What is a pro medium format camera

[epatsellis]

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.

I have never (ever) been able to assess relative sharpness of a lens on ground glass. Too many variables (aperture, shutter speed, tripod technique, etc...)


erie

 

[jd callow]

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:



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.

Paul,
I’m sure you know more about testing than I do. I’m also sure that testing one lens does not tell a story except about that lens and in this instance how that lens compared to another single lens. I am more sure of results that I see with my eyes and even more certain that the metric he is collecting, regardless of how accurate is only part of the story. I also didn’t see where the tester verified, let alone validated, his results (something I do know a little about) or acknowledged the condition of the lenses, camera, focus system etc. It may be that this is the best of the web, but I’ll rely upon physical results that include the variables I find important – which includes sharpness.

To tell the truth I don’t really care if my mamiya is the sharpest thing on the block or even below average. I must admit I did find your comment miss leading as the site only tested one lens and yet you had no problem saying that the mamiya is average. I do care that it produces the images I desire and that the camera operates in a manner that at a minimum doesn’t interfere, and preferably enhances what it is I’m after photographically.

This conversation began when someone said they could see a big difference from 6x4.5 and 6x7 on 20” enlargements. My point then was and still is that at 20 inches a good MF (in this instance a mamiya 6) and 4x5 when using colour neg film are not significantly different in sharpness at normal viewing distances. The inference being that 1) there is not a substantial difference between mf formats and 2) that sharpness may not be what is most important about 4x5.

Thinking my self insane I checked prints I brought from Detroit and found sharpness and grain to be on par (grain not being visable in either) from a normal viewing distance. I even asked someone who owns a 20” enlargement of mine for confirmation. I have no dog in this fight except that I’m annoyed by statements not supported in reality and an often mindless obsession with sharpness and the 'truths' found and spread on the web.

 

[DrPablo]

I have no dog in this fight except that I’m annoyed by statements not supported in reality and an often mindless obsession with sharpness and the 'truths' found and spread on the web.

I think we see pretty much eye to eye on this, with the qualification that your experience dwarfs mine, so I am forced to sink my teeth into evidence that seems the most solid to me.

I have no dog in this fight either, with one caveat. I've only owned one medium format system ever, and that is a Hasselblad. Fine, whatever, it works for me. It was the best of all worlds -- the most flexible system of unimpeachable quality that I could stick in a little Camelbak and go biking with; or stick in a drybag to shoot from my sea kayak.

But when I picked up my MF system, I was rudely introduced to a chronic Mamiya versus Hasselblad debate that is at least as dumb as the Canon versus Nikon debates.

Here's my anecdotal sense of this: Hasselblad fans wave banners about their position as gold standard and the peerless name of Zeiss. Mamiya fans, with equally great systems, are constantly annoyed by the haughtiness of Hassy users, and chip away at Hasselblad by making claims of lens sharpness that true or not are seldom based on formal testing, and by overstating a difference between 6x7 and 6x6 also without formal testing. All the while, you'd be hard pressed to show anything that justifies the superiority of one system over the other, especially when there are many other factors that separate them. And all the while, the poor Rollei 6008 users (who may have the best of all medium format lenses) sit there quietly watching the bickering.

 

[epatsellis]

Paul,
that means the few of us who use both Hasselblad and Mamiya are either schizophrenic, gluttons for punishment, or possibly border line masochists. As I've said in this and other thread (and other forums) each has it's place in MY bag of tricks, and based on my needs. Everybody else is free to spend their discretionary (or not so) income as they see fit.


erie

 

[joel dallenbach]

[ it literally fits in one hand QUOTE]
I agree that hasselblad is probably faster than a pentax 67 camera in all ways except focusing. Hasselblad is unique too because it is the only camera which is geared for a left handed user. Holding and firing with the left hand and focus, wind with the right. I've switched to rolleis mostly because the balance is better for riding a bike, but for walking around I'd rather use a blad. In my opinion a blad can be used for cartier bresson style street photos, but it's a bit louder than a leica. I want to try my hands, you need two, at the 67 on the street, just for obnoxiousnesses sake. Rolleis and leicas are becoming conversation peices, ooh nice camera etc,... beautiful gasp. the pentax is less beautiful. Still I don't want it hanging around my neck on a bicycle. I tried Koni omega before on the street, but the cameras delicate. The pentax I found looks like it's already taken some hard knocks. I'll be interested how inconspicious the camera will be in public. It may draw some laughs. The negatives I've put through the 67 seem ok, kinda like comparing takimar 35mm glass with leica glass as aposed to zeiss, Schneider etc,...

 

[Daniel-OB]

DrPablo
Just any machine test is irelevant just for anything, that is it says absolutely nothing about the lens.
I will give you just one example:
What is better Zeiss 2/100CFi for Hassy or pinhole?
Ask once hassy owner, ask second time pinhole owner. How about MTF for that two "lenses".
So? Good lens is that fits your need, not need of tester. No test says how lens see face of the old woman wishing to be nice on the photograph. ONLY portrait photog knows it, and he never ever can learn it from any machine test.
So again there is no relevant machine test. Tests are internet investigation and made just for stupid people that just buy a lens with "good" MTF, than they come to internet forum and say
AUUUUUUUUUU I GOOOOOOOOOOT BABYYYYYYY.
It does not relate to you, but I saw it so many times again.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[per volquartz]

Well, it really can be quite simple...

Get a 50 year old Rolleiflex 2.8F medium format camera for the quick stuff.
Get a wooden 8X10 sheet film camera for the slow and precise work...


Per Volquartz

---------------------------------

Dead Link Removed

 

[DrPablo]

Ok Daniel, you're right. Tests are just silly human constructs. To hell with any attempt at science or objectivity.

By the way, how do you know that your shampoo won't cause your scalp to burst into flames? How do you know that Tylenol makes your headache go away and doesn't cause instant death in 10% of people?

That's right, you know it from tests and science. And in case you really were born in 1995, the science of optics actually existed before the internet.

For you to say that tests are irrelevant, however, is quite consistent with you saying that the RZ67 is not a professional camera because you were its innocent victim at one photo shoot.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of scientific ways of testing lenses that will give you an objective and quantitative idea of their resolution, center-to-edge performance, distortion, aberrations, etc -- and by using multiple samples and a consistent methodology, you can indeed compare lenses to one another. An MTF chart won't tell you how a portrait will look, but it will tell you about certain strengths and weaknesses of your professional piece of glass.

 

[Travis Nunn]

... AUUUUUUUUUU I GOOOOOOOOOOT BABYYYYYYY...

That would be a great signature.

 

[Daniel-OB]

DrPablo
I swallowed I am wrong about the mamiya, and I left it in my post above. I cannot be right after all I read. If i do not beleive in all of that people why I read it all. If I think you do not know about lenses why I read your post.
But I think that the best photographers never saw any MTF, e.g C.Bresson 100% have no idea what is MTF.
My point is that I know lens designer have the taget and criterion how to achive it. It is part of science. "Good" MTF means nothing, "bad" MTF means bad lens... But when I got my Leica Apo-Macro_Elmarit 100 I did not have any idea how MTF looks like, nor I had an interest. I saw photographs from that lens and it was enough. No MTF could ever change my mind. When I quit PJ and switched to portraits I went through many photogs to see photographs. No MTF could say anything nor any photog shown me any chart. Just photgaraps. So it was for me how to choose the lens.
And now:
MTF for Leica-R 100 mm is "better" than for Nikkor 1.4/85AF. So tell me which lens is better?
Second: what sharpness of the lens means? "Sharp" lens is good or bad?
No smart answer any photog will find, i think, except testers.


PS
By the way, how do you know that your shampoo won't cause your scalp to burst into flames?
If you find the test how you know it is correct?
www.Leica-R.com

 

[epatsellis]

Daniel,
Out of curiosity, what country are you from, or is english your second language? Some of the colloquialisms just don't fit.

Some of the nicest portrait lenses I have seen have very poor MTF characteristics, nature of the beast I suppose, signifcant uncorrected SA and some curvature of the field would be my guess. Of course if you took some MTF charts and projected them onto a sphere, they may test better. Unless you do nothing but shoot test pattern or copy work, shooting test charts all day tell you absolutely nothing.

My preference for "small camera" portraits is either the Nikkor 135 f2, shot nearly wide open, here's an example shot at about f5.6, note that without a Softar or B+W Soft filter, it's just too damn sharp for female portraiture.

(actually a test of my new to me Fuji S2 with the studio strobes, no post processing other than some light highpass sharpening in Photoshop, sharpening turned off in camera) or the Mamiya 150 SF, with no disk shot nearly wide open (max SA). Of course it's those tools that allow me to actualize my personal vision of what a portrait should look like.

Given my druthers, without format restrictions, best portrait lens I have is a tie between T-R 12" triple convertible, shot around f11 or so; perfect tonality, excellent rendition of skin tones especially, or a 16 1/2" Apo Artar, though only for male portraits, just a little too much sharpness, unless the super sharp look is what you're after. (I really should scan some of the 8x10 negs I have in the pile to have some examples). To me anything less is a waste of time, of course enlargement ratios are small, and tonality is superb. Winner hands down. (see Jim Galli's excellent posts on RR and various lenses in the LF section...)

Not to be an elitist, but to me, serious portraiture starts around 8x10 and goes up from there (and it needn't cost a fortune, either) At least that's the explanation my wife keeps getting about why I'm building a 16x20 camera. (with a 20x24 not far behind, though glass will be tough for that one)


erie

 

[DrPablo]

Daniel, I challenge you to look at my posts and reveal where I talk about objective criteria for good and bad lenses. That's right, I don't.

What I did mention with the Chris Perez test is the only quantitative comparison of that number of medium format lenses that uses a common methodology and produces a non-subjective result. His testing has inherent imperfections, but it is quite possibly the only such comparative measure of resolution between these lenses in existence.

Nowhere do I state that this is the final verdict for these lenses. As well as my Zeiss 80/2.8 CT* Planar performs on that test, I think the bokeh is mediocre compared with my Zeiss 150/4 CT* Sonnar, and this is not reflected in this testing.

But if you're of the opinion that all tests in this world are completely without value, then you're in a very lonely, cynical place where you have to question what it means to know something to begin with.

 

[Changeling1]

Daniel-OB,
It's time to stop all this RZ-bashing! Just go buy yourself a Bronica GS-1
(or two) and don't look back! peace

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day all,

do we have a winner yet?

or does the 'measuring' just go on and on?

 

[Daniel-OB]

Dr Pablo
I newer said all tests in the world are unuseful. What i said is, again
If BMW says our car are the most secured because dummy survived nor damaged at direct hit with 120 km/h, it means nothing to user and do not say it is a good car. It means to car designer he acheaved what he wanted (or not).
The same in lens design
MTF means to lens designer something. It is his target....
What it means to photographer? I do test my lenses, I do test my cameras, I do test my films even Ilford teste themm too and have test on the site, but see what happen to Mamiya (or me) even test say it will not shoot. For designer it will never shoot with the slide in. Well.

Epatselis
Sorry for my english. Forgot mother laguage, did not learn English. Bad speling, spellchecker never use, bad keybord so sometimes I do not know what is tiped, short with time and always in hury. Sorry.

 

[DrPablo]

Your analogy is not a good one, because the tests I cited are not from the lensmaker.
It's from a photographer who was interested in the following question:
"What is the resolving power of medium format lenses?"

And he set about testing a LOT of them. He picked a methodology that was imperfect, but uniform. He tested them the same way.

Furthermore, the tests were not MTF tests! They were line pair tests. The target doesn't matter as long as it's the same target, the same shooting distance, and the same lighting -- and the tester knows how to count. Even if he did the test wrong, the results remain meaningful as a relative comparison of resolution among the lenses he tested, as long as he used the same methodology for all lenses.

You can dismiss the tests if you want. But unless you have the wherewithal to test every lens yourself, by the criteria that matter to you, you're left with no other basis to compare them objectively.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The few lens designers I've met also shoot with their lenses. Several are enthusiastic photographers. They freely admit that no matter how well you meet objective criteria, you don't necessarily get a lens that gives good pictures -- and vice versa, as witness the current 50/1.5 Sonnar.But they sure as hell don't dismiss either objective or subjective criteria.

 

[Nick Zentena]

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

People often quote the results but ignore the comments. I think the main point of the Perez tests isn't that one or another is better but how small any difference is. This is even more of an issue when looking at his LF tests at working apertures. The worst coke bottle at the sort of F/stops often used for 8x10 isn't a great deal worse then the latest kilo buck lens.

 

[keithwms]

Obviously there is a big difference in culture between small format and medium and large. I think we have to bear in mind that different people in this thread are coming from very different places.

As they probably should, many 35mm shooters do tend to know a thing or two about MTF and CA and all that. And along with that comes some amount of equipment snobbery. Some of it is justifiable, some is not. Look, people are now shooting colour and over a broader ISO range than in HCBs day I don't mind a stimulating debate about Leica vs. CZ.... in the case of 35mm lenses. One also sees some of that attitude in MF but far more rarely in LF. Yes I am generalizing, I know that everyone can name exceptions. But seriously, most of this chatter is entirely cultural.

As for me, when I consider new 35mm lenses (e.g. the new ZF lenses) I do definitely consult the charts and ask myself what I might be getting. I pay even closer attention if I expect to put the lens on an APS digital. But for LF, well, I have two ancient convertible lenses that are poorly ranked but which I adore. They really deliver. During those rare moments that I covet a brand new APO Schneidagon XXX for $4000 I simply remind myself about all those LF photographers who did far more with far less.

Back to the RB and RZ lenses.... About a year ago I took a hammer to an old RB 127 f/3.8, I wanted to excise the leaf shutter mechanism and had given up trying to dismantle the thing in a controlled way. Wham! with a hammer. Nothing. Bam! right on the rear element! Little chip on the side. What the f...?! Threw the thing against my patio. Wanna see the dent in my patio? I still keep that lens as a paperweight, I did succeed in cracking the rear element but never got it to actually fall out, and the barrel is fine.

All I can say is, the RB lenses would make marvelous artillery projectiles- who needs depleted uranium when old RB lenses are so inexpensive.

 

[jd callow]

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

People often quote the results but ignore the comments. I think the main point of the Perez tests isn't that one or another is better but how small any difference is. This is even more of an issue when looking at his LF tests at working apertures. The worst coke bottle at the sort of F/stops often used for 8x10 isn't a great deal worse then the latest kilo buck lens.

Excellent point.

 

[sanking]

The few lens designers I've met also shoot with their lenses. Several are enthusiastic photographers. They freely admit that no matter how well you meet objective criteria, you don't necessarily get a lens that gives good pictures -- and vice versa, as witness the current 50/1.5 Sonnar.But they sure as hell don't dismiss either objective or subjective criteria.

Good point. You must take into consideration both objective and subjective criteria.

A lens that tests very high in lppm is not necessarily a great lens for making real pictures, though IMHO it will be more often than not.

On the other hand, a lens that is a real dog in resolving power in lppm will almost never be a great lens for a wide variety of subject conditions, unless the deck is stacked toward an image that favor some type of lens aberration.

On the other hand, many people love the images they get from Diana and Holga cameras. Go figure.

Sandy King