What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Changes Coming Hold on to your seat

Hi Marc,

> Of interest to me because Zeiss makes some pretty nice
> manual glass for the F mount.

There is some "pretty nice manual glass" for the Canon mount as well if you use a Contax C/Y adapter. The Contax manual focus glass was pretty extensive, with some best in class lenses like the Distagon 21, and the 135/2 to name a couple.

That adapter can be found here:

http://www.bobshell.com/adapter.html

Regards,

Austin
 
"I get where Simon is coming from and understood his POV ... DSLRs are NOT the equal to MF digital when considering image quality"

Marc agreed, but I believe Simon was referring to medium format film.
 
Yes Austin, thanks. I had them all including the legendary C/Y 21, the fab 28/2, the unmatched 85/1.2 Anniversary, 135/2, 35-135/3.5 zoom, etc., etc. ... all from my Contax RX days.

Unfortunately there was no adapter that provided stop down metering on the Canon EOS DSLRs, and even with the split micro-prism Canon makes to help with manual focus while preserving AF, the camera became incredibly slow to use. DSLRs are notoriously difficult to manually focus.

Since then an ingenious person developed C/Y and Leica R adapters that provide focus confirmation with some Canon DSLRs ... I use one of those with a few Leica R lenses ... but the lack of auto aperture was still an inconvenience when using a camera primarily dedicated to spontaneous, fast work.

The Zeiss F mount lenses are auto aperture metering, and the Nikons to date also provided in viewfinder focus confirmation. Whether the D3 retains that focus confirmation remains to be seen.
 
Hi Marc,

The stop down metering and no focus confirmation would be a problem IMO. But, I am very happy with the Canon L glass, and some of the non-L primes, like the 100/2.

I also understand there is an adapter/conversion for the Contax Zeiss N series autofocus lenses that gives you both stop-down aperture and autofocus. But, that lense lineup is very very limited, and the conversion is very expensive.

http://en.conurus.com/index.html

Regards,

Austin
 
Having just been on the road for 2.5 weeks shooting in Utah &
Arizona here is my 'dream' 500-series:

- give me a titanium body shell, unpainted and unplated (chromed)
Light and next to undestructable. Don't need leatherette.
You can color titanium if you really want to.
- give me a good dust seal between body and back
- give me a lighter weight 45gr finder (I have a older PME which
I like as such)
- give me proper dust sealing between the finder and the body
- give me a gliding mirror (although for my use the classic
500C/M mirror works just dandy; I just like the mechanics
of the GMS much better)
- give me a maximum aperture coupling between the lens and the
exposure meter
- give me a film speed setting on the back that couples to the
exposure meter

Yes, and I do realise that some of the above does not help
you with a WLF, but still. And no, I do not want a 200-series,
which has some of this.

The various exposure meter couplings would be so nice, I have been
shooting a mix of film speeds & lenses. You constantly have to remind
yourself to set the max lens opening as well film speed. Which you
sometimes forget. At least I do.


You can always dream, can you?
Wilko
 
The various exposure meter couplings would be so nice, I have been
shooting a mix of film speeds & lenses. You constantly have to remind
yourself to set the max lens opening as well film speed. Which you
sometimes forget. At least I do. >

Wilco:

For those reasons you would like a 200 series, they were key issues to my decision. The exception you may have perhaps is having to have the lenses that will work with it.

BTW- I hope you enjoyed you visit to Utah.

Regards:

Gilbert
 
How about a handheld meter?
It saves you from setting the max. aperture of the lens, saves weight for the camera and is known to be a reliable friend.

A metering system that is in any way linked with lens and or back contains electronics.
Your preference for a pure mechanical camera system is understandable from a professional pov.
On the other hand the 203FE has proved itself as a very reliable tool and is sorely missed.
It also has the improved GMS.
Besides the need for a a new set of lenses the only problem now is finding a clean one for a decent price.

In a dusty environment a wide rubber band as used by postal services may prevent dust problems between body and filmback.
It is not a very elegant but a low cost way to keep body and filmbacks clean.
 
Hi Paul,

O, but I do have a handheld Gossen. The thing is, focusing & composing with a WLF in extreme (desert) sunlight just works soo much better with a prism. And the builtin meter is also very convenient, if only because I tend to use pola filters a lot.

Wilko
 
Wilko

In that case , you just don't have a chance and you will have to "carry" the heavy prismfinder. I often use the HM2 hood (with my own diopter) , just because it is very light and a handheld meter is also easy to use . (What you can carry in your pocket , you must not carry in your hands) . The weight stays the same , but you don't feel it .

Its nice to see , that Paul is back to the forum . I was already missing him and wanted to report him as a missing person .

Regards Jürgen
 
Hi Juergen,

I considered taking the chimney-finder but that does not fit in my backpack while mounted on the camera. Too annoying therefore.

I will post a picture of my "well stuffed" backpack once I am back home. Last evening I managed to stuff AND the spare body AND all the filters AND the IR digicam AND the Gossen meter into it.

Works for air travel but not practical while shooting. The only thing left to obtain is a negative gravity field to offset the weight of the whole thing..

Wilko
 
Wilko

I can remember a day I have been in the BLACK FOREST shooting iced waterfalls , and on the way back , i could not carry my LINHOF TRIPOD any more . It was a very cold winterday and I had no gloves . The icecold ALUMINIUM Tripod hurt my fingers . So I decided to hide the tripod in the wood and pick it up an other day . It was still there 5 days later . :)
Problems like this increase when getting older .

Jürgen
 
Marc said: [ Simon, isn't the smaller sensor Nikon argument similar to Hasselbalds "square" argument before the H camera? ]

Not quite the same Marc, but I do get your point and agree that these companies make statements that serve their purpose at the time.

The Hasselblad square argument was in its own right a sound one - more area than 6x4.5; less bulk than 6x7 gear; no need to rotate the camera....

I suppose that the H series 6x4.5 with the AF and "auto-everything" technology necessary to meet market / user changed expectations of the day, was simply not supported with any rationale for moving away from 6x6. To my mind that rationale was the need to use a smaller frame to: keep the overall camera / lens size manageable (it is just about the same overall bulk as the V series 6x6); enable reasonably/comparatively fast functionality that would be more challenging in a 6x6 version .... etc etc... But still today Hasselblad has really not commented about that shift (nor its shift to Fujinon).

But, in Nikon's DSLR case, it really was blindingly obvious to most that the lack of a full-frame DSLR was due to things like: the F lens mount "throat" is relatively small thus creating real challenges for the design engineers; they don't make their own sensors....

That small "throat" issue arose from the days when AF became the norm - Canon bit the bullet and changed its mount enabling a wider throat for the necessarily bulkier lenses and data-bus needs. It knew that many pro customers may take the opportunity to move to Nikon - Canon held its breath and weathered the storm, which ultimately was not too damaging.

On the other hand, Nikon lived by its legacy customer-pitch that served it well - "our lenses can be used on all vintage bodies". But the digi-era posed a challenge no one could predict and which necessitated "larger" throats anyway. Canon benefited from its much earlier decision. Nikon suffered from its decision (IMHO).

But while we all knew Canon's full frame high end technology was superior due to one matter of physics that applied to all capture media: "bigger is better" (ceteris paribus of course); Nikon really fed the market with much bull-dust saying its cropped frame technology was superior. But, alas, now it joins the ranks of full frame pro-DSLR.

To my mind the Nikon scenario was just not very credible.

Further as Hasselblad is likely to move to say a 45MP sensor (the race is on and the Hasselblad brand is likely to keep wanting to look like the market leader!), it may be that the next step beyond that is to move closer towards a full frame 6x4.5 sensor! Maybe...?

Well, we live in interesting times; who knows what is around the corner!
happy.gif
 
was simply not supported with any rationale for moving away from 6x6

Oh, but it was.
The rationale was that at the time auto-everything 645 format cameras were popular. They sold (or at least it looked like they did/would).
Don't ask me why, but they were, and did.
Venture capitalists (the then owners) liked that.
And that's it.

Mind you: the choice for 645 had nothing to do with digital sensor formats, or what they might have expected they would grow to. Nothing at all.
In fact, the move towards the 645 H-series was a move away (!) from digital photography, which those Visionaries believed held no promise of earning them some money in the 3 to 5 years they planned to 'use' the company.
 
Thanks QG, I get your point but all the same the issues of size etc from moving to the popular "auto-everything" system must have been factored into their decision. Yes, I certainly agree that the H system's development was unrelated to digital imaging.

Do you know how long the H series was in design and development?
 
Opposite to some people in here and beyond, I do believe that a full frame 645 is in the cooking. Why?
Because the factory of invention and innovation never ever shuts down. It's been solid 24/7/365 since man conceived writing.

Under this same rationale, we could have a full frame 6X7 sensor before the middle of the coming decade. Time will tell.

Photographers will demand and buy bigger sensors as prices diminish. The quest for the perfect pixel has just begun. Another reason is that since the ink-jet industry matured, more and more photogs print bigger and bigger. It is now so easy to dedicate a space for 24X36" prints in the space needed for a 8X10" darkroom b&w prints.

(Chances are we'll have a 49mm square sensor in the interim, but FF 645 will come)

Eduardo
 
Simon,

The H project started in 1997, and the H1 was released in 2002.

I had to search a bit, but yes, Hasselblad did say some things about why 645 and why Fuji.

They said that the difference between H and V-Systems "go well beyond format", and that "many photographers prefer to compose to a rectangle directly in the camera [...] It's all about catering to different styles of photography and about making Hasselblad quality cameras available to a wider audience of photographers.".
Contax and Mamiya had shown the way with their Auto Everything 645s, assuring Hasselblad that they were on the right track, and that the H-System would widen their market.

Fuji as a partner, because the project was too big and too complex for Hasselblad alone (and Fuji wasn't the only partner that helped the H1 on its way), and Fuji had proven to be a good partner during the X-Project.

That's basically it.
 
"go well beyond format"

I buy that.
The difference between formats is more than that. In practical terms. the only way to use a 645 is up to your eye level.
A "square" camera allows for many ways ( as we all seen in that famous Hasselblad promotional). Eye level, chest level, waist level, knee level, floor level, above head level, under your armpit, around a corner, etc, etc, etc.
And no fancy switching the whole camera to change orientations or carrying extra brackets.
BIG DIFFERENCE!

"many photographers prefer to compose to a rectangle directly in the camera"

I buy that too.
That's one of the 2 reasons 6X7 got to be so popular too.
The only way to have the best of both worlds is with a "square" camera. With it we can have a rectangle and we can have multi-level shooting. It can be either fit with a square sensor (or film), or with a revolving one.

To my concern, a square sensor makes more sense in the digital era, since we now have complete control on editing the pics. For cost reasons, a revolving rectangular sensor is called. That's why I'm a little startled that apparently, it is an aftertought in the Hy6.

Eduardo
 
Eduardo, the back rotates on the Rollei based Hy6. So if a 645 type sensor is used, you just rotate from landscape to portrait and then back again. The Mamiya RZ back also rotates. In addition, the Rollei prism also swivels for maximium different angles of view.

What was interesting about the original square sensor Kodak Pro Back was that the orientation could be selected at the time of capture: square, landscape or portrait were menu choices ... which allowed more captures on the smaller CF cards available then. That back was well ahead of it's time ... the first fully portable back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top