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: 1,556,340   Online: 1112
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Tindale View Post
    I'm not sure if it's just a numbers game at this point.

    If you want a Hasselblad, then don't get a Bronica.
    I don't want a hasselblad... and I definitely don't want to pay for it. It's not status, I just want a large quality negative and contemplating the easiest way to get there.

    But I do want a nice camera with a contrasty lens. The zeiss T* stuff I have had in 35mm proved to be very contrasty and flare resistant. I was hoping in MF it would be the same thing.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    "The difference between 35mm and medium format is sometimes quite drastic (while the step up to 4x5" is less noticeable)"

    I do not understand this statement.

    I find 35 to 4x5 much more noticeable than 35 to 6x6, myself. With 4x5, you'll be able to get a grain-free 16x20 from a 400 film without even trying, not to mention how unreal it looks at smaller sizes. Definitely a big difference between 6x6 and 4x5 as I sees it.
    Maybe a bit too brief, it should read "... while the step from 6x6 up to 4x5" is less noticeable".
    Anyhow, that's my opinion. I.e given a steady tripod, comparable prime lenses at "sweet spot" apertures, sound darkroom routines etc. a 6x6 neg from a decent camera will show much more tonalities and details than a comparable 35mm neg. A 4x5 neg is even better than the 6x6 with an even smoother scale, even more details and an even softer sharpness, but the difference is not that big.
    Sinar (the factory i.e.) did some research on 120 film compared to sheet film and concluded that 120 film actually was able of better resolution. I think I read that in some brochure on their 120 film backs.
    Now, even though that fact promotes the MF camera, I personally shoot 4x5 (and 5x7) for other reasons. I like the fact that it takes time to set up the camera, as I do this to relax. I sometimes want the camera movements etc. But also, I love the big smooth negs. With that in mind, I use my Hasselblad more like a point & shoot camera.
    The day I cannot see the difference it's time to sell the Sinar and the collection of lenses to someone with better eyesight (and a big wallet).

    //Björn

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by arigram View Post
    If you plan to shoot so little, why don't you get a 4x5 then?
    The advantage of the Hasselblad is the roll film that enables to quickly take many frames, as opposed to the much slower sheet film cameras. It is also generally lighter than even a field 4x5 and so its much easier to hand hold (as I do). I also found out that with a 50 iso film (like PanF+ which I use) the detail is astonishing and your prints come out grain free even enlarged at 50x60cm.
    But if you are really meticulous about your photographs and the subject stands at least moderately still, go for the larger format.
    You can create a 4x5 system for much less money than a Hasselblad and you can always get 120 roll film backs if you decide you need them and of course you get the movements.
    (and that comes from a guy who has a complete Hasseblad system and no need for LF cameras).
    This is what I was thinking too. But it's scary having no intermediate bridge in between the systems - either too big or too small.

    With LF there's less stuff to break and it's cheaper. Which is good... on the other hand it's REALLY slow.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    I bought my Hassy 500cm with 80mm Planar and A12 back used (but in new condition) in 1980 for $1000. I bought it from a colleague of mine who was responding to a (sell the camera-you're not using it) edict from his bride.

    I've added more lenses and backs to the kit since buying it and have shot thousands of pictures with, it hauling it though several countries up mountains and through deserts in the process. It still works fine - no failures - ever. I've had a total of 2 CLA's done of the camera, backs and lenses during the time I've owned them.

    The MFs that I currently shoot are my 2 6x7 Mamyia 7ii s plus my Fuji 645s, 6x7 and 6x9. IMHO the MF Mamiya and Fuji glass is fully equal to (or better than) the Zeiss glass on my Hassy system.
    Last edited by Tom Hoskinson; 07-05-2008 at 02:55 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: grammar
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by mgb74 View Post
    Do you have a need for interchangeable backs? :
    Will you require additional lenses? (leaf shutter lenses cost more)
    Do you need through the lens viewing? (if so, limits you to SLRs or TLRs)
    Do you need interchangeable backs?
    Will you take advantage of a square negative? (if not, 6x4.5 is effectively the same as 6x6)
    Those are some very hard questions.

    I'll need the normal and a wide - that's all I'm going to need in terms of lenses.

    The interchangeable backs would be nice, of course. But it might be cheaper to just get two extra bodies and use those for different kinds of film.

    I like square negative. All of the stuff I shoot in MF will eventually wind up in an album and there the square format is my favorite. But I've never tried 6*7 either.

    Basically, all I know is that I want a better lens in terms of contrast than I currently have on my TLRs. I like to shoot into the light often, so ideally I'd like to find something multicoated with minimum number of glass to air surfaces.

    Are there any T* coated tessars for medium format?

  6. #26
    André E.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,520
    Images
    12
    Hei man, honestly, get a Zeiss Super Ikonta folder and shoot away, and yes, many of those are equiped with Tessars, Jena or Oberkochen.

    http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/zeiss.htm


    Cheers


    André

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by André E.C. View Post
    Hei man, honestly, get a Zeiss Super Ikonta folder and shoot away, and yes, many of those are equiped with Tessars, Jena or Oberkochen.

    http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/zeiss.htm
    But are they multicoated?

    if they're not multicoated, I'm losing the cotrast and resolution as compared to the planar.

  8. #28
    André E.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,520
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrey View Post
    But are they multicoated?

    if they're not multicoated, I'm losing the cotrast and resolution as compared to the planar.

    Depends of your choice, all Zeiss optics produced after WWII are coated, up to you to grab a camera from that period, and just a thought, optically, Jena and Oberkochen are the same, so, apply your money wisely.


    Cheers


    André

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrey View Post
    But are they multicoated?

    if they're not multicoated, I'm losing the cotrast and resolution as compared to the planar.
    contrast, yes, resolution, no.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by epatsellis View Post
    contrast, yes, resolution, no.
    I was under impression that the tessar design was less sharp inherently (less corrected) than the planar, so even theoretically the MTF is worse.

    Depends of your choice, all Zeiss optics produced after WWII are coated, up to you to grab a camera from that period, and just a thought, optically, Jena and Oberkochen are the same, so, apply your money wisely.
    But how do I find out if that tessar is multicoated or singly coated?

    From what I know, zeiss didn't deem it worthy to let the users know at that time... so it's somewhat of a gamble.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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