RezaLoghme
Allowing Ads
But isnt that exactly the point I was making? A fast lens for 35mm film usually has a shallow DOF.
How? What is "nice" about it, when compared to 35mm?
If I am reading your post correctly, you first make a case that a bigger negative (4x5) does not make a difference, but then in the 2nd paragraph it does.
What about a 35mm hi res film with a modern lens? Shouldnt that produce better results than an Agfa Isolette (The "J" is an "I" in sans-serif fonts).
MF folders are usually bigger than 35mm cameras.
No, no problem ever. Grab one if you get one. You will never regret it, it's just a perfect little camera.Curious if you ever experienced issues with frame spacing on the Pearl III. Those auto spacing systems are curious in older cameras, though I suppose similar systems continued to be used well past the 50s. Such a tiny little camera that I would definitely look to if wanting 4.5x6.
Do you have experience printing in the darkroom?
There is a whole slew of differences - some quite subtle, some quite clear. Tonal gradation, reduction of issues with grain, reduction of issues with dust, ease of negative handling, ease of cataloguing through visual reference and contact proofs,
But once the camera is actually in use, the size equation changes.
A 6×6 folder with the lens extended is noticeably larger than any of my 35mm rangefinders, and the lenses are typically slower.
No, I think I have mentioned that a couple of times here in the forum. I am using a specialist lab,
Extremely well said Matt.In that case, the compromises you are accepting by giving up so much control over the technical aspects probably negate any subtle quality differences that may arise because of the differences between the formats.
Just use the camera that you are most comfortable with. That will make far more difference than a different camera might.
And of course, if your preference is something in 35mm, there really isn't much point in contributing to this thread, which is specifically about something you don't prefer.
Just a quick followup, I ended up picking up an Agfa Isolette with a Solinar from the seller Certo6 on eBay. Everything seems to be in great condition and the bellows are brand new. I shot my first roll and the shots themselves look well exposed and focused, but I've got these strange blue dots across most of the frames. They're not in the same locations from shot to shot--honestly have no clue what they could be. I've cropped in and screenshotted one of the frames to show you what I'm referring to.
Any idea what these could be? I did develop another roll along with the same chemistry in this session and it came out perfectly fine, but when I went to develop this roll the tank was leaking after the initial pre-rinse so I had to go back into a light tight bag and fix the seal on the tank. It meant that the film sat wet in the tank for a bit while I fixed that. Not sure if that could play a role.
*The OP has already purchased a camera, so the rest of this discussion is moot.It seems my earlier reply disappeared, so let me put the point in a calmer and more neutral way:
Folded MF folders are indeed very flat.
In that state they feel smaller than a 35mm SLR with a lens attached — I completely agree.
But once the camera is actually in use, the size equation changes.
A 6×6 folder with the lens extended is noticeably larger than any of my 35mm rangefinders, and the lenses are typically slower.
None of this is criticism — just trying to understand the practical trade-offs people value.
If the appeal is the shooting experience rather than the physical dimensions, that makes sense. I’m simply comparing the actual operating size to a 35mm RF or SLR and trying to learn how others think about it.
I am looking out for an MPP Microflex but as part of an auction lot just got a Franka Solida III which has an F/2.9 75mm lens (not the 80mm version).
Definitely going to run a film through it and see what I get.
Yes, front cell focusing was always considered less desirable than unit focusing. What I have found is that at certain distances the front cell focus Tessar lens is every bit as sharp as the unit focusing Tessar. I've said above in a post that I really like the robust Super Ikonta B, B mod. II or BX cameras since they are built like a tank. I was just looking on the big auction site and found a fully working Super Ikonta B with the uncoated Tessar much like the first one I owned. $90.00 with free shipping was just to hard to resist and it's now on its way. Now I have an uncoated Tessar and an Opton "T" coated Tessar. It doesn't get much better than that!Also, theoretically, unit focus like the Perl III/IV cameras are "better" than front cell focus cameras like the Zeiss folders. However, practically this is rarely a problem for most actual usage of the cameras. Folders were designed to be (relatively) small, light, easy to carry cameras that produced excellent negatives when handled correctly. I don't find the limitations burdensome but I also don't use a folder for rapid street photography or macro close ups, or other types of photography that may be better handled with my Hasselblad or Mamiya SLRs or (god forfend) digital. Horses for courses, as they say.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?