Sharpest Hand Held MF Camera

[AutumnJazz]

I was thinking of getting the $300 Sekonic that does flash sync with pocket wizards. I did look at that cine one, but as a high school student, I cannot justify $700 for a light meter.

Also, I appear to have hyjacked this thread. Sorry, OP.

 

[max_ebb]

I have just switched to a waist level finder from an AE prism and use a light meter...I am a total convert. Lighter, less obtrusive on the street, and infinite more compositional choices...e.g. from lower down etc.

On what planet does a wlf somehow provide "infinite more compositional choices"? There are no compositional choices with wlf that you can't do with a prism finder. For lower camera positioning with a prism, you just have to squat down to compose/focus. If you need to shoot eye level camera position with a wlf, you'd either have to have something do stand on, or you'd have to turn the camera on its side and compose/focus with the image upside down. In my experience, the prism is the clear leader when it comes to having more compositional choices. A wlf or chimney finder has the advantage with a camera mounted on a copy stand at eye level.

Meanwhile, the lighter weight means less shake.

In reality, heavier equates to less camera shake, not lighter. Lighter makes for easier hand holding, but heavier still equates to better stability.

 

[Greg_E]

For low angle prism work I bought a right angle device that slides over the prism eye piece, or I use a waist level finder. Verticle with my Mamiys 645 is not much fun with a waist level, I prefer the prism for that.

 

[Claire Senft]

I am of the opinion that heavier may offer more steadiness than lightness but heavier will also induce sooner the effects of fatique which seems to me not to be helpful for steadiness.

 

[AutumnJazz]

I hadn't thought of the whole composing higher. Hmm.

 

[eddym]

...and all this time I thought "compositional choices" had to do with eyeballs and feet, not waist- or prism-viewfinders!

 

[Q.G.]

Goes to show how big a role 'convenience' plays. Make it easy, or else...

 

[vic vic]

about heavy ...
we are talking here about medium format cameras and most of them do have very balanced weight ... when we say light that is not good enough for stabilizing the hand it is more for a lightweight small cameras, not mediums ... even mamiya7 is heavy enough to give that stability, and so is leicaM... and even mamiya rz is not too heavy actually... linhof, depending on which lens used (especially since long lenses need to be very far with bellows) can go into too heavy and bulky, but normal lens is very well balanced .... at least for normal man or fit women ... maybe super strong men or very tender women will feel a bit different in balance ...
a more important issue with medium cameras is orgonimics .. how it feels in the hand while u r in a position of photophing ...

about compositional issues ... first of all it is true as eddym says - the eyes are most important part ... yet, the viewing system does playes important part too ...... purely relying on the eye is the zone of viewfinder/rangefinder cameras ... this is the most intuitive thing simply because the camera interupts very little the mental state of mind ... there is little differance between vision with a naked eye and then pointing with a leica camera for example (or be it mamiya7 for that matter) ...
the eye-level vs weist level ... well, for normal situations, they are both versatile enough, some may prefer to get a bit lower naturally and some may prefer to photograph a bit higher... by the way, a printed photograph from "eye level" experience, lets say a street type photography, feels more natural when used with weist level finder without bending too much, simply standing streight and composing, and i dont neccesseraly mean to artistic interpretations here etc ...
the prism finders are most popular cause they are most versatile probably, but the biggest compromise ... a bit in no mans land, but the dominant SLR (and rite from film days and to dslr) makes it the most common. they are not as intuitive as almost naked eye experience of viewfinder/rangefinder cameras from one hand, and from the other hand they are not as engaging as a weist-finder that feels as though u experience a little proof-print of what will become your photograph in a matter of click ... so compositionally, though just a bit less versatile than prism, but weist-finder is simply the most engaging experience and gives a real feeling of snap and intuitive examination and sense of composition (whatever u consider as composition) ...

working with an external real light matter is always better, even if not always comfortable ... yet, most of light matters in serious modern cameras are very good and fully reliable once u do know what and how things are mattered in the camera...

so there are no clear answers for any of those issues, simply because nothing is ideal, and there are very good choices/solution out there for "not ideal" things

 

[Robert Budding]

I am of the opinion that heavier may offer more steadiness than lightness but heavier will also induce sooner the effects of fatique which seems to me not to be helpful for steadiness.

There are other factors that affect steadiness. My Mamiya 7 is very light, but it's comfortable to hold and there is no mirror to move during the exposure sequence. All that results in exceptional steadiness.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Bronica RF 645, but they are hard to find, and those that gottem usually want to keep em.

 

[Peter Black]

Bronica RF 645, but they are hard to find, and those that gottem usually want to keep em.

AW c'mon Dave, I'd just made up my mind to sell the RF645 to buy a Mamiya 7 after reading all the way through this! Fact is that a wideangle for the 7 is scarily expensive, so can't see me going for that ............

 

[max_ebb]

working with an external real light matter is always better, even if not always comfortable ...

Another know it all spouting personal opinion as if it were absolute indisputable fact.

A hand held light meter is not ALWAYS better. In most situations, it's simply a matter of personal preference. I have a pentax digital spot meter that I prefer to use rather than TTL metering for most 'normal' photography like landscapes, but there are situations where a hand held light meter isn't very useful. In macro work (particularly back lit macro work) where the camera lens is an inch or less from the subject matter and lighting is different from frame to frame, a hand held is almost totally useless. You'd have to move the camera out of the way to take a meter reading, then adjust for macro tube/bellows extension, then put the camera back in position, and if the lighting changes before you get the shot you are screwed. In this situation, TTL metering (especially AE) is far superior to a hand held meter.

Any time you are shooting a dynamic subject with quickly changing lighting, there might not be time to take a meter reading and adjust exposure without losing the shot

 

[Marco Buonocore]

On what planet does a wlf somehow provide "infinite more compositional choices"? There are no compositional choices with wlf that you can't do with a prism finder. For lower camera positioning with a prism, you just have to squat down to compose/focus. If you need to shoot eye level camera position with a wlf, you'd either have to have something do stand on, or you'd have to turn the camera on its side and compose/focus with the image upside down. In my experience, the prism is the clear leader when it comes to having more compositional choices. A wlf or chimney finder has the advantage with a camera mounted on a copy stand at eye level.


I often use my rolleiflex tlr held high above my head, turned upside down, to get a perspective that would not be possible with a prism finder. Shooting over fences, over crowds, etc... So on my planet, it's brilliant. A lot of the time it seems to 'make' the shot.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_buonocore/2741313635/in/set-72157606597626877/

I also balance it on tables, etc... in low light, and it's much easier than an SLR in this situation.

 

[max_ebb]

I often use my rolleiflex tlr held high above my head, turned upside down, to get a perspective that would not be possible with a prism finder. Shooting over fences, over crowds, etc... So on my planet, it's brilliant. A lot of the time it seems to 'make' the shot.

You could shoot over your head with a 45° prism finder. At any rate, the claim I was disputing was the statement "infinite more compositional choices". I have a WLF for the few times it is preferable (for me) to use rather than a prism finder (like when using the camera on a copy stand as I already mentioned). I would be curious to know how you equate one situation (shooting over your head) to "infinite more compositional choices". Do you read entire sentences, or just respond to a group of words taken out of context.

I also balance it on tables, etc... in low light, and it's much easier than an SLR in this situation.

I would also be curious to know why you opine that a TLR is "much easier than an SLR" to "balance it on tables, etc".

 

[tomasis]

slr is loooud tlr and rf are ways to go more pleasant to use. Silent tools. Not heavy.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I knew this guy who had a knee and hip injury, he walked with a limp and had a cane. Great guy, paid $500 from a local wedding photographer who was going digital to 'get rid of his junk'. 2 RB bodies, backs, lenses, prism finder, monolights, light meter, etc. The whole package.
He came in one day with two RB's strung around his neck, poor guy. He was happy though, but two of them around his neck.. i'd need a cane too!

 

[Anscojohn]

Any views on the sharpest hand held MF set up?
I have an Xpan which I use for 35mm - very sharp. I also have a Mamiya RZ system that I use for tripod work. What I'm looking for is something to fill the gap as I sometimes need to print 12x16 or above and the 35mm loses a little when enlarged over this size - especially if the frame is cropped.
I need to be able to take it anywhere and use mostly hand held.

*******
I used to hear, in ye oldene dayz, that there could be a scattering of b/w proof sheets on a table, and that one could stand at the table and pick out the ones shot with a Hasselblad at more than arms length. And that maybe ones shot with a 3.5 Xenotar or 3.5 Planar Rollei might be mistaken for Hassy sharpness. I do not know if this is true.

 

[brian steinberger]

Bronica RF 645, but they are hard to find, and those that gottem usually want to keep em.

Completely agree. I love my RF645. Wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. Rangefinders are ideal for hand held work, but do have their limitations. My RF645 compliments my Mamiya 645 Pro very nicely.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I can't tell the difference. There was one comparing a masked Koni Omega negative to a masked Hasselblad negative. Some guy chose the Koni neg every time. Personally my hassy negs aren't anything special. The look is nice..

 

[vic vic]

max-ebb ... of course it is a personal opinion .. i have not proposed myself to be called - all-knowledgeable "big brother" ...

always better = the reading, understanding, versatility, interpretation of light measuring ... ya, with external light metter...
yet, i have also mentioned that it is not neccesserly comfortable all the time, and i have also mentioned that most serioius cameras are quite satisfactory generally once a photographer knows what and how the camera measures....

spot light metter - it is very far from being versatile for general use. light metteres like pro gossens (and sekonic too) are far more versatile as proffesional tool - with incident/refelcted/spot reading (at least with possible attachments for gossen pro).

back light situations and alike, wether in studio set up or in natural light are much better evaluated with exterrnal light metter .. yet, an intelegent and experience photographer will do well with accurate and reliable in-camera light metter ... same about close-ups basically ...
and ya, there are cases of 1inch distance of subject lens ... is it a common photographic situation ? i think even archeology reproduction photographer and alike wouldnot say it besides, ya, u r rite, there are cases where it is eassier to read with in-camera metter of slr or special attachments that read off film plane (groundglass) with large format and probes ...

moving subjects ??? usually, a predifined light reading is more than sufficient ...
honestly, the issue auto exposure etc, are more a matter of "not being ready" for photography, rather than moving subjects ... with moving subjects, i would be a bit more concerned with focus rather than light ...
super speed changing light situation is a different thing - true ...

besides, though i think external light metter is best, i actually do use built in light metter of the camera many times ... and there are many times when i ignore even that .. just guess .. and i do it very well when im in focus (my mind) ...
still external light metter is the best ... u will learn how to play with light like a good violinist knows how to play his solo with closed eyes ...

 

[Chazzy]

I can't tell the difference. There was one comparing a masked Koni Omega negative to a masked Hasselblad negative. Some guy chose the Koni neg every time. Personally my hassy negs aren't anything special. The look is nice..

Hurrah for Koni-Omegas!

 

[Shangheye]

On what planet does a wlf somehow provide "infinite more compositional choices"? There are no compositional choices with wlf that you can't do with a prism finder. For lower camera positioning with a prism, you just have to squat down to compose/focus. If you need to shoot eye level camera position with a wlf, you'd either have to have something do stand on, or you'd have to turn the camera on its side and compose/focus with the image upside down. In my experience, the prism is the clear leader when it comes to having more compositional choices. A wlf or chimney finder has the advantage with a camera mounted on a copy stand at eye level.

In reality, heavier equates to less camera shake, not lighter. Lighter makes for easier hand holding, but heavier still equates to better stability.

Max, ofcourse infinite was an exageration...and was I hope recognised as such, but I have both, and I can tell you that with the AE you need to be where the camera is, but I have shot with the WLF over my head, on the floor, at waist leve shooting sideways (not to attract attention). Either way you look at it, more choices). The only thing I would point out as a disadvantage is when using the 6x4.5 back on the camera. Portrait format becomes more of a pain since the camera would have to be held sideways, but then 6x6 lets you crop at printing stage, and you can leave the back at home. Even eye level is as convenient as the AE since it just required a slight tilt of the head down and holding the camera up to your face. As I say, I am a convert, and I probably will only use my AE with the 6x4.5 back, since in that case, recomposing from landscape to portrait format becomes easier and more convenient. I actually think the AE is also better for fast work, since it takes out the issue of metering...though I find MF a slower kind of photography anyway. K

 

[Rolleijoe]

Sharpest Glass? ZEISS!

Rolleiflex TLR beats everything else hands down! Zeiss glass is known throughout the world as the leader in sharpness, and I can frame, focus (checking critical focusing scale on the focusing knob), and get the shot in around 30sec or less. Plus, my flash sync works all the way from bulb to 1/500 giving me even more control over lighting & DoF.

I meter in my head and am done with it (as I said earlier in 30sec or less). Zeiss is god when it comes to glass. Planar, or Xenotar. Even Tessars give beautifully sharp results.

Rolleijoe

 

[keithwms]

Zeiss is god when it comes to glass.

Well I disagree. As long as we're talking about "sharpness."

http://www.mamiya.com/assets/pdfs/645AFD/645AFLensesChart.pdf

And the 645 lenses aren't even Mamiya's sharpest; those would be the 6/7/7ii series lenses.

Of course, if you have data to the contrary, then I'd be happy to see it.

P.S. I do agree that the CZ contax G lenses are tops for 35mm.

 

[panastasia]

Rolleiflex TLR beats everything else hands down! Zeiss glass is known throughout the world as the leader in sharpness....
Rolleijoe

Simple conjecture.
Have you really compared them all?
Modern optics are as good as it gets, and it's not only Zeiss - get with the times.