It sounds like you're falling into the exception area I mentioned, Ruvy, in that you're finding real insufficiencies with your current Bronica. Many years ago, I sold my Bronica and bought a Hassy. The difference was that I had the first Bronica model, and at that time their lenses weren't very good. Modern Bronica lenses are far better.
Mirror slap, however, is part of the MF SLR beast, and difficult to get around if hand-holding the camera. A Hassy won't solve all of that problem, though. Along that line of thought, if spontaneity is a critical requirement, a rangefinder may be a better option. For me, that need is satisfied with a Leica M, because I don't feel the same need for the benefits of medium format for those types of images.
[COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]
Rio Rancho, NM
Agree with Mr. Barker here. For the type images needed for range finders, a 35mm will usually do the trick. I don't have the Leica type cash outlay available, but my Zorki is quiet, dependable (when it works), and takes great images with the Jupiter series lens.
For MF, I shoot with a C220 for critical work, and cheap ZI 6x6 Nettars for hauling out and taking pictures of the kids.
Now serious landscape work is done in LF, outside this discussion.
I would keep the Broncia and see about picking up a good 35mm for your handheld work if that's within the requirements spec.
tim in san jose
Where ever you are, there you be.
Originally Posted by timeUnit
Hassy = AWESOME- TOTALLY TOTALLY AWESOME
[FONT=Palatino Linotype]Remember each day as a blessing, be grateful and live happy![/FONT][/COLOR]
Originally Posted by C Rose
Sharp lenses are awsome, but IMO most people that judge lenses as sharp during average shooting (F8 or more) or on a consumer flatbed, are missing the boat. Give me a lens that is super sharp WO and I am a happy camper, but you need a drum scanner or a microscope to see it. Judging a lens by way of an Epson flatbed, etc, of any sort is a waste of time (no offence to the OP please). Obviously Ruvy has some sort of problem, since a Bronica/Nikon lens should be resolving more than 30 lp/mm.
Sounds like it's time to solve some problems.
We don't know much of Ruvys working habits
Ruvy, How are you shooting
Tripod or handheld ?
If tripod, light or heavy ?
How about tripod head ?
Lens stopped down ? how far (generally) ?
Cable release ?
Color og B&W
If color , slides or printfilm ?
Film/developer and agitation ?
I was amazed to see the differences between handheld, light tripod, heavy tripod and heavy tripod using MLU in "The edge of darkness". From around 1/125sec to 1/4 sec there was a signÝficant difference, using havy tripod and MLU gave much sharper images and off cource handheld gave more unsharp image allready at 1/125.
I am using a light tripod myself (Manfrotto 055) and always MLU and I find my images wery sharp
Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting
Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
No offence, but if you need a microscope to see the sharpness of your lenses I figure the sharpness is a waste. I seldom look at photographs with a microscope as it's difficult to see the whole picture, and they're darn heavy to lug around...
Originally Posted by Troy Ammons
Honestly, though, I believe there's a myth about the sharpness of Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses. Of course they're good, but not outstanding compared to top lenses from Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei, etc, IMO. Most of the time it's the photographer that makes or breaks the shot. Bad shots don't getter better because they're sharp enough to cut your retina. Good shots are good even though sometimes a but unsharp. And as Soeren said, the photographer needs to take several important actions to get maximum sharpness: a very good tripod and MLU are two of them. If you've taken all the precautions to get that sharpness and still don't I think the next step is LF. Unless you shoot with a holga and Lucky film...
Does this mean you found 120lpmm with the 4x5 negatives? Can't be. Anybody else find this confusing?
Originally Posted by Ruvy
No offence taken, but really I have photos that I can look at with a standard loupe and can tell no difference in sharpness, but I can tell a difference when I drum scan them.
Originally Posted by timeUnit
All I was saying really is to judge lens sharpness you need something more than an Epson flatbed.
I dont look at negatives with a microscope either, although at times I would like to have more mag power than my loupe.
It is a bit confusing, but my G-Claron 150mm, 210mm, 240mm lenses are sharper than some MF lenses I have owned, and it is close to the majority of 35mm lenses I have owned, Pentax, Sigma etc. My 210 and 240 does seem a little sharper than the 150.
Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
Not 120lpmm (did you mean lines per mm or line pairs ??) but they are up there. Most G-Clarons I have seen specs on were around 60-70 lp/mm (line pairs) at their sharpest. I have even shot one of them next to a Mamiya 7, Pentax 67 (with a sharp lens) and i could tell little difference with drumscanned E100G. The film was probably the limiting factor there.
I think the real issue is Ruvy has some sort of problem with his camera. It could be anything, damaged, dropped, and optical problem, who knows, but something is not right, and probably the only way to figure it out is to mount it on a concrete post (stable tripod) and start swapping bodies and lenses around.
I'm the one who has used a microscope to check sharpness. The reason for that is that (A) I have one, and (B) a friend claimed his Nikon zoom was far sharper than my Zenzanon PE 75... We shot the same scene from the same place using the same film from the same pack (I used a 35mm back). The Zenzanon was far sharper.
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist