Easy to handle MF macro solution?

[Mike Kovacs]

^^^
what that guy said!

I'm not certain that a better MF for shooting macros has been conceived than the SL66. Made in Germany, formerly costing as much as a VW, now quite reasonably priced with affordable ($300-500) Zeiss Oberkochen lenses.

I own one with a Bill Maxwell screen installed, three film magazines, 45 deg prism plus WLF finder, and the 50-80-150-250 lenses. Its my main nature photography camera. Basic lens tilt has bought me 2-3 extra stops on many occasions that would leave the Hassey shooters blurry in the wind stopping down.

"Bloodroot"

Rolleiflex SL66
CZ Planar 80/2.8 (reversed)
Fuji Velvia 50

 

[Mike Kovacs]

In MF, this limits you to using lenses with leaf shutters. No MF camera's focal plane shutter syncs with flash at a usefully high shutter speed. Do the thought experiment (ISO 100 film, 1/30 shutter speed, broad daylight) and you'll see why.

I respectfully disagree. I have never had many occasions to shoot a macro photo with higher than 1/30 using my SL66. With MF/LF, you are stopping down a fair bit, plus bellows factors, plus filter factors, plus slow film and its a non issue.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Mike, if you use available darkness for illumination, then you can certainly use slow shutter speeds.

But if you use electronic flash and want to eliminate the effects of ambient light -- if you don't do this, you lose the motion-stopping advantage of flash -- then 1/30 is pretty limiting with most emulsions. Unless, that is, you can turn ambient light way down.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

E.g., yesterday I wanted to do an ambient exposure of a wildflower. Got 1/2 second (f/16 + 2.5 stops bellows) Velvia 50. That's plenty enough to overpower ambient with 4 stops to 1/30, though that was overcast skies.

I was going to try a flash exposure two stops from ambient but it started raining on me and I had to get the beast packed away. I don't like shooting those black background type flash shots.

Its true I'm screwed in sunny f/16 conditions but I would sooner shoot ambient with a diffuser for a macro shot in those conditions.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Mike, I'm glad you see my point, albeit dimly because its so dark where you are. A substantial fraction of my outdoors macro shots have been taken where sunny 16 rules, so I'm sensitized, if not exactly sunburnt, to the need for high sync speeds. Gotta plan for the worst, not the best, shooting conditions, eh?

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Mike Kovacs]

I agree - there's a big difference between a Carolinian forest canopy and the light out in Arizona for example!

 

[Ole]

Let's think a bit.

One of the nicest little macro cameras I've ever used was a Linhof Color. Yes, mine was 4x5", but I also have a (cheapish) 6x7 roll film holder.

Combine that with one of the smaller Symmars (100mm or 135mm), and it's one of the cheapest possible solutions for high quality MF macro.

A short Symmar convertible for two reasons: 1) because these were optimised for 1:3, and do really well in the macro range. A dedicated macro lens is better at 1:1, but not at 1:2. 2) The 100 and 135mm symmars are in #0 shutters. That makes it easy to swap the cells and get a lens that is optimised for 3:1! The 150mm, 180mm and 210mm don't allow this, since the #1 shutter is asymmetrical. The next "good one" is the 240mm; in a #2 shutter.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Very interesting, Ole. Your news makes me wonder whether the convertible Symmar just a relabeled Componon.

I ask because I'd swear that I've read somewhere in Schneider's propaganda that the Comparon (enlarging Xenar) is optimized for 4x (= 1:4, taking) whereas the equivalent Componon (enlarging Symmar) is optimized for 10x (= 1:10, taking). If so, we'd be better off shooting Componons at distance than convertible Symmars, and Comparons closeup than Symmars or Componons.

Will you please check your information? Given what I think I know, it doesn't seem possible.

FWIW, I got a 105/4.5 Comparon in #0 a while ago and have found that it shoots quite well closeup. So there's another useful lens found. And, as you pointed out, easily reversed for use above 1:1.

I also have a fine dedicated macro lens, a 100/6.3 Neupolar. I have no idea at which magnification it is best, but I do know that its better from 1:8 to 1:1 at f/8, f/11, f/16 than any other lens I've been able to try and that its better from 1:1 to 4:1 wide open than a known good 100/6.3 Luminar. I have the impression that lenses in this class hold their optimizations over a usefully broad range of magnifications.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[DBP]

Having tried to shoot bees with macro extension tubes on the Kiev/Arax a week ago I would go for some form of bellows if possible. For stationary objects I use a view camera (or an SX-70). But I presume he is looking for the convenience of a more conventional slr. So what about an Mamiya RB/RZ 67 or a Fuji GX680?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Don, having tried to shoot moving subjects -- fish in aquaria, as it happens -- with a Novoflex macro lens head on a Nikon bellows, I came to exactly the opposite conclusion. I've found extension tubes with aperture coupling and the lens' own focusing mount to fine tune magnification much easier to use than lens and camera on bellows.

These days I reserve the bellows, with one exception, for copy stand work and for testing LF lenses' central sharpness as cheaply as possible. The exception is a Minolta Compact Bellows on adapters, which I very very occasionally use on tripod and focusing rail with a 40 or 63 Luminar in the field.

Actually, what the OP's father is trying to do is beat his wife. He can't win.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[DBP]

Dan,

I was suggesting those two cameras because the design incorporates a bellows, so macro focus can be done without tubes or a separate bellows.

Bruce

 

[Antje]

^^^
what that guy said!

I'm not certain that a better MF for shooting macros has been conceived than the SL66. Made in Germany, formerly costing as much as a VW, now quite reasonably priced with affordable ($300-500) Zeiss Oberkochen lenses.

Yikes, Mike, what a beautiful shot!

OK, here is what we did so far: Got him a Palm to help with tube conversions (thanks to an immensely helpful PM I got), and I borrowed him my spare Hasselblad body with a 80 2.8 and a set of tubes. He likes the Hassy so far, but hasnt got much out of that kit, so Im suspecting he is just trying to be nice...

This thread got me thinking in many directions for my own macro photography. Scares my husband because he already sees me flipping through the KEH catalogue again, but, well, he knew what he was getting before he married me!

Thanks.

Antje

 

[Antje]

Let's think a bit.

One of the nicest little macro cameras I've ever used was a Linhof Color. Yes, mine was 4x5", but I also have a (cheapish) 6x7 roll film holder.

Combine that with one of the smaller Symmars (100mm or 135mm), and it's one of the cheapest possible solutions for high quality MF macro.

A short Symmar convertible for two reasons: 1) because these were optimised for 1:3, and do really well in the macro range. A dedicated macro lens is better at 1:1, but not at 1:2. 2) The 100 and 135mm symmars are in #0 shutters. That makes it easy to swap the cells and get a lens that is optimised for 3:1! The 150mm, 180mm and 210mm don't allow this, since the #1 shutter is asymmetrical. The next "good one" is the 240mm; in a #2 shutter.

Aw, nice... Ole, you need to stop giving me ideas.

Antje

 

[Antje]

Actually, what the OP's father is trying to do is beat his wife. He can't win.

True. The only thing I can do is to make sure he has fun trying!

Antje

 

[Bandicoot]

A short Symmar convertible for two reasons: 1) because these were optimised for 1:3, and do really well in the macro range. A dedicated macro lens is better at 1:1, but not at 1:2. 2) The 100 and 135mm symmars are in #0 shutters. That makes it easy to swap the cells and get a lens that is optimised for 3:1! The 150mm, 180mm and 210mm don't allow this, since the #1 shutter is asymmetrical. The next "good one" is the 240mm; in a #2 shutter.

Does this apply to the Symmar-S as well? After all, these are convertibles really, they just aren't labelled as such. If it does, then the 150mm Symmar-S is in a size 0 shutter so that can be reversed too. I'll have to experiment with that and see how it compares to my 150mm f9 Apo-Ronar.

And how about the Rodenstock Sironar-N?


Peter

 

[tac]

OK, not MF, or LF, but maybe a Nikon 8008 (good and cheap, a bit slow and noisy AF) or better, and a AF Nikkor 60 2.8- they do 1:1 without tubes; relatively light-weight, with system flashes, etc.

Just a consideration

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Thanks Antje. I've been to your little corner of the world before visiting Siemens Medical. The MRI scanner production line is impressive.

My Oma used to warn me about you Bavarian types More "food for thought"

SL66, 50/4 Distagon HFT (reversed), Efke 25

 

[telkwa]

This has been suggested already, but Pentax 645 with 1:4 120mm Macro works well. The lens goes to 1:1 and is fairly high performing.

 

[George]

Well, well, well... 5 pages run out and nobody told you that yet...!
OK lets say it all!
Don't think small... This birthday is an important one, will never be repeated! What's money? Printed paper!
Your father deserves some toy he won't loose interest in after a few months...

Macro? Did you say macro? All right, give him the best! Ready? Give him the Contax 645 toy (German, imagine!), the outstanding 120mm macro planar (German, imagine!) a TTL flash (German that one too, useless to say!) and the guy (sorry, your father) will have something to be proud of, new, excellent and fully professional for his unforgettable birthday! Need I say more?

 

[telkwa]

George, the Contax would be a nice setup indeed, but not within the poster's price. The Pentax can be done within his budget. A camera & 120 back will go for under $300 on Ebay, and the 120mm Macro for $200-$300.

 

[Antje]

Ok, guys, here's what we did:

- a Palm with DOF calculating software on it (awesome suggestion, I have one myself now)
- a Pentax 645 with the ugly photo store rescue macro lens
- 2 x 10 rolls of Fuji Neopan 400 and Acros 100
- 20 rolls of Velvia

I hate to say that the film cost more than the camera and lens.

And for Christmas, he'll get the poor Pentax 67 body I had to take home while shopping for film to replace his broken Pentax 67. He has a nice wide angle lens for that. Well, ok, he already got that, I couldn't resist, but he knows it's part of his Christmas present. And to help him make more cyanotypes, he also gets my Epson 4990, a printer, a pack of suitable transparencies to make his negatives on, and a pack of chemicals.

Right now, he's in his lab, making enlargements of the roll he shot on the Pentax 645 yesterday.

So, I guess this was a success.

The downside: I'm in the market for a field camera now. No. Don't laugh.

Thanks all.

Antje

 

[Mike Kovacs]

Macro? Did you say macro? All right, give him the best! Ready? Give him the Contax 645 toy (German, imagine!), the outstanding 120mm macro planar (German, imagine!) a TTL flash (German that one too, useless to say!) and the guy (sorry, your father) will have something to be proud of, new, excellent and fully professional for his unforgettable birthday! Need I say more?

Isn't it Japanese Kyocera camera body and Hoya glass like my Contax G series?

Antje, I can swap you a PET camera for a field camera if have a spare lying around

 

[Antje]

Isn't it Japanese Kyocera camera body and Hoya glass like my Contax G series?

Antje, I can swap you a PET camera for a field camera if have a spare lying around

Absolutely! At least if it were up to me... I'd even throw in a CT for a full set of B&W filters!

Antje

 

[Christopher Walrath]

You could always give him two lenses and he could invert one over the other for macro-like magnification. Metering would be done with the body/viewing prism as it would be equipped.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Christopher, the coupled lenses approach offers at most two magnifications. If that's all that's needed, fine, otherwise not so fine.