Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,519   Posts: 1,543,779   Online: 843
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by k_jupiter View Post
    Who is Brad?

    tim in san jose
    APUG username BradS.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    79
    I guess the only point I was trying to make is that there are no absolutes.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
    If you are cropping 6x6 negs to the 16x20 or 20x24 aspect
    ratios you mentioned, you are really closer to using only the
    "645" portion of the negative. In this case the 6x7 gives you
    twice as much, not just 50% more.
    Both the 6x7 and 6x4.5 negatives are very close to the
    4x5 ratio. A 6x7 measuring 56mm x 70mm has an exact
    4x5 ratio. A 6x4.5 measuring 44mm x 55mm has an
    exact 4x5 ratio.

    My 6x7 negatives measure 56mm x 69mm and my
    6x4.5 negatives measure 42.5mm x 55mm. So, printing
    full negative the 6x7 has 66% more negative area, not
    100%. As said both have ratios very nearly 4x5. The
    square format actually does a little better as a full
    44mm is available. Dan

  4. #24
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,951
    Images
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by weasel View Post
    I can understand why you would like the RZ; but objectively, is the image quality that much better than the 645? Or is it other things about the camera you prefer?
    Two of my 645s are Mamiyas, a Pro TTL and an AFd. There is just more detail in the 6x7 negs, there is more detail in my 4x5 negs and more yet in my 8x10 negs. I would use 8x10 all the time if all factors allowed it. I work the best and fastest with 4x5 and have better control in the darkroom with individual sheets. It is also the other features which make my RZ my favorite roll film camera, a variety of finders, the rotating back and I can handhold a couple stops slower with it than I can my 645s or my Mamiya 7II...EC

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    133
    See Page 235 of the B&H catalogue for a complete listing of carts - from lightweights to mamoth priced from under $50. Why do it the hard way?

    Morry Katz
    Lethbridge AB.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Carts?

    Been there, tried that, PITA! Sticking with my backpack. I'm only carrying my 8x10 kit. About 27 pounds, tops.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    I would add to my previous post that if printing below 16x12 there is little point in going from 645 to 6x7. I can imagine that in colour, the difference is less pronounced compared to mono where grain and the half tone effect is more of a factor. As some have previously stated the 35-645 jump is far greater than 645-67.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    The additional weight and bulk of a Mamiya RZ 67 over
    that of a Bronica ETRSi 6x4.5, or SQ for that matter:
    Does that additional weight and bulk justify when
    print quality is the standard?


    The choice is difficult. MY Mamiya lenses may be less sharp
    than my Bronica lenses at Near wide open aperatures. That
    be the case and working at near wide open the RZ's 50%
    additional negative means nothing, or worse.

    I'm sure others have wrestled with this problem.
    Which has won? Dan
    Sounds like you have both. So it should be what ever works for the situation.

    I have both. To me the RZ is too big for off tripod use in the quick and easy way the ETRSI is. If I want a big rollfilm negative handheld my 6x9 is the choice. The ETRSI is also smarter then my RZ. It does fill flash with the TTL in it's sleep. It does a fairly good job with the metering prism. Adding the motor makes it pretty close to an overgrown 35mm auto camera. At times that is useful.


    The RZ lives on the tripod almost 100% of the time. I can see it with the 110mm or shorter off but to me it seems a strange choice for handheld choice. At what point do you lose all the gain from the bigger negative to the handholding?

    I'm not exactly scrawny. I can deadlift twice my bodyweight. But I'd rather handhold the Bronica then the RZ.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    yes, I would rather handhold the ETRSi over the RZ too! Its not about weight in absolute terms, but comfort. Why heave and sweat and feel the weight after a day of hiking if you dont have to!

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu View Post
    Both the 6x7 and 6x4.5 negatives are very close to the
    4x5 ratio. A 6x7 measuring 56mm x 70mm has an exact
    4x5 ratio. A 6x4.5 measuring 44mm x 55mm has an
    exact 4x5 ratio.

    My 6x7 negatives measure 56mm x 69mm and my
    6x4.5 negatives measure 42.5mm x 55mm. So, printing
    full negative the 6x7 has 66% more negative area, not
    100%. As said both have ratios very nearly 4x5. The
    square format actually does a little better as a full
    44mm is available. Dan
    It has become my new hobby, so i'll add to this here too by pointing out that the difference between a 6x7 image and a 6x4.5 image is a factor of about 1.2 - 1.3.
    So make a print from your favourite negative (doesn't matter what format or camera was used to take it), make a print of the same negative that is 1.3x larger, compare the prints, and behold the reason why you should or should not want to haul a heavy 6x7 camera around rather than a smaller and lighter 6x4.5.
    If you think the difference in quality is significant, you need the 6x7. If not, pick the one that's more convenient.

    I think i know what the choice will be...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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