Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,274   Posts: 1,534,684   Online: 1075
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    There's no 80mm for the rb, AFAIK. There is a 75 and a 90.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #42

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

    I don't buy your argument about auto focus. I have used a Fuji GA645Zi auto focus camera for a number of years and the focus has been spot on for over 98% of the shots I have made with it. The Fuji does have a mechanism that allows you to easily lock on the focus on a certain spot and then move the camera to compose the scene. Quite easy to learn.

    Sandy King



    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Forget AF. Decent AF has only just now come to med format in the form of the new mamiya 645 afd3 ($3k!). Pretty much all prior med format cameras have rather primitive AF (center focus only and quite slow and noisy). So skip AF and come back to it when the prices have come down. If you absolutely must have af in an mf camera, then get a fuji rangefinder. Those are the only med format AF systems that didn't disappoint me. Med format lesnes are not nearly as fast as 35mm, so it's hard to design contrast detection af with the kind of flexibility you find in 35mm. So skip it!

    Now, assuming that you buy my argument about giving up auto focus:

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    It'd be incredibly useful to be able to rotate the back and shoot 645 tall i.e. in portrait format, without rotating the body or using that nutty rotoframe or whatever they call it. Actually, I wouldn't even mind if there were a provision to go ahead and waste film and let me shoot portrait without rotating the back!
    There is. Has been for a very long time.
    It's called 6x6 format.

    I hear they make pretty decent cameras - only a smidgeon larger than the 6x4.5s, if at all - in that format.

  4. #44
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Keith,

    I don't buy your argument about auto focus. I have used a Fuji GA645Zi auto focus camera for a number of years and the focus has been spot on for over 98% of the shots I have made with it. The Fuji does have a mechanism that allows you to easily lock on the focus on a certain spot and then move the camera to compose the scene. Quite easy to learn.
    Sandy, I'll admit that I was happy with the AF on the fujis MF RFs. However they all sport rather slow and fairly wide lenses, so it's not like the AF system has to be particularly good. And I don't recall feeling any great confidence that the AF had locked precisely where I wanted it to lock... yeah, the motor stops making its racket, but there are no comforting visual cues! So if the focus-point were off center, I'd stop down pre-emptively.

    So... I don't see how to compare them to anything modern in 35mm. Anyway, I do not deny that the Fujis are nice. Veeery nice. But the AF system is a far cry from even the rather rudimentary system on the mamiya AF, no?

    Q.G. I have a mamiya 6 and I do what you are describing. I hear that hasselblad also made something that shot 6x6 But anyway, when I compose squares they almost always remain squares in print :rolleyes: And with film prices trending as they are, I don't expect to feel any less reluctant about cropping down those squares in the future! Anyway just imagine a system like a mini rb/rz, with a rotating back. That'd be very nifty indeed. I started to lament the orientation of the mamiyas when I used the Fuji RFs (mentioned above). I got a lot more use out of that orientation than expected.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Well, i don't know.
    Just like the RB/RZ cameras are not 6x7, but 7x7 cameras (and does it show!), a 6x4.5 sporting a rotating back would have to be the size of a 6x6 camera.
    On the other hand, 6x4.5 cameras aren't appreciably smaller than 6x6 cameras, so why not?

    But (again) why not just get a 6x6 camera!
    Film isn't that expensive, is it?

    Why, "Actually, [you] wouldn't even mind if there were a provision to go ahead and waste film and let [you] shoot portrait without rotating the back!" !!!

    But even if. I know why i pick up a camera when i do. And it's to create images. Not to safe on film.

  6. #46
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    But even if. I know why i pick up a camera when i do. And it's to create images. Not to safe on film.
    That's not my point at all. My point is that when I look through a square VF, I compose a square image. I like the square for what it can do...
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Drop in a mask, and enjoy that "provision to go ahead and waste film and let [you] shoot portrait without rotating the back!"

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Monterey Co, CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    303
    I'm not sold on the use of AF on a 645 SLR because the mirror/shutter lag time makes them too slow for serious action photography anyway. (Horses for courses, and 35mm really shines for wildlife, PJ, tele or macro work.) But what I do really appreciate about AF-era 645 bodies like my Pentax 645N, is that some possess very sophisticated matrix metering (as well as spot and center-weighted), and remain compact with integrated metering prisms and motordrives. This all provides a better walking-around pictorial camera experience than my Nikon F5, pound for pound (somewhat incredibly the bodies with batteries are almost exactly the same weight). I've been shooting with the much underrated and now cheap manual focus SMC-A 35mm f/3.5 lens (about a 21mm equiv in 35mm terms) for less than a year. Few 35mm lenses are equivalently undistorted in this FOV-- I bought camera AND lens for what I could easily have spent on just a 35mm lens in 20-21mm focal length, alone.

    I can routinely handhold this to 1/15s and sometimes to 1/8s and get spectacular tack-sharp results on Astia 100F, with no visible barrel or pincushion distortion. If there's time to work off a tripod and no wind, I'll use 4x5 instead. But in fleeting light of dawn or dusk I find myself grabbing the 645 more often.

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