Digital BW, The Print

Martin Parr did a lot of his stuff ona Makina. I tried to find one and
couldn't. How about a Rolleiflex? I've just bought one and I love it. Light,
great optics etc etc.

Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: " Ruhrfoto/Bernd L." <ruhrfoto@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 8:01 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Cameras


Stephen,
for travelling I use a Makina 67 (produced by Plaubel), Nikon lens
2,8/80 (very good). Format 6x7cm.
No SLR, but rangefinder with parallaxis-correction.
Don\ufffdt really know how long they produced it (end of 80th I
suppose). I\ufffdfound a mint one on the sec.hand market for about
$800.
The hit is: you can fold down the lens into the body, so the whole
thing becomes apperently flat to put it into your Jacket pocket,
where it may cry: "I\ufffdm as good as a Hasselblad ..... "
Shortcomming: no lens change possible (ore is that a plus for
travelling?).
though I\ufffdm on a 4x5 or 8x10 camera normally, I took it to CA this
spring to do all these AA and EW shootings again ... I just love
the pictures ...
Bernd








--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Stephen Kundell, MD"
<skundell@p...> wrote:

> So, does anyone out there have recommendations for a
medium format SLR camera, preferably manual, not very heavy,
with nice optics (the lenses above appear to have great Bokah),
that also does not say "I am a Hasselblad, steal me!".
> Stephen




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

The pentax 645 is fairly light weight, but is only 645.

J

Stephen Kundell wrote:

> So, does anyone out there have recommendations for a
>medium format SLR camera, preferably manual, not very heavy, ...

Julian wrote:

>Martin Parr did a lot of his stuff on a Makina. I tried to find one and
>couldn't. How about a Rolleiflex?

I, too, am a medium format (mf) fan.  It is the smallest format that gives
me what I consider sharp 16x20s.  As I've gotten older (or lazier) I've
moved from carrying my entire Rollei SL66 outfit on backpacks, to Rollei GX,
and now to rangefinders -- first the Fuji GA645 Zi and, hopefully, the
Bronica RF 645 (if they ever get their 135 problems fixed).

The MF SLRs are heavy.  The manual, mechanical ones are slow.

The Rollei GX is a true classic, and many consider it one of the best light
cameras around.    With no mirror flap and an f2.8 aperture that is capable
of 16x20 enlargement, one would be hard pressed to find a camera that can
outshoot it in low light.

Two issues that may not be readily apparent have become critical to me.
First, the weight issue is not just the camera, but the whole system that is
needed -- specifically including how heavy the tripod must be to steady the
camera's vibrations.  Second, how flat the camera can hold the film is a
huge issue in mf sharpness.  If the film isn't flat, you might as well be
shooting 35 mm if capturing the subtle details of nature are among your
priorities.

The tripod weight issue has an easy answer -- leaf shutters.  I've tested a
fair number of cameras, and my conclusion is that focal plane shutters have
inherent vibration.  A camera simply cannot start and stop the mass of that
shutter without the famous "equal and opposite reaction."  To dampen it on a
tripod, the weight/mass must be in line with the shutter movement.  So, the
SL66, with its very smooth focal plane shutter moving always vertically
(advantage 6x6 v. 645) is relatively easy to control because the mass of the
tripod is in line with the shutter movement. (It still  needs some mass for
the 150) Horizontal focal planes are a pain to try to control -- read
massive tripod.

All the leaf shutter mf cameras I've had and tested can get totally sharp
shots (in excess of 80 line pairs per mm on the film) with the cheapest and
lightest of tripods -- even with the center column up.  This is a huge
factor for me in holding down the total weight.  I "wear" a cheap, light
Slik 800 on my belt.

The film flatness issue is also critical for me.  Film "remembers" the bend
it goes through prior to reaching the film plane.  If it sits on a turn for
more than a few minutes, it will not lay flat when it gets to the film
plane.  The "reverse curl" cameras are the worst -- SL66, Hasselblad, etc.
Even the Rollei GX has the problem to a lesser extent.  With these cameras
there is one really good procedure to get really sharp shots -- shoot only
ever other frame and abandon the frame that has sat on the rollers.  Not
very efficient.

The straight-through film transport systems of the rangefinders (and some
others) have the potential to cure this problem with many films.  While some
I've tested still have problems with some film types, the Fuji Zi and
Bronica RF seem to be able to be shot like a 35 mm with Tmax 100 (or
probably other film with a sturdy backing).  (Fuji's new Acros did not stay
flat.)

So, for light weight but very sharp photos, the mf rangefinder with a leaf
shutter is hard to beat, in my view.

By the way, I highly recommend renting or otherwise using a camera before
buying.  I found, for example, the handling of the Mamiya 7 to be awkward
and slow.

Good luck in you search.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

> The MF SLRs are heavy.  The manual, mechanical ones are slow.
>
> The Rollei GX is a true classic, and many consider it one of the
> best light
> cameras around.

I completely agree that the Rollei GX is an exceptional camera (I have one,
I do love it)...but...it is not a fast camera IMO.  There is no way to use
it without swapping hands...focus is on the left side, wind is on the right
side...and you gotta swap hands.  I find my Hasselblad much faster...no hand
swapping...wind and focus are on the same side.

It really becomes a personal preference, there are just so many decent MF
cameras out there ;-)

Just saw the India pictures.Stunning.I always disliked this BW C41 films.You
got me confused about it...!

Mark, great  stuff.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tucker" <mark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Cameras


> You are venturing into uncharted territory here. This obviously
> could evolve into a whole maillist of its own. But briefly, I've
> owned everything, and for street/travel I've settled on a
> Hasselblad 202FA or 203FE. Small, lightweight, incamera
> meter, auto or manual meter that's very accurate. I use the prism
> on top because I can't deal with the reversed image. I carry an 80
> and a 40; that's it.
>
> Issues with others: Pentax 67: too big and floppy is the mirror; I
> couldn't shoot slow shutter speeds. Mamiya 6/7, Fuji 690, Leica:
> all rangefinders; same issue as yours--bugged me that I wasn't
> seeing what the lens was seeing, plus trouble focusing. Any 645
> or 35mm: too small a negative. Fuji 680 (all-time favorite
> camera) but way way too big.
>
> These are just MY preferences and issues; like many other
> things, it's a big world out there, and you've almost got to try it
> to find out what works for YOU.
>
> I just did this whole soul-searching thing for ideal travel camera:
> ended up with Hassie 202FA and an XPan, with Kodak T400CN,
> on this trip to India in May. Let me tell you: India will flush out the
> best travel camera. I sold the Xpan when I got back, due to
> (again) the whole rangefinder thing. The images are at:
>
> http://marktucker.com/india/
>
> -Mark Tucker
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Stephen Kundell, MD"
> <skundell@p...> wrote:
> > First of all, thanks to all for this wonderful group. I especially
> appreciate that Jerry can be as opinionated as he wants,  and
> no-one will chastise him (unlike some other groups I have
> seen).  This is obviously a group of individuals with diverse
> backgrounds, all quite serious about their photography.
> > Like other members, I have been amazed at how I am able to
> bring new life to old images. I have been quite happy with my
> second hand Umax powerlook 3000 since I started mounting
> everything with Kami. The scans are beautiful and very sharp. I
> am not a street shooter, and most of my work has been medium
> format and 4X5. I recently took a Koni Omega Rapid 120 to Paris,
> and am delighted with the images. The optics are very nice
> (60mm and 135mm lenses), but the camera is an absolute
> beast regarding weight. I also can not get used to that
> rangefinder thing. I really want to see what will be on the film.
> > So, does anyone out there have recommendations for a
> medium format SLR camera, preferably manual, not very heavy,
> with nice optics (the lenses above appear to have great Bokah),
> that also does not say "I am a Hasselblad, steal me!". This Koni
> is pretty ugly and threatening which is beneficial. BTW, I did have
> the Pentax 6x7 in the past, and a Horseman medium format.
> Both were too big and heavy.
> > Thanks to all
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>