Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,753   Posts: 1,515,918   Online: 1078
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: SL66 Photos

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    970
    Images
    3
    Nice images Mike! I have one too. I started with the basic 80mm Distagon and no prism finder. The prices were very high on the lenses but have come down and I was able to add a 150mm Sonnar and the prism finder.

    I had trouble foccusing with the waist level finder because of my bad eyesite. I find it much easier with the prism and the Beattie Intenscreen. However, the micro prism in the Beattie screen drives me crazy, I would have ordered just the plain bright screen.

    It's a great camera, have fun with it.

    --John

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    IS it just me or do MF images somehow feel sharper even at web size (though it makes no sense because you shouldn't be able to tell the difference at such a small size), or is the author just skilled with USM?

  3. #13
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    Sharper than what? 35mm? What do you mean Ed?
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Amund
    Sharper than what? 35mm? What do you mean Ed?
    yes, compared to 35mm, forgot to mention

  5. #15
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed_Davor
    yes, compared to 35mm, forgot to mention
    The difference *is* obvious, even as a jpg. on the net, so I guess you have to look into MF now Ed
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Just like a scan from an 8x10 negative would be sharper than a scan from medium format! What a concept!

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    But web images are of such small resolution than even 35mm film would record such detail with 100% response. So I don't get it.

    In order for one to see an advantage between certain formats, you have to enlarge to a point where the difference becomes visible. And a web-sized image is certainly not that level of enlargement.

  8. #18
    Mike Kovacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    274
    Yes, I find even on the net I can see the difference between 35mm and MF (and 4x5) at 640 pixels. Its a bit of a rigged comparison here though - the squares show a lot more than 2:3 ratio 35mm.

    No question with a small print. Even a 5x5" 120 Fuji Frontier proof smacks the life out of a 4x6" 35mm proof.

    For the sake of comparison - here's a white trillium from last year shot on pro Nikon 35mm gear with a micro nikkor lens, Provia 100F, Nikon film scanner. (vs an Epson 3200 flatbed for the SL66 shots)



    I still see a lot more detail in the SL66 shot - especially richer separation of fine detail in the petals. Both were slowish shutter speeds with the camera set on a heavy tripod and head, mirror lock always used.

    If you check out "Sikario's" Rollei 6002 shots, you'll see the same thing. Looks way better than 35mm or dSLR to my eye. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum51/27481-rolleiflex-6002-photos.html The detail in the fur of the cat in shot #3 - SUPER.
    If it says Zeiss or Rollei, the answer is YES!
    My Flickr Gallery

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Now I see what is it. I think the difference is more in some kind of tonal smoothness than it is in actuall sharpness. Because sharpness at such small sizes can always be enhanced with USM, but you can't really fake smoothness of the tones.
    There seems to be more fine gradations in the MF version, while the edge sharpness seems to be about the same.
    The MF version feels somehow "delicate", more sophisticated.

    I can't wait to get my first MF slides back

  10. #20
    JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    308
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Kovacs
    I am not crazy about the stock screen, mostly because I am not fond of focusing aids like the microprism. I too am considering a Maxwell for my SL66 - I have one in my 2.8E TLR and its amazing.

    Don't hesitate to get the Maxwell screen. He built one on my SL66 shortly after I bought it, and it is nice and bright, even indoors. He is a friend of the family, and I got mine in trade for repairing his computer. Nice guy and nice screens!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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