What is a pro medium format camera

[Daniel-OB]

Thanks TheFlying Camera. You and many other makes me clear what to do. Looks mama will take many more shoots from my hands.

 

[max_ebb]

Ok, then in your technical understanding of the media please justify why you feel there is a "substantial" difference between the two. This is a contention that doesn't make much sense to me.

In my experience, I can see a substantial difference between the two. Simple as that. You want me to 'justify' what I've seen with my own eyes? 6x7= 42 sq cm, and 6x4.5=27 sq cm. That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference in surface area, meaning that there is SUBSTANTIALLY more information on a 6x7 frame, and SUBSTANTIALLY tighter grain. That is an undeniable FACT. How's that for justification?

So have you actually taken the same photo with the same lens on a Mamiya 6 (cropped to 645) and a Mamiya 7 and then enlarged them to the same output for comparison? If not then these anecdotes are just rhetoric.

Have you actually taken a 6x7 frame and a 6x6 frame (cropped to 645) on the same type/brand of film and enlarged them to 20x24 or larger with the same enlarger? If not, then your opinion is nothing but anecdotal rhetoric.

Regardless of what camera/lens was used, I can see a substantial difference between a 20x24 printed from a 6x7 frame and a 20x24 printed from a cropped 6x6 frame. It doesn't matter to me if you can't see the difference.

 

[max_ebb]

There is 4x the information and the lens eats up 1/2 that with lower resolving power.

The lens eats up 1/2 that with lower resolving power? What the heck is that supposed to mean? What lens? Are you saying that lenses for 4x5 cameras aren't very good quality?

If you want to believe that there isn't a substantial difference between a 16x20 or 20x24 printed from 4x5 and one printed from 6x7, that's your prerogative, but just because you present your opinion as if it were absolute indisputable fact doesn't make it so. It's only your opinion just as my belief is only my opinion. You can't speak for "most people", so who are you to be making claims as to what "most people" would or wouldn't notice?

 

[max_ebb]

The Pentax 6x7 system is also good, but one needs to try a few lenses to find the good ones. I'm lucky in that respect, as I own and use the newest 55mm F4.0. It is very sharp (156 lp/mm@f5.6, pretty much diffraction limited @5.6). The 105mm I have is crappy. The 200mm is OK.

In my experience, lenses for Pentax 67 are of excellent quality. I've never tried a 105 or a 200, but my f2.4 90mm and my f2.8 165mm are substantially higher quality than non-KL RB lenses in my experience (and undeniably substantially faster).

 

[DrPablo]

You want me to 'justify' what I've seen with my own eyes? 6x7= 42 sq cm, and 6x4.5=27 sq cm. That is a SUBSTANTIAL difference in surface area, meaning that there is SUBSTANTIALLY more information on a 6x7 frame, and SUBSTANTIALLY tighter grain. That is an undeniable FACT. How's that for justification?

I think the numbers are trivial in the real world, and I think you are using the word "substantial" quite loosely. An undeniable fact has nothing to do with whether a fact is meaningful or not.

And as far as my opinion being nothing but anecdotal rhetoric, the difference between you and me is that I'm willing to admit it when that's the case.

As for whether I've done the test myself, I indeed have. Forget the same camera and lens -- I've taken the same negative from an uncropped 6x6 and enlarged it to 18x18 inches, then cropped it to 4.5x4.5 and enlarged it to the same print size (yes, on the same enlarger and with the same lens), and I could not see a difference in grain or sharpness. I have done this both with standard printing and with lith printing, which of course is much grainier than standard printing. I haven't gone as large as 24x24, but then again I almost never print that large.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

as lenses go up in covering power, they go down in resolution. Simple fact. If MF lenses resolve 100-125 lp/mm on average, 4x5 lenses resolve 70-100 lp/mm. Some older lenses do worse (down into the 50 lp/mm range). Depending on your subject, and your intended use for the negative/transparency, it may be irrelevant. The best 35mm lenses can resolve ove 125 lp/mm. Because of the smaller film size, and the relative magnification factor involved in producing a given size print, the greater resolving power of the 35mm lens is lost to size ratios. This is less a factor with MF negs, and it starts to swing the other direction with 4x5 negs. 8x10 film is SO big, even though the lens resolving power continues to drop off, the bigger negative wins out until you get into magnification ratios expected of 35mm film. In other words, a 35mm neg at 12x enlargement will look sharper than a 35mm sized chunk of 8x10 negative at 12x enlargement.

 

[keithwms]

KeitHMS
Paul I shoot 68 on the RB, mostly. Enlarge ~645 to 11x14 and that is a ~6 fold enlargement. Enlarge ~6x8 to 11x14 and that is ~4.4 fold. Yes I am rounding off the film sizes.

Is there 6x8 for RZ too? (I think you mean 56x82mm), and with which lenses you use it?

I don't know about using the 68 back on the RZ, Daniel, sorry. I'll just reiterate that I went for the RB because it is indestructible, battery free, almost imposible to jam, and the lenses are now roughly half the cost of the RZ lenses. YOu give up the 110/2.8 in the RB line, that's about it. In fact you can use the RB lenses on the RZ but not vice versa (as far as I know) so my strategy has been to build up the RB kit and then get the RZ p2c when prices come down. If there is no RZ 68 back then I will keep the RB just for that.

BY the onlylens that gives me any cncerns with the 68 back is the 37mm fisheye. I know Erie uses the RB lenses with 4x5 camera, by the way, so maybe he can say more. They have substantial mage circles.

But honestly I take no comfort in electronic interlocks etc. I really like the purely mchanical, tried and true, always-working reliability fo the RB... and the fact that RBs are a dime a dozen right now. I saw RB 500mm APO lenses going for under $2k recently but unforutnately didn't have the cash on hand

Just a tip, in my opinion the 65mm lens is better than the 50. I don't have the 50 any more. It is a good lens but the 65 is a classic.

Stick with the mammie!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Paul,

As I've said elsewhere, I find that up to about 3x I can achieve quality indistinguishable in most cases from a contact print. With 56x72mm (Linhof 6x7) this is whole-plate. With 56x43mm, or cropped 6x6 (and I've used both)it's more like half plate.

Obviously I can't do a double-blind test on myself, but I'm reasonably confident that somewhere beyond 3x, tonality and grain fall to a level I can see. In the 4x or 5x to 6x to 8x range, there's the half-tone effect, but once you can see grain everywhere (6x-8x, except with silly-fine-grain developers) the half-tone effect ceases to matter. And few if any lenses are sharp enough to allow close examination of critical detail the image at even an 8x enlargement, let alone 10x, especially with silly-fine-grain developers.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[coigach]

Pentax 67 I think will take me no where due to bad lenses. .

Aside from the other issues about format size, think your statement about Pentax 67 lenses is nonsense.

All of my landscape work is taken with Pentax 67 lenses - have a look at my portfolio. I have the 55mm, 75mm 135 macro and 300mm. All are great lenses in my opinion...

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[max_ebb]

I think the numbers are trivial in the real world, and I think you are using the word "substantial" quite loosely. An undeniable fact has nothing to do with whether a fact is meaningful or not.

I am not using the word "loosely". I am saying that there is a substantial difference TO ME, nothing more, nothing less. The fact that substantially more surface area means substantially more information and tighter grain is still a fact, regardless whether or not you feel that it's "meaningful".

And as far as my opinion being nothing but anecdotal rhetoric, the difference between you and me is that I'm willing to admit it when that's the case.

I presented my opinion as an opinion (based on MY personal experience), not fact. I'm not the one making claims as to what "most people" would perceive. I am only relating what I personally notice (in response to your comment about what 'most people' would or wouldn't notice).

 

[max_ebb]

Aside from the other issues about format size, think your statement about Pentax 67 lenses is nonsense.

All of my landscape work is taken with Pentax 67 lenses - have a look at my portfolio. I have the 55mm, 75mm 135 macro and 300mm. All are great lenses in my opinion...

Cheers,
Gavin

I had an RB with a non-KL lens, and in in my experience, Pentax lenses are substantially superior to non-KL RB lenses (even Bronica lenses are superior in my experience).

 

[epatsellis]

I guess it depends on what is important to you.

Define superior. Is it edge to edge sharpness? OOF smoothness (bokeh). Contrast? Repairability?(to me a big one). Prestige and or OOOOHHHH/AAAAHHH factor. New/Used? Cheap, Pricey?

In my book, I prefer my C RB lenses to the CF T* lenses, the RB lenses portray a certain smoothness in the OOF areas that I can't find in anything other than older LF lenses, for the majority of "my" work, they are the epitome of what the best compromise between sharpness and OOF smoothness should be. In addition they are easily and cost effectivly repaired, durable as a tank, and consistent from shutter to shutter (or lens to lens, if you prefer) I used to shoot predominanty E6 film and the repeatability from lens to lens was astounding. I went through the magic bullet phase and had every one calibrated to 1/10 stop, all the rage back then, only to find that the Broncolor strobes vary more than that at times. (Real world, line sags, etc. not the hype on the sales sheets.)

Now in the near future I've almost got the wife convinced to let me get a few Zeiss Chrome lenses for the Hassy, from what I recall (20 years ago) they exhibited alot of the same qualities, though still not quite as smooth as the RB lenses.


erie

 

[Daniel-OB]

Max-Eb
I never used Pentax and its lenses so My statement about the lenses is just not relevant to any one. What I said is just I saw on internet, but many people just do know to use them properly. As could see from your portfolio you really knows to use your lenses. Sorry again.

 

[Daniel-OB]

KeithWMS

RB lenses Yes Can be used on RZ without any modification. Just screw the lens and set exposure wheel to RB. That is all.
I really would like to get somehow that 68 back on my RZ.

As for 50 mm. They have two very different 50 mm lenses. The one I talk about is ULD (ultra low dispersion) lens and is one of the group of The Lenses. The second one 50mm is just the second one.

RB is one I wanted initially to get, but slipped out for short. The difference in lenses, as I know, between RB and RZ is actually that make large gap between them. However I did not test them and will not. It is just I found on internet. If I have RB probably I will talk opposite, as everyone does.

 

[epatsellis]

Daniel,
when the RZ first came out, I tried an outfit. Underwhelming to say the least was my take, of the 4 photographers I had in the studio, one loved it, the others kept right on with the RB's. (realize that I prefer 4x5 and 8x10 myself, little cameras have no where near the level of control, as well as the opportunity to screw up royally)

There does come a point where sharpness, etc. become moot. Nearly any of the better MF systems out there exceed that point, in my opinion. If you're looking for larger (greater than 16x20) enlargements, you really should be thinking 4x5 (or larger) if image quality is paramount. I do realize that not everybody keeps a few 4x5's lying about as well as lenses, but reality is that the quality difference is there. Whether your subject, and printing techniques (or labs) will reveal it is a totally different matter.

When I shot commercially, 99% of what we shot was reproduced 1:1, today it's a different situation (sometimes, some publications still care about quality). During that time, I'm willing to be we shot over 400,000 frames with the RB's, other than regular cleaning and adjustment service, not one failed, ever. I sold one outfit to one of the shooters I had working for me, as far as I know, he still has it, nearly 20 years later. Unfortunately, I wish I could say the same about some of the high dollar strobe equipment we had, quite a sight to see a 6400 w/s pack fail actually. (I won't name names, but it was a light blue before it went up in flames)

I will say that the RB lenses I have now have a unique look to them, so much so that I can remember what camera I shot what pic with just by looking at the OOF areas. Yes there are lenses that are sharper, contrastier, etc. but in the final assessment, the RB lenses I use are the best compromise to me. The final choice is yours, but realize that there are thousands of RB's and RZ's out there making money, day in and day out...

erie

btw, the 50mm FLE C lens is extraordinary....

 

[epatsellis]

I know Erie uses the RB lenses with 4x5 camera, by the way, so maybe he can say more. They have substantial mage circles.

But honestly I take no comfort in electronic interlocks etc. I really like the purely mchanical, tried and true, always-working reliability fo the RB... and the fact that RBs are a dime a dozen right now. I saw RB 500mm APO lenses going for under $2k recently but unforutnately didn't have the cash on hand

Just a tip, in my opinion the 65mm lens is better than the 50. I don't have the 50 any more. It is a good lens but the 65 is a classic.

Stick with the mammie!

Yup, the 50 and 65 have hard edges on the IC, my guess is field stops, but I haven't dug into them, nor do I plan to in the near future. However from 90 on, they cover, some in a Galli-esque sort of way, but where else can I find a 150 SF for $0????

As much fun as that is, more important is that I can mount an RB lens on the front, an RB back on the rear, and have an RB with full movements. well worth trashing a non ProS body I got for free and two used Toyo lensboards. (and waay more versatile than either ArcBody or FlexBody, as well as a whole buttload cheaper) Maybe I'm just too practical for my own good, but the RB's do what I need when I need them to. Oh, Keith, sometimes the 65 just won't do, and you need that 50. I really would love a 37, but the wife says I can't spend that much on a lens I might only use once in a while. (now if I could just convince her to let me get a SWC...)

For ease of travel, or backpacking, I have the 500 c/m outfit (the 500 EL is permanently mounted on my camera stand since the in-laws 50th reception, and probably won't leave the stand again for a long while) of course I can't really afford any other glass right now other than the 50 T* distagon and the 80 T* planar that came with it, but in time I'll pick up a few more lenses.

BTW, my 4x5 outfit packed weighs about 10# lighter than the RB outfit packed, though at least with the RB I'm bringing 2 bodies, 9 lenses, a dozen or so backs, etc instead of one body, a handful of lenses and film holders.

erie

For those that have no clue what Keith and I are talking about (and yes, I do have bag bellows and usually use them when I'm doing this):

 

[DrPablo]

For ease of travel, or backpacking, I have the 500 c/m outfit (the 500 EL is permanently mounted on my camera stand since the in-laws 50th reception, and probably won't leave the stand again for a long while) of course I can't really afford any other glass right now other than the 50 T* distagon and the 80 T* planar that came with it, but in time I'll pick up a few more lenses.

Erie,
I have the 150 f/4 CT* Sonnar, which isn't very expensive, and it's probably the most majestic lens I own (at least for anything smaller than my LF stuff). An absolutely stunning lens. And people say the 180 is even better.

 

[joel dallenbach]

Pentax 67 I think will take me no where due to bad lenses. I just got one of these, with the 105, and am waiting on the strap before I do any major testing with it. My dad looked through the lens and complained that it wasn't sharp. Looked fine to me through glasses. Probably not even close to rollei and blad lenses, but I got one on ebay for about the price of a lens for this species. The filter threads are majorly dinged in, so no filters. I don't know what you intend to shoot for the massive prints you make, but I am kinda sold on this camera in the context that it was an industry standard in the fashion field, probably a lot of billboards you see are produced by the glass these cameras use, My choice to use it is rather pretentious, so an so famous photo star uses this, so shall I! the pentax 67 is a solid peice of work. I'd very much doubt a hasselblad can be as fast and spontaneous as this camera. Never worked with mamya, probably better glass? rangefinder for quicker accurate focus,... I suppose if you don't care about sharpness, and just want a huge negative to print, perhaps sharpness is overated, kinda like comparing classical music with punk rock. Sharpness might be a Schnittke string concerto and punk, the blurred vision of never mind the bollocks. .

 

[DrPablo]

According to Chris Perez' lens testing, which is the only formal comparison I know of, the Pentaz 67, Mamiya RB/RZ, and Hasselblad lenses had almost identical numbers, with the caveat that the Pentax lenses had somewhat worse performance wide open. The Bronica lenses were a bit weaker.

The only lenses that were heads and tails better than the others in terms of sharpness were the lenses for the Rolleiflex TLR and the Mamiya 7 rangefinder (but not the Mamiya 6 rangefinder, which were in the same ballpark as the Hassy / RB/RZ / Pentax).

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'd very much doubt a hasselblad can be as fast and spontaneous as this camera.

The Hasselblad is probably one of the fastest MF cameras out there, larger than 645. You never have to rotate it from vertical to horizontal to change composition, it literally fits in one hand (it can be operated one-handed if need be, but that's a challenge). The accessories for it are very straightforward. If I lost an arm, and found that I couldn't keep using my LF stuff, I'd sell off my 5x7 kit and get a Hassy again.

 

[jd callow]

According to Chris Perez' lens testing, which is the only formal comparison I know of, the Pentaz 67, Mamiya RB/RZ, and Hasselblad lenses had almost identical numbers, with the caveat that the Pentax lenses had somewhat worse performance wide open. The Bronica lenses were a bit weaker.

The only lenses that were heads and tails better than the others in terms of sharpness were the lenses for the Rolleiflex TLR and the Mamiya 7 rangefinder (but not the Mamiya 6 rangefinder, which were in the same ballpark as the Hassy / RB/RZ / Pentax).

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

With little effort you can find tests that will state that the mamiya 6 is as sharp or sharper than anything available. For that matter there is at least one online report that will feed any likely gear fetish.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Fuji GS690 III and Fuji GSW690 III if you don't need the swedish brand name on your tools.

Lenses are 90mm and 65mm (45mm and 28mm compared to 35mm cameras) and razor sharp. I'm doing many portraits with the GS690 III, city- & landscapes with the GSW690 III.

OK, to be honest: you'll either love or hate them. I just love them.

 

[DrPablo]

With little effort you can find tests that will state that the mamiya 6 is as sharp or sharper than anything available. For that matter there is at least one online report that will feed any likely gear fetish.

But how many of these sites compare that many lenses using the same methodology? None? Not even photodo.com has that many.

The absolute numbers don't matter. The relative numbers do matter in the context of a uniform methodology, which is exactly why I linked Chris Perez' site in particular.

 

[jd callow]

Paul,
If they tested ten samples for each lens, averaged the numbers and tested again I think we *might* have a real idea what to expect from any given sample and how well it compares to another. In addition they tested the 75mm the weakest of the three lenses available for the 6. I'll stand on my anecdotal experience, when I start shooting targets I may sing a different tune. Until then I'll look at enlargements and the projected image and base my opinion on what my lying eyes tell me.

 

[DrPablo]

I don't want to belabor this, but please understand that Chris' site is a rare bastion of evidence in a giant quagmire of anecdotes. So you shouldn't dismiss its importance when there is basically nothing out there that is remotely its equal.

I don't claim that Chris' site is a gold mine of hallowed truth. But I'm unaware of any better information that's as comprehensive and quantitative.

In medicine we classify the strength of evidence based on methodology, and a study that doesn't control for biases is still better evidence than expert opinion and anecdotes.

This is a widely published grading of evidence that is used for practice guidelines and meta-analyses:

Levels of Evidence

Level A recommendation is based on evidence from multiple randomized clinical trials with large numbers of patients.

Level B recommendation is based on evidence from a limited number of randomized trials with small numbers of patients, careful analyses of nonrandomized studies, or observational registries.

Level C recommendation is based on expert consensus.

Chris' site is a low Level B (it's better than an observational registry, because it's got a single methodology, and it's at best a single nonrandomized study). But an individual opinion, however expert and experienced, is worse than level C evidence, because it doesn't even have concensus.