Strange Mamiya press question

[olleorama]

I've abandoned my ideas of getting a mamiya 645, it just wasn't me although the prices were good. I stumbled upon I camera I at first thought was an outdated dinosaur (a wee bit strange as I like view cameras); the mamiya press series.

I've gotten this idea that I like polaroids, or more correct, fujiroids. But I really like the neat packaged mamiya super 23, it got all the features I like, it's a medium format camera by nature, hence a lot smaller than other press cameras, it's got the basic back swing/tilt functions I like, it has cheap backs, really nice handheld etc. But the drawback is that it can't take a polaback, like it's younger sibling the universal. Of course the universal lacks the bellows. Hmm, what to do? Could one feasibly make an adapter to fit a polaback to the super 23? I read somewhere that the opening on the 23 would be to small? But still, if it can take 6x9 negs it should be able to make 6x9 polas at least, or?

I have looked a wee bit on polabacks for other systems (I had one for my RB which I sold) and the NPC polabacks. And judging from pictures and my memory it seems as if the backs were basically the same for all mf cameras, only the mountside was different. Couldn't one feasibly machine some kind of adapter and modify any of those backs to fit the super 23? The mount looks a bit primitive, and there doesn't seem to be any couplings between the cameras and the back either. So it should 'only' be a question of making a mount and measuring the flange-to-film distance to get it somewhat right, or? I have a friend who works with laser cutting for a living so I should be able to get some precision cut parts rather cheap, so that part isn't so intimidating, but I really need some input.

How big is the actual image on a polaroid from a Universal anyway?

 

[aoresteen]

I'm sure SK Grimes coud adapt a Polaroid back from the Universal to the Pres 23. You would have to provide the parts and they would advise as to if they could or could not do the adaptation.

 

[brucemuir]

Another issue is only certain lenses from that series will cover the full pola/fujiroid
The standard 100 3.5 lens that came with the Super 23 won't cover the polaroid even without movements

The 127mm 3.7 is the lens that will cover the pola and maybe the 75 will too but I'm not certain.

I don't know how these lenses will perform once you introduce movements into the equation.

 

[olleorama]

Since there are no rise, fall or lateral shift the coverage shouldn't be an issue. I mean, if the light is considered as a cone coming thru the lens, the tilt or swing will actually require a somewhat smaller image circle? Or I'm I visualising this wrong? But okay, that is off topic anyway, since the problem seems to be the size of the opening in the back. If someone could post a picture of either cameras backside we could do some comparisons. The universals backside with a polaroidadapter that is.

 

[brucemuir]

olle,
what you are saying sounds legit now that I think about it.
Rise, fall & shift will definitely tax image circle but simple tilt probably doesn't but I'm not 100% sure.
Maybe someone knows ?

I'm not even sure how large the pola back image produces but I have seen in the mamiya literature that only certain lenses wll cover so it must be larger than 6x9.

I only have a regular 6x7 back for my Super 23 but can shoot an image and upload to flickr or somewhere.

 

[2F/2F]

The standard 100 3.5 lens that came with the Super 23 won't cover the polaroid even without movements

The 127mm 3.7 is the lens that will cover the pola and maybe the 75 will too but I'm not certain.

Robb Smith, author of the "Mamiya Professional Systems Handbook," writes in the book:

"Choice of Lenses for the Polaroid Format

"The 75mm, 100mm, and 127mm lens will cover the entire picture area of the Polaroid 3-1/4" x 3-1/4" format. Other lenses for the Mamiya Press are designed to cover only the 6 x 9cm format, and if you use them with the Polaroid film pack, you will find a slight vignetting (darkening) at the corners of the print."

I have used the 100 f/3.5 on Polaroid, and it covers with no problem on my Press Universal. This lens has perhaps the largest image circle in the Press system. I do not have any idea why one would make the statement that it does not cover Polaroid if they had ever tried it.

For the OP, the only lens that will work with movements while retaining infinity focus is the 100mm f/3.5, which works because it is retractable. Smith writes, "Other lenses that do no retract can be used only for perspective (sic) control at near and medium distances. Wide-angle lenses will give you perspective control only at close range." Even if you rig a Polaroid back to a Super 23, because of this limited nature of the movements, I would suggest a Universal, and doing without the movements. It will be lighter as well. You can shim your printing easel to change the shape of your image, and then tilt your lensboard to align the plane of focus with the paper, if you have an enlarger that allows this.

I think the best way to do what you want to do is to use a Super Graphic or Super Speed Graphic with a Polaroid 405 holder. Then you will also have a 4x5 film camera (and a 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, and 4x5 Polaroid camera, with the appropriate film holders), with no modification/hacking necessary. Another potentially huge benefit is that this camera will take any lens that you can fit to it, not only system-dedicated lenses like the Press.

 

[brucemuir]

I do not have any idea why one would make the statement that it does not cover Polaroid if they had ever tried it.

I read it somewhere.
Maybe they were mistakenly talking about the 100 2.8? ? ?

The 127 is the lens that usually comes with the later Polaroid 600se so it made sense to me.

 

[brucemuir]

Hmm, the Mamiya Universal Accessories pamplet I have states the actual "Picture size" using the Polaroid Land Pack Film Holder w/ Polaroid Film Pack series 100 is 2 7/8 x 3 3/4.
I don't know why your source lists 3 1/4 x 3 1/4
Was there an updated/newer Polaroid holder?

In the Mamiya Universal Lenses pamplet that came from butkus.org only has angle of view information with the Polaroid holder for the 127 4.7 lens.
No other lenses have polaroid data.

It doesn't even list the 75mm

This must be an older version of these Lens specs/instructions.

 

[2F/2F]

Hmm, the Mamiya Universal Accessories pamplet I have states the actual "Picture size" using the Polaroid Land Pack Film Holder w/ Polaroid Film Pack series 100 is 2 7/8 x 3 3/4.
I don't know why your source lists 3 1/4 x 3 1/4
Was there an updated/newer Polaroid holder?

In the Mamiya Universal Lenses pamplet that came from butkus.org only has angle of view information with the Polaroid holder for the 127 4.7 lens.
No other lenses have polaroid data.

It doesn't even list the 75mm

This must be an older version of these Lens specs/instructions.

Hi, Bruce. I made a typo. I meant 3-1/4x4-1/4.

 

[Steve Smith]

Rise, fall & shift will definitely tax image circle but simple tilt probably doesn't but I'm not 100% sure.
Maybe someone knows ?

They will all require a larger image circle diameter. Think of it in 2D terms viewed from the side of the camera and draw a triangle from the top of the film to the centre of the lens, down to the bottom of the film then joining up back at the top of the film. The triangle represents a hypothetical image coverage of the lens.

Now tilt the lens. The triangle will also tilt. The triangle you have drawn or imagined will now not cover the whole of the film as it was only big enough to cover the exact film height.

Now do the same excercise but with a triangle with points a bit higher and lower than the top and bottom of the film and you will see that it is now possible to tilt the lens and the coverage triangle and still cover the film.


Steve.

 

[Q.G.]

Everything is relative, right?

Instead of thinking about a tilted lens, think of it in terms of a tilted film plane.
And take it to extremes: tilt the film plane 90 degrees.
Then you'll notice that the side it presents to the cone of light coming from the lens is as small as the film plane is thick.
So the image circle doesn't grow when you tilt a lens, but the film format, as seen from the lens, actually shrinks.

So no coverage problems with tilts.
Tilts do not require a larger image circle (which is why, for instance, the regular Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses work perfectly well on the FlexBody - if only people wouldn't think it is a shift camera, which it is not). On the contrary: coverage could be less, the image circle smaler, and still cover the full format.

When you tilt the lens, the image circle shifts. Shift is then needed to put the film plane back inside the image circle.
But the image circle does not need to be bigger.

 

[2F/2F]

They will all require a larger image circle diameter. Think of it in 2D terms viewed from the side of the camera and draw a triangle from the top of the film to the centre of the lens, down to the bottom of the film then joining up back at the top of the film. The triangle represents a hypothetical image coverage of the lens.

Now tilt the lens. The triangle will also tilt. The triangle you have drawn or imagined will now not cover the whole of the film as it was only big enough to cover the exact film height.

Now do the same excercise but with a triangle with points a bit higher and lower than the top and bottom of the film and you will see that it is now possible to tilt the lens and the coverage triangle and still cover the film.


Steve.

The Super 23 only has rear tilts; it has no other movements. The film plane tilts within a fixed image "cone" with this camera.

 

[Steve Smith]

The Super 23 only has rear tilts; it has no other movements. The film plane tilts within a fixed image "cone" with this camera.

Then ignore everything I wrote!!!


Steve.

 

[olleorama]

Hello again, funny the thread is still going strong. My solution will probably be that I will buy a press 23 setup (a body a few lenses and some backs) and then later ad a universal body with polaback. Negative film is still my highest priority (yes, I'm aware that you can get negs from fujiroids as well).

Anybody wanna help fund this buy by buying a Lynx 14E IC?

And thanks 2F/2F, but the graphics are way to cumbersome for my usage. I just really need three lenses, a wide, a normal and a shortish tele.

 

[brucemuir]

Turns out the the earlier version of the 100 3.5 with the chrome shutter will not cover the polaroid format.

The black shuttered 100 3.5 was an upgraded optical design and according to 2F it does cover.

 

[NJS]

my friend adapted few Mamiya Press for various lenses, although it might seems offtopic, I thought I might add some interesting stuff here he did:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/branavojnovic/sets/72157624577189079/

 

[2F/2F]

My 100 mm f/3.5 that covers with no vignetting is a silver shutter version.

 

[brucemuir]

^ I'm not doubting you
but all other evidence seems to point to different results than you've been getting

the camerapedia states


"Lens System
The lens system incorporates a breechlock mount unique to the Mamiya Press, and each lens is mounted in a Seikosha leaf shutter. Lenses of fixed focal lengths from 50mm to 250mm were produced, all of which covered up to 2x3 film sheets, while the 127mm and 75mm lenses offered greater coverage necessary for the 2 7/8 x 3 3/4 inch images produced by the Polaroid backs. "

although camerapedia may not be the definitive authority.

Then if you go to this guys page
http://moominsean.blogspot.com/2010/02/mamiya-universal-vs-polaroid-600se.html
and scroll down halfway he states:

"Anyway, on to the Universal. The most obvious advantage the Universal has over the 600SE is the lens selection. This comes with a caveat, though...most of these lenses were designed for 120 film. The area of Polaroid film is larger than the largest 120 back available (6x9). This means that some of these lenses have falloff beyond the normal area for 120. That's vignette to you and me. Now I, personally, don't take this as a negative. But, depending in the lens, it's kind of like having an expensive, super-sharp toy camera! Here is an illustration of the different exposure sizes with the 100mm lens for the Mamiya Universal."

and shows example jpgs of polaroids with corner falloff/vignette with a 100mm 3.5

I don't own a Polaroid holder and the vignette wouldn't be a deal killer for me anyway but I'd like to know if sharp corners are possible.

 

[brucemuir]

Here's another example on flikr that clearly shows vignette with the 100mm 3.5
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6261/4108495035/

 

[xya]

I have 3 100mm 3.5 lenses, 2 silver and one black. no vignetting for all 3 of them.

[I also own a polariod 600se with all 3 lenses (75mm, 127mm and 150mm). the 600se lenses are fine of course, the cover the whole format.]

for the different mamiyas I own I have a 65mm which shows quite some vignetting with the polaroid back. my 127mm with mamiya lens mount is fine, as expected. the 75mm and the newer 150mm should be covering the whole format as well.

how about the 50mm, the 100mm 2.8, the older 150mm and the two 250mm lenses? has anybody tried them on a polaroid back?

I would like to have some more information before I try to buy one theses lenses. thanks in advance.

reinhard

 

[xya]

it' me again. coming back to the initial questions of this thread: I have a super 23 with the G (graflex) mount. with some smaller modifications I could attach a horseman polaroid back which is kind of G mount. the film plane of the horseman back is about 10mm further to the back, that's why they furnish a spacer for focussing. if you attach the collapsible 100mm lens and you collapse it, it moves about 10mm to the back. so you can focus with the finder. but there is no room for movements of the back, which was my aim. no focussing to infinity possible with all the other lenses. so this was a nearly useless (and quite expensive) experiment.

perhaps I'll try to hack an M type roll film back and fix it to a polariod back which seems possible to me. I'll come back to this if I succeed.

reinhard

 

[ruilourosa]

Resurecting

My 50mm shows minor vignetting when focused to 3 meters and a bit more with infinity focus, focusing for one meter no vigneting appears on fp100...

cheers!!!