Alpa Anyone?

[Tom Stanworth]

Um, Tom, I don't understand why you people keep on talking about standard issue when DIY is possible.

My little 38/4.5 Biogon of nothing at all wasn't blindingly expensive. I use it on a Century Graphic with a 2x3 back, also not blindingly expensive. The lens actually covers 87 mm, although outside ~84 mm the image is very dim. So I get badly vignetted 2x3 or some what less vignetted 6x7 or completely unvignetted 6x6 negs. The 2x3 allows cropping to ~ 25 x 82.

Why use a Mamiya 7 or an SWC or an Alpa 12 and settle for less?

Cheers,

Dan

Thanks Dan. I am offically one of 'those people'. I always felt like an outsider - Excellent!

My reasoning was that a bellows based folding camera is a very different beast to a non folding Alpa or Mamiya 7. I felt guilty chipping in about the Mamiya 7 let alone a bellows based press camera. One thing I will say, is that there is a world of difference between a folding bellows camera and a non folder when it comes to very short lenses. In my experience you really have to have exceptional alignment to get the results these lenses are capable of. If shooting at wider apertures this of course becomes absolutely critical. I have seen it myself with folding cameras. Most just are not up to it, esp where bellows compression can cause standards to be pressed off square as the leather buches up.

As for the 38 biogon, I have no doubt that it is exceptional and probably has a different look to the Mamiya 43mm. I know Roger feels his 38mm one of his Magic lenses and fair enough as images come in a variety of flavours not all of which can be quantified in resolution terms. The Mamiya lenses are however extremely contrasty which has been a real Zeiss strength for years. Certainly the ngs I have printed and chromes I have seen have been astounding. Personally if I could afford an Alpa with one lens, I would instead take a couple of Mamiya 7 II bodies plus the set of lenses and enjoy the change. If Rogers style means he has no need for the wider aperture selective focus performance it is teh Mamiya offers little to add. There is no doubt that Alpas must evoke the same pride of ownership and pasion of Leicas. A Mamiya 7 is not the same!

I have had an MPP Mk 7, a 6x9 view camera, a TLR and none of them did it for me, but they work well for others (non folding view cameras however do - ie RSW45, Walker 57XL). My current favourite all rounder, the Bronica 645 really does it for me, as I can work so fast and effectively with it. The Mamiya 7 is similar in this regard if a touch slower. Both are miles faster than a press folder and in many respects less awkward. In terms of lens performance, MF lenses do in some cases blow away LF at the wider to middle apertures and sink down to join them when diffraction comes into play. I have seen with my own eyes that a Mamiya 7 neg from the 80mm will beat the same shot from a 90mm off a 6x7 back on a 5x4 camera. My reasons for sugesting the Mamiya is that when shooting wider, you can do things an Alpa cannot do (at least not quickly and without GG) and enjoy a far better optical performance than any folder will give you for the reasons stated. Stopped down, they all merge together. See the Perez tests on the Mamiya 6 and 7 lenses if you want to see how they stack up. I can say from having printed them that they are really are that good. I just cannot see any camera with joints and standards being able to exploit the 38 biogon to its full. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I though Alpa allowed you to use many different backs? :confused:

Yes you can but I believe the 38 biogon wont cover anything bigger than 66x44 as it was designed for 6x6. You therefore cannot use it on 6x7+.

Comparing the look of a 6x9 back with say a 47/55mm lens and the 66x44 back and 38 Biogon must be interesting. Roger how would you summarise the difference in look when printed the same size? I guess you have seen both as Frances uses 6x9.

 

[Bromo33333]

Yes you can but I believe the 38 biogon wont cover anything bigger than 66x44 as it was designed for 6x6. You therefore cannot use it on 6x7+.

If it was designed for 6x6 - why can't you then do 6x6 on an Alpa? :confused:
(Not that this is a possibility for me - like I said earlier, I am VERY curious)

 

[Dan Fromm]

Tom, fair comment re alignment. There is, though, a way to improve it greatly with press cameras.

One of of Graphics' weaknesses is that unless the front standard is snugged up against the infinity stops it is easy to have slight unintended front swing. I use too many lenses on my Graphics for having a set of stops for each lens to make sense. It might not even be feasible.

The solution is to use a device that Fred Lustig, a well-known Graflex/Graphic repairman, calls a chinaman. This is a piece of metal with cross section like an inverted top hat. It rides on the bed rails, is held perpendicular to them by the section that squeezes in between 'em. Put the chinaman in approximately the right place, pull the front standard to it, and there you are. All squared up.

Also, it really isn't fair to Graphics and, more generally, press, field, technical, and monorail cameras to lump them with, um, consumer grade pocketable fixed-lens folders.

You're absolutely right that a good RF camera like your Bronica 645 or a good viewfinder camera like Roger's beloved Alpa is, in most situations, much faster working than my humble Century Graphic. On the other hand, my net cost (long story, gross outlays were reduced by sale of unwanted parts of package deals) for the Century was $75, for my Biogon was < $275, and for the roll holder I use was around $35. I traded off convenience for cash. You may prefer more convenience and less cash.

You and Roger shouldn't accept Zeiss' claim that the 38/4.5 Biogon covers 80 mm. Mine covers 84 mm, and I know the difference between "covers" and "illuminates." Think about the rectangles that will fit in an 84 mm circle. Good image actually goes out to 87 mm, but falloff is extreme. And beyond 87 mm there's nothing at all.

About comparisons of shots on 2x3 with a 38 Biogon, a 47, and a 55, sorry but since I'm non-digital (NOT anti-digital) I can't oblige. And I don't have a 55. But in addition to my 38 Biogon, I shoot a 47/5.6 SA on my Century and a 58/5.6 Grandagon on my 2x3 Speed. The SA and Grandy fill the corners nicely but don't see as much. If you lay an 84 mm circle on a 56 x 82 rectangle you'll see what the Biogon doesn't fill.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Now I want a 58XL for my new Fotoman. I use the fotoman like an Alpa; hyperfocal focusing, handheld or off tripod. The fotoman may not be leica quality but I could use this as a weapon or to bang in nails and where it matters it appears plenty good enough. The machining appears very good indeed. I was actually pleased to see how astonishingly simple and rugged it is. Even the new viewfinders are only so so (but good enough), but the body itself is a tank. I can add my exisiting LF lenses and hey presto. And then there is that big 612 neg. Some dont like the aspect ratio but I love it as you can use foregound more than 617 yet get the wide look too. I am having a lot of fun with it and dont get too worried when a bit more Afghan dust gets blown over it. In fact I have not had so much fun with a camera for ages.I am sure you felt the same when you got your biogon on the 2x3 press!

Still, I would not say no to an Alpa!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger how would you summarise the difference in look when printed the same size? I guess you have seen both as Frances uses 6x9.

Almost impossible to say -- the more so as we seldom DO print the same size. You can see the difference -- but it's not easy to put into words. The Biogon has more 'sparkle' which generally corresponds to a higher MTF at low spatial frequencies (sources: Ilford and Zeiss, neither of whom was particularly talking about Biogons) and the Apo-Grandagon and Super Angulons are 'smoother', more of an LF look. There's a superb article by Dr. Nasse in the latest Zeiss magazine, 'Innovations', on how numbers don't tell you everything...

Of course there are also personal differences in how Frances and I shoot, and subject matter, but she agrees with this diagnosis.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

If it was designed for 6x6 - why can't you then do 6x6 on an Alpa? QUOTE]


You can if you want. Personally I'm wondering about having a 48x64mm mask made: 1:1.33, a much nicer shape than the long, thin 44x66.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dan Fromm]

<snip> In fact I have not had so much fun with a camera for ages.I am sure you felt the same when you got your biogon on the 2x3 press!

Still, I would not say no to an Alpa!

Tom, for about two months after my 38 Biogon arrived I couldn't bring myself to use any other lens. I was and still am thrilled by it. But yes, there are subjects for which it is absolutely the wrong lens to use. And when the subject/situation is right for a wide lens very often the 47 SA is more appropriate.

I wouldn't reject a gift Alpa, but I might sell it.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Abbazz]

It's a bit academic, though, as the last time I heard there was one new Alpa-fit Biogon for sale (in Russia -- he reckoned he'd get over $10,000 for it) and there ae only 99 others in use, with no plans for a third batch of 50.

It seems to be one for sale right now on eBay. Starting price: US$5000 (item#230038714734).

Cheers,

 

[Roger Hicks]

It seems to be one for sale right now on eBay. Starting price: US$5000 (item#230038714734).

Cheers,

Thanks for the info. New or used?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Abbazz]

Thanks for the info. New or used?

According to seller, it is from the first series of Biogons made for Alpa and is in mint condition. [I have absolutely no connection with seller].

Cheers,

 

[Roger Hicks]

According to seller, it is from the first series of Biogons made for Alpa and is in mint condition. [I have absolutely no connection with seller].

Cheers,

Thanks again. the first (Compur) series are more highly regarded than the second (Copal) because the shutter is easier to cock with the middle finger.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

If it was designed for 6x6 - why can't you then do 6x6 on an Alpa? QUOTE]


You can if you want. Personally I'm wondering about having a 48x64mm mask made: 1:1.33, a much nicer shape than the long, thin 44x66.

Cheers,

R.

Sounds great. IMO 1:1.5 is a touch long, the 5x4 and 6x7 formats a touch square but I LOVE the 645 format proportions as it is not at all forced either way. I would have loved to have seen a Mamiya 8 made, as I guess that format is similarly proportioned. With 9 frames that would also be perfect for the bracketed 3 frames per image for trannie users allowing for a neat 3 compositions per roll.

I know you are not a fan of the 612 format but I have found it great as I can shoot it more as a wide normal frame rather than a real panoramic. I find 617 really annoying. Again, 612 does not seem forced and the Fotomands extra fewmm at 118mm rather than 112 for Horseman just helps stretch it out and make it more pleasing. So to summarise, if the 38 Biogon covered 6x12 and....

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sounds great. IMO 1:1.5 is a touch long, the 5x4 and 6x7 formats a touch square but I LOVE the 645 format proportions as it is not at all forced either way. I would have loved to have seen a Mamiya 8 made, as I guess that format is similarly proportioned. With 9 frames that would also be perfect for the bracketed 3 frames per image for trannie users allowing for a neat 3 compositions per roll.

I know you are not a fan of the 612 format but I have found it great as I can shoot it more as a wide normal frame rather than a real panoramic. I find 617 really annoying. Again, 612 does not seem forced and the Fotomands extra fewmm at 118mm rather than 112 for Horseman just helps stretch it out and make it more pleasing. So to summarise, if the 38 Biogon covered 6x12 and....

Dear Tom,

I very much agree that 612 is 'wide normal' rather than panoramic. Alas you'd need a 53 Biogon...

Funny, I'd not thought of 1:1.3 to 1:1.4 as '645' but rather as '5x7/half plate'. Of course I also like the Linhof 56x72mm format (1:1,29): at a 3x enlargement you have whole plate.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Tom, you've confused me. If 1:1.5 is a touch long, why isn't 645 too long or too high? Similarly for 612, which is closer to 1:2 (or 2:1) than to 1:1.5.

If you want a 38 for 612, why won't a 38/5.6 SA-XL do? Schneider claims it will cover.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Roger Hicks]

Tom, you've confused me. If 1:1.5 is a touch long, why isn't 645 too long or too high? Similarly for 612, which is closer to 1:2 (or 2:1) than to 1:1.5.

If you want a 38 for 612, why won't a 38/5.6 SA-XL do? Schneider claims it will cover.

Cheers,

Dan

Dear Dan,

645 = approx 56 x 43 = 1.30 -- not as long as 1:1.5

My (Horseman) 6x12 = 56x112 = 1:2

What amuses me is that if you crop 56x84 (actual dimensions of 6x9) to 1:2.5 (my favourite panoramic shape) you still get 34x84mm. At a 5x enlargement this is still 170 x 420mm or a very healthy 6.7 x 16.5 inches... Or crop the bottom of 6x12 (again to 1:2.5) and the (112mm) neg is 45x112mm, for a 5x enlargement of 225 x 560mm or 8.9 x 22 inches. How big do people want to go?

Cheers,

R.

 

[mediumformatphoto]

Another vote for Kowa SLR, specifically a 6 MM (has mirror lockup), and the Kowa 40/f4. The Kowa lens has 90 degree viewing angle, 9 elements in 7 groups, minimum focusing distance 14.25 inches from the film plane, which is about one foot from the lens.

Below is a recent shot with this setup, handheld, Ektachrome 100S, at f8 in evening light. It may not reach the performance of a Biogon, but I have yet to use this lens on a tripod becuase it's so fun to use handheld. Plus, total dollar outlay is about $500.

R.J.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

In answer to Rogers question, I would like, ideally to be able to go BIG with the 612. I agree with 6x9 in colour, but for mono a big neg still really is needed as I know you know! That said the fotoman is a far cheaper solution all round as there are so few 6x9 interchangeble lens cameras about. The Alpa is miles out of my price range and I have LF lenses. The Fotoman was therefore the obvious choice as well the the fact that it almost cannot go wrong as it is just a lump of metal.

The fotoman should allow me to do big colour prints and in mono I should also be able to do this assuming I use very fine grained film or go for a crisp grainy look. I wanted to be able to do 40" prints. Once I am finished here in Afghanistan, I doubt I will be popping back to reshoot some scenes on a bigger camera. I also wanted something I did not need a darkcloth for..get twitchy about the thought of sticking my head under a cloth here....

I have actually found the 90mm Nikkor I have great and suitable for 'most' images. Will prob get a 65 too.

And Yes Roger, fo some shots I am sure I will crop 612 to 1:2.5 which I agree is also pleasing (unlike 1:3 IMO). In fact I will crop to any shape if it looks better!

Dan,

I dont want a 38 for 612 that would be way too wide for me,I was just being silly about needing a 38 Biogon on 612. A 58 is the limit I reckon unless you have specially wide angled eyeballs! As for aspect ratios I just think that 1:1.33 is natural looking as is 1:2/1:2.5. I find 6x7 a bit square...but 6x6 good becaause it is square and balanced. Come on keep up Dan....I care less about the aspect ratio with small prints as there is lots of room to hang them...but with BIG prints, longer thinner (horizontal) images are better otherwise you and up with big top to bottom dimensions and need clear wall (ie cannot hang above a sofa or chair)..besides, my kids would be able to reach them (bad move).

If you still dont understand my ranting I will re-present the same words in another random logic defying order and try again.

Just hope the 11 rolls I just shot on my new 612 were in focus...soon find out!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Um, er, I'd never admit it, Tom, but you're teaching me things I'd probably never have picked up on my own.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

. . . . . . . Of course I also like the Linhof 56x72mm format (1:1,29): at a 3x enlargement you have whole plate.

Cheers,

R.

Hello Roger,

Now you have me confused a bit. I just got a Super Rollex back, and now I am wondering if it is not a more common 6x7 dimensions . . . . . So is the Linhof 56x72 longer than normal 6x7?
:confused:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Hello Roger,

Now you have me confused a bit. I just got a Super Rollex back, and now I am wondering if it is not a more common 6x7 dimensions . . . . . So is the Linhof 56x72 longer than normal 6x7?
:confused:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

'normal' 6x7 is 55 or 56 x 69 ie slightly stubbier than the super rollex back. The 56x69 is wat you get from a horseman back or a Mamiya or Bronica GS1 etc. Some might be even shorter.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Hello Roger,

Now you have me confused a bit. I just got a Super Rollex back, and now I am wondering if it is not a more common 6x7 dimensions . . . . . So is the Linhof 56x72 longer than normal 6x7?
:confused:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

Gordon,

Yes the Linhof is 56 x 72 mm large and is called 'das ideal Format' by Linhof (1959) because it was near to the, then times, magazine format (+/- 22,6 cm x 28,4 cm) and, as this is slightly shorter than 6x9, it is more economical by giving 10 negatives per 120 roll-film ( type B 11).
The FUJI 6x8 is very close to the Linhof 6x7, by a few mm, and has been designed to fit the now days magazine format.

And yet there is digital for this kind of job...

Philippe

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Actually, it is the lens that duos the thing, most of it if not all.
The deference between Zeiss and Schneider is amazing.
In attachment (if it worked, I have never done this before on APUG) you can see two pictures I took in the same environment, on the same day, on the same film (FP4+), with the same filtering (A1), developed in the same tank in the same dev. (Rodinal 1+50 + 1 gr./lit. Borax).
The square picture is taken with the Biogon 38 mm (Hasselblad) at F 11 1/2 (t = 16 sec.) and the 6x17 is shot with the Linhof 617 II + Super Angulon 90 mm 5.6 (not the XL) at F 22 (t = 60 sec. Schwartschild compensation included) and the same exposure metering (Pentax digi spot).
Scanned on the same scanner (Epson), same software, same computer (OSX) in RGB and then converted to B/W with P.S. but no other manipulations except for the www resizing.

Philippe

Here they are, the pictures, look at the difference in rendering the immage contrast (and shadows), see for your self...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Leica M5,

I am sure you know because you own both lenses and so I fully accept what you say, however, the images you posted have very different lighting. The biogon image has brightly lit instrument panels etc. There is also scope for huge variables in the scanning esp if the scanner was allowed to determine its own exposure setting.

Two shots from exactly the same angle (not looking in opposite directions as above) would be interesting. Even fronm teh images above it does appear that the bioogon is more contrasty.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Tom,
As for the scanning, I do not know because I did it not my self, but as I know the one who did it : "everything as simple and as automatic as possible"...
Exactly the same angel : the shots ware not made to be compared, this was a commissioned shooting of a diesel power plant to be demolished. But the lightening condition was almost the same in that area of the large production hall (the centre part anyway) which was lit by mercury vapour bulbs, and as for the daylight : it was a dull day.
I know : "les excuses son fait pour s'en servier et les c...", but I just wanted to show an example.

Philippe