Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,761   Posts: 1,516,102   Online: 872
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    olleorama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    526
    Images
    5

    Strange Mamiya press question

    I've abandoned my ideas of getting a mamiya 645, it just wasn't me although the prices were good. I stumbled upon I camera I at first thought was an outdated dinosaur (a wee bit strange as I like view cameras); the mamiya press series.

    I've gotten this idea that I like polaroids, or more correct, fujiroids. But I really like the neat packaged mamiya super 23, it got all the features I like, it's a medium format camera by nature, hence a lot smaller than other press cameras, it's got the basic back swing/tilt functions I like, it has cheap backs, really nice handheld etc. But the drawback is that it can't take a polaback, like it's younger sibling the universal. Of course the universal lacks the bellows. Hmm, what to do? Could one feasibly make an adapter to fit a polaback to the super 23? I read somewhere that the opening on the 23 would be to small? But still, if it can take 6x9 negs it should be able to make 6x9 polas at least, or?

    I have looked a wee bit on polabacks for other systems (I had one for my RB which I sold) and the NPC polabacks. And judging from pictures and my memory it seems as if the backs were basically the same for all mf cameras, only the mountside was different. Couldn't one feasibly machine some kind of adapter and modify any of those backs to fit the super 23? The mount looks a bit primitive, and there doesn't seem to be any couplings between the cameras and the back either. So it should 'only' be a question of making a mount and measuring the flange-to-film distance to get it somewhat right, or? I have a friend who works with laser cutting for a living so I should be able to get some precision cut parts rather cheap, so that part isn't so intimidating, but I really need some input.

    How big is the actual image on a polaroid from a Universal anyway?

  2. #2
    aoresteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Newnan, GA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    270
    I'm sure SK Grimes coud adapt a Polaroid back from the Universal to the Pres 23. You would have to provide the parts and they would advise as to if they could or could not do the adaptation.
    Tony
    Newnan, GA

    Cambo 23SF, Hasselblad, Mamiya M645, Rolleiflex 2.8C
    Rollei 4x4 Grey
    Leica M4-P M3 IIIf RD Contax IIa Nikon SP
    Olympus OM-1 OM-2

    http://www.oresteen.com/ROLLEI4X4.htm

  3. #3
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    Another issue is only certain lenses from that series will cover the full pola/fujiroid
    The standard 100 3.5 lens that came with the Super 23 won't cover the polaroid even without movements

    The 127mm 3.7 is the lens that will cover the pola and maybe the 75 will too but I'm not certain.

    I don't know how these lenses will perform once you introduce movements into the equation.

  4. #4
    olleorama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    526
    Images
    5
    Since there are no rise, fall or lateral shift the coverage shouldn't be an issue. I mean, if the light is considered as a cone coming thru the lens, the tilt or swing will actually require a somewhat smaller image circle? Or I'm I visualising this wrong? But okay, that is off topic anyway, since the problem seems to be the size of the opening in the back. If someone could post a picture of either cameras backside we could do some comparisons. The universals backside with a polaroidadapter that is.

  5. #5
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    olle,
    what you are saying sounds legit now that I think about it.
    Rise, fall & shift will definitely tax image circle but simple tilt probably doesn't but I'm not 100% sure.
    Maybe someone knows ?

    I'm not even sure how large the pola back image produces but I have seen in the mamiya literature that only certain lenses wll cover so it must be larger than 6x9.

    I only have a regular 6x7 back for my Super 23 but can shoot an image and upload to flickr or somewhere.

  6. #6
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    The standard 100 3.5 lens that came with the Super 23 won't cover the polaroid even without movements

    The 127mm 3.7 is the lens that will cover the pola and maybe the 75 will too but I'm not certain.

    Robb Smith, author of the "Mamiya Professional Systems Handbook," writes in the book:

    "Choice of Lenses for the Polaroid Format

    "The 75mm, 100mm, and 127mm lens will cover the entire picture area of the Polaroid 3-1/4" x 3-1/4" format. Other lenses for the Mamiya Press are designed to cover only the 6 x 9cm format, and if you use them with the Polaroid film pack, you will find a slight vignetting (darkening) at the corners of the print."

    I have used the 100 f/3.5 on Polaroid, and it covers with no problem on my Press Universal. This lens has perhaps the largest image circle in the Press system. I do not have any idea why one would make the statement that it does not cover Polaroid if they had ever tried it.

    For the OP, the only lens that will work with movements while retaining infinity focus is the 100mm f/3.5, which works because it is retractable. Smith writes, "Other lenses that do no retract can be used only for perspective (sic) control at near and medium distances. Wide-angle lenses will give you perspective control only at close range." Even if you rig a Polaroid back to a Super 23, because of this limited nature of the movements, I would suggest a Universal, and doing without the movements. It will be lighter as well. You can shim your printing easel to change the shape of your image, and then tilt your lensboard to align the plane of focus with the paper, if you have an enlarger that allows this.

    I think the best way to do what you want to do is to use a Super Graphic or Super Speed Graphic with a Polaroid 405 holder. Then you will also have a 4x5 film camera (and a 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, and 4x5 Polaroid camera, with the appropriate film holders), with no modification/hacking necessary. Another potentially huge benefit is that this camera will take any lens that you can fit to it, not only system-dedicated lenses like the Press.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 09-28-2010 at 01:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #7
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    I do not have any idea why one would make the statement that it does not cover Polaroid if they had ever tried it.
    I read it somewhere.
    Maybe they were mistakenly talking about the 100 2.8? ? ?

    The 127 is the lens that usually comes with the later Polaroid 600se so it made sense to me.

  8. #8
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    Hmm, the Mamiya Universal Accessories pamplet I have states the actual "Picture size" using the Polaroid Land Pack Film Holder w/ Polaroid Film Pack series 100 is 2 7/8 x 3 3/4.
    I don't know why your source lists 3 1/4 x 3 1/4
    Was there an updated/newer Polaroid holder?

    In the Mamiya Universal Lenses pamplet that came from butkus.org only has angle of view information with the Polaroid holder for the 127 4.7 lens.
    No other lenses have polaroid data.

    It doesn't even list the 75mm

    This must be an older version of these Lens specs/instructions.

  9. #9
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    Hmm, the Mamiya Universal Accessories pamplet I have states the actual "Picture size" using the Polaroid Land Pack Film Holder w/ Polaroid Film Pack series 100 is 2 7/8 x 3 3/4.
    I don't know why your source lists 3 1/4 x 3 1/4
    Was there an updated/newer Polaroid holder?

    In the Mamiya Universal Lenses pamplet that came from butkus.org only has angle of view information with the Polaroid holder for the 127 4.7 lens.
    No other lenses have polaroid data.

    It doesn't even list the 75mm

    This must be an older version of these Lens specs/instructions.
    Hi, Bruce. I made a typo. I meant 3-1/4x4-1/4.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #10
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,531
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    Rise, fall & shift will definitely tax image circle but simple tilt probably doesn't but I'm not 100% sure.
    Maybe someone knows ?
    They will all require a larger image circle diameter. Think of it in 2D terms viewed from the side of the camera and draw a triangle from the top of the film to the centre of the lens, down to the bottom of the film then joining up back at the top of the film. The triangle represents a hypothetical image coverage of the lens.

    Now tilt the lens. The triangle will also tilt. The triangle you have drawn or imagined will now not cover the whole of the film as it was only big enough to cover the exact film height.

    Now do the same excercise but with a triangle with points a bit higher and lower than the top and bottom of the film and you will see that it is now possible to tilt the lens and the coverage triangle and still cover the film.


    Steve.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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