Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,915   Posts: 1,556,324   Online: 940
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    The answer to your question is "Negative Size." Negative size in photography is like location in real estate. At some magnification a 6X9 negative will beat a 6X6 or 6X7 negative, assuming the optics are of comparable quality. Are the Fujinon lenses on the 6X9 rangefinders as good as those of the Mamiya 6 and 7? Well, IMO they are every bit as good. I have seen different tests that suggest that Mamiya lenses are better than Fuji lenses, and vice versa. However, I have tested my own lenses with these cameras and both the 65mm and 90mm lenses can resolve over 75 lppm at the optimum aperture, and the Fujinon EBC lenses have truly bitting contrast. Perhaps the Mamiya lenses are better, but I seriously doubt it. But given the difference in film size they would have to be between 20-30% better than the Fujinon lenses to deliver the same detail on the print.

    I am certainly not knocking the Mamiya rangefinder cameras. Both the 6 and 7 have features which make them a lot easier to use than the 6X9 Fujis, which are totally mechanical and have some quirks, but if the only issue is image quality I would bet on the Fujis with large prints.


    Sandy






    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    I'd like to know how you qualify this statement. The Fuji RF's are very good cameras I'm sure, but I have read numerous reports that the Mamiyas, particularly the Mamiya 6 with 50mm, are at or near the top of all MFs.


    I think it is safe to say that you wouldn't go wrong with any modern, MF RF.

    Before buying any RF you'll want to hold it and play with it a bit. An RF that doesn't sit comfortably in your hands is, in my opinion, useless for street and travel photography
    Last edited by sanking; 02-17-2006 at 10:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    555
    I use the 6x7cm Fuji GW670III (90mm normal lens) and/or the 6x9cm Fuji GSW690III (65mm wide-angle lens) for medium format travel cameras. These manual/mechanical battery-independent cameras are very sturdy and very reliable. They are quieter than a comparable medium format SLR. They are large but no larger and even much lighter in weight than my 35mm motorized Nikon F2.

    Before the Fuji rangefinders, I had been shooting a 6x6cm format. When I had to replace my 6x6 system, I decided to go with the larger 6x7 and 6x9 formats instead of the smaller 645 format because I did not notice a significant difference in image quality between the 645 and 35mm formats. I did, however, notice a significant difference in image quality between the 6x7 and 6x9 formats verses the 35mm format.

    My two medium format rangefinders are great for scenic shots, group shots, and street shots. However, not being able to take good medium format head & shoulder portraits with a telephoto lens is the biggest disadvantage for me. If Fuji had produced a fixed telephoto lens rangefinder to supplement my fixed normal lens and fixed wide-angle lens rangefinders, I would have been very happy. [Please note: the older Fuji rangefinders do have interchangeable lenses.]

    When I purchased my Fuji rangefinders, I also considered the Mamiya rangefinder with its interchangeable lenses but its price far exceeded my budget.

  3. #23
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    I am certainly not knocking the Mamiya rangefinder cameras. Both the 6 and 7 have features which make them a lot easier to use than the 6X9 Fujis, which are totally mechanical and have some quirks, but if the only issue is image quality I would bet on the Fujis with large prints.


    Sandy
    Fair enough.
    As the gearheads will tell you: "There is no replacement for displacement."

    *

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arlington, Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    467
    "I decided to go with the larger 6x7 and 6x9 formats instead of the smaller 645 format because I did not notice a significant difference in image quality between the 645 and 35mm formats."

    I always find such statements astonishing as 645 is 2.7X the area of 35mm. I see a huge difference in quality between 35mm and 645. I do see the benefit of even larger formats, but I, myself, see the largest improvement when moving from 35mm to 645.

  5. #25
    agGNOME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    216
    Images
    8
    "I always find such statements astonishing as 645 is 2.7X the area of 35mm. I see a huge difference in quality between 35mm and 645. I do see the benefit of even larger formats, but I, myself, see the largest improvement when moving from 35mm to 645."
    Nope, you really need the 6x9. And I can help you, or Mr Callow fund the purchase.
    in exchange for one of your systems

  6. #26
    Gibran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    130
    Images
    15
    The Mamiya Rangefinders are very quite but the Fuji's mentioned are really not that quiter than say a Hasselblad due to the metallic sound of the built in counter mechanism. I bet if you used a sound meter, the peak would be about the same, though it is a very different sound. I like the Fuji very much. Contrast wise though, the Zeiss lenses show more contrast than the Fuji. The Fuji has a softer look as do most lenses from Japan when compared to German lenses, at least that has been my experience with Pentax, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Bronica when compared to the Zeiss and Schneider lenses on Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes. One is not better or worse than the other, its just a different look and charecter...and it is not about ultimate resolving ability but more about accutance and the appearance of sharpness. With B&W, one can make any of these lenses look however you wish. That's my take on it at least.


    Quote Originally Posted by narsuitus
    I use the 6x7cm Fuji GW670III (90mm normal lens) and/or the 6x9cm Fuji GSW690III (65mm wide-angle lens) for medium format travel cameras. These manual/mechanical battery-independent cameras are very sturdy and very reliable. They are quieter than a comparable medium format SLR. They are large but no larger and even much lighter in weight than my 35mm motorized Nikon F2.

    Before the Fuji rangefinders, I had been shooting a 6x6cm format. When I had to replace my 6x6 system, I decided to go with the larger 6x7 and 6x9 formats instead of the smaller 645 format because I did not notice a significant difference in image quality between the 645 and 35mm formats. I did, however, notice a significant difference in image quality between the 6x7 and 6x9 formats verses the 35mm format.

    My two medium format rangefinders are great for scenic shots, group shots, and street shots. However, not being able to take good medium format head & shoulder portraits with a telephoto lens is the biggest disadvantage for me. If Fuji had produced a fixed telephoto lens rangefinder to supplement my fixed normal lens and fixed wide-angle lens rangefinders, I would have been very happy. [Please note: the older Fuji rangefinders do have interchangeable lenses.]

    When I purchased my Fuji rangefinders, I also considered the Mamiya rangefinder with its interchangeable lenses but its price far exceeded my budget.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    I agree with you about the limitations of lens choice on the fixed lens Fuji 6X7 and 6X9 cameras, though much depends on the kind of work we do. In my own work I find very little use for the GSW690III (65mmlens), and even with the GW690II (90mm lens) I often find myself wanting a slightly longer focal length.

    This is one of the reasons I find the GA645Zi so attractive. The moderate wide angle to telephoto zoom (55-90mm), though farily limited, covers about 90% of the focal lengths that I typically look for in the kind of photography I use it for. In walking around with the Fuji 6X9s I find myself often wanting a slightly longer focal length.

    I don't agree at all about the comparison 35mm to 6X4.5. I personally see a tremendous differnce between the two, much greater than going from 6X4.5 to 6X9. And if you shoot 220, as I do almost exclusively with the GA645Zi, the 6X4.5 format is every bit as convenient, since you get 32 shots from a roll of 220 film. BTW, everything I do with the 645Zi is in color, as my working procedure is to scan everything in medium format size so the color gives me the option of later going to either monochrome or color prints.

    Sandy


    Quote Originally Posted by narsuitus
    I use the 6x7cm Fuji GW670III (90mm normal lens) and/or the 6x9cm Fuji GSW690III (65mm wide-angle lens) for medium format travel cameras. These manual/mechanical battery-independent cameras are very sturdy and very reliable. They are quieter than a comparable medium format SLR. They are large but no larger and even much lighter in weight than my 35mm motorized Nikon F2.

    Before the Fuji rangefinders, I had been shooting a 6x6cm format. When I had to replace my 6x6 system, I decided to go with the larger 6x7 and 6x9 formats instead of the smaller 645 format because I did not notice a significant difference in image quality between the 645 and 35mm formats. I did, however, notice a significant difference in image quality between the 6x7 and 6x9 formats verses the 35mm format.

    My two medium format rangefinders are great for scenic shots, group shots, and street shots. However, not being able to take good medium format head & shoulder portraits with a telephoto lens is the biggest disadvantage for me. If Fuji had produced a fixed telephoto lens rangefinder to supplement my fixed normal lens and fixed wide-angle lens rangefinders, I would have been very happy. [Please note: the older Fuji rangefinders do have interchangeable lenses.]

    When I purchased my Fuji rangefinders, I also considered the Mamiya rangefinder with its interchangeable lenses but its price far exceeded my budget.
    Last edited by sanking; 02-18-2006 at 10:13 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #28
    JosBurke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    KY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    462
    Images
    9

    MF Rangefinder--Several options!!

    As a long time Hasselbad user myself (as the orig thread poster) I was seeking a MF rangefinder myself and chose the Mamiya 7II----I find the lenses as sharp if not sharper and contrast-ier than the Zeiss glass and that's saying a lot. I prefer the 6x7 format over the 6x6 square--I surprised myself on that one too---I'll not step on toes here but I think you may wish to step up above 6x6 and try 6x7 or even 6x9 as several have suggested and I am a big fan of Fuji glass as well. I really like the 6x7 format and the hand hold-ability of the Mamiya 7II and have shot likely 99% with the Hassy on a tripod and still prefer a tripod for sharpness but the Mamiya is much more comfortable handheld than the Hassy (The Mamiya is great on a tripod too!)---Heck--after using the Mamiya 7 I don't even pick up my Leica M3 anymore with such a fine camera as the 7II and that big ole' 6x7 negative!! No comparison!! Lots of choices but do consider upping from 6x6--you'll be glad you did!!
    Joseph Burke

  9. #29
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by agGNOME
    I always find such statements astonishing as 645 is 2.7X the area of 35mm. I see a huge difference in quality between 35mm and 645.
    Please keep in mind that negative size is only one factor in image quality. Lens quality and mirror vibration are also important factors. When I did my comparison between 645 and 35mm images, I only compared SLRs. I did not compare the difference in image quality between a 645 rangefinder and a 35mm SLR.

    If I had been starting from scratch, I would have purchased a 645 system and would never need a 35mm system. However, since I already owned a good 35mm system, the difference I saw in image quality between the 645 SLR and my 35mm SLR was just not large enough for me to justify the purchase of a second system.

  10. #30
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by Gibran
    ... the Fuji's mentioned are really not that quiter than say a Hasselblad...
    Please note that I said the Fuji rangefinders were quieter than a comparable medium format SLR. The 6x7cm Pentax SLR and the 6x7cm Mamiya SLR are comparable cameras. The 645 and 6x6cm Hasselblad SLRs are not comparable.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin