Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,200   Posts: 1,531,507   Online: 1014
      
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 83
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    OK Thanks all. I kind of get the picture, Those that have zm lenses rate them highly but so do leitz owners and a few others. Consensus seems to be that there may be a slight advantage for resolution on shorter RF lenses but not much in it when compared to top slr lenses.
    Maybe I should just get an RTSII or III with mirror lockup and be done with it.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    37
    I have read this thread with interest because I am on the same sort of path. Let me be clear up front, I do most of my work already with a MF system and I putting an 8x10 system together at the moment. The simple lack of quality of the 35m compared to larger formats, had me ready to sell my 35mm systems. As an alternate, I have decided to use my 35mm equipment to shoot very fine grained, slow speed films, Rollei Pan 25, Agfapan 25, Efke 25, Adox CMS 20, etc. I am looking for the maximum resolution possible from a strip of emulsion. I shoot mostly landscapes, architectural, and street scenes with my 35mm kit.

    The path to extreme resolution is indeed a slippery and treacherous one! Lenses that I have been using for years are coming up short after being put under the scrutiny of these films. So I am tragically looking for the 'ultimate' wide to normal lens for 35mm format.
    P. Lynn Miller
    Sydney, Australia

    Photo of the day... week... whatever...


    And I have one of those Flickr thingy's...

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    OK Thanks all. I kind of get the picture, Those that have zm lenses rate them highly but so do leitz owners and a few others. Consensus seems to be that there may be a slight advantage for resolution on shorter RF lenses but not much in it when compared to top slr lenses.
    Maybe I should just get an RTSII or III with mirror lockup and be done with it.
    Good summary, Rob!
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  4. #54
    Anupam Basu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    504
    Images
    20
    Exactly. For tripod use with mirror lockup - SLRs will provide you equivalent results with certain secondary benefits. RFs are in their element for handheld use. They are specialized tools that excel at a particular kind of shooting but aren't so adaptable for others.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    I guess I would use a Contax RTSIII. Film flatness is important with stops wider than 5.6.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    The real benefit of RFs optics is that they are SMALL lenses. A ZM biogon 25 is tiny compared to the ZF equivalent and performs as well or possibly better if you believe some, including the odd poster who has both.

    If you want to hike all over the place, shoot at slow shutter speeds etc, which can be handy for landscape work too, then a RF will give you superb optics and small size etc. You can even hike with a little tripod over your shoulder (or not at all) and the kit in belt pouches. I cannot comment comparatively, but my ZM wides, 50 planar and 90 Elmarit M are not bettered by anything I own in 35mm, but not better than my 135 f2L either. The consensus seems to be that at the wide end, RF lenses have an edge due to more flexibility in design due to the absence of a mirror. If it is really noticeable with other factors, who knows? I dont. I only know that the ZM images are tack sharp and really made me feel that I was getting everything out of the tiny 35mm format. no doubt about it, the Mamiya 7 makes mincemeat out of the ZM 35mm shots, but that is not your question, but the posters who suggest the 120 route do have a point: unless there is a reason you must stick with 35mm, a Mamiya 7, esp for mono, where grads etc are not required), offers a HUGE step up in quality than renders the RF vs. SLR argument irrelevant. But, personally, If I was to choose a landscape kit from 35mm, I would go RF every single time. Smaller, lighter, easily as good, smaller filter sizes, also great for street work, optically wonderful. BUT, I dont do macro work, portraits etc. one point I would make is that ZM lenses offer staggering edge performance and when enlarging 35mm to the extremes, this is noticeable. An earlier point was well made though, which is that when stopping down to f16 etc, most lenses perform bloody well, even cheap ones (except for cheap nasty zooms).

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    Difficult to quantify I know but how much difference in image resolution and sharpness would you expect to see when moving from a high quality 35mm slr system to a high quality rangefinder system.
    ANSWER: NONE

    I'm thinking specifically of comparing contax/zeiss to zeiss ikon/zeiss image quality. Perhaps in terms of how much extra enlargement you could get out of the rangefinder before noticeable degradation of image quality compared to the slr.
    ANSWER: NO DIFFERENCE.

    I fully realise there are many other factors to consider about the differences and use of the two systems and what they are best at doing,
    ANSWER: YOU ARE MOST CORRECT WITH THIS STATEMENT.

    but for this SPECIFIC QUESTION assume EXPANSIVE LANDSCAPE IMAGES AND CAMERAS ON TRIPODS.
    Will the rangefinder give noticeably better quality images at say 12 times enlargement.
    ANSWER: NO, PROVIDED THE CAMERAS ARE EQUALLY ADJUSTED AND THE LENSES ARE PROPERLY QUALITY CONTROLLED AND ADJUSTED FROM THE FACTORY. You shold see NO DIFFERENCE in images of "expansive landscape" images exposed from rangefinder cameras or SLR cameras on tripods at 12 times enlargement.
    All the best,
    Sam H.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    37
    While I know that medium format will beat the 'livin' daylights' out of 35mm any day of the week, I started this search since I am trying to replace my medium format kit with 35mm due weight and space constraints of travelling by bicycle. So my goal is the find the lens/film/developer that allows me to make the best possible 20x24 prints from the 35mm format. I know this is asking alot...
    P. Lynn Miller
    Sydney, Australia

    Photo of the day... week... whatever...


    And I have one of those Flickr thingy's...

  9. #59
    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 p3200TMZ View Post
    So my goal is the find the lens/film/developer that allows me to make the best possible 20x24 prints from the 35mm format. I know this is asking alot...
    Sounds like fun. How about a contax g2 kit, Rollei ATP and acu....
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by p3200TMZ View Post
    While I know that medium format will beat the 'livin' daylights' out of 35mm any day of the week, I started this search since I am trying to replace my medium format kit with 35mm due weight and space constraints of travelling by bicycle. So my goal is the find the lens/film/developer that allows me to make the best possible 20x24 prints from the 35mm format. I know this is asking alot...
    Notwithstanding all that has been said, I would suggest you shoot some Ilford Pan F in a Leica equipped with a Summicron. The optimum aperture should be around f4 to 5.6, but a larger aperture would also be OK, since if you are actually making 20x24" prints, extreme edge definition will not matter since you will be cropping the ends of the pictures off! Depending on your personal technique and preferences, you might find that rating the film at EI 32 and developing in ID-11 diluted 1+1 for 45 seconds or so less than the Ilford recommendation is a good idea.

    No matter what film and equipment you ultimately use, you should find that the above suggestion constitutes a benchmark which takes you at least 95% of the way towards your goal. Any further improvements will be minor and extremely costly!



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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