Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,300   Posts: 1,536,058   Online: 965
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,537
    Images
    77
    My thoughts? If you are going to 645 land, don't. Find a nice FM2 with a 35mm and perhaps 85mm lens setup. Of course, I love my 105mm but that's not everyones cup of tea. The quality difference isn't going to justify the weight and 120 film PITB factor. If you are not going 645, go rb67 ProS. 65mm and probably 127mm lens, WLF or magnifying viewfinder. You'll be able to shoot the 65mm hand held with a strap around your neck, the 127mm you will need either tripod or monopod. The 6x7 format will knock your socks off quality wise. You thnk you don't care about battery dependency, but a couple of hours in very cold temps can render your camera useless. The rb and the FM2 will keep on ticking no matter what.

    If you really like 6x6, get either a Hassey or a C220. Two lens and a body won't weight you down. The 65mm Mamiya TLR lens is petty nice.

    Get a good meter and lots of spare batteries for it.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    775
    Matt,


    I had a feeling that the quick winder would work on my 1000s and that might be a good choice to remove some of the weight of that system. And with that said, then maybe I have all I need to adapt the older winder to the new body, and in so doing adapt the quick winder to the new bodies.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Tim,

    I don't agree. I have used quality 35mm cameras virtually all my life and I find a huge difference in quality between 35mm and 6X4.5. Basically, with equal attention to technique and getting the most out of both formats I find a huge advantage to 6X4.5cm over 35mm in terms of final image quality on the print, if the print is larger than 5X7 or 8X10.

    Basically, you can enlarge a 6X4.5 cm negative about twice as large as a 35mm negative, with the same print quality. If that is not a big advantage, what is? In any print between 11X14 and 16X20 I find a very large advantage in image quality from 6X4.5cm


    Sandy King









    Quote Originally Posted by k_jupiter View Post
    My thoughts? If you are going to 645 land, don't. Find a nice FM2 with a 35mm and perhaps 85mm lens setup. Of course, I love my 105mm but that's not everyones cup of tea. The quality difference isn't going to justify the weight and 120 film PITB factor.

    tim in san jose
    Last edited by sanking; 08-04-2008 at 09:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,537
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Tim,

    I don't agree. I have used quality 35mm cameras virtually all my life and I find a huge difference in quality between 35mm and 6X4.5. Basically, with equal attention to technique and getting the most out of both formats I find a huge advantage to 6X4.5cm over 35mm in terms of final image quality on the print, if the print is larger than 5X7 or 8X10.

    Basically, you can enlarge a 6X4.5 cm negative about twice as large as a 35mm negative, with the same print quality. If that is not a big advantage, what is? In any print between 11X14 and 16X20 I find a very large advantage in image quality from 6X4.5cm


    Sandy King
    Sandy,

    As always, I respect everything you say. It has been my experience that proper care and excellent equipment will give decent 11x14 prints in 135 land. My entire portfolio was shot with a FM2 and either a 35mm or 105mm lens. The jump from there to 645 didn't noticably improve my work, perhaps because lens quality (mamiya) resolution is just a bit less with most MF lens. Hence the move to 6x6 and 6x7 showed greater improvement and I found was well worth the slight incoveniences of traveling with a larger format camera. The jump to 645 wasn't worth it.

    Difference of opinion, ya?

    If I'm going MF, I am going BIG! *L*

    By the same token, I have hiking trip to SE Utah this fall. What LF to bring? For the hikes, a 4x5 Speed? Still bring at least a 5x7 (or the 8x10) for keeping in the car? Decisions, decisions...



    tim
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Hi Tim,

    My experience is that vibration from mirror slap and shutter release is a much bigger problem with MF than with 35mm. Before I bought the Mamiya 7II outfit I had a nice very late model Pentax 67II. In fact, I owned the two outfits long enough to do some testing. Believe me, at shutter speeds of less than 1/125 there was just no comparisoin between the resolution of the whole line of Mamiya 7II lenses versus the Pentax lenses. The Mamiya 7II would consistently deliver at least 25% more resolution in lines/mm on film than the Pentax 67II.

    Later I talked about this with a professional printer, and his comment was that the Pentax 67II was legend for smoothing faces, i.e. softening the image, when used at slow shutter speeds without flash, either on or off the tripod.

    The rangefinder cameras that I use (Mamiya 7II, Fuji GW690II and Fuji GA645Zi) give exceptional resolution at slow shutter speeds, whether hand held or used on the tripod.

    Sandy King



    Quote Originally Posted by k_jupiter View Post
    Sandy,

    As always, I respect everything you say. It has been my experience that proper care and excellent equipment will give decent 11x14 prints in 135 land. My entire portfolio was shot with a FM2 and either a 35mm or 105mm lens. The jump from there to 645 didn't noticably improve my work, perhaps because lens quality (mamiya) resolution is just a bit less with most MF lens. Hence the move to 6x6 and 6x7 showed greater improvement and I found was well worth the slight incoveniences of traveling with a larger format camera. The jump to 645 wasn't worth it.

    Difference of opinion, ya?

    If I'm going MF, I am going BIG! *L*

    By the same token, I have hiking trip to SE Utah this fall. What LF to bring? For the hikes, a 4x5 Speed? Still bring at least a 5x7 (or the 8x10) for keeping in the car? Decisions, decisions...



    tim

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,537
    Images
    77
    Someday I'll give MF range finders a try. Once I get bored with the 8x10 Deardorff. Like that's ever going to happen. In the meantime, I'll use my rb67 on a tripod with mirror lockup.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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