clone lenses and bodies.

There are other Leica clones (Hexar/Konica..) coming, with more rangefinder models promised (Nikon S series..). So I expect we will see more lower cost Leica clone rangefinders and related designs, cashing in on the retro all-mechanical rangefinder craze.

The quality and features of the Japanese rangefinders are much higher than most of the Russian Leica rangefinder clones, but then, so are the prices. Still, the savings here can easily amount to 50% to 75% or more, for very little loss of quality, and even an improvement in features and convenience.

Leica SLR Clones

My suggestion would be to look into Minolta's lenses and SLR bodies. Why Minolta? Because Minolta and Leitz cooperated to produce a series of SLR bodies and lenses, resulting in the Leica R3. The Leica R3 is very similar to a Minolta XE-7. The Leica R3 through R7 SLR bodies were all produced under this cooperative technology and manufacturing sharing arrangements. The Minolta made CL/CLE cameras and lenses were also often popular among Leica users too.

A special note needs to be made about Minolta lenses and their bokeh. I am not alone in liking my older Minolta lenses for their nice "bokeh", or out-of-focus highlight effects. Others have noted that the Minolta made optics come closest to their Leica lenses amongst 35mm SLR competitors in terms of quality of these subjective as well as objective lens quality factors. The lens color of the Minolta lenses is also often held to be similar to the Leitz optics.

In short, there are many parallels in the Minolta SLRs and lenses to the Leica SLR bodies and lenses. If you want to get as close to the look and feel of the "real thing" as you can, without paying a substantial price premium, look into the corresponding Minolta bodies and lenses.

Leica 80% Solution

Unfortunately, the more exotic or faster Leica lenses will cost you plenty more dollars than the average amateur photographer can generally afford for a hobby. So you either rent them for infrequent use, or find an alternative. We have already identified some "clone" lenses in LTM (Leica thread mount), both new (Voigtlander/Cosina) and old (Russian/Soviet Federal series lenses). But you may be interested to know that you can buy adapters (e.g., from Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest) to use Nikon SLR lenses on the Leica M series bodies. This trick would be most useful for those wide angle Nikkor lenses which have major depth of field ranges. So if you have a current SLR that you don't want to give up, but want to add a Leica or other camera, this might be one way to use your old lenses on the newly added Leica body. Even if you intend to get the Leica lenses as expenses allow, you can still make a lot of photos with the substitute lenses in the meantime!

Similarly, you can find some lenses with auto-diaphragm mounts for the Leica SL and R series SLRs such as the Tamron adaptall and earlier Vivitar and Soligor T4 and TX series lenses (see lens mount adapters pages). You can enjoy the precision mechanics of the Leica bodies, while avoiding the major costs for a full line of lenses you will be using infrequently. Using the right adapter, you can enjoy auto-diaphragm operation with many latest design zoom and fixed lenses, usually at a fraction of the cost of true Leica models. Finally, you can use a T or T2 mount lens (such as mirror lenses) with a low cost adapter, again expanding the range of what your Leica body can do.

If you are a typical photographer, the vast majority of your shooting can probably be done with only a few lenses. So it may make sense to splurge to get the OEM lenses in these often-used optics. But you may prefer not to tie up all your money in lenses that you won't use very often.

A nice extra feature of this approach is that you can add another classic camera body and normal lens to your collection very easily. Simply buy another TX or Tamron Adaptall mount and T-mount for the new body. Now you can enjoy the new addition to your camera collection, and use it with many lenses you already have at minimal cost. When you start having 4 or 5 brands of SLRs, but only one set of lenses plus adapters, the savings can be huge!

Speed Demons in Non-Interchangeable Lens Rangefinders

One of the most popular fixed lens 35mm Japanese rangefinder is the Canonet series, especially the compact QL17 GIII. The big plus for this camera is its high quality lens and relatively fast f/1.7 40mm lens. The Konica Auto S2 and the Minolta Hi-matic 7S are also often listed as top rangefinders. For its low price ($50-75), I also like the Fuji Lynx-14, which features a really fast f/1.4 lens.

These cameras are much bigger than their newer shirt-pocket Olympus epic stylus and point and shoot cousins. But they feature true high contrast rangefinder focusing, flash synchronization at any speed, and that fast f/1.4 or f/1.7 wide normal lens. By contrast, most of today's point and shoot cameras are lucky to have f/3.5 lenses, and some have zooms that start as slow as f/5.6 and even f/7.7!

View Cameras and Lenses

Unfortunately, the hardest thing to find is good information about old lenses and shutters. The best I've found is a series of columns from past Shutterbug issues on view camera lenses and shutters. Articles from Modern Photography and Popular Photography also have some useful tips, such as Sint's View column. Some of the specialty magazines in this area have some infrequent resources on older lenses (e.g., View Camera), but often less than these other sources. The World Wide Web has many web sites, some with useful tables of information on basic lens characteristics and comments on large format lenses.

Panoramic Cameras

If you do elect to try out panoramic photography, you might look into the budget Horizon 202. The Horizon 202 has a lens that swings through 120 degrees. The Horizon 202 uses standard 35mm film, but creates 24mm x 58mm images (rather than 24mm x 36mm as with usual 35mm SLRs). This 58mm length is the largest that can fit in a standard 6x6cm slide projector or enlarger. As with many russian cameras, the current prices for Horizon 202 (around $375 USD and up new, $250 USD used on EBAY) are far lower than comparable Japanese or most other panoramic cameras.

Stereo and 3D Photography

Starting out in 3D photography is also remarkably cheap, thanks to the Nimslo and Nishika 3D camera closeout specials. These cameras use regular 35mm film, but feature 4 lenses, taking four half frame shots needed for each 3D image. These cameras were closed out at low prices, and still can be found from such buyers for $25 and up - often with the full kit and a video. I prefer the Nimslo camera, due to its quality metal construction over the later plastic Nishika models. Mail order processing for 3D shots (from only one or two labs) is only slightly more costly than regular processing, but you only get half as many shots per roll.

Conclusions

Some searching will turn up some excellent values that perform surprisingly well for most photographic needs. I use a number of the above "found values" such as the 6x6cm Bronica S2/EC, leaf shuttered Kowa 6/66, and KoniOmega Rapid 200 6x7cm rangefinder. A lot of the fun in photography for me has been learning about cameras and lenses and what they can do in my photography. I continue to be amazed at how often you can get pro level quality results for a small percentage of the cost of similar bigname and bigger dollar gear. I hope you find similar values in your searches!

Postscript

I recently got a note [9/2001] from a medium format SLR professional user who was selling out some older 6x6cm gear to help buy a newer Bronica SQ series camera.  He had very good reasons for this upgrade.  But I started thinking about it, and wondering just how much of an "upgrade" this change will provide? 

Modern Photography lens testers repeatedly state they make every effort to make their lpmm values comparable, old for new tests, by using the same standards and identical USAF 1951 testing charts (although standards for excellent or acceptable performance may shift over the years as lenses improve).  So in this case, we should be able to directly compare these values derived by the same lab test charts and testing standards. Note however, that independent testing by Chris Perez provided a maximum of 67 lpmm for the Bronica SQ lenses too.

Now my question for you is this:  Is it really an "upgrade" when you exchange the older Kowa 6x6cm 85mm leaf shutter lens for the newer Bronica SQ series 6x6cm SLR leaf shutter lens?  The Bronica lens is better in the center only when it is wide open, and better in the edges mainly when wide open or nearly fully stopped down. But over the central range of f/stops, the Kowa lens seems hugely sharper in the center, and generally as sharp in the corners.  

If you generally shoot in the middle f/stops or "sweet spot" of these normal lenses, as I try to do, then you might argue that the logical upgrade would be from the newer Bronica SQ to an older Kowa 6, at least based on this limited data. 

Kowa vs. Hasselblad Lens Resolution Tests

The Kowa versus Hasselblad lens chart above provides a different set of choices. If you value central lens resolution, then the Kowa lens seems the obvious choice. The only exception would be wide open at f/2.8, where the Zeiss lens beats the Kowa centrally and in the edge.

But if you value edge performance, the Hasselblad lens provides significantly higher performance. I have probably been a bit unfair to the Kowa lens here. I rounded down 40+ lpmm on the Kowa to 40 lpmm (it is probably 44 lpmm per USAF chart). On average, the Kowa lens provided a stunning 17 lpmm higher resolution centrally. The Hasselblad provided a more modest 7.5 lines higher resolution on average in the edges. Overall then, the Kowa lens provides a surprisingly large 10 lpmm higher resolution on average than the Zeiss optic tested here. That is not what most of us would expect, given that the Kowa lens is often $75 used, and the Hasselblad Zeiss lens is more often $750 used or ten times as much!

We can surmise that the Hasselblad lens traded off high central resolution for a more balanced - and lower average - resolution overall. The Kowa lens seems to have optimized central resolution to a very high degree, while accepting lower edge resolution as a tradeoff. In fact, if high central resolution in a medium format SLR is your goal, then the best solution would seem to be a Kowa 6/66, based on Chris Perez's test reports and Modern Photography tests reported here. The only higher scoring lenses were Mamiya's on their new Mamiya 7 and 6 rangefinders (and older Koni-Omega lenses).

You may notice this pattern in other lenses (e.g., 105mm f/2.5 nikkor vs. macro 100mm lenses). Oftentimes, the more pricey lens sacrifices optimal lens resolution for a flatter or lower central resolution value, but higher corner or edge resolution factors. The more costly lenses may be designed to provide the best possible quality when used wide open (e.g., fast APO telephotos).

If you are the average shooter, you probably don't shoot a lot of shots wide open. Studies of contest winning photographs show most were taken with a normal lens, at f/3.5 (89%) or slower, and nearly 2/3rds at f/6.3 or slower. Only 10% were at faster speeds (e.g., below f/3.5 or wide open here). So a lens like the Kowa may provide a very good tradeoff for many of us who rarely shoot wide open, and prefer high central resolution where our subjects are usually found (rather than in the corners).

I hurry to add that resolution is only one of the many factors in lens selection. But a series of blind lens tests by different photographers rated the Kowa 85mm lens higher than either my Zeiss Hasselblad or Rolleiflex planar lenses. This subjective test included the totality of factors, including bokeh and lens color and distortion as well as resolution and contrast. So the conclusions drawn in part from our lens resolution tests are supported by independent blind lens tests by many observers.

The other Kowa lens tested (a 250mm) also received stellar lens resolution results. My point here is that if your Kowa (or other) lenses give these kinds of stellar results, then finding a system that provides better optics in 6x6cm SLRs is going to be a serious challenge for "upgraders".

Don't get me wrong.  There are lots of good things about the Bronica SQA series (as I have noted elsewhere) which make it an excellent and economical choice against current competitors like the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex 6k series.  The standard Bronica system kit will save you about $10,000 US over those competing lines similarly outfitted. And as I have also noted, resolution is only the beginning of your efforts to evaluate lens qualities. But lens resolution is often used as an indicator, as a generally reliable guide to other factors like aberration control and contrast.  

Similarly, you might decide to switch to a Hasselblad lens, at least if you need better edge or corner resolution. But you won't be getting better overall performance, just a different series of tradeoffs. If central high resolution is really important to you, then you will probably want to consider the Kowa option carefully. If you are doing prints or 6x4.5cm slides, i.e., cropping the corners out of your shots anyway when making prints, then the Kowa may be an even better choice. If you are shooting square slides, then the Hasselblad might be preferred to keep the corners maximally sharp. But the Kowa offers terrific value for money, whether compared to the competing Bronica SQ or Hasselblad leaf shutter SLRs.

In short, there are lots of good reasons for "upgrading" to one of the newer medium format SLR or other cameras. But quality of lens optics may not be one of the major parameters in favor of the newer camera models. Many of the older lenses do quite well when stacked up against much more expensive current optics. So be sure to check carefully before you "upgrade", and discover that newer isn't always better, or even as good!

Related Postings:

The new issue of Popular Photography has some interesting resolution tests of two lenses for the Rollei 6008, the Zeiss Planar 80mm f2.8 (street price $1,600 and the 90mm Schneider Makro APO-Symar (street price $3,200). Considering their prices, these lenses didn't do that great. After studying the results, I thought I remembered some recent Pop Photo tests where the Pentax FA-645 autofocus 75mm lens (street price $420) did quite well. After digging out the August '98 issue I compared the results--

In a nutshell, on these tests, the Pentax 75mm lens beat the Planar 80mm at almost every aperture from f2.8 to f22! At some apertures the Pentax was WAY better, i.e. at f11, the Pentax tested at 70 lpm (center) and the Zeiss at 44 lpm.

The 90mm f4Schneider APO and the Pentax 75mm were about even. (Same number of "excellents" and "very goods" at comparable apertures.) Pretty amazing, since that's comparing a $420 f2.8 lens to a $3,200 f4 lens.

Before you flame me, I know there is more to lens performance than just resolution, that samples can vary, and that you may not trust Pop Photo tests. But these results should be interesting food for thought.

Here are the numbers--

Pentax FA 645 autofocus 75mm

f        Center (lpm)        Corner (lpm)
2.8    55 excellent  *      42 excellent *
4      50 excellent         41 excellent *
5.6    45 very good         41 very good *
8      63 excellent         44 excellent
11     70 excellent  *      50 excellent *
16     63 excellent  *      45 excellent *
22     50 excellent  *      40 excellent *

80mm Rollei Planar f2.8

2.8    55 excellent   *     31 excellent
4.0    55 excellent         28 excellent
5.6    44 very good         31 very good
8.0    44 very good         34 excellent
11     44 excellent         38 excellent
16     44 excellent         35 excellent
22     39 good              31 very good

90mm f4 Schneider Makro APO Symmar

4.0     69 excellent *       31 excellent
5.6     69 excellent *       33 excellent
8.0     61 excellent         48 excellent *
11      55 excellent         45 excellent
16      55 excellent         39 excellent
22      43 very good         33 excellent
32      39 good              28 very good

* indicates best of these three lenses

David Garth

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000
From: greg kerr greg@on.aibn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleiflex TLR 2.8 Planar vs. Hasselblad 80mm T*

rhaynes1212@my-deja.com wrote:

> I currently have a Hasselblad 500 cm body without a lense or a back and
> have the opportunity to purchase a Rolleiflex 2.8f Planar TLR. Through
> reading through threads her it appears that there is some speculation
> whether the Rollei can deliver images on par with a Hasselblad standard
> lense.

I shocked my friend by setting up a YashicaMat 124G on a tripod against his Hassie 80mm. Same scene, same film, same settings. Can't tell one shot from the other. Both were set at aperature f8 at 60. The Rolleiflex will perform at least equally as well. It's a better built TLR than the 124G but I doubt if it will take a better photo, especially at mid range.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Minox 35 was: Batteries for Rollei 35

If you can find one you can pick up the Ukrainian clone made from the original Minox molds for a lot less than the Minox. I'm told they can be bought in Ukraine for around US$ 15 . Side by side shooting with a real Minox did not reveal any difference.

Bob

....

[Ed. note: this is a good explanation of why we aren't likely to see any truly independent lens tests published - caveat buyer! ;-)]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! Sorensen and the Filter Myth!

> From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] ARGH!  Sorensen and the Filter Myth!
>
> Bob already explained that his results came from a test conducted for a
> magazine article which never panned out.  I suspect Bob is trying,
> politely, to suggest that he doesn't want to be at the butt end of a
> lawsuit for breach of confidentiality or such from the new owners of the
> magazine in question.
>
> After all, "you don't need a weatherman to tell the way the wind blows".

Thanks, Marc.

Let me tell a brief historical story and maybe people will understand things a little better. Back in the early 90s Mike Chiusano and I cooked up the idea for a new photography magazine, one with the novel premise of being aimed at the serious and professional photographer. We took the idea to Glenn Patch and he liked it, so PhotoPro magazine was launched. Mike was Editor, I was Technical Editor, and we pulled in the best writers and techies we could find to write and photograph for it. We were given a decent budget, so we could afford things like hiring Eddie Adams to shoot Clint Eastwood for one of our covers. It was in PhotoPro that Ctein's series of articles "The Myth of 18% Gray" appeared.

We wanted to publish absolutely unimpeachable lens tests, so we contracted with Optikos Corporation in Cambridge, MA, to do the bench tests. Optikos is a highly respected optical design firm and have designed complex optical systems and lenses for Polaroid and others for years. Their lens test facility is exceptionally well equipped, even for a high-end lab. They did resolution, knife edge, and MTF tests, as well as some other more subjective testing. Mike and I coined the phrase SQF for our rating system, a phrase subsequently borrowed by other photo magazines.

The first test we had them do was a series of Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad, and as you would expect the lenses blew them away. They were simply astonished that anyone could make photographic lenses this good in commercial production. We published the tests and immediately all of the other camera and lens firms wanted us to test their lenses. OK, so we set up tests of other lines and had the companies supply the samples. We knew we risked "cherry picking" but we didn't have the funds to go out and buy lenses. We weren't that well budgeted and I liked having a pay check!!

The second set of lenses was tested and they were awful! Big name company and crappy lenses. Tests were run multiple times to eliminate errors, but the lenses were just plain bad. There was no way around it. So we published the results, and wound up in a firestorm from that company and others. Why should they buy advertising in a magazine that trashed their lenses, they asked? And we only could answer that we were committed to telling the truth. After the third or fourth batch of lens tests the magazine had hardly any advertising and was about to go under from lack of revenue, so we reluctantly killed the tests. Gradually advertising came back. The magazine was shut down in 1996 for unrelated reasons.

Now I want to say that I will not answer any questions about this. I will not name names nor will I divulge the results of the tests which were never published. So do not ask, even in private e-mails. But I do and will use the results of those tests in forming my opinions which I state here and elsewhere, and will sometimes make reference to such tests in substantiating statements when challenged. Beyond that I must keep all of this material confidential, for very obvious reasons.

Bob

Date: 25 Jul 2001
From: john@stafford.net (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: battery independent MF camera?

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote

> I have the SWC, koni Omega 58mm on RO200 6x7 RF, and Plaubel Veriwide  6x10

Me too. Great minds. I flatter myself.

> I suspect that Plaubel selected their S/A optics, since I have heard  that
> many of the 47mm S/A are "dogs" (cf. Roger Hicks in BJP),

I'm unfamiliar with BJP. What is it, and where can I find the article?

Since getting the SWC, I do question the early 47mm Super-Angulon. I have the F5.6 on the Brooks Veriwide (and had the F8 on the Plaubel). The F8 was the worst - at the edges - in that extra 5mm on each horizontal end. :)

> and yet this example is at least as good as the KO.

No fair. The KO has no similar wide-angle lens design. Eleven millimeters make a big difference when the lenses get that wide.

> Chris Perez tested the KO optics [...]

Good tests. But I'm waiting for Chris Perez to test the Ducati 35mm camera so I can read, from his own hand, the word Ducati in the same sentence as "poor performance." :)

From Medium Format Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
From: flexaret@sprynet.com
Subject: Re: [medium-format] Any coating on Sonnar 180 non-MC?

The question of buying a single coated 180MM Sonnar vs. a Multicoated version only involves money.

Yes, there are advantages to multicoating.

However, much of this is subjective. Get some old photography magazine issues from the 1930s and see some of the spectacular full page shots taken with uncoated lenses.

Look at any old movies made before 1945 and you will see sharp excellent quality taken with uncoated lenses.

All lenses should have the inner surface haze cleaned off (if there is any) and be scratch-free and used with a proper lens hood. Then you will be amazed at the crisp photos you can take with uncoated and single coated lenses.

One of the great unspoken advantages of multicoated lenses is that they are generally newer, generally don't have internal haze on elements and if in mint condition have no scratches. Take an equivalent single coated lens in equivalent condition and the final results can be very close or the same.

- Sam Sherman

From: visisilver@aol.com (VisiSilver)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 27 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: I really want to buy Bronica...But

The Kowa suggestion is an excellent one: I used to have one.  Some lenses are
prone to shutter failure; but the optics were excellent (the US Dept of Defense
was floating the Kowa company for a while, and the optics show it).  If there
were a way to mount Kowa lenses on a more modern, and less repair-prone, body,
that would be the way to go.  

The S2A has a mirror with a "jackhammer"-like return, but the Nikkors are
excellent.

As for Hasselblad: get an inexpensive starter body (black 501 C/M), and look
for the older chrome C lenses in the focal lengths which work for you.  The
quality remains extremely high in these lenses, more than most people would be
able to see in the prints. (Remember that Ansel was using a Hasselblad in the
1960's with very good (!!!!) results.

C Wright

From: "Meryl Arbing" marbing@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance in camera preference
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 

When people are faced with a choice they tend to minimize the negative
points about the camera they select and inflate the positive. If the camera
has many inconvenient features (such as 1/50th flash synch, difficult film
loading, lack of any technology newer than 1954 and outrageous cost) then
they compensate by convincing themselves that other aspects of the camera
are so superior that they outweigh all the bad points and, in fact, that the
camera MUST be superior to all others or else why would you put up with all
the inconveniences?

You can find out more about Cognitive dissonance at
http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/tip/festinge.html


"Yossarian" like@totally.com> wrote...
> "McEowen" mceowen@aol.com> wrote...
> > What difference does it make whether Leica launched 35mm photography. That
> was
> > a long time ago and certainly has NO bearing on anyone's decision to buy
> one --
> > or at least it shouldn't.
>
> I would buy one, given the money, because there's really nothing like it on
> the market.
>
> The Voigtlander Bessa series has too many QC problems (that I've heard of),
> the Contax G series is too automated, IMO, and I really can't think of
> another competitor.
>
> Then the question comes, though - why not spend a little more money for a
> Mamiya 7 rangefinder or a little less for a Bronica 645.



From Medium Format Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: more bargains? ;-) Re: [long] medium format price drops

re: not all med fmt gear is 30-50% less now than 2 years ago etc....

yes, the demand levels are different for different systems, and the big
savings are in kits rather than individual parts like a WLF. I was
recently startled to see a full hassy 500c/80/wlf/12 kit for $675 on
photo.net. A few years ago, $1k would have been asking price, and quick
sale price would have been more like $850. Most dealers are asking $650
for the lens alone in their shutterbug ads, so the kit savings are huge!

In the last year or so, I have bought 3 hassy lenses for $1k (80/150/250)
- total, not each, hassy backs for $99 from dealers etc.  You can also
find rollei SLX kits for under $800. So my inference is that the big
savings are not in the low end rigs (already only $150 to $500) but on the
older rigs that were backups to the pros (backup C lens sold to raise $$
for digital gear in one case) and where their high prices offer chance to
save hundreds with price drops (unlike say a Koni Omega starting at $175,
how cheap can it get? ;-) The pros are dumping their older backup gear,
and this provides a lot of supply; at the same time, many folks are
"upgrading" to digital cameras rather than medium format, so demand is
down by 50% in USA market, 35% in Japan, and so on. Ouch!

Lots of hassy lenses on ebay aren't meeting reserves ($1k to $1200 often)
but after 25 bids stop at $600-750+ depending on C lens condition etc.
This lower demand is hurting dealers with lenses in stock they haven't
sold. I picked up a 150mm C lens for $400 at a camera show, dealer's
asking price, because they were tired of asking $750 for it and wanted
some $$ to show spouses after minimal sales at that camera show. ;-)

In my study of bronica lenses (rmonagha/bronused.html), I discovered that
many dealers had VERY low turnover, trying to get higher prices on lenses,
often 2 1/2 years between sales. Other dealers with good or below avg
prices had much higher turnaround, as you would expect, measured in
months, not years. So the market is very price sensitive, and more price
info is available by reference to selling prices on EBAY. EBAY also means
more millions of photo items sold each month, so chances of finding a
rare item are much better, and you don't have to buy from a dealer at a
high price just because you won't see another XYZ accessory in ten years ;-)

B&H; was the worst for high used prices, often triple average used prices
on the same Bronica S2/EC used lenses, while they paradoxically had the
best overall deal (service..) on new items, their older gear prices were
ridiculous ;-0). B&H; finally put their stuff on ebay and got good prices
for these lenses, after at least 3+ years of sitting on them per ads,
along with a lot of other stuff- but much less than they had been asking
for years in their ads.  I am also suggesting that dealers doing so, in
the face of lowered income from new med fmt sales, are also helping push
prices downward as their substantial used/demo inventory hits ebay and
absorbs demand there. Most new gear at mail order has markups circa 10-15%
while used gear may have markups more like 200% or even 300% or more. The
dealers have a lot more room to cut prices on the used gear and still
make a modest but repectable profit compared to selling a new kit for
more $$. As sales on new gear slip, money has to be raised somewhere...

On the other hand, this may be a temporary phenomenon, as dealers like B&H;
unload years worth of used gear buys, and dealers get less used gear at
low prices in trades as folks are selling direct via the internet to get
higher $$. Sam Sherman has suggested this may be the golden age for MF
bargains, at least on the older gear, which has yet to become collectible
but is still usable. Soon, most of my stuff may well be both usable AND
collectible, and getting accessories will be more costly (esp. lenses?).

I also think that folks shooting digital will discover that there are lots
of things which film can do, including things like limited DOF shots and
shift/tilts, which 98% of the digital cameras of the future won't do,
leading to a return to film after the hype dies down (e.g., after cheap 16
MP in 3-5 years saturate market). If anything, the potential low cost of
scanning film and making prints may open up areas of med fmt usage to
folks like me who can't get access to a mf/lf darkroom (e.g., on campus).
And those with darkrooms will rediscover the reality that film offers a
higher quality factor than digital with its smoothed interpolated output...

When you consider that we are selling like 750,000 film 35mm SLRs in USA,
and most of those are replacements to existing photographers/pros, and yet
selling millions of digital cameras at higher costs than many SLRs, to
many folks new to photography, it may well be that the pool of potential
photographers will explode in the next few years, as more and more folks
want to get more out of their photography efforts than digital alone can
provide.

Again, I am suggesting that an expanding pool of photo-buffs may mean a
huge increase in demand for the relatively fixed (and declining) number of
film cameras available (just as renewed interest in 5x7"  cameras,
typified by Kodak's re-release of films in that format, bodes higher
prices for 5x7" cameras which have been languishing bargains until now. If
niche players like hasselblad and leica go under in this bad economy
(hassy sales down 30% in USA, which is down 50% overall), then prices may
bounce back with the economy improving, but supply will be limited.

another factor is the internet. I have bought a number of lenses from
Australia (e.g. Mr. Hilton's collection) and England and New Zealand.
Their prices were less originally, and their used gear seems cheaper on
some of these items than here (esp mamiya etc.). More supply, lower $?

Conversely, my own pages on saving 40-60% on new gear by buying overseas at
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hongkong.html have highlighted the
option of buying overseas and air freight to USA for low (3%..) duty
entry. This also erodes high prices and USA dealer sales (and profits) in
the face of parallel (grey) market items. This also pushes used gear
prices downward, as who will pay more for used than new direct import
with factory warranty? Many pros did well buying gear overseas, using it
hard, then reselling at high USA used prices and recouping their full
investment, selling old pots and buying new ones ;-) Not anymore, too
many of us know about these options. ;-)

The growing competition from Ukrainian and Russian direct import via ebay
cameras is also draining some demand for used japanese and german medium
format gear I think too? If you can buy an entry level Kiev-60 for $150-175+
why drop $650-750 in a Mamiya 645 or even $350 in a Kowa 6?

Mike Swaim's comments on being unable to recover costs in a kowa system
are another case in point. Prices on older unsupported gear aren't firm.
Kits with bad reputations, like my Horizon 202S or Kiev 60, are very hard
to sell except at a deep discount. For example, I bought the kiev 60 at
the asking price ($125 IIRC) but picked up ext tubes kit and a 45mm very
wide angle lens for another $75 (the 45mm is usually over $200 by itself).
Last week I picked up 13 packs (260 exposures) of pos/neg polaroid film
packs for $13 ($1 each because polaroid was going bankrupt - doesn't that
make the remaining film MORE valuable?  Duh? ;-0)

this has an impact on what constitutes a "bargain", as you can buy some of
the 6x4.5cm SLR kits (mamiya, pentax) for $500-600 as a kit, whereas 2
years ago you were still looking right around $1,000. On a 15 year old
kit, you can't explain that as depreciation effects ;-) This makes it
harder to advise folks to get into the older bronica gear, as I have in
the past, not because it isn't a bargain (the nikkors are top optics etc)
but because the prices on alternative kits (e.g, hassy with leaf shutter
optics) has dropped so much. With new Kiev NT hassy mounting auto-12 backs
only $99 (kievcamera), new hassy backs are cheaper than old bronica EC
backs ;-) and kiev metering prisms for hassy are less than older bronica
non-metering prisms. So while pre-Kiev pure hasselblad kits of a few years
were substantially more kilobucks than today, you can buy a hassy kit for
$750 and add kiev accessories without breaking the bank, and even enjoy
savings versus other med fmt kits that help offset the slightly higher
cost of used lenses in a typical 2 or 3 lens kit.

So again, this makes it harder to choose between kits, because the final
system prices for a 2 or 3 lens kit may be little different whether you
are buying a kowa 66, hassy 500c, or bronica S2/EC.

Finally, to add to the confusion, my own blind lens tests of ten
different medium format rigs suggest that most of us can't reliably tell the
difference between typical (f/8 to f/16, 1/125th-1/500th) landscape shots
whether taken with hasselblad, rolleiflex, Kowa, Bronica, Kiev provided
good technique (tripod) and high resolution film (provia, velvia) is
used etc. Ouch! (see mf/blind.html and mf/blindtest.html). To me, this is
a vote to shoot what you like, whose ergonomics work well for you, and
not to worry about modest differences in lens qualities which add greatly
to cost of the kit. But again, these observations make it even harder to
pick a bargain out of the pack, although a few rigs (e.g., Koni Omega)
are unloved and may still provide a lot of optics and good ergonomics for
low $$.

In short, the bargains are still out there, it is just there are more of
them and they are priced closer together when the entire system costs are
considered. ;-)

grins bobm


From Koni Omega Mailing List:
From: "Eve Girard" evegir@reachone.com
To: koml@koni-omega.org
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 
Subject: [KOML] (no subject)

"Perhaps you could talk me into spending the $225 to get it.

Jon"

How bout we do it this way - you tell me where it is and I'LL buy it!
Seriously, it will be the best fun you've ever had for the money to say
nothing of the best value.  The lenses are unbeatable, the complete system
is small (not like a "complete" Nikon system) and affordable, the cameras
are intuitive to use and Eve is running on and on . . .  See if your shop
will give you a trial period that will allow you to run a roll or two thru
the camera.  Have an shot list in your head before you start so as not to
waste time.  Go out and enjoy.  Remember, the 2.000832 people on this list
are never wrong!  (please note that IS a decimal)

Eve


[ed. note: prices continue to decline in medium format older SLR kits and lenses, viz:

from Bill Cameta Camera (www.cameta.com)

Bronica S/S2/S2A/EC Series Mount Nikkor-P 200mmf4.0 Ser.#34324 With
Built-In Hood, Front Cap And Original Rear Cap(E++) $159.

Bronica S/S2/S2A/EC/ECTL Mount Nikkor-Q 13.5cmf3.5 Ser.#24347(E++) $99.

Bronica S2 Ser.#59660 With Waist Level Finder, 120mm Back Ser.#55518 With
Dark Slide, Nikkor-P 7.5cmf2.8 Ser.#106838 And Original Strap(E++) $319.

at these price points, the nikkor lenses are less than equivalent soviet era Kiev lenses!]



[Ed. note: now this could be a best buy for sure! ]
From: asfl@freemail.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasseblad or Mamiya??
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002
...

I have had an RB-67 since 1979 and a Super-23 before that but I'm also
57 and getting old and weak and found I was 35ing it more and more.

Have you considered one of the Bronica 6x6's as a possible alternitive
or even a Kiev???

I also just bought a like new Rollei SL66E kit with prism and a bunch
of other stuff at a Government Department Auction (I'm in Australia)
and was the only bidder (I got it for US$23) and even though its
heavier than a Kiev or Blad its much nicer to carry about as is the
Bronicas,

THOM


From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Thank God for digital
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002


Thank God for digital. Because it has the effect of dumping good medium
format gear onto the market at a low price. Bad if your selling but good if
you are buying. And once you compare medium format results to that of a
digital camera (or even 35mm) then there is no turning back.

I have owned a few digital cameras. The only one of those to give acceptable
results is the Olympus Camedia C-2500L that I still have. It is now
obsolete. Extreme barrel distortion at widest angle. Pincushion at full
telephoto. Coma like it was going out of fashion. Extremely limited manual
controls but acceptable, none-the-less, and most of the shots are capable of
being enlarged to 8"x10". That's probably why they discontinued it. I looked
at the results from a 5 megapixel Konica the other day and the photographs
were awful. People are paying more and more for ever more pixels in their
extremely poor photos. While at the same time we can rub our hands in glee
at the excellent medium format gear being dumped onto the secondhand market.

I would like to thank all the digital camera buyers out there for helping to
advance the cause of real photography.



From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Tourist II Gloat
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 


Well, I hope to "point average" on the next one by paying no more than
$3.00 - $4.00. I have another group of MF cameras built around old
Polaroids.  I generally pay $1.00 - $3.00 for them, but I have gone as
high as $20.00 for a pristine 110B (with case and accessories, of course).

When I see the very large pricetags on some of the Leica and Hasselblad
and Nikon stuff at the local shows and on eBay, I wince.  Perhaps its
just me and my Depression mentality, but I am not a professional
photographer and cannot justify spending that kind of money on a hobby.

Regards,

Marv

Don wrote:
> But Marv, that's 10 times what you paid for the last one. :~)



From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Tourist II Gloat
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002


Taking a look at my Tourist "stock" - the Tourist II with the 800
Supermatic shutter has a 101mm f4.5 Anastar, coated - this was $20.00 at
the camera show and as I understand it, this was the standard "high end"
Tourist II that everyone wants.  The lesser Tourist II with the Flash
Kodamatic Shutter has a 105mm f4.5 Anastar, coated.  The Tourist I has
the Flash  Kodamatic Shutter and a 105mm f4.5 Anastigmat, uncoated. Two
of the three have been converted to take 120 film - which of course
destroys their value as collectablies, but makes each camera usable
without respooling film (a PITA). Total cost for the three cameras:
$25.00 USD. I think I am entitled to some serious gloating.

Regards,

Marv


Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 
From: "wierdcollector wierdcollector@yahoo.ca
To: classic35mmcompacts@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: What price do you put on a Classic Camera 

I guess my best deals have all been this summer, (and I've been
collecting for 28 years). So far I bought an Edixa Prismat LTL for
$1.00 on ebay (Fully functional), a Contax II rangefinder with Zeiss
Sonnar for $0.50 Can. at an estate sale (needs shutter work,
otherwise mint), an Exa for $1.00, a Minolta Hi-matic E for $5.00
Can. at a thrift shop, a Minolta Hi-matic Af2 for $10.00 Can. at a
yard sale, a Ricoh 500 G for $5.00 at a flea market, a Speed Graphic
4x5 for $20.00 and a Minolta Autocord for $10.00 Can. from a retired
pro. In addition, I've added over 40 cameras from ebay for a couple
of hundred U.S. $, two large boxes of flashes, books, sync. cords,
meters, bulbs etc. from yard sales and I also was given 3 huge boxes
of 4x5 negatives from a retired pro's studio (over 40 years worth of
negs) for free. Found as I went through them, I knew several of the
people, so am returning baby pictures etc. to anyone I recognize.
Take heart, there are still many wonderful finds out there just
waiting for you, it just takes a little more searching and a lot of
good luck, 

Curt. 

P.S. Merry Christmas to all and hope you find an old
camera under your tree.       


From: rabbitbert@aol.com (Rabbitbert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Apr 2003 
Subject: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?



Recently a well known contributor to this group mentioned that used camera
prices are dropping. As the owner of several Rapid Omega cameras I keep an eye
on them on Ebay and I believe I have noticed a decline in prices on these
cameras in the past one and half to two months. Occasional checks of Yashica
TLR prices have shown a similar trend. Have any of you noticed a more overall
decline in used medium format camera prices, and have any other categories of
cameras seen a decline in prices? 

R.


From: wp20032@aol.com (WP20032)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 21 May 2003 
Subject: Re: Medium Format convert. You can be lucky...

>Tonight, I've just spent 3 hours in my darkroom, using my trusty old Opemus
>5 to print some 10x8's from the test frames I shot. And in a word, I am
>STUNNED. I had hoped, and kind of expected, that the medium format benefits
>would be plain to see, but nothing prepared me for just how much better the
>images are than the best I've ever been able to get from Nikon 35mm gear.
>Simply AWESOME prints...
>
>As you can probably tell, I'm just a little excited by this turn of events.
>And all because of a lower mid-range camera that ceased production in 1961!
>Damn thing is older than I am.

Yes, I had the same experience with a Yashica LM that I bought for $30 US. I
had the prints processed commercially, and when I first looked at the prints,
my knees almost buckled!

Of course, that led to the purchase of some newer, high end MF gear......
--Wayne


[Ed. note: reminder that $185 australian is just over $100 US$] 
From: "Glenn" mathisonSPAM@optusSPAMhome.com.au
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Medium format convert - You can be lucky . . .
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003

Well, I have finally been lucky enough to come across a second hand medium
format camera after about 3 months of searching in Sydney. A Yashica LM TLR
in very good condition for the princely sum of $185 dollars. And from a pawn
broker in Gosford of all places, who was closing down shop.

The unit seemed to operate OK, so I purchased it and a roll of Ilford FP4,
took a bunch of shots around the house, then eagerly processed the roll at
home. The negs proved that the camera was functioning OK, and even from the
negs, the tonal range and sharpness of the 6x6 images was obvious (I've
been a 35mm guy all my life)

Tonight, I've just spent 3 hours in my darkroom, using my trusty old Opemus
5 to print some 10x8's from the test frames I shot. And in a word, I am
STUNNED. I had hoped, and kind of expected, that the medium format benefits
would be plain to see, but nothing prepared me for just how much better the
images are than the best I've ever been able to get from Nikon 35mm gear.
Simply AWESOME prints...

As you can probably tell, I'm just a little excited by this turn of events.
And all because of a lower mid-range camera that ceased production in 1961!
Damn thing is older than I am.

So, the point of this is for those out there who are a) wondering about
medium format, and/or b)scouring the second hand market for a MF bargain, my
simple suggestion is to KEEP LOOKING. You won't regret it.

My only regret is how my trusty Nikons have now lost just a little bit of
their shine in my eyes ;-) Just need to get my hands on a rollieflex now...

Glenn


From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 
From: "langhans" langhans@compwrx.com
Subject: [Leica] Leica Bargin

A friend of a friend of mine walked into a Salvation Army store and for $5
walked out with a Leica M3 with 50/2 Sumicron, meter and case. Now, that's
a deal. I offered him a 600% profit and he turned me down. :-(
I thought that 600% in this economy would be more than a fair profit. :-)

Yes, I knew he would not sell because he knew exactly what he had found.

Aram
...


From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: old Koni-Omega : does it get much better than this?
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 

It's amazing isn't it. I have shifted over to the Graflex XL cameras
with the Zeiss, Rodenstock and Norita lenses. Lovely images. I keel
over with laughter when I see some poor bastard shell out megabucks for
a Hassleblad lens or back. If I want to gild my XL lily, I can get
Mamiya RB or Horseman backs for it. Very expensive at $150 - $200 per
back instead of the $60 - $70 for the Graflex back. And so it goes.
The Koni-Omegas are excellent (but a bit heavy for me) - just establish
a relationship with someone who can repair them.

Regards,

Marv

gsk wrote:
> Picked up a nice old Koni-Omega Rapid M. Amazed at the photo quality. Just
> wondering if any of the new medium format cameras/lenses have actually
> improved on the quality of this great old camera. In 35mm I feel that my old
> Olympus OM-1/Zuiko lenses are every bit as good as my new Nikon stuff. Just
> wondering if those more familiar with medium format would say the same about
> the Koni-Omega when compared to the new stuff..



From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: Mamiya 6 v Hassie PART II 
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 

oranewbie wrote: 
> I guess I'm in the same boat in some respects. After milling around 
> for months trying to decide which camera to buy (hassy, pentax 67, 
> mamiya 6/7, pentax 645 etc, etc) I've reached the conclusion that you 
> really do need a mf SLR AND a rangefinder to fit your needs. After a 
> recent vacation I realized how much a rangefinder is needed for those 
> moments when you just don't have time to set up a tripod. I've got 2k 
> for my camera budget and looking at purchasing a arax kiev 60 (don't 
> laugh) and mamiya 7. 

Why would I laugh? 
www.geocities.com/kievgurl 
www.geocities.com/kievgurls 

I use Kievs/pentacons and a fuji GSW 6X9 for almost all of my work. Besides 
these, an old zeiss tessar folder for the "carry with me" camera does 
everything I need. I agree there is no "do it all" system no matter how 
nice it would be. 
-- 
Stacey 



From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF system selection
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 

"Michael Scarpitti" mikescarpitti@yahoo.com wrote:

> Look into used Hasselblad. Prices right now are fairly low. Remember,
> it's a long-term investment.

Even at KEH, a Hassy kit's a quite reasonable deal: $1300 will get you a
good basic kit. That's the same price as a Mamiya 645 Pro basic kit.

At first glance, that's a slam dunk for Hassy, but if your intention is to
get even one additional lens, Hassy becomes a seriously bad idea.

Even the unrepairable chrome lenses are well over twice the price of Mamiya
lenses. A decent 50/4 FLE starts at about US$1500. For that much money in
Mamiya, you get a 35/3.5 ($700 and the floating element works automatically,
you don't have to focus twice), a 55/2.8 ($350, and focusing/composing is a
lot easier than the 50/4 Hassy thanks to the extra stop), and a 150/2.8
($600).

Even the expensive lenses are cheap by Hassy standards: $800 barely gets you
a bargain grade lens, but in Mamiya it gets you a 50/4 shift lens, an area
where Hassy is simply AWOL.

And those lenses will all make great 13x19 prints. These aren't East
European randomness, you don't have to wait and pray on ebay.

Unless you're made of money, Hassy remains seriously silly.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: rflist on behalf of Marc James Small 
Sent: Mon 6/21/2004 
To: RFLIST 
Subject: Re: [Rflist] RF prices dropping


ELDON JEAN VORE wrote:
>Summer doldrums? Do I just imagine it or during these last two months or so
>have prices on collectable RF cameras had the bottom fall out? Those of you
>that have followed this for longer than I have, is this a normal summer
>thing or is it a new trend? Does it recover later in the year? Political
>unrest, threats, or people just too busy? Curiouser and curiouser. Eldon.

Eldon

The prices of "collectible" cameras have been collapsing for the past
decade as eBay has made its impact felt. (I have not purchased any item
from a dealer for at least six years save for new Leica and Zeiss
products.) I rarely follow eBay any longer (there is a virtue in reaching
a gasping point in the collecting business, and I am there right now,
panting by the roadside and looking for a glass of water -- I'll be back,
guys, but give me a rest!) The major dealers send me their lists, and when
I see a collectible item misidentified and under-priced, I'll scarf it up
but, all in all, I mainly broadcast to others the listings which are
attractive for the collectible honchos. (I did pick up an original (1939)
Leicameter, for example, from a dealer for $15 six or seven years back, and
he was happy to get the money. I then paid $60 to have George Milton at
Quality Light-Metric overhaul it, and I now both own a really neat adjunct
to ny older LTM gear which works exactly as a selenium meter should, but my
estate also will have, at some quite indeterminate period in the future
(and my intended death is to be shot dead by a deservedly jealous husband
at 103 years of age), a valuable collectible to sell worth $300 or $400 to
a party appreciating the rarity and value -- but, in the meantime, I will
use it with my IIIc, IIIf RD, and IIIg and will glow with pleasure at its
capability.

I own some pieces which would sell for quite elite prices in today's market
but I would sell those, were I to be silly enough to do so, through
Christy's or Tamarkin or the like, as they attract the glitterati of the
collecting world. But, for relatively mundane items, eBay has caused the
price of, for instance, the Zeiss monocular which could be used as an
auxiliary lens on the Contaflex, Contarex, and Icarex to fall from $400 or
more to $200 or less, and many, many other examples of this are available.
A decade back, Leica IIIg's were peaking at over $2,000 while IIIf RD's
were often sold for more than a grand. I picked up a IIIf RD on eBay for
$375 recently and a IIIg for $700 and, yes, both work perfectly. My first
4/300 Kilfitt Pan-Tele-Kilar cost me $800 and I later sold it for $1,000:
I just spent $425 for a replacement. This is how the market has been
going: eBay has cut the dealers out of the circuit and has allowed prices
to reach a true free-market point.

Marc
msmall@infionline.net 


From: Martin Jangowski martin@jangowski.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rolleiflex image quality?
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 

Sam sam@somewhere.com wrote:
> How does the image quality of the 80mm Planar 2.8 in the current
> Rolleiflex 2.8GX compare to a comparable Hasselblad/Pentax/ etc. lense?

> Does this older design give up anything to the newer designs?


You may want to read http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
and be surprised.

Martin




End of Page