Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
KM
own leaf shutter, then began wondering why we find leaf shutters only in
lenses. I understand why the shutter has to be in the lens for rangefinder
systems (proxmity of wide-angle rear elements to focal plane = insufficient
space), but why couldn't they be incorporated into SLR bodies?
In current leaf-shutter systems like the Bronica ETR and Mamiya RB/RZ, doing
so would make the lenses smaller and lighter. In focal-plane systems like
the Pentax 645N, you'd get flash synch at any speed.
I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation I'm overlooking.What is it?
Wilt W
years ago! The problem is that the shutter can only be a certain size by
default, and putting it at the focal plane is problematic for that reason. In
my camera, the leaf shutter was where the lens mounted to the body, keeping it
somewhat smaller than at the focal plane, but that limits the rear element
size, and therefor the ultimate speed of the lens.
--Wilt
Roland
somewhere and inside the camera. The rear of the lens is near where the
mirror will flip up in any case so no room there. So you are stuck with
having to put it back near the focal plane. That's a very big "hole" for the
leaf shuuter to cover. It's housing would be outside this so you are looking
at changing camera design to fit it in. Also it would have to be a very
strong spring to get the blades to open and shut at something like 1/500th
sec over such a large diameter and you can forget about 1/1000th second. And
I doubt it would last more than about 500 firings before breaking. And it
would take some strength to cock the shutter.
"KM" <nos...@net.com> wrote in message
news:sV3bc.17540$He5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Lassi Hippeläinen
>
> I was cleaning my RZ and began wondering why each lens must incorporate its
> own leaf shutter, then began wondering why we find leaf shutters only in
> lenses. I understand why the shutter has to be in the lens for rangefinder
> systems (proxmity of wide-angle rear elements to focal plane = insufficient
> space), but why couldn't they be incorporated into SLR bodies?
That isn't the reason. The shutter leafs move at finite speed. While the
shutter is only partially open, it will shadow the corners of the image
gate, unles it is at the optical center of the lens. The diaphraghm is
about exactly there, and the shutter is as close as mechanically
possible.
> In current leaf-shutter systems like the Bronica ETR and Mamiya RB/RZ, doing
> so would make the lenses smaller and lighter. In focal-plane systems like
> the Pentax 645N, you'd get flash synch at any speed.
>
> I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation I'm overlooking.What is it?
All focal plane shutters are curtains, because they can expose all parts
of the image gate the same amount of time.
-- Lassi
Bob Salomon
Lassi Hippelainen <lahi...@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote:
> because they can expose all parts
> of the image gate the same amount of time.
Only at the synch speed or slower. At faster speeds only part of the
image is exposed at any one time as the shutter becomes a moving slit.
The higher the speed the narrower the slit.
This is why you have limited flash synch with a focal plane shutter vs a
leaf shutter.
--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Roland
news:bob_salomon-1468...@news-east.ash.giganews.com...
You didn't get what he wrote which was "because they can expose all parts
of the image gate the same amount of time." He didn't write "at the same
time". He wrote "the same amount of time". What he was pointing out is
perhaps the most important feature of leaf shutters is that because they
exist near the lens aperture diaphram then they work in the same way at
reducing the light. If you reduce the aperture then the image doean't go
dark at the outside and towards the centre as you reduce it. It gets darker
the same amount all over the frame. So if the leaf shutter is there it does
not matter how long it is obscuring the edge of the image in relation to the
centre of the image. No matter how the blades are working, the effect is
spread over the whole image. So the centre does not get more exposure than
the edges, even though the centre of the blades is open for longer than the
edges. So if the leaf shutter were at the back near the film plane then the
centre of the image would get exposed more than the edges of the image due
to the way the blades have to open and close. You would need an extremely
fast-acting blade system to overcome this so that the time in transit for
the blades was negligible compared with the time the blades were fully open.
But a focal plane cloth shutter gives regular exposure over the whole of the
area. The film edges get as much light as the centre as the slit moves
across. Each part of the film gets exposed for the same amount of time (not
"at" the same time). This is probably the most important reason why a leaf
shutter can not be used in this way and why it has to exist in the lens near
where the diaphram is.
Bob Salomon
"Roland" <rol...@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> This is probably the most important reason why a leaf
> shutter can not be used in this way and why it has to exist in the lens near
> where the diaphram is.
No the leaf shutter is placed where it is as small as necessary.
And the overriding benefit to the leaf shutter is optimal flash synch so
you can balance ambient and flash light to whatever ratio you want.
Bandicoot
> In article <c4jio7$on4$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Roland" <rol...@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > This is probably the most important reason why a leaf
> > shutter can not be used in this way and why it has to exist in the lens
near
> > where the diaphram is.
>
> No the leaf shutter is placed where it is as small as necessary.
No. Roland is correct - logic should tell you that, rally, apart from
anything else. The only cameras that get away with leaf shutters in the
bodies (Pentax Auto110, for example) do so by having specially designed
lenses that effectively have a node where the shutter is.
I'm surprised, slightly, by this thread - I sort of thought everyone knew
this.
>
> And the overriding benefit to the leaf shutter is optimal flash synch so
> you can balance ambient and flash light to whatever ratio you want.
>
That is correct - though lightness is also a factor, and some see having a
shutter in each lens as a reliability issue: if one breaks at least you can
go on using the other lenses.
Peter
steven...@banet.net
Thanks
Bob Salomon
wrote:
> Enough with the design details - which one provides the sharpest image
> overall?
>
> Thanks
That is impossible to answer if you are looking at an SLR. With what
lens?
Martin Francis
news:406DEBE9...@banet.net...
> Enough with the design details - which one provides the sharpest image
overall?
>
> Thanks
Leaf shutters typically vibrate less- certainly comparing my 'Blad or
Bronica lenses with a Pentax 67, it is a tangible difference. So in that
scenario, the leaf shutter would provide sharper images. But a rangefinder
with a FP shutter might vibrate less than an SLR with a leaf shutter, and
hence be sharper still. And a rangefinder with a leaf shutter might
potentially be even sharper...
Personally i'd aim for a camera whose shutter is moved by faeries on rocket
boots. Failing that, I don't much notice the vibes from a leaf shutter SLR.
--
- Martin Francis
"Two hundred channels, and nothing but cats"
- Jasper
jjs
> Enough with the design details - which one provides the sharpest image
overall?
Sharpness is in the lens. It doesn't matter what shutter you use.
Some people (myself, for example) feel that the leaf shutter has less
vibration and it's a good thing. I won't get into arguments about this.
Suffice to say, I always pre-fire the 500c when shooting on a tripod. If
you feel the same way, then a leaf shutter is the way to go - IMHO.
Yesterday I walked down the photogaphy aisles in the university library and
found a book that showed how shutter speed related to sharpness. There were
noticable differences (at admittedly ridiculous magnification) in hand-held
1/250th pictures compared to tripod shot 1/250th, but it makes sense - a
fraction of a millimeter of movement at the camera is hugely magnified.
Bob Monaghan
shutter and related camera vibration sources can be significant limiting
factors at the higher resolution levels; Dr. Skudrzyk's Photography for
the Serious Amateur notes that his results for lenses were typically 1/3rd
higher than often reported in other tests, which was largely credited to
using short duration studio flash for exposure, thereby minimizing camera
related vibration (and these tests were on seriously heavy tripod setups).
as jjs noted, tests show some degradation at speeds as fast as 1/250th
See chart at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/vibration.html
even more shocking, the value of mirror lockup may surprise many
photographers, including many whose current cameras don't offer this once
common feature, see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/mlu.html chart of Pop tests
telephotos gained circa 100% (135mm) to 170%+ (300mm) when used with MLU
on sturdy tripods at speeds around 1/15th to 1/60th second etc. Yeech! ;-)
grins bobm
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
KM
"KM" <nos...@net.com> wrote in message
news:sV3bc.17540$He5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
jjs
Monaghan) wrote:
> [...]
> even more shocking, the value of mirror lockup may surprise many
> photographers, including many whose current cameras don't offer this once
> common feature, see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/mlu.html chart of Pop tests
> telephotos gained circa 100% (135mm) to 170%+ (300mm) when used with MLU
> on sturdy tripods at speeds around 1/15th to 1/60th second etc. Yeech! ;-)
Thanks for the pointer to the excellent articles, Bob.
One more thing - I can show how the wrong cable release can lead to camera
shake. My favorite release is the long (about 12") thin type, however I
got a 'deal' on some short, high-tech heavy releases. What a huge mistake.
Sighting down the side of a 500mm lens I could see the lens and camera
move as I depressed the release. Bad! I switched to using the camera's
self-timer and the differences in the negatives were profound.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Sharpness is in the lens. It doesn't matter what shutter you use. [...]
That doesn't quite tally with the rest of what you wrote, i.e. that shutter
caused vibration can indeed reduce sharpness.
One other thing to consider is that SLR cameras using leaf shutter lenses
must have a second "shutter" to shield the film while viewing through the
open leaf shutter. That thing too will cause vibrations, so it's design too
will matter very much.
In some SLRs using leaf shutter lenses, this extra shutter even is a focal
plane shutter.
Use of a tripod and prereleasing the camera is the only way to benefit from
the relative lack of shutter induced vibration associated with use of leaf
shutters.
(And anyway, use of a tripod is far more important than choice of shutter
type.)
Q.G. de Bakker
> Personally i'd aim for a camera whose shutter is moved by faeries on
rocket
> boots. Failing that, I don't much notice the vibes from a leaf shutter
SLR.
Kerr-cell type electronic shutters don't move at all. Capable of
fantastically fast speeds too.
With (slow) liquid crystal technology where it is today, i can't help but
wonder why we haven't seen any developments in that direction.
steven...@banet.net
shutters are designed in between the lens elements, doesn't that inhibit lens
design? Could the anecdotal stories of Biometars outperforming Planars could be
as a result of the Biometars being mounted to a camera using a FP shutter and
the Planars using between the lens, leaf shutters?
Bandicoot
message news:c4krri$kd1$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
[snip]
>
> Personally i'd aim for a camera whose shutter is moved by
> faeries on rocket boots.
Didn't Black Sabbath write a song about that?
Peter
Wilt W
fantastically fast speeds too.
With (slow) liquid crystal technology where it is today, i can't help but
wonder why we haven't seen any developments in that direction.>>
How about 'Because the light has to go THRU the device, and that itself
degrades the image. And it provides additional surfaces on which dust
collects. Digital SLR suffer from the need to keep the CCD clean of dust, so
imagine how a light-shutter would affect things, too!
Winfried Buechsenschuetz
> No. Roland is correct - logic should tell you that, rally, apart from
> anything else. The only cameras that get away with leaf shutters in the
> bodies (Pentax Auto110, for example) do so by having specially designed
> lenses that effectively have a node where the shutter is.
Maybe this is the case with the Auto110. Actually there have been
quite a couple of cameras with standard design lenses and leaf
shutters on the body. In the 50s and early 60s there were quite a few
rangefinder cameras with shutters in the body but the lenses did not
have a special design. Some cheap rangefinders like the Konica C35
have behind-the-lens shutters, and their lenses are standard Tessar
designs where both nodal planes are INSIDE the lens. The Vito B camera
made by Voigtlaender in the 50s also has a behind-the-lens shutter,
and the lens is the same Skopar (Tessar) design as used on many other
cameras of that brand.
> That is correct - though lightness is also a factor, and some see having a
> shutter in each lens as a reliability issue: if one breaks at least you can
> go on using the other lenses.
But that's not the main reason behind it. The first reason is that
placing the shutter in the nodal plane is the best place concerning
vignetting etc, as already mentioned. Another reason is that you would
need quite a big leaf shutter to be able to mount powerful lenses with
longer focal length. On most leaf shutter cameras with interchangeable
lenses, the range was restricted to f/4 135mm lenses or so - no longer
and no more powerful lenses. If you compare a 135mm lens for a Kowa
leaf shutter SLR to a 135mm focal plane lens design you can easily see
which compromises the designers had to make to get the light through
the (rather small) shutter opening. In the nodal plane, the cone of
light rays has the smallest diameter, and a shutter placed in the
nodal plane can be much smaller (and requires much less compromises in
lens design) than a leaf shutter on the body.
Winfried
Martin Francis
Black *who*?
:-)
--
- Martin Francis
"People Say I'm Insane Because I Am Frowning All The Time"
- George Burns
Q.G. de Bakker
Light goes many solid objects, having dust collecting surfaces already.
Modern lenses are not short of those.
Dust directly in front of, or even on the sensitive layer/sensor poses
problems of an rather different magnitude than those caused by dust on lens
elements. After all, a Kerr-cell type shutter can be positioned inside the
lens. It could even be integrated into the optical design of the lens.
The liquids used in the Kerr-cells i know off are all slightly coloured (and
highly toxic), and that is a problem. But then, that's what i was hoping
advances in the field of liquid crystal "technology" would have solved by
now. After all, typical liquid crystal displays in use today are very clear,
colourless and highly transparent, c.q. very dense. If only they where fast
enough...
Bob Monaghan
yes, I have had similar experience with the short releases too ;-( I have
a rather long release now, and an even longer (25 ft IIRC) air pressure
release (yeech), and a series of radio remote solenoid based releases etc.
Like you, I also discovered that the self-timer is just about the best,
esp. if you use MLU beforehand ;-)
I keep wanting to study this more, using a dual axis accelerometer, but
the modern surface mount devices are so tiny (5 mm square with 8 contacts)
that they are very hard to mount. I mean, my small grounded soldering iron
is about 5mm across, great for soldering the chip contacts to each other!
;-) I keep looking for a board with windows interface they briefly made
for the ADXl series devices that would be nifty for studies of camera
vibration in 2 axes (up/down, left/right). One will turn up - eventually!
However, the study may be problematic given that some tripods have
resonances with certain weights and lenses, magnifying vibrations,
depending on the tripod leg settings, yes? It would be interesting to see
how much better wood and cork are for dampening vibrations than aluminum
and plastic, but first I've got to score one of these hard to find
vibration testing boards ;-)
Bob Monaghan
power required at the higher speeds making it unattractive outside of
specialty applications? It is also hard to beat the economy of many
mechanical shutters, and for general photography, they are clearly "good
enough" for most needs and users ;-)
David J. Littleboy
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote:
>
> yes, I have had similar experience with the short releases too ;-( I have
> a rather long release now, and an even longer (25 ft IIRC) air pressure
> release (yeech), and a series of radio remote solenoid based releases etc.
> Like you, I also discovered that the self-timer is just about the best,
> esp. if you use MLU beforehand ;-)
One of the things that's right about the Mamiya 645Pro is that it uses an
electronic cable release<g>.
I wonder, though, that maybe a cable release is the wrong idea. On a solid
tripod I'd think that holding the camera with both hands and slowly
squeezing the shutter release could provide added damping of shutter
vibration.
> However, the study may be problematic given that some tripods have
> resonances with certain weights and lenses, magnifying vibrations,
> depending on the tripod leg settings, yes? It would be interesting to see
> how much better wood and cork are for dampening vibrations than aluminum
> and plastic, but first I've got to score one of these hard to find
> vibration testing boards ;-)
Well, there's always the laser-pointer-off-a-mirror-glued-to-a-lens-cap
technique.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Bob Monaghan
yes, the laser pointer trick is one approach, but hard to collect the
data ;-) the real problem with the laser pointer is you don't know when
the shutter is open, and when it is closed. The best compromise is to try
and take a photo of the laser pointer itself on a screen, but the dang
things are too faint to show up well when moving fast on photos ;-)
As an example, on the bronica s2/EC series, there is a terrific noise of
blinds moving over the viewing screen and the mirror bouncing up/down
(split in EC series) and so on. You would swear you couldn't get a sharp
photo with such a cannon ;-) but it works fine, because the noise is
happening mostly after/before the shutter is open and exposing film.
I do like the trick of the water in a container (glued to surplus strobe
foot to fit on most 35mm SLRs..) as a quick way to scope out tripod
resonances at different points with lenses. Fun with physics ;-)
the best compromise so far has been to use a microphone and sound card
with inputs from either light sensor at rear of camera (shutter
open/closed signal) or use strobe synch from PC connector (on some models)
to help key where the shutter is open. But microphone positioning and
response curve factors are a big issue, so you can't really compare
signals directly ;-( In short, an accelerometer is the way to go, but
they are too small for my ham-fisted hands to solder up ;-)
Bandicoot
news:c4noeb$qv4$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
[SNIP]
>
> I wonder, though, that maybe a cable release is the wrong idea. On a
> solid tripod I'd think that holding the camera with both hands and
> slowly squeezing the shutter release could provide added damping
> of shutter vibration.
>
I've been convinced of this for a long time: I reckon to press down on the
camera/lens on the tripod to add damping at any speed down to about 1/4s or
so, and go with the release/timer only for exposures longer than that. All
with MLU if at all possible.
My testing has been qualitative rather than quantitative, but so far I'm
convinced.
Peter
Bandicoot
LOL!
Peter
"Fairies Wear Boots"
- Iommi/Butler/Ward/Osborne
Dean Hoffman
Kowa 35mm slrs come to mind. Unfortunately these involved complex linkages
that were prone to failure.
Bob Monaghan
yes, ditto my topcon 35mm SLR, with great lenses but a hard to maintain
leaf shutter in body ;-( However, a very large number of 35mm rangefinders
from the 1950s and 1960s had fixed lenses and leaf shutters, provided
flash synch at any speed, but without danger of getting dirt or damaging
shutter during lens changes (as just one fixed lens was used).
a number of leaf shutter oriented MF SLRs feature an adapter which can be
machined to take other non-leaf shutter lenses. In effect, this
combination is a MF SLR body with a leaf shutter mounting into which you
can adapt other lenses. A similar setup is used with microscopes and
telescopes. I have described how to adapt an existing low cost leaf
shutter lens by removing the glass etc., largely because the kowa shutter
adapter is rare and costly and busted lenses are lots cheaper ;-) (see
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kowafaq.html).
the trend seems to be the other way in many cases. For example, the 4x5"
and miniview graphic cameras usually used leaf shutters in the lenses, but
then added models with focal plane shutters in the camera body which could
be used instead of the leaf shutters with barrel lenses (i.e., lenses
which do not come with leaf shutters for view camera use etc.).
the hasselblad 200/x series provide focal plane shutters in the camera
body, but allow you to use leaf shutters in the lenses as well.
=====
Personally, I have wondered why nobody has created a MF RF with leaf
shutter and convertible lenses, as with the old contaflex and kodak retina
examples, see http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003HSZ
I would think that with modern glasses and precision mounts, such a system
could provide very good performance, while minimizing cost and weight.
Instead of paying for 3 lenses, complete with three shutters and three
lens mounts, you had one lens and three lens front elements. Swap these
out, and you get a wide angle, normal, or telephoto lens effects.
The cost for a three lens kit would be minimal over a similar 3 lens kit
model which required three separate lenses, complete with three machined
mounts and integral leaf shutters in each lens, yes? ;-)
but I think the mfgers would rather sell us two additional lenses at full
markup than provide us with a few extra front lens elements as part of the
kit, yes? ;-)
steven...@banet.net
> yes, ditto my topcon 35mm SLR, with great lenses but a hard to maintain
> leaf shutter in body ;-( However, a very large number of 35mm rangefinders
> from the 1950s and 1960s had fixed lenses and leaf shutters, provided
> flash synch at any speed, but without danger of getting dirt or damaging
> shutter during lens changes (as just one fixed lens was used).
But none of these ever reached the image quality levels of Leica, which makes
me wonder if my earlier proposition that focal plane shutters yield sharper
results isn't true.
> Personally, I have wondered why nobody has created a MF RF with leaf
> shutter and convertible lenses, as with the old contaflex and kodak retina
Why hasn't this approach been used more frequently in 35mm as well? I would
think there would be lens design limitations with this approach. I just saw a
camera on eBay (I forget the brand) that had an integral rangefinder/lens
combination which was interchangeable. That is you pulled off the lens *and*
the rangefinder assembly off of the camera body simultanaously and then
swapped it wiht another lens/rangefinder assembly. Neat idea.
I've always wondered why advanced flash features found on say the Konica Auto
S3 haven't found their way onto MF cameras. Or even Minolta's new "D" lens
range where focusing distance enters into the flash formula? Obviously MF
cameras are used to shoot weddings and parties all of the time. I scratch my
head as to why they don't have the latest and greatest automatic flash
features.
Georg N.Nyman
I would like to try to answer the original question -
shutters need to be designed such that the exposure time of each part of the
image is more or less the same to get an evenly exposed image. The location
of the leaf shutter needs therefore determined in such a way that its
opening and shutting mechanism produces an evenly exposed image on the film
plane. It therefore can only be positioned in one certain place within the
lens, where its mechanism works with the light flow in the mentioned proper
way. On top of it, by definition, it is circular and therefore would
require more space if positioned close to the film plane than if it is
placed between the lens elements. Usually it also is located very closely
to the diaphragms of the aperture and they can only be located where the
have to be optically - again same reason - uniform image exposure. And by
definition the diaphram need to sit in or very close to the aperture plane
or one of the conjugated planes of it. If you place the aperture not in the
correct plane, you get not only uneven exposure in the film plane but also
vignetting etc.
If you like to know more about it and in detail, email me directly. I
presume that the full explanation would be not really of interest for most
readers as it would involve more details about lens design and I am not
sure if readers would like to read a lot of theory....
Regards George Nyman
Lassi Hippeläinen
<...>
> shutter and convertible lenses, as with the old contaflex and kodak retina
> examples, see http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003HSZ
>
> I would think that with modern glasses and precision mounts, such a system
> could provide very good performance, while minimizing cost and weight.
> Instead of paying for 3 lenses, complete with three shutters and three
> lens mounts, you had one lens and three lens front elements. Swap these
> out, and you get a wide angle, normal, or telephoto lens effects.
I've been thinking about it as well, except that I'd like to see a TLR
with such lenses. The savings would be even more obvious.
-- Lassi
Dan Fromm
> <large snip>
> the trend seems to be the other way in many cases. For example, the 4x5"
> and miniview graphic cameras usually used leaf shutters in the lenses, but
> then added models with focal plane shutters in the camera body which could
> be used instead of the leaf shutters with barrel lenses (i.e., lenses
> which do not come with leaf shutters for view camera use etc.).
>
>
> grins bobm
Um, Bob, the earliest models of Graphic press cameras had focal plane
shutters. Graflex didn't offer a press camera without focal plane
shutter before the Pacemaker Crown Graphic, introduced in 1947.
Cheers,
Dan
Q.G. de Bakker
> But none of these ever reached the image quality levels of Leica, which
makes
> me wonder if my earlier proposition that focal plane shutters yield
sharper
> results isn't true.
Rather thin "evidence". You can't compare Leitz lenses to, here, Topcon
lenses, or even unnamed old thingies on ditto cameras, and draw conclusions
about the releative merits of focal plane vs leaf shutters, regarding
shutter induced vibrations.
Come to think of it, it's silly to the Nth-degree to even consider doing so.
jjs
<steven...@banet.net> wrote in message
news:40A024D4...@banet.net...
> Why hasn't this approach been used more frequently in 35mm as well? [...]
Funny this should come up. One of my student workers just now returned my
Contaflex, which as you know is an SLR that with a Prontor leaf shutuer and
X,M synchro, and of course it has interchangable lenses. It remains one of
my favorite miniature cameras with the 30mm lens.
Why wasn't it used more? For one, it's expensive and entails rather strident
limitations. To make this Contax system work there is one common lens behind
the shutter and all the lenses use it as the rear element. I can post some
pictures of the lens system if you like.
jjs
"Georg N.Nyman" <gnn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c7pl3e$8jk$1...@newshispeed.ch...
> Hi,
> I would like to try to answer the original question -
> shutters need to be designed such that the exposure time of each part of
the
And obviously, the larger the leaf shutter, the more limited the top shutter
speed. Look at the Copal #0 with 1/500th compared to the *gasp* Ilex #5
which has a (nominal) 1/50th top speed (which I find is actually closer to
1/30th).
Bob Monaghan
yes, I should clarify that I am NOT saying that my proposed convertible
lens Med Fmt camera would require the highest performance levels possible
requiring equaling leitz or contaflex or mamiya 7II optics. ;-)
Rather, I would like a decent MF camera where you have low cost (as three
lenses for little more than cost of one leaf shutter with swappable front
elements) and light weight (three lenses weighing little more than one), a
RF for low weight and ruggedness with lower costs than a mirror and prism
SLR, perhaps even a folding RF (cf. old folders, fuji..) design for
compactness for travel.
There have been convertible lenses in LF for ages, and there have been
examples of this design approach (as with the cited Contaflex, Kodak
Retina..) which worked quite well. Given that most of the lens cost is in
the shutter, iris, and mounting mechanics, a design which eliminates these
costs by substituting interchangeable lens fronts for different focal
lengths seems pretty direct design for a low cost low weight camera
option. I understand exotic lenses would be problematic, but I am just
looking for the relatively modest standard lens trio (50/80/150mm) in MF.
If some of the MF fuji zoom lenses had a longer zoom range, this might not
be such an issue. But it looks like fuji is getting out of that business
;-(
regards bobm
Bob Monaghan
yes, quite true, but I wasn't thinking in historical terms but in terms of
operationally useful examples like the speed and crown graphics rather
than the old hood viewing models (http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/graflexb.html)
in most cases, you pay quite a bit extra for a camera with a built-in
focal plane shutter over a similar model limited to leaf shutter lenses;
there are also issues of repairability and shutter speed variations (esp.
at maximum speed end and so on). So I think most users today tend to opt
for leaf shutter lenses and a simple body, and mainly those who expect to
adapt or use barrel lenses will seek out the more complex and costly and
often heavier bodies with the focal plane shutters built-in.
I have seen a few bodies offered for sale where the individual stripped
out the focal plane mechanics (and RF) in order to save weight, but can't
recall anyone adding a focal plane shutter to a non-f.p. body ;-) ;-)
Bob Monaghan
true enough, but for many MF cameras, such as the rollei 6000 series SLRs,
the top leaf shutter lens speed for the PQS lenses is up to 1/1000th
second, partly due to some innovative designs. Then again, lots of the
larger older focal plane shutters were also rarely as fast as marked at
their top speed, often 2/3rds of a stop slower ;-( But the bigger issue
with MF focal plane shutters is the flash synch speed vs. top speed, since
most of the pro action shooters seem to have migrated to 35mm AF systems
Lassi Hippeläinen
The Contaflex is complex, because it is an SLR. There are very many
things happening almost simultaneously when you release the shutter.
Primary shutter closes, aperture steps down, mirror goes up, secondary
shutter opens, primary shutter opens, ... and all again in reverse
order. No wonder it was the most expensive camera in the world when it
was first released.
One of the reasons why a TLR would be better architecture is its
simplicity. Having two lenses isn't a big issue, if you only change the
front group. It would be cheaper than Mamiya C series, which changes
whole lenses and the shutter. (Rollei, are you listening? Zeiss knows
how to design those lenses...)
-- Lassi
Gordon Moat
> yes, I should clarify that I am NOT saying that my proposed convertible
> lens Med Fmt camera would require the highest performance levels possible
> requiring equaling leitz or contaflex or mamiya 7II optics. ;-)
Though that is possible by adapting some large format lenses to medium
format. Unfortunately, there is little cost savings in doing that. The only
ready made bodies that could handle something like that would be the ALPA,
Silvestri, and perhaps the Cambo Wide, none of which are low cost despite
their simplicity of construction.
>
>
> Rather, I would like a decent MF camera where you have low cost (as three
> lenses for little more than cost of one leaf shutter with swappable front
> elements) and light weight (three lenses weighing little more than one), a
> RF for low weight and ruggedness with lower costs than a mirror and prism
> SLR, perhaps even a folding RF (cf. old folders, fuji..) design for
> compactness for travel.
The Bronica RF645 is somewhat light in comparison with most other 645
cameras. The older Fuji 690 with changeable lenses was not terribly heavy
(compared to some 6x7 SLRs), but slightly bulky. Neither of those choices is
expensive in comparison to similar SLR cameras, and both are well bellow the
cost of a Mamiya 7 II.
>
>
> There have been convertible lenses in LF for ages, and there have been
> examples of this design approach (as with the cited Contaflex, Kodak
> Retina..) which worked quite well.
Some of the newer LF convertible lenses could be put into a focusing mount,
and then adapted to a body without too much trouble. One issue beyond the
lens cost is that focusing mounts are not inexpensive.
> Given that most of the lens cost is in
> the shutter, iris, and mounting mechanics, a design which eliminates these
> costs by substituting interchangeable lens fronts for different focal
> lengths seems pretty direct design for a low cost low weight camera
> option. I understand exotic lenses would be problematic, but I am just
> looking for the relatively modest standard lens trio (50/80/150mm) in MF.
Is that for 645 or 6x6? Seems that those would match that, though cropping a
larger frame could get you nearly the same (like cropped Mamiya 7 images).
The issue I see with the 150 mm is often a desire for head shots. If a medium
format rangefinder offered a goggles and extension tube arrangement, like the
newer Leica 90 mm f4 Macro for their M rangefinder, then tight head shots
would be possible. Is this not what fuels your choices in focal lengths?
>
>
> If some of the MF fuji zoom lenses had a longer zoom range, this might not
> be such an issue. But it looks like fuji is getting out of that business
> ;-(
Seems that most people who deride rangefinder cameras always point out longer
focal length lenses. However, I think these same people would be better off
sticking with an SLR. There have been goggled lenses in the past for Leica 35
mm rangefinders, but I wonder why no medium format rangefinders made use of
those solutions. Could it be that there is no market, or that the
construction of the optics is too difficult?
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Bob Monaghan
yes, the fuji G/BL 6x9cm rangefinders were very nice, but are now quite
old and hard to keep repaired, though the optics are very nice indeed per
reports, and being in Texas, having a "Texas Leica" like that would be fun
;-) But the kit is large, being 6x9cm after all, and rather a lot to
travel with. I just missed buying a 3 lens kit on photo.net some years ago
;-(
The 150mm value was selected as a favored range of portrait types, a
common enough photo activity, and because it is within the range of easy
RF design, and also likely to be moderately compact as an addon lens front
to an existing lens and leaf shutter base in my proposed compact travel
camera design ;-)
The typical trio of lenses 50/80/150mm in 6x6cm is equiv to the popular
35mm RF lens trio of most photojournalists and general shooters, and as
I've shown, closely mimic the sales of SLR lenses in MF (e.g., hassy etc.)
in popularity and frequency of sales and hence ownership ;-)
I admit to being quite mystified as to why the RF folder designs haven't
been copied with a more modern setup (other than by polaroid, yes? ;=)
It is especially frustrating to have a nearly 100 year old folder which
also features a ground glass insert for focusing and front lens standards
which can be shifted up/down and swung around its axis, all for a consumer
"postcard" camera ;-)
Gordon does make some interesting points re: lenses etc., I hadn't really
thought about making a camera with different bellows and lens standard
lengths and so on to accommodate existing view camera lenses, partly
because of high costs as noted and partly due to mechanics. But there
isn't any reason that we couldn't have a sort of camera back, perhaps with
a dark slide, and slap on different camera bellows and lenses on some sort
of railing, perhaps with an adjustable standard which could be extended
out?
The problem here is that different view camera lenses are designed to
work at different distances via bellows from the film. My proposed
interchangeable front lens element optics eliminate that requirement by
keeping the lens fixed (perhaps rigidly?), while only the front lens
elements are interchanged/
Perhaps what we really need is a wide angle camera, in which the basic
lens is good enough to permit crops as Gordon suggested up to near normal
lens range. Then an afocal adapter such as a small telescope chosen to
produce minimal vignetting and magnification as needed for portraiture
work?
I have an interesting 4X aux telephoto afocal adapter that mounts via a
filter thread to bayonet adapter onto TLRs etc. So an 80mm lens * 4X =
320mm, providing a good deal of magnification in a short (~6") tube. You
can look thru the adapter as a low power telescope, and focus on the
subject. Then snap the adapter on the camera lens and shoot. The main
problem here is the relatively slow (small) lens size limits you to
daylight with rather fast film, and some vignetting and corner softness as
you might expect ;-) But a faster 3X adapter on a basic 55mm wide angle
lens would be pretty useful? It might also be an interesting option for
one of the fuji zoom variants to extend the zoom into more telephoto
ranges?
The bronica rf645 is a nice option if 645 is your goal, especially since
the issues with the longer telephoto lens options has put it into disfavor
among many folks looking for a camera with longer lenses than 100mm, and
prices have tumbled by half since the intro making it much more
affordable. But the main weight savings here seem to be on the lenses vs.
Mamiya 7-II, say, and you lose out on 6x6, panoramic 35mm, and 6x7cm.
The B&H price is not only $500-ish less than list, but there is a $450
rebate (rebate on lenses too) dropping the price to $1,150 with 65mm lens.
Interestingly, the omega 120, predecessor to the 6x7cm koni omega line
see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/koomega120.html and korapid.html pages,
weighed only 40 ounces vs 42.7 ounces for the mamiya 7 (both with normal
lens, both 6x7cm RF). That's 5 ounces more than a minolta SRT101 35mm SLR
and only 1.5 ounces more than a yashicamat 124G TLR! The Omega 120 is the
same weight as the bronica rf645 with 65mm lens(!). Partly, they cheated
by using magnesium on some of the Omega parts to lighten weight.
Still, I find it surprising that today's Mamiya 7 weighs more than a
similar 6x7cm RF from 1954, and that the bronica rf645, a 6x4.5cm with
65mm (lighter?) lens weighs the same as the 6x7cm RF omega 120. Sadly, the
followup rapid omega 6x7cm RF models weighed almost twice as much (77 vs
40 ounces). see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/weights.html for other weighty
surprises ;-) Even my 6x10cm veriwide is only 34 ounces, and it is very
heavy and ruggedly constructed with 47mm SA ;-)
but Gordon may have the right idea; perhaps something like a 6x9cm RF
miniview (busch..) with various lenses on lens boards would be closest to
the spirit of my proposed design in foldup compactness, cost, capabilities
and so on? ;-)
grins bobm
Gordon Moat
> yes, the fuji G/BL 6x9cm rangefinders were very nice, but are now quite
> old and hard to keep repaired, though the optics are very nice indeed per
> reports, and being in Texas, having a "Texas Leica" like that would be fun
> ;-) But the kit is large, being 6x9cm after all, and rather a lot to
> travel with. I just missed buying a 3 lens kit on photo.net some years ago
> ;-(
Bummer, really nice cameras. They do seem to rarely come up for sale.
>
>
> The 150mm value was selected as a favored range of portrait types, a
> common enough photo activity, and because it is within the range of easy
> RF design, and also likely to be moderately compact as an addon lens front
> to an existing lens and leaf shutter base in my proposed compact travel
> camera design ;-)
When I think of the add-on 135 mm (85?) for the old Retina cameras, that was
not really very small. There are smaller modern optics that are not add-on,
but complete lenses.
>
>
> The typical trio of lenses 50/80/150mm in 6x6cm is equiv to the popular
> 35mm RF lens trio of most photojournalists and general shooters, and as
> I've shown, closely mimic the sales of SLR lenses in MF (e.g., hassy etc.)
> in popularity and frequency of sales and hence ownership ;-)
I guess that 28/50/90 is close on 35 mm, though taking the longest of those
in consideration, the focusing accuracy on the 35 mm camera is easier to
accommodate. The 150 mm on medium format is still 150 mm, and needs greater
rangefinder base length, or magnification, or both, in order to get
reasonably accurate focus.
Look what happens to the 150 mm for the Mamiya 7, in that it is slow and not
very close focus. Now compare that to the older Leica 135 mm f2.8 with
goggles (magnifier), which allowed better focus accuracy. Another comparison
is the newer Leica 90 mm f4.0 Macro, which also uses goggles to aid focus
accuracy. Any way you look at it, to get that 150 mm on a medium format
rangefinder to be similar in framing and close focusing to an SLR, you would
need a device that magnified the viewfinder. Unfortunately, such a device
would add complexity (expense), and bulk. If the rangefinder body was really
designed to accommodate such a long lens, then it would greatly increase the
size of the camera.
>
>
> I admit to being quite mystified as to why the RF folder designs haven't
> been copied with a more modern setup (other than by polaroid, yes? ;=)
> It is especially frustrating to have a nearly 100 year old folder which
> also features a ground glass insert for focusing and front lens standards
> which can be shifted up/down and swung around its axis, all for a consumer
> "postcard" camera ;-)
>
Well, I guess there is the ALPA 12, but no companies make anything similar at
more affordable prices. I guess that leaves the question of whether there is
even a market for affordable medium format rangefinders, though I think Fuji
leaving that market might show there is little interest.
>
> Gordon does make some interesting points re: lenses etc., I hadn't really
> thought about making a camera with different bellows and lens standard
> lengths and so on to accommodate existing view camera lenses, partly
> because of high costs as noted and partly due to mechanics. But there
> isn't any reason that we couldn't have a sort of camera back, perhaps with
> a dark slide, and slap on different camera bellows and lenses on some sort
> of railing, perhaps with an adjustable standard which could be extended
> out?
Okay, the Littmann 45 is one idea, though the choice of lenses is a little
limited. This could be getting more towards the Linhof idea of cams matching
lenses, but then those are not light cameras. The ALPA uses box sections to
mount longer lenses already in focus mounts, and also allows a ground glass
back, though obviously at a price, and without coupled rangefinder.
>
>
> The problem here is that different view camera lenses are designed to
> work at different distances via bellows from the film. My proposed
> interchangeable front lens element optics eliminate that requirement by
> keeping the lens fixed (perhaps rigidly?), while only the front lens
> elements are interchanged/
What I have found is that many large format lenses do not need a long focus
movement, so only a rail arrangement needs to accommodate various focal
lengths. The problem is that the focus travel should match a rangefinder
travel, and provide reasonably accurate distance measurement.
An entirely different direction might be a return to front cell focusing,
like some older folder cameras. As long as the cell changing was easy enough,
it would be a simple solution. Indexing the main mount to the focal length
would be another step, perhaps controlled by a lever, or insert. Weird, but
it could work. Plenty of old folder cameras could be altered to test this.
>
>
> Perhaps what we really need is a wide angle camera, in which the basic
> lens is good enough to permit crops as Gordon suggested up to near normal
> lens range. Then an afocal adapter such as a small telescope chosen to
> produce minimal vignetting and magnification as needed for portraiture
> work?
Seems like the easiest solution, and then only one lens needs to be carried.
This would also seem like a 6x9 camera would provide and ideal solution, even
allowing panorama crops. I have been working out details for a folder camera
conversion that places a large format lens onto a 6x9 body, though obviously
it could not fold anymore without removing the lens. Too many details.
>
>
> I have an interesting 4X aux telephoto afocal adapter that mounts via a
> filter thread to bayonet adapter onto TLRs etc. So an 80mm lens * 4X =
> 320mm, providing a good deal of magnification in a short (~6") tube. You
> can look thru the adapter as a low power telescope, and focus on the
> subject. Then snap the adapter on the camera lens and shoot. The main
> problem here is the relatively slow (small) lens size limits you to
> daylight with rather fast film, and some vignetting and corner softness as
> you might expect ;-) But a faster 3X adapter on a basic 55mm wide angle
> lens would be pretty useful? It might also be an interesting option for
> one of the fuji zoom variants to extend the zoom into more telephoto
> ranges?
A faster lens would also be more expensive, ruining the affordable idea.
Finding some large format lenses that worked nice wide open would be nice,
especially if they were 90 mm or shorter.
>
>
> The bronica rf645 is a nice option if 645 is your goal, especially since
> the issues with the longer telephoto lens options has put it into disfavor
> among many folks looking for a camera with longer lenses than 100mm, and
> prices have tumbled by half since the intro making it much more
> affordable. But the main weight savings here seem to be on the lenses vs.
> Mamiya 7-II, say, and you lose out on 6x6, panoramic 35mm, and 6x7cm.
> The B&H price is not only $500-ish less than list, but there is a $450
> rebate (rebate on lenses too) dropping the price to $1,150 with 65mm lens.
Check the MTF charts on their 100 mm. I have only seen a few sample images
from one, but it does seem to be one of the all time great lenses. I only
wish Bronica would come out with more lenses, especially super wide choices,
or just something faster.
>
>
> Interestingly, the omega 120, predecessor to the 6x7cm koni omega line
> see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/koomega120.html and korapid.html pages
Oh sure, that looks inconspicuous. Guys must have owned an AGFA Clack.
> ,
> weighed only 40 ounces vs 42.7 ounces for the mamiya 7 (both with normal
> lens, both 6x7cm RF). That's 5 ounces more than a minolta SRT101 35mm SLR
> and only 1.5 ounces more than a yashicamat 124G TLR! The Omega 120 is the
> same weight as the bronica rf645 with 65mm lens(!). Partly, they cheated
> by using magnesium on some of the Omega parts to lighten weight.
The Bronica is also mostly Magnesium, while the Mamiya 7 uses more plastic.
Both look more ergonomic than the Omega.
>
>
> Still, I find it surprising that today's Mamiya 7 weighs more than a
> similar 6x7cm RF from 1954, and that the bronica rf645, a 6x4.5cm with
> 65mm (lighter?) lens weighs the same as the 6x7cm RF omega 120. Sadly, the
> followup rapid omega 6x7cm RF models weighed almost twice as much (77 vs
> 40 ounces). see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/weights.html for other weighty
> surprises ;-) Even my 6x10cm veriwide is only 34 ounces, and it is very
> heavy and ruggedly constructed with 47mm SA ;-)
>
> but Gordon may have the right idea; perhaps something like a 6x9cm RF
> miniview (busch..) with various lenses on lens boards would be closest to
> the spirit of my proposed design in foldup compactness, cost, capabilities
> and so on? ;-)
Even simpler, a single lens on a 6x9. While a good lens might not be cheap,
donor bodies are plentiful and inexpensive. To be really simple, sticking to
an uncoupled, or accessory, rangefinder might work best. Just a little
practice, and you would be surprised how accurate you can be with an
accessory rangefinder, and a distance calibration on a lens.
steven...@banet.net
on lens design of having the shutter appear anywhere else but at the focal
plane.
jjs
> Bob Monaghan wrote:
>
> > yes, the fuji G/BL 6x9cm rangefinders were very nice, but are now quite
> > old and hard to keep repaired, though the optics are very nice indeed per
> > reports, and being in Texas, having a "Texas Leica" like that would be fun
> > ;-) But the kit is large, being 6x9cm after all, and rather a lot to
> > travel with. I just missed buying a 3 lens kit on photo.net some years ago
> > ;-(
>
> Bummer, really nice cameras. They do seem to rarely come up for sale.
It's time to get off the cheerleading squad. The lenses are overrated.
Dunno where the rumor came about that they were the equvalent of Zeiss for
Hasselblad, but they simply are not that good. Close focusing limits just
about eliminate the the long lenses for portraiture. It's got a trick film
pressure plate, but does it _really_ make a difference in light of the
lens limitations?
It was a very fast press camera. Couldn't be beat for press work when MF
was appreciated. But that was then.
Yeah, I had two of 'em.
Q.G. de Bakker
> I wouldn't say shutter vibration is the issue per se but instead the
constraint
> on lens design of having the shutter appear anywhere else but at the focal
> plane.
That is a concern. Not always, but can be still.
Yet, the comparison was and is rather strange. Not a basis for any
conclusions to be drawn either way.
Jim-Ed Browne
Elvis and MM fans can't be wrong!-I think flash sync for daylight is
an issue best solved by longer-duration flashes, such as perhaps an
updated variant of the old Polaroid Wink-Light, which pulsed an
incandescent bulb with a cap and high-voltage battery. I can't believe
it would be that hard to build one today, perhaps using a triac to
limit the current to the triggering camera. Doesn't anyone have basic
electronic skills anymore?
jjs
"Jim-Ed Browne" <jimed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:65228e33.04051...@posting.google.com...
Great, tell the whole world. Now there will be an ebay rush on Wink Lights.
:)
I got several cases of M bulbs, and ain't afraid of using 'em!
Bob Monaghan
yes, the Omega 120 is one ugly camera ;-) So are my Koni Omega 6x7cm RF
and lenses, rather hard to pack cuboidal bodies, heavy, but very rugged
;-) The interchangeable inserts and magazines (my RO200 model) add to
flexibility, at modest weight. And the lenses are very good also, as Chris
Perez' tests suggest and many users have confirmed. Obviously, I don't
care a lot about camera appearance or the looks I sometimes get using mine
;-)
yes, the uncoupled rangefinder would probably work fine for many users,
esp. landscape types and a lot of travel work. A simple focusing chart
along the sliding standard (as with many older folders) could do the job
too, minimizing the cost and complexity of the focusing mount.
But you are probably right that our interest doesn't match the real
marketplace, so we will have to homebrew such cameras rather than expect
to run in and buy them off the shelf. I think if fuji had made their zoom
lens a bit longer, it might have been enough to make it a nice travel
camera (esp. at 28 ounces for a 645 RF).
I think a big part of the reason folders died, similar to TLR sales, is
that the existing market of used and low cost but serviceable TLRs and
folders made it possible to satisfy many buyers with a used rolleiflex or
ikonta or whatever. Even today, many folks are settling for a Moskva 5
copy or similar at modest prices, and happily so if they get a good one
;-) But the lack of a multiple lens option makes these cameras less of a
stand-alone solution for travel and so on, making the Bronica RF645 and
Mamiya 7 series a lot more attractive to users.
I have been playing with a few polaroid SLRs, captiva etc., and keep
trying to think how a MF rollfilm folder could be similarly crafted.
Another area of inquiry is how a digital chip could be used in a modern
design for focusing and composition (including closeup work as with SLR)
and then pop out of way and allow film exposure. This would eliminate much
of the SLR bulk and complexity while providing thru the lens composition
and effects (grad filters, polarizers..) etc.
Finally, it may just be that we need better afocal adapters. As I have
noted, the telephoto (finder scope style) attachments could be used easily
enough in a pinch with the right bayonet filter ring adapter (faster
on/off). A low magnification afocal adapter should be do-able with minimal
vignetting, though size and close focusing distances would be tradeoffs...
The zeiss mutars were very pricey but also very excellent adapters. The
standard japanese/korean superwide 0.42x and similar are not close to the
cost or quality, though pretty good for the $$. Perhaps some of the new
lighter superwide adapters for video will be better optically, and so
provide an option for fixed lens camera users (moskva 5 etc.?). The one I
have purchased is not as good as the bigger heavier glass older 0.42x
mutar I matched it against, but then, what can you expect for $20-ish from
dealer closeouts? ;-)
oh well, the search for the perfect camera, as with the perfect
cheeseburger, continues...
Bob Monaghan
the wink light is okay in the 3 to 12 foot or so range, provided you can
find the 45 volt batteries etc., but lots of us shoot with slower films
and at distances beyond 12 feet...
There are some sophisticated camera/flash combos in 35mm which provide a
series of short flash pulses during exposure in a similar manner to the
wink light, but here again, light levels are limited as flash tubes heat
up, even if you solve all the timing (read as avoiding banding) issues ;-)
unfortunately, extended focal plane flash bulbs are available from only a
few sources new, and quite pricey.
this is getting to be less of an issue, as focal plane flash synch speeds
continue to increase, but then leaf shutters have also gone up in speed
too (e.g., PQS rollei 6x6cm leaf shutter lenses at 1/1000th second flash
synch speeds). I have used nikon kits with a nikkormat backup body just
because the flash synch speed was almost a stop faster than the pro F
bodies.
The big problem for MF focal plane users is so many MF cameras have flash
synch speeds around 1/60th second, making ghosting in daylight shots
(e.g., weddings outdoors) problematic with many film choices ;-( Older
cameras may be even worse, down to 1/30th second (yeech).
The other issue is reliability. Camera MTBF for focal plane camera bodies
is almost entirely determined by shutter failure rates. Having leaf
shutter lenses (plural) means when the shutter in one lens fails, you can
still keep shooting with the other lenses. Yes, maintenance costs and
purchasing costs are higher, but the extra margin of reliability may be
worth it.
Still, the flash synch range for leaf shutters is really their big selling
point, IMHO ;-)
Lassi Hippeläinen
Now that phone cameras with built in flashes made of LEDs start
appearing, it might be interesting to experiment with a LED-based
winklight...
-- Lassi
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . . . . .
>
> yes, the uncoupled rangefinder would probably work fine for many users,
> esp. landscape types and a lot of travel work. A simple focusing chart
> along the sliding standard (as with many older folders) could do the job
> too, minimizing the cost and complexity of the focusing mount.
It is actually a little surprising how accurate one get become using just an
uncoupled rangefinder, and a somewhat calibrated focus scale. While I am sure
distance and DOF help in most cases, I have also done many successful, well
focused, images at close range use folder cameras. One area that has been
less successful is accurate framing, since these cameras do not offer
parallax correction.
>
>
> But you are probably right that our interest doesn't match the real
> marketplace, so we will have to homebrew such cameras rather than expect
> to run in and buy them off the shelf. I think if fuji had made their zoom
> lens a bit longer, it might have been enough to make it a nice travel
> camera (esp. at 28 ounces for a 645 RF).
I really wonder about the longer focal length, or telephoto usage. While many
seem to want longer lenses, I question how much they actually get used.
Combine that with larger film sizes, and cropping ability, and I do not think
the Fuji rangefinders sold poorly due to lack of long lenses. While that
might be claimed for the Bronica RF645, I think the real story is distrust
due to the focusing problems with the early 135 mm lens.
Many medium format (645 or 6x6 mostly) photographers will claim using a 150
mm lens often. When looking at what these are most useful for, it is often
tight framing for portraits, either head shots, or only head and shoulders
(upper torso) images. While a longer lens can be less obtrusive to your
subject, by allowing more distance, I really wonder about the desire to
always fill the frame. With 6x6 photographers especially, most of the square
images get cropped anyway, so what is the big deal about cropping further.
>
>
> I think a big part of the reason folders died, similar to TLR sales, is
> that the existing market of used and low cost but serviceable TLRs and
> folders made it possible to satisfy many buyers with a used rolleiflex or
> ikonta or whatever.
Victims of their own success? Perhaps they should have made them of worse
quality, which would ensure future sales.
> Even today, many folks are settling for a Moskva 5
> copy or similar at modest prices, and happily so if they get a good one
> ;-) But the lack of a multiple lens option makes these cameras less of a
> stand-alone solution for travel and so on, making the Bronica RF645 and
> Mamiya 7 series a lot more attractive to users.
Though the Bronica RF645 has not sold well. A check of used prices for Mamiya
7, and many not completed auctions, might indicate that the price for the
Mamiya is thought to be too high. Don't get me wrong, I think these are great
systems, though I think the marketing and further development could go
better. I hope neither of these companies discontinue these cameras.
I am really amazed that you never mentioned the Polaroid 600SE. There were
roll film backs, and a few lenses available. While not super light, it is
somewhat compact. The rangefinder works fairly well, though the left hand
grip takes a little getting use to using.
>
>
> I have been playing with a few polaroid SLRs, captiva etc., and keep
> trying to think how a MF rollfilm folder could be similarly crafted.
The focusing mechanism on the Automatic 250, 350, 360, and 450 is one very
useful item. Removing that and attaching to a flat adapter plate for
something like a Graflock, Linhof, Horseman, or similar roll film adaptation,
would be useful.
I saw a somewhat rare NPC item once that might get your interest. It had a
Copal 3 shutter, with a Nikon F mount on it. Just a simple aluminium block
was used to locate all the parts, and a pack film back. I would think that
something similar could be done using other lens mounts, and large format
shutters. I don't remember the focusing mechanism for that, though it would
seem that something could be adapted.
>
> Another area of inquiry is how a digital chip could be used in a modern
> design for focusing and composition (including closeup work as with SLR)
> and then pop out of way and allow film exposure.
You mean something other than a removable back, like some medium format
backs? I think one problem is that these are a bit thick, so your eye goes
further back than with the normal film back, except on some SLRs.
> This would eliminate much
> of the SLR bulk and complexity while providing thru the lens composition
> and effects (grad filters, polarizers..) etc.
Still seems like a simple ground glass would work okay. Personally, I think
it is a shame that a truly small and compact TLR was not developed, where the
focusing lens and mechanism where closer to rangefinder size, and got away
from the box shape.
>
>
> Finally, it may just be that we need better afocal adapters. As I have
> noted, the telephoto (finder scope style) attachments could be used easily
> enough in a pinch with the right bayonet filter ring adapter (faster
> on/off). A low magnification afocal adapter should be do-able with minimal
> vignetting, though size and close focusing distances would be tradeoffs...
>
There are Optec, Raynox, and Century Precision, though mostly video and
motion film cameras. I have used some Century Precision adapters, and they
are very high quality, though at a somewhat unfriendly price.
>
> The zeiss mutars were very pricey but also very excellent adapters. The
> standard japanese/korean superwide 0.42x and similar are not close to the
> cost or quality, though pretty good for the $$. Perhaps some of the new
> lighter superwide adapters for video will be better optically, and so
> provide an option for fixed lens camera users (moskva 5 etc.?). The one I
> have purchased is not as good as the bigger heavier glass older 0.42x
> mutar I matched it against, but then, what can you expect for $20-ish from
> dealer closeouts? ;-)
I think actual lenses could still be better choice, except for simple close
up adapters. The various Polaroid close up adapters actually do a fairly good
job for portrait work.
>
>
> oh well, the search for the perfect camera, as with the perfect
> cheeseburger, continues...
I don't think there is a perfect camera, though I find the old 6x9 folders
really intriguing. It is my hope to find an economical way to improve the
image quality, without getting too bulky, nor too complex, and still keeping
it fairly economical. I think money should be spent mostly on a good lens, or
two, probably something large format. The other solutions of focusing and
parallax might be solved with simple add-on rangefinders and a viewing finder
replacing the original window finder. The basic idea is a low cost ALPA 12
competitor, but with a more normal to short telephoto lens set-up, rather
than the wide bias of the ALPA. My guess is under $400 for all parts, sourced
from used gear, with the lens being the highest cost.
Q.G. de Bakker
> I really wonder about the longer focal length, or telephoto usage. While
many
> seem to want longer lenses, I question how much they actually get used.
> [...]
>
> Many medium format (645 or 6x6 mostly) photographers will claim using a
150
> mm lens often. When looking at what these are most useful for, it is often
> tight framing for portraits, either head shots, or only head and shoulders
> (upper torso) images. While a longer lens can be less obtrusive to your
> subject, by allowing more distance, I really wonder about the desire to
> always fill the frame.
It's not about being less obtrusive.
Long lenses have a far wider use than just filling a frame with a tight head
shot. Are not restricted to portrait photography.
Landscape photography, for instance, wants a rather wide lens, or a long
one; you either show the lay of the land, or details. Or produce boredom.
And that (excluding the boring bits) is what makes short tele's very useful.
I think you're assumption ("what these are most useful for [etc.]") is
severely flawed.
> With 6x6 photographers especially, most of the square
> images get cropped anyway, so what is the big deal about cropping further.
What do you mean, "most of the square images get cropped anyway"?
The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to end
up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format.
And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in
square mm/inches. The more the better.
Jim-Ed Browne
recommend it-it's the concept. A 12V car interior bulb, a switchmode
supply for a LCD backlight, a bridge rectifier, and the switching with
current and voltage in the safe limit for modern cameras could be used
to build a much more powerful device.
LED's are also a possibility. Build one and see!
Bob Monaghan
Hi Gordon, some very interesting comments, thanks ;-)
re: Polaroid 600SE
Yes, I should be more up on the Polaroid 600SE (See my notes and postings
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mamiyauniv.html but I went with Koni-Omega rather
than Mamiya Universal or Polaroid 600SE; if the mamiya univ. lenses
matched it would be more interesting as the 600SE is lighter (plastic).
IIRC, you needed to use some Mamiya Univ. M adapter plus parts from the
Polaroid 600SE back(s) to get roll film back operation rather than the
original fixed polaroid 100 film option (or send to Four Designs Corp. for
modification?).
So the stock polaroid 600se is very uninteresting unless you want to shoot
polaroids ;-) (perhaps cheap in these days of polaroid bankruptcy?) while
the modified versions still limit you to just the original polaroid lens
set rather than the full mamiya univ. series, and the 75mm is hard to find
etc. while the 127 and 150mm are rather close in focal length IMHO (versus
the Koni-Omega lineup of 58mm, 90mm, 135mm, and 180mm lenses, also made by
mamiya in some cases).
re: 150mm lens
it isn't just the close focusing issue, which I agree with you can be
achieved by cropping. It is also that 150mm on MF 6x6cm equates to
90-105mm on 35mm SLR, which achieves the classic portraiture perspective;
using a wider lens can work with care, but the "big nose" effect is more
of a problem than with the short telephotos. It isn't just getting closer
to your subject jitters that makes the 150mm the classic MF portrait lens
;-)
I haven't had the $$ either to use/buy the Century Precision adapters for
movie work. The high cost of good examples like the Zeiss Mutars were what
led me to suggest that interchangeable lens front elements could be used
with very good results, sort of like interchanging filters, but with
thicker elements for the wide and telephoto variants. As we noted, this
was done in the past with Kodak Retina and Contaflex, and with modern
designs should be do-able again today ;-)
the final reason why this hasn't been done is that too many folks are
happy with the existing offerings, esp. of low cost folders (ikonta/moskva
clones..) or rangefinders such as Mamiya 7/6 and bronica rf645. I also
think the bronica RF should have done better, and if they had opted to
tweak the bodies to match the 135mm lenses, it would have been sold as a
plus factor rather than the recall approach they took, leaving us without
a longer lens than 100mm ;-( Cropping from 6x7 and 6x9cm is pretty
forgiving, as you noted, so that can cover some of the tasks.
So I should probably look for a better afocal telephoto adapter of 3X or
4X range for those admittedly infrequent shots (in which these telephoto
adapters incorporate a focusing setup, so what you see in focus thru the
adapter is what you get on the film ;-)
Bob Monaghan
probably not. After all, a 12v car interior light is only so bright when
on continuously, and has to be heated to high temp to give off much light,
so "strobing" them on/off wouldn't do much for either brightness or
longevity. The LEDs can be strobed on/off fast, and get some benefits from
peak vs. average power dissipation issues, but again, LEDs are pricey and
don't put out all that much light either.
My typical homebrew underwater photo strobe tube uses a 200 watt-second
energy equiv. light pulse (in a microsecond); to equal it in brightness,
you would need to dump the equiv. of 200 watts for one second thru
whatever bulb or LED you want to use. And those multiple flashes would
have to add up to 200 watt-seconds even if the actual open shutter time is
1/250th second etc., so actual equivalent continuous power dissipation
would be enormous ;-)
But there aren't any 200 watt 12 volt car interior night lights, let alone
200 watt dissipation LEDs for low cost, and a hundred LEDs add up in cost
fast ;-) So we can be pretty sure that these LED cellphone lights are
going to be for sensitive detectors (1 candela?) and not for far distances
or very frequent use (unless you have a car battery in your backpack ;-)
That's why strobe tubes are still used in the 35mm repeated flash strobes,
but for much less peak power ;-( The cost of tubes that can sustain high
power flashes repeated in a short period of time is very high, and the
power supplies aren't portable either ;-)
Lassi Hippeläinen
<...>
> But there aren't any 200 watt 12 volt car interior night lights, let alone
> 200 watt dissipation LEDs for low cost, and a hundred LEDs add up in cost
> fast ;-) So we can be pretty sure that these LED cellphone lights are
> going to be for sensitive detectors (1 candela?) and not for far distances
> or very frequent use (unless you have a car battery in your backpack ;-)
The camera phones aren't very sensitive. You gotta keep the cost down...
Using LEDs is a must, because there is no room for a proper flash. The
latest LEDs are actully pretty effective. Their main problem is the
(in)stability of their colour over their life time. But still, they are
meant to be used as fill flash only - just as the Wink-Lite.
-- Lassi
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > I really wonder about the longer focal length, or telephoto usage. While
> many
> > seem to want longer lenses, I question how much they actually get used.
> > [...]
> >
> > Many medium format (645 or 6x6 mostly) photographers will claim using a
> 150
> > mm lens often. When looking at what these are most useful for, it is often
> > tight framing for portraits, either head shots, or only head and shoulders
> > (upper torso) images. While a longer lens can be less obtrusive to your
> > subject, by allowing more distance, I really wonder about the desire to
> > always fill the frame.
>
> It's not about being less obtrusive.
>
> Long lenses have a far wider use than just filling a frame with a tight head
> shot. Are not restricted to portrait photography.
> Landscape photography, for instance, wants a rather wide lens, or a long
> one; you either show the lay of the land, or details. Or produce boredom.
>
> And that (excluding the boring bits) is what makes short tele's very useful.
> I think you're assumption ("what these are most useful for [etc.]") is
> severely flawed.
Fair enough. I suppose it was very over-generalized. Just to make it clear, I
have used long tele lenses for landscape and other non-portrait uses. I should
have typed a better response.
>
>
> > With 6x6 photographers especially, most of the square
> > images get cropped anyway, so what is the big deal about cropping further.
>
> What do you mean, "most of the square images get cropped anyway"?
Usage patterns, in that there are not many square images that get printed, at
least in publications. Of course, there are some that only do square image
prints, so again this is over-generalized. i don't think it is possible to
state anything on this news group without someone refuting it, however, at some
point assumptions need to be made for point of argument, or just to try to make
a point.
I feel that I have not stated this well enough. Let's try: . . . with the
larger than 35 mm film area, and great modern emulsions, cropping is one great
creative tool. Using that tool of cropping ability, one can accomplish
particular desired framing or coverage in the final printed image by cropping.
Obviously, if one only accepts the absolute maximum extent of quality in a
system, then cropping could be an unacceptable option. I don't have any
problems cropping an image, so I choose to use cropping as a creative choice.
>
>
>
> The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to end
> up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format.
> And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in
> square mm/inches. The more the better.
Obviously, but I am not against cropping a few millimetres to get a different
end composition. There is a group of photographers that do not believe in using
cropping, but I am not one of them. Also, I have never cropped any medium
format film down to 35 mm size, nor even close to it. In fact, it is tough to
use much of any cropping with 35 mm film, so framing tends to be much more
exacting requirements to maintain the more limited quality, not that I am
advocating sloppy framing for medium format.
Gordon Moat
> Hi Gordon, some very interesting comments, thanks ;-)
>
> . . . . . . . . re: 150mm lens
>
> it isn't just the close focusing issue, which I agree with you can be
> achieved by cropping. It is also that 150mm on MF 6x6cm equates to
> 90-105mm on 35mm SLR, which achieves the classic portraiture perspective;
> using a wider lens can work with care, but the "big nose" effect is more
> of a problem than with the short telephotos. It isn't just getting closer
> to your subject jitters that makes the 150mm the classic MF portrait lens
> ;-)
Excellent point, and in consideration, then no rangefinder would ever work
for your needs. I think that the magnification, or base length would need to
be quite large, and that would eliminate having a compact camera. I suppose
something like goggles on the lens, or a screw on viewfinder magnifier are
options, though I have doubts that Mamiya or Bronica would ever make these.
>
>
> I haven't had the $$ either to use/buy the Century Precision adapters for
> movie work.
Someone else was paying the bills when I used those. I cannot afford those
either, though while using them, the results were mostly good. One issue with
one of the adapters is that it got loose on the mounting too often (could be
quality control). It would have been expensive to drop one.
> The high cost of good examples like the Zeiss Mutars were what
> led me to suggest that interchangeable lens front elements could be used
> with very good results, sort of like interchanging filters, but with
> thicker elements for the wide and telephoto variants. As we noted, this
> was done in the past with Kodak Retina and Contaflex, and with modern
> designs should be do-able again today ;-)
Though so far it seems that only a few large format lenses have
interchangeable elements.
>
>
> the final reason why this hasn't been done is that too many folks are
> happy with the existing offerings, esp. of low cost folders (ikonta/moskva
> clones..) or rangefinders such as Mamiya 7/6 and bronica rf645. I also
> think the bronica RF should have done better, and if they had opted to
> tweak the bodies to match the 135mm lenses, it would have been sold as a
> plus factor rather than the recall approach they took, leaving us without
> a longer lens than 100mm ;-( Cropping from 6x7 and 6x9cm is pretty
> forgiving, as you noted, so that can cover some of the tasks.
Agreed, and I think what some UK Bronica places did by offering adjusting to
match the 135 mm was a good solution. Unfortunately, Bronica did not follow
that idea in any other markets, though they did provide a conversion to match
the newer 100 mm. I wonder if the current cameras are still being produced,
or if they are just selling off an initial manufacturing run. If the latter,
then would they continue making the RF645?
>
>
> So I should probably look for a better afocal telephoto adapter of 3X or
> 4X range for those admittedly infrequent shots (in which these telephoto
> adapters incorporate a focusing setup, so what you see in focus thru the
> adapter is what you get on the film ;-)
Or just two cameras. A small rangefinder for wide to normal (or short tele),
and an SLR for normal to tele. I don't think that is too much to carry,
perhaps with four lenses. Having used rangefinder cameras of various film
formats and sizes, I find that I usually want normal to short tele lenses for
these, so I guess my needs could be met by current offerings.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > What do you mean, "most of the square images get cropped anyway"?
>
> Usage patterns, in that there are not many square images that get printed,
at
> least in publications. Of course, there are some that only do square image
> prints, so again this is over-generalized. i don't think it is possible to
> state anything on this news group without someone refuting it, however, at
some
> point assumptions need to be made for point of argument, or just to try to
make
> a point.
Supplying square originals results in square pictures in print.
I strongly believe that the majority of images in magezines etc. being
rectangular is the result of more photographers using rectangular formats to
begin with, and is not because there is some preference for, or even "law"
prescribing the use of rectangular images.
So yes, i contest the "square images get cropped" assertion.
> I feel that I have not stated this well enough. Let's try: . . . with the
> larger than 35 mm film area, and great modern emulsions, cropping is one
great
> creative tool. Using that tool of cropping ability, one can accomplish
> particular desired framing or coverage in the final printed image by
cropping.
> Obviously, if one only accepts the absolute maximum extent of quality in a
> system, then cropping could be an unacceptable option. I don't have any
> problems cropping an image, so I choose to use cropping as a creative
choice.
Yes, cropping can be (!) used to improve the composition.
That's true for square and non-square formats alike, is it not? Not
something done "especially" with square formats.
> > The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to
end
> > up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format.
> > And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in
> > square mm/inches. The more the better.
>
> Obviously, but I am not against cropping a few millimetres to get a
different
> end composition. There is a group of photographers that do not believe in
using
> cropping, but I am not one of them. Also, I have never cropped any medium
> format film down to 35 mm size, nor even close to it. In fact, it is tough
to
> use much of any cropping with 35 mm film, so framing tends to be much more
> exacting requirements to maintain the more limited quality, not that I am
> advocating sloppy framing for medium format.
Then i really can't understand why you advocate cropping over the use of
long(er) lenses.
"Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
(???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an
80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less
than 35 mm format.
It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses".
Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller than
35 mm format???
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> . . . . . . . . . . .
> > Obviously, if one only accepts the absolute maximum extent of quality in a
> > system, then cropping could be an unacceptable option. I don't have any
> > problems cropping an image, so I choose to use cropping as a creative
> choice.
>
> Yes, cropping can be (!) used to improve the composition.
> That's true for square and non-square formats alike, is it not? Not
> something done "especially" with square formats.
Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a
crop. This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on
this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a difference
of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other.
>
>
> > > The big deal about cropping is that you don't invest in MF equipment to
> end
> > > up using bits of film no larger than the 35 mm miniature format.
> > > And it's not the money, its why you spend the money: there is quality in
> > > square mm/inches. The more the better.
> >
> > Obviously, but I am not against cropping a few millimetres to get a
> different
> > end composition. There is a group of photographers that do not believe in
> using
> > cropping, but I am not one of them. Also, I have never cropped any medium
> > format film down to 35 mm size, nor even close to it. In fact, it is tough
> to
> > use much of any cropping with 35 mm film, so framing tends to be much more
> > exacting requirements to maintain the more limited quality, not that I am
> > advocating sloppy framing for medium format.
>
> Then i really can't understand why you advocate cropping over the use of
> long(er) lenses.
If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would be
helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice. Now if one always found
that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the
time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be better
served by using a system that more closely matched their desired compositions.
>
> "Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
> (???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
> For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by an
> 80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something less
> than 35 mm format.
Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF 100
mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image (more
than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape (horizontal)
format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance, gives
a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image to
the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be cropped
to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small, but
it is hardly 35 mm.
However, here is the interesting part about this, the closest focusing on the
100 mm is 1.2 metre, while the Bronica SLR 150 mm only close focuses to 1.5
metres. The reason this is relevant is that Bob M. and I were discussing this
exact scenario, and reference to the Bronica RF 645. To the credit of the
ETRSi, there are longer lenses, and there are some extension tubes available to
get an even tighter head shot on the full frame of film, so I still think the
SLR is a better choice for head (and shoulders) photos, and this only shows
that it is possible to do the occasional head shot using the RF645. It might be
possible to find other 645 SLR systems that can focus closer using a 150 mm,
and without resorting to extension tubes, making them even better choices. If I
had many tightly framed head shots to do, the RF 645 is probably the last
camera I would choose.
The Mamiya 7 II is the other current model medium format rangefinder, and
offers a 150 mm lens, though it is a 6x7 camera. The RB/RZ 67 would be the
obvious comparison, though the focusing mechanism on these SLR cameras already
allows for very close range photos, and tight compositions. Clearly, either an
RB67 or RZ67 will allow for tighter head shots. The close focus ability of the
Mamiya 7 150 mm f4.5 is only 1.8 metre, which is not really very close in
comparison to the .82 metre closest focus ability of the RB 150 mm. Even here,
some slight cropping would be needed to match the SLR lens at closest distance,
though much more (in area and percentage) than in the 645 example above. Again,
I think a Mamiya 7 is a poor choice for tightly framed head shots.
>
> It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses".
> Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller than
> 35 mm format???
Why ask a question when you already know the answer? I expected better of you.
Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only answer.
Cannot get close enough to the subject, but still want a tight shot, then SLR.
Want a really tight framing of a subject, or even a macro image, then use an
SLR. In fact, nearly every photographer desiring these types of shots is better
served by an SLR, and when I do tight head shots, guess what . . . I use an
SLR. Want to use long lenses, or really feel the need to use long lenses . . .
. . get an SLR.
My photography is not only tight head shots. I also have the "luxury" of being
able to get close to my subjects, making my longest lens a 300 mm, and that one
rarely gets used. In fact, short telephoto and normal focal ranges are my most
used lenses, in medium format, large format, and in 35 mm gear. The type of
imagery I do could be done only on rangefinders, and I do own a few, but most
of my photography is done using SLR cameras.
The discussion Bob M. and I were having brought up medium format rangefinder
cameras, since they are often more compact and light weight than medium format
SLRs. Tight head shots are an obvious shortcoming of rangefinder systems,
unless you ad weird devices like goggles and rangefinder magnifiers. Within
reason, one can get closer to a tighter shot by cropping a little, and even
with cropping, starting off with a larger film frame would be better. There are
some slight advantages to rangefinder cameras, and those few advantages are the
only reason to use them instead of using an SLR. All rangefinder cameras sell
poorly in comparison to SLR cameras, so the best choice for most photographers
seems to be . . . get an SLR.
If you are interested in some wonderful software, that I used for doing the
comparisons, there is a camera and lens calculation program called "pCAM" for
the PalmOS. I have version 1.95, available from <http://www.davideubank.com>.
You can use it to compare several lenses, and many film frame sizes, including
DOF, FoV, distance computations, image preview, etc. Easy to use too.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a
> crop.
So why did you mention 6x6 format specifically?
> This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on
> this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a
difference
> of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other.
Hmm... This also proves the point that sometimes much nonsense is produced.
;-)
> If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would
be
> helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice.
Duh! "If no longer lens was available" is your excuse for wondering why
people use long lenses that *are* available???
> Now if one always found
> that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the
> time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be
better
> served by using a system that more closely matched their desired
compositions.
Yes...
And if the moon was made of cheese it would go good with crackers. ;-)
You seem to be forgetting that we two are discussing your assertion that
using long(er) lenses (you know, the ones available) is somewhat of a
questionable practice.
> > "Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
> > (???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
> > For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by
an
> > 80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something
less
> > than 35 mm format.
>
> Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF
100
> mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image
(more
> than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape
(horizontal)
> format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance,
gives
> a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image
to
> the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be
cropped
> to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small,
but
> it is hardly 35 mm.
No, it isn't. But that is a conveniently chosen example.
Have another look at mine. It is about the same practice you advocate over
the use of long lenses. You do end up using less film than 35 mm format.
You may say that that too is a conveniently chosen one. But it's not
unrealistic, is it?
> [...]
> >
> > It obviously gets worse when you want to crop to "longer lenses".
> > Did you really invest in MF equipment to end up using formats smaller
than
> > 35 mm format???
>
> Why ask a question when you already know the answer? I expected better of
you.
Ah, but i wasn't asking a question. I was expressing my lasting surprise
about the thing you put forward.
> Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only
answer. [...]
Is it about SLR vs RF now?
I was sure you did not understand why people used long lenses, i.e. you
believed people could well do without. And that you thought 6x6 cm format
got cropped anyway.
Anyway. ;-)
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > Rather obvious that it matters not which format one used, prior to doing a
> > crop.
>
> So why did you mention 6x6 format specifically?
It is the only current square format, and few square images are in current
printed publications. Perhaps that means that most printed matter comes from
rectangular formats, or it could mean that it came from cropped square format.
Perhaps I was going out on a limb supposing that 6x6 shots got cropped into
rectangular compositions, and instead there is little current 6x6 usage,
meaning the remaining rectangular images in publication came from rectangular
format cameras. Only a statistician can solve this one, so I will leave it
alone.
>
>
> > This also proves my point that it is not possible to state anything on
> > this news group without someone refuting it, thus we are left with a
> difference
> > of opinion, and no point in either of us trying to convince the other.
>
> Hmm... This also proves the point that sometimes much nonsense is produced.
> ;-)
Glad you agree. ;-)
>
>
> > If a longer lens was not available for a system, and the composition would
> be
> > helped by a crop, then it is the only remaining choice.
>
> Duh! "If no longer lens was available" is your excuse for wondering why
> people use long lenses that *are* available???
If I need a longer lens, and I don't own one, then I rent one. If I had a
system that was at the longest lens limit, and needed even longer, then my
choice would be to rent a different system with longer lens choice. If I still
find myself at the longest lens limit, then I have no choice but to crop, or
not take the photo. Of course, given a chance for a photo, and no long lenses
immediately available, would someone be better off skipping taking the photo,
or cropping it later to a better composition?
>
>
> > Now if one always found
> > that the desired results needed to be cropped (or even the majority of the
> > time), then I feel that the system was chosen in error. One would be
> better
> > served by using a system that more closely matched their desired
> compositions.
>
> Yes...
> And if the moon was made of cheese it would go good with crackers. ;-)
Must have been watching too much Wallace & Grommit. ;-)
>
> You seem to be forgetting that we two are discussing your assertion that
> using long(er) lenses (you know, the ones available) is somewhat of a
> questionable practice.
I never meant to imply that. Long lenses can be inconvenient due to cost or
size (weight), but if that is the only way to get particular images, then that
is the only choice. My assertion was that some people made comments about some
lenses not being long enough, which might imply that the usage of shorter
lenses was a questionable practice, though you read that the opposite
direction.
Let's back up to the Bob M. statistics about lenses. While I will not judge the
accuracy of his figures, it is interesting that the normal focal length lens
for a given medium format system is the most common lens, and quite often the
only lens owned. Both of us know people who do not fit that pattern, though it
makes one wonder how some people accomplish so many different compositions with
only one lens. Using just a normal lens, one needs to be closer to a subject to
get a tight head shot. The limits of close focus for some systems limits how
close, and the comfort of the subject with that closest distance is another
consideration. A longer lens with similar closest focusing distance could allow
a tightly framed composition, or alternatively, the photographer could put more
distance between the subject and the camera. I like having that longer distance
most of the time, which I feel allows a comfortable working distance, though
obviously all situations and photographers can differ in this regard. I have
also done fairly close distance images, some of which are very tightly framed
images.
>
>
> > > "Cropping further" than the alleged amount MF images get cropped anyway
> > > (???), you can well forget about "a few millimeters".
> > > For instance, imitating a 150 mm lens by cropping the image produced by
> an
> > > 80 mm lens will indeed reduce the bit of the negative used to something
> less
> > > than 35 mm format.
> >
> > Okay, this is better served by a more precise example. Using a Bronica RF
> 100
> > mm f4.5 at 1.2 metre distance, gives a mid chest up to the head image
> (more
> > than shoulder width) landscape framed shot. The same landscape
> (horizontal)
> > format shot with a Bronica Zenzanon-PE 150 mm f3.5 at 1.5 metre distance,
> gives
> > a head and neck image (less than shoulder width). To crop the 100 mm image
> to
> > the same composition as the 150 mm image, would require the film to be
> cropped
> > to about 34.75 mm by 45 mm (from 42.5 mm by 55 mm). Perhaps that is small,
> but
> > it is hardly 35 mm.
>
> No, it isn't. But that is a conveniently chosen example.
Thank you, I was trying to be careful about that. ;-)
I should point out that the mention of the RF645 was one item that Bob M. and I
specifically discussed, so I felt a closer examination was a good choice. Bob
M. mentioned the desire to use a 150 mm, and the RF645 only has a 100 mm
(though a 135 mm was briefly available). Also interesting is that a comparison
with the RF 135 mm lens would have shown that lens to have an even tighter
composition than the 150 mm at closest distance.
>
> Have another look at mine. It is about the same practice you advocate over
> the use of long lenses. You do end up using less film than 35 mm format.
> You may say that that too is a conveniently chosen one. But it's not
> unrealistic, is it?
To put this to a point, I "advocate" the use of long lenses. I also "advocate"
cropping as a creative tool. I "deride" the non-usage of normal to short
telephoto lenses due only to considerations of tight composition. I
"understand" it is not always possible, nor desirable, nor comfortable, for a
photographer to be physically at a close distance to their subject, though I
further "deride" the non-acceptance of that as a valid technique.
While we could both come up with many unrealistic examples (and I thought 80 mm
compared to 150 mm was unrealistic), the current reality of imagery is that
nearly anything goes. Both of us have likely seen large prints from truly small
sensor direct digital cameras, prints from pinhole cameras, and unusual usage
of various formats and films, both in publications, and in galleries. The vast
acceptance of direct digital images, and small image files, has made many
formats acceptable. While it use to be the situation that few professionals
used smaller than medium format gear, it is less common for publications, art
directors, and galleries to deride (or dismiss) the usage of smaller formats,
smaller crops, or even smaller digital sensors . . . anything is valid today.
Have you ever tried to crop an image to a small area? Do you crop at all? I am
not trying to push towards a "crop every shot, because your gear is too short"
approach, and I never intended for anyone to think that. I also do not want
anyone to get the idea that "cropping is evil, and should not be done".
>
> . . . . . . . .
>
> > Obviously, if you want to use longer lenses, then an SLR is the only
> answer. [...]
>
> Is it about SLR vs RF now?
Actually, yes. That is what Bob M. brought up about wanting a compact camera
for medium format, and that led our discussion (Bob M. and I) onto rangefinder
(and folder) cameras. Bob M. expressed his dislike for some newer rangefinder
cameras due to the lack of longer lenses, and sighted the example of wanting a
645 format that could use a 150 mm lens (or even a 6x6 that could use a 150 mm
lens). While I could have mentioned the Mamiya 6, it is not a currently sold
camera, and there are some aspects of it that I do not like much.
>
> I was sure you did not understand why people used long lenses, i.e. you
> believed people could well do without. And that you thought 6x6 cm format
> got cropped anyway.
So, we are left with lots of writing. Perhaps somewhere in all this interchange
between both of us, there is some understanding for others, or at least things
to ponder. If my lack of eloquence, or writing ability, has left some doubt, I
do apologize in advance. We are here to share and learn.
Bob Monaghan
Gordon cited my continuing surprise at the relatively low sales of
accessory lenses for both 35mm RF/SLR and medium format SLR cameras, based
on Rick Nordin's figures for Hassy C lens sales (over half were the 80mm
normal lens - amazing!) and only 2.3 lenses sold for SLRs per JCIA stats
(for japanese made SLRs including those in Chinese and other overseas
factories). The situation is evidently similar for Leica M mount lenses by
Leica per study of their body and modest M-lens sales figures.
It appears that the majority of camera owners have only the original
camera kit lens. I also infer that the situation is similar with accessory
backs for interchangeable back SLRs etc.
In other words, lots of buyers are paying for features like
interchangeable lens mounts and interchangeable backs (in MF) and then
never using these features.
This is one reason, I think, that the basic TLR does so well as an entry
level MF camera - it is light, compact, often cheap for quality of lenses,
relatively inconspicuous, nifty and a classic camera design, and many MF
SLR owners only have one lens anyway, so the TLR entry level user is able
to make many of the same images just as well ;-)
I agree with many of Gordon's comments (and QGdB's ;-) on lenses, but will
add that you can do a lot with the "wrong" or non-ideal lens.
I once did a 10,000+ mile bus trip around the USA on an Ameripass in which
I grabbed the wrong camera bag in my early morning bleery-eyed departure.
I ended up with a 24mm lens instead of the short zoom I had planned.
I still managed to take a number of up close and personal environmental
portraits (with surprisingly little facial distortion if you shoot
mid-body) and similar photos in which the very wide angle nature of my one
optic on the trip was not as obvious as I had feared ;-) The close
focusing capabilities of the 24mm was surprisingly useful, though I still
missed the macro option ;-) The very wide angle was quite useful in many
shooting situations where a 28mm would have been not wide enough...
One result of the trip was my recommendation to do short local trips with
different lenses, preferably with one lens on each walkabout, forcing you
to fully explore what each lens can do under many situations.
I think past amateurs were better aware of their lens capabilities, due to
having only a few in hand, than many of us with a dozen or more optics in
our camera kits? ;=)
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . .
>
> I agree with many of Gordon's comments (and QGdB's ;-) on lenses, but will
> add that you can do a lot with the "wrong" or non-ideal lens.
Just to get back into the leaf shutter and ideal compact camera discussion,
it seems that neither of us discussed the Mamiya 6 much at all. That one did
have a 150 mm lens, though I am not sure about the closest focus ability. The
collapsing front made it somewhat more compact than a Mamiya 7. Any thoughts?
>
>
> ...
>
> One result of the trip was my recommendation to do short local trips with
> different lenses, preferably with one lens on each walkabout, forcing you
> to fully explore what each lens can do under many situations.
I usually only do that when I am testing a lens, though sometimes it is just
a good exercise. The one lens limit is fun to try sometimes, but I don't
think I could sell off many lenses and keep just one. Considering how many
lenses you have, I would be surprised if you found a way to cut down. ;-)
>
>
> I think past amateurs were better aware of their lens capabilities, due to
> having only a few in hand, than many of us with a dozen or more optics in
> our camera kits? ;=)
I once had only two camera bodies (35 mm), each with one lens. It was
definitely a limited set-up, but I was able to accomplish a great deal.
Unfortunately, what led to more lenses was dissatisfaction with some results,
or some situations in which I would just not take a shot at all due to an
inappropriate lens. I sort of envy those few professionals that have been
able to limit themselves and their photos to mostly one lens.
Bob Monaghan
quoting Gordon's thoughtful posting:
Or just two cameras. A small rangefinder for wide to normal (or short
tele), and an SLR for normal to tele. I don't think that is too much to
carry, perhaps with four lenses. Having used rangefinder cameras of
various film formats and sizes, I find that I usually want normal to short
tele lenses for these, so I guess my needs could be met by current
offerings.
endquote:
Multiple cameras, what I call "mix and match" to get the best out of each
format, is the only thing that works for me too. But my lens use is
strange ;-) I have gotten into the habit of carrying my panoramic veriwide
100 for 18mm equiv. on 35mm panoramic 6x10cm shots 'cuz it is book sized
and compact and only 2 lbs. For shooting birds around the lake, I'm using
35mm with 500mm T-mount (unscrews in half for carrying compactly). This is
for a lakeside walkabout I do alot, so missed shots will come around
again. I usually have a normal lens with me too, for light weight and low
cost speed lens.
When I am shooting cityscapes, I find very wide angles handy, adding a
superwide hassy or 14mm for nikon etc. I experimented with a hassy ELM and
250mm lens with radio control for remote telephotography of birds, but too
much hassle and time consuming. But these 250mm lenses on 'blad and kowa
6/66 do very well at the local wild parks and zoo with the tamer and
bigger critters there ;-)
So I guess the good news is that I have an excuse for having all this
stuff, because what I like to photograph varys a lot, and I make up the
kit I need to match. But that does make it very hard to conceive a single
camera kit that would match my needs, esp. when traveling light. As you
noted, it is easy to crop out needed shots with the veriwide 100 panoramic
from 6x10cm- film area, and there aren't many wider angle non-swing lenses
on MF cameras ;-) The hassy SWC/M is a nice travel camera too, but a lot
of $$, and not near as wide (24mm equiv. horiz. on 35mm vs. 18mm on
veriwide 100). But the biogon hassy can be used at any speed even wide
open, while the veriwide wants to be shot at f/16 for best results ;-)
=====
yes on other good points re: short focusing limitations on the MF RFs
too. I did manage to get an excellent buy on the 135mm for koni omega
RO200 6x7cm RF, which has the best close focusing distance of the bunch.
Paradoxically, it was only made for a few years, and so is rarer and
pricey as the wedding types favoring KO kits use it a lot for portraits
This is also a reason I am promoting third party lenses, specifically the
Kiron/Vivitar Series I early lenses on my website (medfmt.8k.com/third)
because those lenses, while heavier than modern optics, had great close
focusing distances, esp. the telephotos and longer zooms. Ditto many prime
lenses offer superior close focusing distances (e.g., 28mm f/2.8) over the
settings for many zooms (e.g., 28-300mm ;-), a difference of inches vs ft!
re: bronica rf645?
Hard to predict what will happen with Tamron/Bronica's future offerings;
the problem with dropping the RF645 is that they have lots of $$ invested
in brand new tooling and lens/camera R&D. They aren't recouping it with
the kinds of discounts they are giving out; as I noted in another thread,
B&H had a $450 mfgers rebate on the basic camera kit, dropping it to just
over $1,100 US$. Will Bronica end up a casualty of the medium format
market fall in the digital era? I do think they could and should have
followed the Tamron/UK approach of trying to make your camera body work
with your lens, but probably the profitability vs. cost of that approach
was problematic, esp. with owners underserved by local support services?
For a company that primarily makes their money on lenses, Tamron/Bronica
has not put the $$ into Bronica lens development that I had hoped. As I
noted in reviewing the GS1 6x7 SLR, it is a great camera for many users,
but the lack of many lens offerings and high cost of existing lenses vs.
competitors like Mamiya RZ67 have made it less of a success in the market
than it deserves (see GS1 case study http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/system.html )
This is a dicey time for MF mfgers; a market demand shortfall of major
proportions, rapid change in the digital end, lack of large low cost
digital chips (16MP and esp. 32MP and 64 MP) for digital MF cameras to
respond to the 35mm challenges etc. and huge costs in R&D for modern AF
MF cameras of uncertain sales potentials, as well as strong entrenched
competitors with deep pockets vs. innovative mfgers with thinner $$
backing. Should be a great case study for business schools in a few years
Bob Monaghan
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html and page go2.html#mamiya6
Disadvantages: (of Mamiya 6 RF)
Very expensive.
Limited close focusing ability (esp. w/ 50 and 150mm lenses).
Lenses aren't fast.
System is limited.
Resale values are low.
Focus is finicky with the 150mm
Metering with earliest 6 models tends towards underexposure because of
poor in-finder baffling (improved on later production runs and all 6MF's)
=====
the optics, per many users and tests (C. Perez etc.) are very good, but as
usual most RF in MF poop out on close focusing ;-( You can get around it
with fractional diopter + lenses for portraits and wire frame and +4 etc.
magnifier diopters for flower shots, but in a multi-kilobuck system with
high end optics, that rather defeats the purpose of the high $ optics? ;-)
Gordon Moat
> from Danny Gonzalez's hands-on reviews of medium format cameras
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/gindex.html and page go2.html#mamiya6
>
> Disadvantages: (of Mamiya 6 RF)
>
> Very expensive.
> Limited close focusing ability (esp. w/ 50 and 150mm lenses).
> Lenses aren't fast.
> System is limited.
> Resale values are low.
Which should imply low cost used . . . . .
>
> Focus is finicky with the 150mm
Apparently the rangefinder base is not enough. Surprisingly, I have heard a
bit of the same complaint about the 150 mm for the Mamiya 7, including a
limited close focus.
>
> Metering with earliest 6 models tends towards underexposure because of
> poor in-finder baffling (improved on later production runs and all 6MF's)
>
> =====
>
> the optics, per many users and tests (C. Perez etc.) are very good, but as
> usual most RF in MF poop out on close focusing ;-( You can get around it
> with fractional diopter + lenses for portraits and wire frame and +4 etc.
> magnifier diopters for flower shots, but in a multi-kilobuck system with
> high end optics, that rather defeats the purpose of the high $ optics? ;-)
It just really makes me wonder why the things Leica has created for macro,
close focus, and rangefinder magnification have not been adopted by Mamiya,
nor Bronica. In the older rangefinder cameras of the past, like Contax and
Kodak Retina, there were several different solutions for close focus, or
macro imagery. Surely there must be some expired patents that could be
revived.
Gordon Moat
> quoting Gordon's thoughtful posting:
>
> Or just two cameras. A small rangefinder for wide to normal (or short
> tele), and an SLR for normal to tele. I don't think that is too much to
> carry, perhaps with four lenses. Having used rangefinder cameras of
> various film formats and sizes, I find that I usually want normal to short
> tele lenses for these, so I guess my needs could be met by current
> offerings.
> endquote:
>
> Multiple cameras, what I call "mix and match" to get the best out of each
> format, is the only thing that works for me too. But my lens use is
> strange ;-) I have gotten into the habit of carrying my panoramic veriwide
> 100 for 18mm equiv. on 35mm panoramic 6x10cm shots 'cuz it is book sized
> and compact and only 2 lbs. For shooting birds around the lake, I'm using
> 35mm with 500mm T-mount (unscrews in half for carrying compactly). This is
> for a lakeside walkabout I do alot, so missed shots will come around
> again. I usually have a normal lens with me too, for light weight and low
> cost speed lens.
>
Not really too strange, though the 500 mm is a bit unusual. Long telephoto
requirements would almost seem to be an SLR only solution. It could be that
just the mere numbers of lenses you own got you into the unusual usage.
>
> When I am shooting cityscapes, I find very wide angles handy, adding a
> superwide hassy or 14mm for nikon etc. I experimented with a hassy ELM and
> 250mm lens with radio control for remote telephotography of birds, but too
> much hassle and time consuming. But these 250mm lenses on 'blad and kowa
> 6/66 do very well at the local wild parks and zoo with the tamer and
> bigger critters there ;-)
I like the wide to super wide look, especially in more panorama formats. The
longer lens, nature, birds, or animal imagery is interesting, but I just
don't have any desire to do that. Maybe if I lived in Africa near some game
preserve I might be more interested in doing that type of imagery.
>
>
> So I guess the good news is that I have an excuse for having all this
> stuff, because what I like to photograph varys a lot, and I make up the
> kit I need to match. But that does make it very hard to conceive a single
> camera kit that would match my needs, esp. when traveling light. As you
> noted, it is easy to crop out needed shots with the veriwide 100 panoramic
> from 6x10cm- film area, and there aren't many wider angle non-swing lenses
> on MF cameras ;-) The hassy SWC/M is a nice travel camera too, but a lot
> of $$, and not near as wide (24mm equiv. horiz. on 35mm vs. 18mm on
> veriwide 100). But the biogon hassy can be used at any speed even wide
> open, while the veriwide wants to be shot at f/16 for best results ;-)
Yeah, the SMC is an odd beast. An ALPA is even more pricey, though the wide
view abilities are very good. I think one trouble with expensive cameras is
that the cost becomes a barrier to carrying them around more places, since
You don't want the camera damaged nor stolen.
Superwide in 35 mm is less expensive thanks to Voigtländer, even though the
systems are a little limited. Medium format has been too specialized a market
to really get the costs down much. While there are exceptions, or build it
yourself options, good lenses are still not cheaply found.
>
>
> =====
>
> yes on other good points re: short focusing limitations on the MF RFs
> too. I did manage to get an excellent buy on the 135mm for koni omega
> RO200 6x7cm RF, which has the best close focusing distance of the bunch.
> Paradoxically, it was only made for a few years, and so is rarer and
> pricey as the wedding types favoring KO kits use it a lot for portraits
The entire Koni Omega system, and similar outfits of that era, are all
becoming very old pieces. Self repair might be the only option for some of
these. Finding much in the way of repair parts could be an adventure in some
situations. Many really old systems are also reaching the self-repair only
level.
>
>
> . . . . . . .
>
> re: bronica rf645?
> Hard to predict what will happen with Tamron/Bronica's future offerings;
> the problem with dropping the RF645 is that they have lots of $$ invested
> in brand new tooling and lens/camera R&D. They aren't recouping it with
> the kinds of discounts they are giving out; as I noted in another thread,
> B&H had a $450 mfgers rebate on the basic camera kit, dropping it to just
> over $1,100 US$.
Yeah, quite a discount off the original selling price. Tamron has lots of
money, but even they will be unwilling to continue investing and development
without some return (profit) from sales. Unfortunately, something as simple
as better promotion of the RF645 could help their sales. While I have seen
many adds showing the well lit silhouette of that camera, I have not seen
much usage. The placement of ads doesn't seem to help that much either, and
these seem to be hard to find in stores.
> Will Bronica end up a casualty of the medium format
> market fall in the digital era?
Really a shame how Tamron has handled Bronica. I have found Tamron dealers in
major cities that have no Bronica products. In fact, in many cases when I
have found Bronica products, they have been used consignment items, and often
just ETRSi cameras.
Compare that to Mamiya, who have a strong rental presence, and placement of
ads in many publications. I find that often Mamiya can be the only medium
format camera company to run ads in some publications. Also, the Mamiya 7 is
advertised often by showing the comparison to 35 mm. They try to educate with
their ads, rather than just show a pretty camera (Bronica).
> I do think they could and should have
> followed the Tamron/UK approach of trying to make your camera body work
> with your lens, but probably the profitability vs. cost of that approach
> was problematic, esp. with owners underserved by local support services?
I did not get the impression that it was tough, nor expensive. It seems that
even if they charged a small adjustment fee, they could still have continued
to offer the lens. The RF 100 mm does look to be a better lens, though it is
shorter. It is tempting to figure out how to graft a Leica viewfinder
magnifier onto an RF645, since something that simple would avoid the longer
lens issue entirely.
>
>
> For a company that primarily makes their money on lenses, Tamron/Bronica
> has not put the $$ into Bronica lens development that I had hoped.
Very confusing, especially considering how often I find places selling Tamron
lenses. Their North American website is not very good either. About the only
thing they really offer is a nice education discount.
> As I
> noted in reviewing the GS1 6x7 SLR, it is a great camera for many users,
> but the lack of many lens offerings and high cost of existing lenses vs.
> competitors like Mamiya RZ67 have made it less of a success in the market
> than it deserves (see GS1 case study http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/system.html )
Some surprises there. Overall, I think one big point of failure in sales has
been a lack of rental gear. The reality of many lenses just being too
expensive leaves rental as the best option for many. We discussed this before
with regard to Leica. I don't recall ever seeing rental Bronica gear, and
certainly not for the GS. However, I have seen Mamiya in many cities, and
often Hasselblad 500 series stuff. The only newcomer in medium format that I
see for rent is the Contax 645. A few places carry some Pentax 67 gear, but
not as common as the others. I have heard of more Rollei 6000 gear rental
availability in Europe, but they seem scarce items in North America.
>
>
> This is a dicey time for MF mfgers; a market demand shortfall of major
> proportions, rapid change in the digital end, lack of large low cost
> digital chips (16MP and esp. 32MP and 64 MP) for digital MF cameras to
> respond to the 35mm challenges etc. and huge costs in R&D for modern AF
> MF cameras of uncertain sales potentials, as well as strong entrenched
> competitors with deep pockets vs. innovative mfgers with thinner $$
> backing. Should be a great case study for business schools in a few years
> ;-)
I read an interesting item about autofocus medium format. When Rollei
introduced the 6008 AF, they got quite a few inquiries and orders, most from
older professional photographers, many of them wedding photographers. There
seems to be a little joke about Hasselblad being the wedding photographer
camera, though it is strange that when trying to explain medium format to
ordinary non-enthusiast camera users, the best example is the wedding
photographer with the waist level finder.
Once again, I think an issue is that fewer younger, or newer to photography,
enthusiasts and professionals know about medium format, often due to a lack
of exposure to the gear. The Hasselblad name is known, and some know Mamiya,
but even fewer know of other gear. There is a serious lack of exposure of
medium format gear for up-and-coming photographers. The same thing seems to
be happening in large format, leaving an ageing population as the only users.
While the automation, like autofocus, might help those ageing users, I see
little being done to entice younger photography enthusiasts, professionals,
and students to use medium format (or large format). My feeling is that if
that aspect of the market was addressed, a new generation of medium format
photographers could be created. The current market for nearly anything retro
seems like the perfect concept to latch onto, and it has not gone away from
the beginnings in the mid 1990s.
The implied scenario of business students studying the failure of medium
format is one possible outcome. It would be nicer to see that business
student effort go into helping some medium format companies come up with
better ideas to keep this from becoming an extreme niche market, or a luxury
product only market (remember the multicolour Hasselblads). Using business
students to develop marketing concepts is nothing new, often has great ideas,
and is extremely low cost. If the North American distributors would just put
forth a little more effort in the right directions, medium format could
thrive into the future, though that is just my opinion. Using some student
populations, and senior level business or design projects, could put those
younger age groups closer to finding the ideas to better market those
products; all of which seems much better than having the same students study
the business failures.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Once again, I think an issue is that fewer younger, or newer to
photography,
> enthusiasts and professionals know about medium format, often due to a
lack
> of exposure to the gear. The Hasselblad name is known, and some know
Mamiya,
> but even fewer know of other gear. There is a serious lack of exposure of
> medium format gear for up-and-coming photographers. The same thing seems
to
> be happening in large format, leaving an ageing population as the only
users.
It's not a lack of familiarity, i fear.
It's that digital definitely is the future. And the moment that it will take
over in all aspects (including quality - in the "more than good enough"
bracket) is getting closer and closer.
So faced with the decision what to do: sink huge amounts of money into
something that (let's face it) is part of a more time consuming and awkward
workflow (who likes retouching?), i.e. MF film, or put (still too large)
amounts of money towards the technology that's "almost here", fewer and
fewer will opt for the first choice.
"Hybrid" already is the preferred way to go: scanned negatives are full of
quality, can be post-processed with so much greater ease, and in so many
more ways, and customers expect to be given CDs full of image files anyway.
The balance will not tip back towards film based MF.
Not because young photographers don't know about film, but because they
don't care. Just as we oldies (a few exceptions excepted ;-)) don't care
about tintypes.
The ony thing that can safe MF now is a rather drastic reduction in MF
digital costs. Noone in his or her right mind should even contemplate
spending really huge amounts to get a MF 20 MP digital back when he/she can
get the same amount of equal quality pixels for 1/10th or 1/20th of the
money in the shape of a 35 mm format based digital SLR.
And those 35 mm format based digital machines already have all the goodies
you say MF manufacturers could lure a new generation into investing in their
goods. Makes it hard to see how that could be a selling point for MF...
And the AF Rolei shows it isn't. They don't sell like hot cakes, Do they? Do
they sell at all?
And i don't see much of a retro market either. What "retro" product can you
see selling anywhere?
Quality digital backs for, say, US$ 1,500 to 2,500, tops. That's the one and
only "better idea" that can safe MF. And even than the competition with 35
mm format based SLRs will be tough.
So the Mamiyas, Hasselblads, Rolleis, etc. should strongly urge the
manufacturers of digital MF backs to redress the balance. Their fate is in
their hands, and time really is running out fast.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > Once again, I think an issue is that fewer younger, or newer to
> photography,
> > enthusiasts and professionals know about medium format, often due to a
> lack
> > of exposure to the gear. The Hasselblad name is known, and some know
> Mamiya,
> > but even fewer know of other gear. There is a serious lack of exposure of
> > medium format gear for up-and-coming photographers. The same thing seems
> to
> > be happening in large format, leaving an ageing population as the only
> users.
>
> It's not a lack of familiarity, i fear.
>
> It's that digital definitely is the future. And the moment that it will take
> over in all aspects (including quality - in the "more than good enough"
> bracket) is getting closer and closer.
Definitely, and it is the "more than good enough" attitude that I think sucks.
Too many people are becoming satisfied with mediocre. Of course, I see that in
more than just photography, so perhaps it is a reflection of current society.
>
>
> So faced with the decision what to do: sink huge amounts of money into
> something that (let's face it) is part of a more time consuming and awkward
> workflow (who likes retouching?), i.e. MF film, or put (still too large)
> amounts of money towards the technology that's "almost here", fewer and
> fewer will opt for the first choice.
Many of the camera makers are part of public corporations, and must answer to
their stock holders. It is unfortunate, but when the stockholders perceptions
are that digital imaging is the best choice, that would dictate where the money
and efforts go.
>
> "Hybrid" already is the preferred way to go: scanned negatives are full of
> quality, can be post-processed with so much greater ease, and in so many
> more ways, and customers expect to be given CDs full of image files anyway.
Perhaps a faster batch scan medium format system could be developed. When I do
645 negative shots, I often get an index print done on large paper. The index
print is digitally generated, and not like a contact print, though it functions
nearly as well. While I shoot mostly transparency films, and like editing on a
light table, it would be nice to have the index print even for transparencies.
>
>
> The balance will not tip back towards film based MF.
> Not because young photographers don't know about film, but because they
> don't care. Just as we oldies (a few exceptions excepted ;-)) don't care
> about tintypes.
The consumer end drives the main photographic market, yet I think few
enthusiasts nor professionals would use the biggest selling consumer film
product: one time use cameras. I don't think medium format has ever been much
in the general consumer view, with the possible exception of folder cameras a
long time ago.
>
>
> The ony thing that can safe MF now is a rather drastic reduction in MF
> digital costs. Noone in his or her right mind should even contemplate
> spending really huge amounts to get a MF 20 MP digital back when he/she can
> get the same amount of equal quality pixels for 1/10th or 1/20th of the
> money in the shape of a 35 mm format based digital SLR.
I agree that this film and digital back hybrid capability is the future of the
gear. What surprises me is that so few people know that the capability even
exists. I see Mamiya now advertising that way, especially with their lower cost
645, but I have not seen other companies try that direction.
>
>
> And those 35 mm format based digital machines already have all the goodies
> you say MF manufacturers could lure a new generation into investing in their
> goods. Makes it hard to see how that could be a selling point for MF...
> And the AF Rolei shows it isn't. They don't sell like hot cakes, Do they? Do
> they sell at all?
Apparently, the initial orders in North America were slightly greater than
expected. However, I still do not see these as rental gear anywhere (maybe New
York). Bottom line is that these are very expensive cameras, and the economy is
still down. When someone compares a new Rollei 6008 to a less than 10 years old
used version, the cost difference is quite large. This makes them seem like a
victim of their own rugged construction, since the gear of the past now becomes
competition against new sales.
>
>
> And i don't see much of a retro market either. What "retro" product can you
> see selling anywhere?
The greatest retro market is automotive (and a few motorcycles) based on
diversity and influence on designs, though clearly the clothing industry is a
huge market. Watches have largely gone away from the digital numbers, and are
now more analogue in appearance, with some being copies, or inspirations, of
much older designs. Furniture of the past is also influencing current designs,
and some companies are re-issuing old designs. Shoes are another more recent
development in the retro market, with some new re-issues of very old designs.
Perhaps the reason you do not see much "retro" market is that you are not a
consumer of those types of things. It could also be that it is more of a US (or
North American) trend, and not very prominent in Europe.
>
>
> Quality digital backs for, say, US$ 1,500 to 2,500, tops. That's the one and
> only "better idea" that can safe MF. And even than the competition with 35
> mm format based SLRs will be tough.
>
> So the Mamiyas, Hasselblads, Rolleis, etc. should strongly urge the
> manufacturers of digital MF backs to redress the balance. Their fate is in
> their hands, and time really is running out fast.
I only have a smaller view of marketing efforts in Europe, though in North
America, it seems that Mamiya are the only company that really advertises in
many locations. Some of that is combined digital and film capability promotion,
and some directed at the Mamiya 7 II. I rarely see Hasselblad products in many
ads, though that could be from the financial issues they had (maybe the buyout
could help that). With Rollei, hardly anyone knows these cameras in the US,
except in reference to really old Rollei TLR cameras. Most of the very sparse
Rollei ads are for P&S film and digital.
I think many of us using medium format do so for the "bigger is better" quality
idea behind the film area. The general knowledge of anything larger than 35 mm
just is not in the public view, and rarely in the photo enthusiasts perception.
There are few large digital backs, though I think more could appear in the next
few years. Whether that will be soon enough, or if some companies call it
quits, is tough to tell. I hope there is more in the future than just used
gear.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > It's that digital definitely is the future. And the moment that it will
take
> > over in all aspects (including quality - in the "more than good enough"
> > bracket) is getting closer and closer.
>
> Definitely, and it is the "more than good enough" attitude that I think
sucks.
> Too many people are becoming satisfied with mediocre. Of course, I see
that in
> more than just photography, so perhaps it is a reflection of current
society.
You dont seem to grasp what "more than good enough" means.
It does not (!) mean mediocre.
On the contrary. It means that there is more quality available than can be
visible in the end result. And dealing with a visible medium, that means
that you lose absolutely nothing (!) by not having it.
It would be rather silly to demand that our equipment produce more quality
than we will ever use and/or need, wouldn't it?
And this is not a new concept either. You don't use a 8x10" film camera to
take passport photos, do you? That has nothing to do with a supposed or real
recent decline in standards. It just would be foolish.
> Many of the camera makers are part of public corporations, and must answer
to
> their stock holders. It is unfortunate, but when the stockholders
perceptions
> are that digital imaging is the best choice, that would dictate where the
money
> and efforts go.
Don't forget that stockholders do not care about what it is precisely a firm
is doing. They only care about how much they will be earning. And that is
not dictated by them, but by the market, by us, the photographers.
So in the end, if we hold out to invest later in the things we wouldprefer
over the things available today (and yesterday), corporations, and
stockholders have only one aim: make sure that "later" is sooner rather than
later.
We dictate where the money and effort goes.
> [...]
>
> The consumer end drives the main photographic market, yet I think few
> enthusiasts nor professionals would use the biggest selling consumer film
> product: one time use cameras. I don't think medium format has ever been
much
> in the general consumer view, with the possible exception of folder
cameras a
> long time ago.
Well, that "long time ago" is indeed where MF has been in general consumer
use (but not just folders. there were many box-cameras too). Some might even
argue that that's where the non-general consumer use of MF belongs too: some
period in the past best forgotten.
Anyway, a few enthusiasts and/or professionals will not keep MF afloat. The
balance will not tip backwards towards film based MF again. So it's now or
never: MF manufacturers (or rather the companies making the things that plug
current MF systems into the Digido) must do all they can to prevent their
current users switching to other things in the first place.
If they don't, if people decide the new and surprisingly affordable
(compared to what integrating current MF systems into a digital workflow
costs) 10 - 14 MP class 35 mm format SLR based cameras are the thing they
want, it's curtains for MF, film and (!) digital.
> I agree that this film and digital back hybrid capability is the future of
the
> gear. What surprises me is that so few people know that the capability
even
> exists. I see Mamiya now advertising that way, especially with their lower
cost
> 645, but I have not seen other companies try that direction.
Probably because MF too know that it's horrendously expensive, and that
because of that not many people will even consider the possibility.
> [...] Bottom line is that these are very expensive cameras, and the
economy is
> still down.
Plus, of course, it (Rollei AF) is not the only option beckoning those
people who do still have money to spend...
> When someone compares a new Rollei 6008 to a less than 10 years old
> used version, the cost difference is quite large. This makes them seem
like a
> victim of their own rugged construction, since the gear of the past now
becomes
> competition against new sales.
That phenomenon has plagued MF since... well, always.
> > And i don't see much of a retro market either. What "retro" product can
you
> > see selling anywhere?
>
> The greatest retro market is automotive (and a few motorcycles) based on
> [...]
> Perhaps the reason you do not see much "retro" market is that you are not
a
> consumer of those types of things. It could also be that it is more of a
US (or
> North American) trend, and not very prominent in Europe.
I see.
No, the very reason why i do not see that retro market was because i was
thinking photography. Apart form a brief 35 mm RF revival (which realy has
gone again already), there simply is no retro-trend in photography.
If anything, traditional brands most associated with "the good old days" of
photography are in danger of becoming extinct. The only true, and strong,
trend in photography today is that digi-thingy.
Whether it is something i like or not, whether i would part with my beloved
MF equipment or not gladly is another matter. But that's the reality: we,
the customers, drive the market. And we drive it towards digital. And that
drive results in digital becoming better and affordable too. And at the same
time it is driving MF towards its end.
> I only have a smaller view of marketing efforts in Europe, though in North
> America, it seems that Mamiya are the only company that really advertises
in
> many locations. Some of that is combined digital and film capability
promotion,
> and some directed at the Mamiya 7 II. I rarely see Hasselblad products in
many
> ads, though that could be from the financial issues they had (maybe the
buyout
> could help that). With Rollei, hardly anyone knows these cameras in the
US,
> except in reference to really old Rollei TLR cameras. Most of the very
sparse
> Rollei ads are for P&S film and digital.
I don't think MF manufacturers should advertise more. It would do absolutely
no good. Unless...
They (MF manufacturers) should instead go banging their fists on MF digital
back manufacturer's tables, demanding they come up with more sensibly priced
products, explaining that if they don't the game's over for both (!)
manufacturers of MF equipment and the manufacturers of digital backs that
have to be hung on MF cameras.
> I think many of us using medium format do so for the "bigger is better"
quality
> idea behind the film area. The general knowledge of anything larger than
35 mm
> just is not in the public view, and rarely in the photo enthusiasts
perception.
> There are few large digital backs, though I think more could appear in the
next
> few years. Whether that will be soon enough, or if some companies call it
> quits, is tough to tell. I hope there is more in the future than just used
> gear.
Hmm... I'd say there are more than a few large digital backs. That
(scarcity) is not the problem either.
The problem is that you can buy about 8 to 10 Kodak 14 MP SLRn cameras for
what you're expected to pay for 1 (one!) 16 MP digital back to mount behind
your MF camera.
But i'm repeating myself. ;-)
Bob Monaghan
Two points; for the vast majority of camera users, "good enough" would be
a 2MP camera in a cell-phone, as are now under test in Japan etc. (Thanks
to David L. on that update ;-) Since circa 90% of digital camera owners
don't make or buy prints of their digital photos (PMIA stats), but email
and webpost them, all the things we think of as digital photography is
really a modest sized part of the overall market, yes? I further suggest
that this digital photography market is a bubble which is about to burst!
As people can soon/now click and upload from their cell phone cameras, the
need for standalone digital cameras, camera to computer software/hardware,
and local printing docking ports etc. will be radically reduced in the
future as direct uploading becomes readily available. Most folks won't
want to learn photoshop XIV either ;-) Anybody who is "serious" about
digital photography will likely have already bought a digital camera (or
two or three, ahem). So the issue is can the majority of the current base
be enticed to keep upgrading to new digital cameras every 18 months -
because if the answer is no, then the digital "bubble" bursts! ;-)
"Good enough" also means that today's $200 4MP and soon 5-6+MP cameras
will be "good enough" for the vast majority of owners. They won't need to
update or buy a new digital camera every 18 months to print some 8x10"
prints - what they have will be just as good.
The 35mm pros haven't embraced the 16MP MF digital backs, so I agree with
the observation that 10-12 MP may be all that most pros need to meet their
customer's demands. If so, then where will the demand come to build the
volume of sales needed to justify the high costs of fabricating 24MP and
32 MP and larger chips? If high volumes can't be achieved, then costs will
continue to be much greater than the volume selling chips, right? I have
suggested that this "sweet spot" looks likely around 16MP, based on
nominal print sizes and printing requirements in most media and markets.
So I think we will see a transition away from digital photography cameras
to cell-phones with digicams that upload automatically for the masses.
This corresponds to the disposable camera market in 35mm film today, yes?
The 4-6 MP low cost ($199 down) digicams will provide higher quality for
prosumers. A relative handful of pros will use their now considerable
investments in high end digital bodies (with 35mm SLR lenses?) at 11-16
MP. The question is whether a driving application (military?) can be found
which will require larger (MF) format digital sensors at 64 MP or above
which will reduce the costs (or cover R&D costs..) and provide the volumes
needed to enable a low cost digital back market for MF gear?
======
Keep in mind, however, that the MF market is rather small, only circa
50,000 units (japanese made, anyway) worldwide in early 2000 time frame
for both MF and LF cameras (see JCIA stats at
http://medfmt.8k.com/third/economics.html#99). So it doesn't take a very
large professional and serious amateur market worldwide to absorb such
camera numbers, esp. given many developing nations.
A worldwide pro market of 250,000 pros buying a camera every 5 years would
do it - but too many pros are abandoning MF for digital, yes? ;-( But a
half million serious amateur photographers worldwide, each buying a camera
every ten years, would also keep the current MF market going, yes? In
practice, a combination of pros and amateurs would likely to be buying MF
cameras in the future as in the past.
If anything, the exit of Fuji from making a number of their models, the
exit of Bronica/Tamron on several of their MF SLR offerings, and the
concerns about both Hasselblad/Hong-Kong and Rollei, plus the possible
end of production of Pentax 67 and Kiev production lines etc. per some
rumors, well we may have too much of a shakeout here already ;-) ;-)
I think one key is Mamiya/USA (in USA ads) approach, first cutting the
entry level costs with a 645E camera (made in china..) at half the
previous entry level costs (i.e., $750-ish on promotion), with the future
ability to adapt a digital back, should such become available cheaply.
Frankly, the Kiev cameras haven't filled the niche of a good entry level
camera for newbies, and the chinese TLRs are wildly overpriced on their
initial (3 el) models with many Q/C issues as well. The used japanese
camera lines are generally long in the tooth (20+ years). The newer AF MF
cameras are ultra-pricey Contax and Hassy/Rollei models, likely to give
sticker shock to 35mm shooters wanting to trade up.
My blind lens tests suggest this is hard to understand, given that
relatively modest cost MF lenses (as on a $75 new Chinese DF-4 SLR) can
produce surprisingly decent results. The labor costs on the Mamiya 645E
must be low enough to make $750 US$ MF SLR feasible.
I think a low cost MF entry level camera is the key to attracting people
to MF photography. But where are the reliable under $1k new MF cameras?
The lack of ads for MF with only 10,000 or so sales worldwide, per major
brand, makes it hard to compete against a million+ nikon SLRs etc. ;-)
Finally, I would like to see a magazine (perhaps shutterbug, but they have
been seduced by the dark side of the digital force) promoting medium
format and large format photography as an upgrade for 35mm users etc.
Perhaps this is where the mfgers can get together to support with ads such
a venture? IF they don't, it will be hard for them to complain about the
lack of sales in MF in the major US/Canada and European markets, yes?
my $.02 again ;-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> Two points; for the vast majority of camera users, "good enough" would be
> a 2MP camera in a cell-phone, as are now under test in Japan etc. (Thanks
> to David L. on that update ;-) Since circa 90% of digital camera owners
> don't make or buy prints of their digital photos (PMIA stats), but email
> and webpost them, all the things we think of as digital photography is
> really a modest sized part of the overall market, yes?
No. I think you're suffering severely from the "pars pro toto" syndrome. ;-)
That bit o fthe digital market is huge, yes. But only part of it. And as it
happens, not the part that should concern us.
> I further suggest
> that this digital photography market is a bubble which is about to burst!
Nice suggestion! ;-)
Will not happen though, will it?
> As people can soon/now click and upload from their cell phone cameras, the
> need for standalone digital cameras, camera to computer software/hardware,
> and local printing docking ports etc. will be radically reduced in the
> future as direct uploading becomes readily available. Most folks won't
> want to learn photoshop XIV either ;-) Anybody who is "serious" about
> digital photography will likely have already bought a digital camera (or
> two or three, ahem). So the issue is can the majority of the current base
> be enticed to keep upgrading to new digital cameras every 18 months -
> because if the answer is no, then the digital "bubble" bursts! ;-)
Most people wielding photographic equipment now and in the past have not
used their skills to supply the image devouring industry. They (this part of
the digido) are not normative. So forget about them.
> "Good enough" also means that today's $200 4MP and soon 5-6+MP cameras
> will be "good enough" for the vast majority of owners. They won't need to
> update or buy a new digital camera every 18 months to print some 8x10"
> prints - what they have will be just as good.
Again, you're looking at the bit of the digido that doesn't concern us.
> The 35mm pros haven't embraced the 16MP MF digital backs, so I agree
with...
Ah ! Now you're on the right track! ;-)
> ... the observation that 10-12 MP may be all that most pros need to meet
their
> customer's demands. If so, then where will the demand come to build the
> volume of sales needed to justify the high costs of fabricating 24MP and
> 32 MP and larger chips? If high volumes can't be achieved, then costs will
> continue to be much greater than the volume selling chips, right? I have
> suggested that this "sweet spot" looks likely around 16MP, based on
> nominal print sizes and printing requirements in most media and markets.
>
> So I think we will see a transition away from digital photography cameras
> to cell-phones with digicams that upload automatically for the masses.
[...]
And now you're on the wrong track again.
It doesn't matter what the majority of consumers do. MF manufacturers in
particular have never catered for the majority of consumers. Their
customer's needs are not met, will never be met, by a 2 MP cell phone
camera.
So what, do you think, needs to be done to keep their customers happy, to
prevent them switching to other high-MP products already available costing
far, far less than the digital solutions they (as mentioned before: it is
not even in the hands of MF manufacturers. They are at the mercy of yet
another group of manufacturers) have to offer.
> A relative handful of pros will use their now considerable
> investments in high end digital bodies (with 35mm SLR lenses?) at 11-16
> MP. The question is whether a driving application (military?) can be found
> which will require larger (MF) format digital sensors at 64 MP or above
> which will reduce the costs (or cover R&D costs..) and provide the volumes
> needed to enable a low cost digital back market for MF gear?
Well, whether there will be such an application or not, if they do not bring
costs down (and, don;t forget, by doing so increase sales volume no end), it
will be over very soon. The Canons, Nikons, Kodaks etc. will take this niche
over completely. And rightly so, i must add.
> [...]
> A worldwide pro market of 250,000 pros buying a camera every 5 years would
> do it - but too many pros are abandoning MF for digital, yes? ;-( But a
> half million serious amateur photographers worldwide, each buying a camera
> every ten years, would also keep the current MF market going, yes? In
> practice, a combination of pros and amateurs would likely to be buying MF
> cameras in the future as in the past.
I don't think so. In the past, yes. But there is no indication that this
will continue to happen. On the contrary. That's why we are having this
discussion, right?
> If anything, the exit of Fuji from making a number of their models, the
> exit of Bronica/Tamron on several of their MF SLR offerings, and the
> concerns about both Hasselblad/Hong-Kong and Rollei, plus the possible
> end of production of Pentax 67 and Kiev production lines etc. per some
> rumors, well we may have too much of a shakeout here already ;-) ;-)
Right.
> I think one key is Mamiya/USA (in USA ads) approach, first cutting the
> entry level costs with a 645E camera (made in china..) at half the
> previous entry level costs (i.e., $750-ish on promotion), with the future
> ability to adapt a digital back, should such become available cheaply.
I doubt that will work. Where is the market for a Mamiya 645E?
And yes, how can anyone make sense of that? Why would people who would not
(!) buy MF at "regular", non-entry level price levels spend about 30 times
that amount to be able to use a digital back on their
i-would-not-have-bought-it-if-it-had-cost-2-bucks-more camera? I fear nobody
can.
So yes, (repeating myself) prices have to go down drastically. Not (just) of
MF equipment, but above all of digital backs for MF equipment. And time
really is running out.
> [...]
>
> I think a low cost MF entry level camera is the key to attracting people
> to MF photography. But where are the reliable under $1k new MF cameras?
> The lack of ads for MF with only 10,000 or so sales worldwide, per major
> brand, makes it hard to compete against a million+ nikon SLRs etc. ;-)
There are very few people left not leering at the possibilities of digital.
And no matter how cheap a MF system will become, if the total costs
including (!) digital capability is not right, lowering MF prices alone will
achieve absolutely nothing.
Offering cheap entry level MF equipment that is not reliable will not help
matters, no. But will it matter much?
> Finally, I would like to see a magazine (perhaps shutterbug, but they have
> been seduced by the dark side of the digital force) promoting medium
> format and large format photography as an upgrade for 35mm users etc.
> Perhaps this is where the mfgers can get together to support with ads such
> a venture? IF they don't, it will be hard for them to complain about the
> lack of sales in MF in the major US/Canada and European markets, yes?
Magazines are taking the lead in this move away from MF. They, in their
daily business, do see and experience the benefits of digital workflow, and
how the current generation of 35 mm format based digital cameras are of the
"more than good enough" type.
Why would they spearhead a "keep MF alive!" campaign?
And again, i doubt that ads will work. There are only two questions in the
mind of people looking to buy today: is it digital, and how much does
it/that cost.
MF scores bad at both points separately, and combined it's even worse.
David J. Littleboy
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> > A relative handful of pros will use their now considerable
> > investments in high end digital bodies (with 35mm SLR lenses?) at 11-16
> > MP. The question is whether a driving application (military?) can be
found
> > which will require larger (MF) format digital sensors at 64 MP or above
> > which will reduce the costs (or cover R&D costs..) and provide the
volumes
> > needed to enable a low cost digital back market for MF gear?
>
> Well, whether there will be such an application or not, if they do not
bring
> costs down (and, don;t forget, by doing so increase sales volume no end),
it
> will be over very soon. The Canons, Nikons, Kodaks etc. will take this
niche
> over completely. And rightly so, i must add.
Hmm. I wonder what the market for a, say US$1000, 32MP (more realistic than
64MP) MF back would be given a US$1500 10D Mk3 at 16MP?
With the 10D3, the wide angle lenses are more fun (and cheaper), the
telephoto lenses are more fun (and cheaper), and the fast primes are two or
more stops faster (and cheaper). Oh, yes. There are _three_ good shift
lenses that also tilt. And zoom lenses in MF are a joke.
16MP is 300dpi at 11x14, and 250 dpi at 13x19. At A4, I find the 1Ds (325
dpi) looks a lot better than the 6MP dSLRs at 240 dpi, but for anything with
a subject (i.e. that doesn't depend on all the pine needles being resolved)
240 dpi looks very very good. And big prints that you keep at arms length
are fine at 150 dpi: that's 20x30 from 16MP.
So who's going to buy the MF back? Do you really need grain sniffable
13x19s? Is 212 dpi enough better than 150 dpi in your 20x30s that you'll
give up the convenience of the 35mm system?
I really doubt that you'll have any takers.
> > A worldwide pro market of 250,000 pros buying a camera every 5 years
would
> > do it - but too many pros are abandoning MF for digital, yes? ;-( But a
> > half million serious amateur photographers worldwide, each buying a
camera
> > every ten years, would also keep the current MF market going, yes? In
> > practice, a combination of pros and amateurs would likely to be buying
MF
> > cameras in the future as in the past.
>
> I don't think so. In the past, yes. But there is no indication that this
> will continue to happen. On the contrary. That's why we are having this
> discussion, right?
Yup.
> > I think one key is Mamiya/USA (in USA ads) approach, first cutting the
> > entry level costs with a 645E camera (made in china..) at half the
> > previous entry level costs (i.e., $750-ish on promotion), with the
future
> > ability to adapt a digital back, should such become available cheaply.
>
> I doubt that will work. Where is the market for a Mamiya 645E?
It's an attractive camera for MF newbies. Given that you get a real camera
with a guarantee from a reliable mfr, it makes a lot more sense than Kiev.
Lenses are inexpensive, plentiful, and widely available used.
The problem is that it can't do digital in its current form.
> So yes, (repeating myself) prices have to go down drastically. Not (just)
of
> MF equipment, but above all of digital backs for MF equipment. And time
> really is running out.
An I'll repeat myself: It's far worse than you think. Given the choice
between a free 32MP back for a Mamiya 645AFD and a $1500 10D Mk 3, the
number of new 645AFD sales that will result will be zero.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
jjs
Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> Bob Monaghan wrote:
>
> > Two points; for the vast majority of camera users, "good enough" would be
> > a 2MP camera in a cell-phone, as are now under test in Japan etc. (Thanks
> > to David L. on that update ;-) Since circa 90% of digital camera owners
> > don't make or buy prints of their digital photos (PMIA stats), but email
> > and webpost them, all the things we think of as digital photography is
> > really a modest sized part of the overall market, yes?
>
> No. I think you're suffering severely from the "pars pro toto" syndrome. ;-)
> That bit o fthe digital market is huge, yes. But only part of it. And as it
> happens, not the part that should concern us.
Can we clarify a bit? I think Bob was speaking of the broad width of the
top of the bell curve, which is by definition the very largest part of the
whole (the market share), so "pars pro toto" doesn't apply. (Am I correct,
Bob?) Bell curve in this case being all picture makers.
And again by definition there will always be the rarified few who demand
certain features (eg: quality). The more rarified, the less likely there
will be a product for these individuals, and if there are such products,
then the expense will almost certainly correspond.
Like who uses vacuum or high-end backs on MF or LF? $5000 for a few LPMM? :)
Any Moose Poster
jo...@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
> The more rarified, the less likely there
> will be a product for these individuals, and if there are such products,
> then the expense will almost certainly correspond.
>
> Like who uses vacuum or high-end backs on MF or LF? $5000 for a few LPMM? :)
From what I've seen that "perceived" need does not always translate to better images.
jjs
Poster <Bullwinks@bullwinkle&rockie.net> wrote:
Hell, I always said that great photographs are very rarely technically correct.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Hmm. I wonder what the market for a, say US$1000, 32MP (more realistic
than
> 64MP) MF back would be given a US$1500 10D Mk3 at 16MP?
>
> [...]
>
> So who's going to buy the MF back?
Many who already have the MF cameras plus lenses and only need the back to
go digital.
I would in a shot. See, i don't have any of the required bits of equipment
you would need besides the Canon body to make it work.
On the other hand, people who do have the necessary paraphenalia would be
foolish to get the back instead of the 10D.
That's the point i am trying to make all along: as soon as we have decided
not to wait for MF-digital prices to come down, and spend the money on
digital 35 mm instead, there is no turning back. MF will have lost. No
redemption, ever.
> Do you really need grain sniffable
> 13x19s? Is 212 dpi enough better than 150 dpi in your 20x30s that you'll
> give up the convenience of the 35mm system?
Well, i would like the 32 MP you promised me at the price you mentioned,
yes. And i wouldn't mind that i then would still need to use my current MF
gear, no.
I have (not very often, mind you) produced some prints that took every pixel
i could muster using a 4000 dpi scanner on my MF negs, with not a single one
(well, maybe two or three ;-)) to spare.
It's nice to be able to do that when needed. And if it can be done for no
more money than a less MP digital 35 mm camera, why ever not?
One thing is very important though. you mentioned lenses: any MF back would
have to be full frame. Adding the expense of having to buy (mostly
non-existing) extra-wide MF lenses would not be to the advantage of digital
MF's chances.
> > I doubt that will work. Where is the market for a Mamiya 645E?
>
> It's an attractive camera for MF newbies. Given that you get a real camera
> with a guarantee from a reliable mfr, it makes a lot more sense than Kiev.
> Lenses are inexpensive, plentiful, and widely available used.
Yes, but that's all about what the camera is (or rather, would be). And a
nice camera it may be.
But, again, where are the people queuing to buy that thing...?
To be a success, to even be the thing that will save MF, you would also need
to find people willing to invest in such a thing rather than invest in 35 mm
based digital. Being attractive in itself is not enough. It must still be
attractive when put side to side next to the competition.
And there's the rub...
> An I'll repeat myself: It's far worse than you think. Given the choice
> between a free 32MP back for a Mamiya 645AFD and a $1500 10D Mk 3, the
> number of new 645AFD sales that will result will be zero.
I doubt that. A lot. The 35 mm based thingies will outsell the MF thing
easy. But 35 mm based thingies always have. It's the "installed base" that
counts: the market for a cheap digital MF thing will be about as large as
that.
Anyway, only time will tell. I can't wait to see what answer MF manufactuers
have produced. And/or how many will announce they will resign from the
competition.
Perhaps upcoming Photokina will be "the moment" of truth. We'll see.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Can we clarify a bit? I think Bob was speaking of the broad width of the
> top of the bell curve, which is by definition the very largest part of the
> whole (the market share), so "pars pro toto" doesn't apply. (Am I correct,
> Bob?) Bell curve in this case being all picture makers. [...]
We're talking about (see subject line) not about "all picture makers" but
about that small niche occupied by MF users.
What Bob has put forward s very ineresting, but is not (!) about the MF
market. It can not be taken to be indicative of what will happen in the MF
market either. Transferring the trends in 2 MP cell phone camera market to
MF is rather pointless.
We're not talking about the entire bell-curve (i don't think that metaphor
applies, by the way), only about a rather independent, very small part
somewhere at the toe of one of its slopes.
So assuming that particular part of the market is indicative for what will
happen in all nooks and crannies of the entire photography field is indeed
displaying symptoms of the "pars pro toto"-syndrome. ;-)
Michael Benveniste
wrote:
>I think one key is Mamiya/USA (in USA ads) approach, first cutting the
>entry level costs with a 645E camera (made in china..) at half the
>previous entry level costs (i.e., $750-ish on promotion), with the future
>ability to adapt a digital back, should such become available cheaply.
I didn't think you could put a digital back on a 645E. But one of
the things the 645E did was to drive the price of _used_ 645 manual
focus cameras down to today's historically low levels.
>I think a low cost MF entry level camera is the key to attracting people
>to MF photography. But where are the reliable under $1k new MF cameras?
>The lack of ads for MF with only 10,000 or so sales worldwide, per major
>brand, makes it hard to compete against a million+ nikon SLRs etc. ;-)
I think that's a losing tactic.
Medium format is inherently more expensive than 35mm. Nor has it been
a hotbed of technological innovation. I don't see any film format
taking back the innovation role from digital. Nor do most amateurs
need (or even perceive) the advantages of medium format.
That leaves a couple of niches where MF could succeed. The first is
as a professional tool. The second is as a luxury good. Neither
niche lends itself well to a low price strategy.
As a professional tool, MF is under attack from digital SLR's. In
order to hold on to this market, the MF manufacturers must give
professional photographers a competitive edge. Otherwise, the systems
built around smaller, less expensive formats will crowd them out.
Turning to the luxury good strategy, you won't find "entry-level"
Ferraris, Rolexes or even Leicas. Occasionally, someone like Cadillac
will try something like the Cimarron, typically with disasterous
consequences.
Instead, to survive as a proider of luxury goods, you have to create
an aura of quality, exclusivity, and fashion. Leica and to a lesser
extent Rollei have all three. Hasselblad has the first two, but not
the third. Until the H1, 'blads were square, literally and
figuratively. Bronica, Mamiya, and Pentax have neither fashion nor
exclusivity. They all have quality, but have failed to project an
aura of quality beyond professional photographers.
Mamiya in particular has tried to woo new customers based on price and
theoretical advantages. IMHO they would have been better off if they
focused on image instead.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Q.G. de Bakker
> I didn't think you could put a digital back on a 645E. But one of
> the things the 645E did was to drive the price of _used_ 645 manual
> focus cameras down to today's historically low levels.
I don't doubt that one minute.
In fact, i think it was responsible for driving the price of used
any-brand-or-type MF camera down to today's historically low levels as
well... ;-)
> [big snip]
Can't disagree with any of it! ;-)
Good stuff!
jjs
Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> [... snip good clarification ...]
> We're not talking about the entire bell-curve (i don't think that metaphor
> applies, by the way), only about a rather independent, very small part
> somewhere at the toe of one of its slopes.
Every segment of the big bell curve is a bell curve. It's fractal. :)
> So assuming that particular part of the market is indicative for what will
> happen in all nooks and crannies of the entire photography field is indeed
> displaying symptoms of the "pars pro toto"-syndrome. ;-)
I leave this subject to you and Bob. I know only two real-life MF
photographers (outside of the wedding guys).
jjs
Benveniste <mhb-...@clearether.com> wrote:
>[...]
> Medium format is inherently more expensive than 35mm. Nor has it been
> a hotbed of technological innovation. I don't see any film format
> taking back the innovation role from digital. Nor do most amateurs
> need (or even perceive) the advantages of medium format.
Let me rephrase that to reflect what was said in the forties of 35mm:
"Medium format is more expensive than miniature (35mm). Medium format has
not been a hotbed of technological innovation. Idon't see any format
taking back the innovative role from miniature (35mm) photography.
> That leaves a couple of niches where MF could succeed.
:) That part hasn't changed.
Any Moose Poster
jo...@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote:
> Hell, I always said that great photographs are very rarely technically correct.
I would wager that some are and some are not. I've seen too many poorly executed
(printing wise) images without a subject as well. One is left to ask what was the point, is the
point and why are you showing that :-)
What's amazing is when they end up in print, without any explaintory text.
Neil Gould
Recently, Q.G. de Bakker <q...@tiscali.nl> posted:
>
> What Bob has put forward s very ineresting, but is not (!) about the
> MF market. It can not be taken to be indicative of what will happen
> in the MF market either. Transferring the trends in 2 MP cell phone
> camera market to MF is rather pointless.
>
I agree with you that MF users are not an appropriate subset of all
photo-takers (or even all photographers), and that thne 2 MP cell phone
market will not be much of a factor one way or another to the MF market.
However, I have difficulty with your pessimistic view of the furture for
MF photography.
We accept that higher resolution cameras will be the trend until the
returns diminish to the point where higher resolution sensors just aren't
worth manufacturing. I don't know what that point is, but if pressed, I'd
put it somewhere in the 20 MP range. As it is, many feel that 6 MP
satisfies the majority of 35 mm user's requirements, and the same feel
that the 11 - 14 MP cameras exceed the capabilities of 35 mm. I don't
agree, and was faced today with a scenario where I chose 35 mm over
digital.
There is an aspect of digital that is correlative to photography that I
haven't seen discussed yet (not that it would be difficult for me to miss
if it has been discussed). What if the *only* images you could take using
film were 20" x 30" (or the equivalent of a 24" field camera)? This may
sound strange, but if you think about it, MF film gives you the
opportunity to not have to decide ahead of time which images will be used
at the maximum practical enlargement size, e.g. maximum resolution of the
medium.
OTOH, with digital, the best thing to do is always shoot at maximum
resolution in the event that at some point one wants to produce a maximum
sized enlargement. One of the consequences of this are that quite a bit of
time will be spent downsampling those 20 MP images for use at 4" x 6" or
smaller. This isn't going to be a one-jump move if you want any control
over the quality of the results. Then, there's storage, and archiving.
So, resolution isn't the only concern when it comes to making a choice of
what medium to use. Today, I attended my 5-year-old granddaughter's first
dance recital. My first thoughts were, grab the digicam. Then, after
considering all of the ramifications, I grabbed the Leica. Why? Because
the odds that she'll be able to view images of this recital 20 years from
now are far greater than if I put them on any available digital media.
So, there's two aspects that should keep film around for a while yet. At
one point, I thought that it would be great to have a digital back for the
MF camera. I no longer think so. Like others, I've concluded that the
smaller format digicam is the better tool.
For one thing, while there was a lot of snickering and denial going on
when Olympus announced a couple of years ago that they were making
digital-specific lenses for their prosumer digicams, a look at the field
now suggests that they were, once again, just *way* ahead of the pack.
Well, EVERYBODY has digital-specific lenses now. And every review I've
seen that compares the digital-specific lenses to film lenses on a digicam
claims that the new digital-specific lenses produce observably better
quality images.
Hmm. Forget that digital back for the Leica. And, for the same reasons,
forget that digital back for the Rollei. Instead, put that money into a
decent MF film scanner, buy a decent mid-range digicam. Those digicams are
coming down in price and at the same time outperforming their high-end
predecessors in every way. The MF film scanner will still outperform the
best of the current, and more than likely any future digicams. And, you
can pocket the remaining $2-3kUS.
Best of all worlds, I say.
Regards,
Neil
Raphael Bustin
wrote:
>Michael Benveniste wrote:
>
>> I didn't think you could put a digital back on a 645E. But one of
>> the things the 645E did was to drive the price of _used_ 645 manual
>> focus cameras down to today's historically low levels.
>
>I don't doubt that one minute.
>In fact, i think it was responsible for driving the price of used
>any-brand-or-type MF camera down to today's historically low levels as
>well... ;-)
The 645E is what got me back into MF photography.
I had used a number of TLRs in my younger days.
Since I've owned it I've seen its price drop from $1250
(BH price, near its introduction, the price I paid) down
to $650 and, last I checked, back up to around $850.
What are folks supposed to make of that, or the
inherent worth or value of the equipment, in the
face of such wild swings?
The other telling tale is when I once heard this
camera, on this forum, refered to as a "bottom
feeder." Which it is, I suppose, compared to
Blads and Rolleis and Contax. My point is that
matters of financial reality don't impinge on the
MF world in any "normal" way. MF is a is a
niche market, and has been for the last forty
years or more, when the last "Brownies" were
chucked into the bin.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
steven...@banet.net
there shooting with Sputniks, ancient Rolleidoscops and twinned MF cameras.
In additon I've read that there's a new MF 3d camera due out of China this
year with a $1300 price tag. They're also selling a coin operated viewer
(you can just guess what that's for). From what I've read 3d MF slides are
breathtaking. I've done superslide 3d, but have not spent the bucks for a
full frame (i.e. 50mmX50mm) 3d viewer.
Bob Monaghan
the key point y'all missed is that it looks unlikely that a 35mm format
64MP sensor is likely, based on CMOS developer Carver Mead's comments at
end of article re: fundamental size limits in wavelength of light see
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp
the 16.8MP foveon chip is 22mmx22mm square format ;-) now, so 64MP would
be 44x44mm square, right? The trend is towards larger sensor sites to
improve images and reduce noise. The Fuji 22 MP sensor is circa 40x51mm; a
32 MP sensor would be decidedly MF sized and not 24x36mm.
Most of us shooting MF SLRs with interchangeable backs also have full kits
of 35mm SLRs, including the pros.
So if 64MP becomes available, I see it requiring MF sized cameras and
lenses, and not 35mm SLR sized chips, even full frame ;-) What I don't see
is any "need" or killer application which requires 64MP sized chips. Now
if HDTV cameras required a 64MP or larger sensor, I would expect cheap MF
digital backs as a side product. But they don't. Other than specialty
military/science applications, I don't see a requirement which will
justify the multi-billion dollar fabrication facilities needed to make
42x56mm or 56x56mm sized sensor devices. Do you?
Again, my argument is that the 35mm SLRs, as QGdeB noted, are far more
popular than the more pricey 16MP digital backs for MF. If 16MP offered a
serious advantage over 8 MP or 11 MP for digital users, then I would
expect to see a lot more digital back users with 16MP backs. And we don't.
So I argue that there is a series of "sweet spots" here, around 2 MP for
consumers with cell phone cameras for 90% of photos to websites, and 4-5
MP for $200 cameras for family digicams doing home prints up to 11x14" or
so, and a modest market (in terms of multi-million $ R&D and chip plant
costs) for higher end DSLRs up to 11 to 16 MP or so. There isn't and
hasn't been much demand for 16MP sensor MF digital back images, right? So
where is the demand for 64MP images which will drive the mfgers to make
billion dollar investments to provide such chips in high enough volumes to
make 64 MP digital backs possible?
In short, I see MF gear being needed beyond 16MP (cf Fuji's 22 MP sensor).
That's the good news. The bad news is I don't see enough of a market for
such gear (today, or in future) from the handful of MF using pros to
justify the mfger costs to deliver digital backs in high enough volumes to
get the custom made costs down to mass produced limits.
In the above article, National Semiconductor figures they can make 16MP
chips for "disposable" digital cameras as cheaply as today's disposable
film cameras (actually recycled), i.e., under $10 or so each 16MP CMOS
sensor chip. The problem is that a 64MP chip at today's volumes will still
cost $10,000, not $40 ;-)
my $.02 again
Bob Monaghan
digital isn't film ;-) with film, you can simply cut the large rolls of
film into 120 rollfilm, or 4x5" or 8x10" sheets or 35mm film, as needed.
With digital, you have to build multi-billion dollar IC fab plants to make
a 16MP or even more for a 64MP CMOS sensor chip. You can't afford to build
a multi-billion dollar 64MP sensor making plant, or spend tens of millions
on integrating that 64MP sensor into a digital camera back with software
etc., unless you have a market that can repay those investment costs.
If national semi's CEO is right, and they can sell 100 million annually of
Foveon style CMOS 16MP sensor chips, then they can get the costs down to
$10 or less (even $2-3 per chip, making "disposable 16MP digital cameras"
feasible to compete with today's disposable $10 film cameras. Again, see
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp article etc.
The same isn't true of a 64MP sensor, for reasons I suggested. That is why
you can't say what happens with cell phone cameras and 35mm DSLRs is
unconnected to what we can do with digital in the MF niche market. MF is
niche market (50,000 film cameras sold per year worldwide, maybe 1-2% of
them with 16MP digital backs costing $10-25k, yes?). You can't justify
billion dollar plants and tens of millions in R&D on digital back sales in
MF (look at costs of adapting existing sensors in today's digital backs
($25k..) vs. costs of sensors in somewhat higher volume Kodak DSLRs for
35mm format etc.
So nobody is going to make multi-millions or billions in investments in
order to provide MF users with low cost 16/32/64+MP digital backs ;-)
So we _are_ dependent on what the masses do, because IC sensor mfgering is
a really mass production process. It costs as much to build a IC plant to
make a thousand 64MP chips as 100 million 16MP chips, but that implies a
$1 million cost per 64MP chip vs $10 for " " ;-) ;-) Can we afford that?
Is there a mass volume application which justifies and demands 32MP and
64MP chips? So far even pro photographers seem satisfied with 8 MP and 11
MP DSLRs vs 16MP digital backs at $25k or so. Unless there is such a
demand and market, I doubt 64 MP chips will be developed.
In short, QGdeB's argument that what happens in the mass consumer market
doesn't limit us on the MF niche market is false, because sensor chips
require huge investments in R&D and IC fab plants which mandate huge sales
volumes to get the costs down.
I don't see any such huge mass market or demand for 64MP sized devices, so
you? If there is one, then the good news is that we can probably hope for
low cost 64MP sensors of MF sizes which can be adapted for MF digital
backs. These 64MP sensors probably won't be compatible with 35mm smaller
formats (cf. Fuji's 40+x51+mm chip for 22 MP sinar backs etc.).
So high end (22+MP) digital photography may be the preserve of MF or
larger systems? The problem is consumers and even pro photographers are
happy enough at 8 or 11MP to make 16MP cameras a likely "sweet spot". So
there won't be any photographic demand for larger resolution digital
cameras past 16 MP or so?
The caveat here is that it may be possible to synthesize a 32MP or larger
equiv. sensor using multiple cheaper 16MP chips (or a 48 MP in 35mm format
using tri color filtering etc.). But a native 64MP chip does not look to
have the manufacturing volumes needed to make them cheap due to lack of
demand?
my $.02+ '-)
Bob Monaghan
Hi Michael!
Let us say that present trends in scanner improvements continue. And that
future color printers can produce rather larger prints inexpensively, as
picoliter technology is implemented better. Films might also continue to
be improved to be better matched to scanner's needs, producing higher
resolution and Dmax and so on. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
Now you can buy a $750 MF camera with auto-exposure and shoot 645 slides,
then blow them up optically or scan them to 30MP or 64MP or better
resolutions and make large poster prints. Perhaps Kinkos would have a
large printer where you make poster sized prints from your CDROM.
Or you can spend $1k+ on a DSLR and generate an 8MP or 11MP or at best a
16MP image (again, per Foveon's analysis, see
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp )
Presumably, a 30-64MP sensor equiv. scan can generate a larger poster
print than the 8 to 11MP (or 16MP) sensor DSLR, yes? As I have noted in
this thread, I don't expect 64MP sensors. But a film scanner that can
produce clean 64MP images from MF film is feasible, yes? ;-)
===============
We have a new series of color printers able to use much larger widths, and
unlimited lengths in some cases, of paper to produce color prints. I think
as larger MP digicams come available, people will want to produce larger
prints, including panoramics and wall sized photos, if prices are right.
Today, you can get 11x14" digital prints for rather less $ than an optical
print, and even less in larger (panoramic) formats. I suggest that a
future 20x30" print could cost less than today's 11x14" print with new
printer technology, and even 40x60" might be possible - with the demand
coming from thousands of kiosks and companies wanting to be able to do
posters and large prints for banners, conferences, and all that ;-)
The key point is that 35mm sized DSLRs of 8Mp or 11MP or the max of 16MP
still can't match film's potential resolution, which future scanners can
tap, and provide much larger digital prints (just as larger optical prints
are possible today, yes?).
So MF continues to enjoy an enlargeability and quality gap in the future
;-) Moreover, as larger print making costs decline, the demand for larger
print capability may promote the use of MF with film scanners to achieve
those needs, yes? ;-)
grins bobm
PS - the counterargument? in some cases, you can merge multiple shots (not
action shots, but many subjects are fixed) from an 8 MP camera to achieve
16 MP or larger equiv. image quality without going to film and a scanner.
Raphael Bustin
wrote:
>
>the key point y'all missed is that it looks unlikely that a 35mm format
>64MP sensor is likely, based on CMOS developer Carver Mead's comments at
>end of article re: fundamental size limits in wavelength of light see
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp
And who appointed Carver Mead as the authority on this topic?
Carver's got a specific product to sell, and so far it's been a
very hard sell. Foveon continues to play a very small role in
the digicam market.
I think MF and LF may continue to have a role in niche
applications. It will be many years (if ever) before a silicon
sensor can return the sort of pixel counts that I get from
scanning either of these. The only real issue I see is
how long will Kodak and Fuji (et al) continue to make
film in these formats?
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Nick Zentena
> Today, you can get 11x14" digital prints for rather less $ than an optical
> print, and even less in larger (panoramic) formats. I suggest that a
> future 20x30" print could cost less than today's 11x14" print with new
> printer technology, and even 40x60" might be possible - with the demand
> coming from thousands of kiosks and companies wanting to be able to do
> posters and large prints for banners, conferences, and all that ;-)
The problem with this hope is that it requires large paper to be kept in
stock. Not only do you need to keep multiple paper sizes in stock you'll
need too change paper rolls. It stops being cheap when you need a human.
Nick
Raphael Bustin
wrote:
>We have a new series of color printers able to use much larger widths, and
>unlimited lengths in some cases, of paper to produce color prints. I think
>as larger MP digicams come available, people will want to produce larger
>prints, including panoramics and wall sized photos, if prices are right.
>Today, you can get 11x14" digital prints for rather less $ than an optical
>print, and even less in larger (panoramic) formats. I suggest that a
>future 20x30" print could cost less than today's 11x14" print with new
>printer technology, and even 40x60" might be possible - with the demand
>coming from thousands of kiosks and companies wanting to be able to do
>posters and large prints for banners, conferences, and all that ;-)
>
>The key point is that 35mm sized DSLRs of 8Mp or 11MP or the max of 16MP
>still can't match film's potential resolution, which future scanners can
>tap, and provide much larger digital prints (just as larger optical prints
>are possible today, yes?).
>
>So MF continues to enjoy an enlargeability and quality gap in the future
>;-) Moreover, as larger print making costs decline, the demand for larger
>print capability may promote the use of MF with film scanners to achieve
>those needs, yes? ;-)
The larger printers are great fun but not cheap.
Hard to believe that your typical "consumer" will ever
learn how to make satisfactory 16x20" prints at home,
or learn how to scan MF film or invest in the gear to do
any of that. That's just dreamin'.
Tabloid printers (13x19") are available for the
desktop starting at around $400 new, but that is
still rather expensive. A printer to do 16x20" will
cost you $1500 to $1800 - hardly a commodity item.
Quality isn't the only factor that drives markets, it's
often not even near the top of the list. For photography,
convenience and portability are *huge* factors, and
that applies nearly across the board, except maybe for
the very highest end studio gear.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Lassi Hippeläinen
>
> On 23 May 2004 22:21:57 -0500, rmon...@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >the key point y'all missed is that it looks unlikely that a 35mm format
> >64MP sensor is likely, based on CMOS developer Carver Mead's comments at
> >end of article re: fundamental size limits in wavelength of light see
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp
>
> And who appointed Carver Mead as the authority on this topic?
> Carver's got a specific product to sell, and so far it's been a
> very hard sell. Foveon continues to play a very small role in
> the digicam market.
He's got the physics on his side. The wavelength of light isn't
changing. You can't use smaller than five micron pixels, and even those
are pretty noisy. 64MP with 7x7 micron dots is 6x6cm in size, even
without the electronics between the pixels.
> I think MF and LF may continue to have a role in niche
> applications. It will be many years (if ever) before a silicon
> sensor can return the sort of pixel counts that I get from
> scanning either of these. The only real issue I see is
> how long will Kodak and Fuji (et al) continue to make
> film in these formats?
Film will be competitive for a long time. When you start handling 64MP
(or 400MB) images, you'll soon notice some things:
- memory isn't cheap, and you need lots of it
- digital processing needs memory all the way from scanning workstations
to permanent storage
- permanent storage isn't permanent, unless it is refreshed every five
years or so
- the rest of the equipment gets obsolete even faster...
In terms of total cost of ownership, MF is still hard to beat. Digitals
win when you need the speed.
-- Lassi
Neil Gould
Recently, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahi...@ieee.orgies.invalid> posted:
>
> In terms of total cost of ownership, MF is still hard to beat.
> Digitals win when you need the speed.
>
I agree with half of this... the cost of MF is hard to beat for creating
high-quality images. However, speed is not always in digital's favor. As I
pointed out in another post, downsampling a 64 MP image to be used at, for
example, 3" x 3" in a publication can take much longer than scanning MF
film to that finished size. Combined with the archival issues, digital's
advantages are in producing images for short-term uses and for unique
features such as the ability to shoot at 4-5 fps without having to change
film / backs.
Neil
Q.G. de Bakker
> the key point y'all missed is that it looks unlikely that a 35mm format
> 64MP sensor is likely, based on CMOS developer Carver Mead's comments at
> end of article re: fundamental size limits in wavelength of light see
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091102foveon16mp.asp
Carver Mead is enjoying great visionary succes lately, isn't he?
It was deemed very unlikely that people would ever fly. Or that anybody
would ever need more than 512 kB of memory. Or that "still-video" would ever
replace film. Or...
;-)
Anyway, perhaps sensors must grow to be able to produce more pixels.
But unless that will happen tomorrow, it will be too late to help keep MF
alive today.
So those 4x4 cm 64MP sensors will have to be put into something which will
look stunningly like a 35 mm format SLR camera of old (have you ever
compared the sizes of a Nikon F5 and a Mamiya 645? ;-)), or perhaps one of
those "bridge" cameras produced in the late 70s.
Not in a MF digiback, since there will not be a MF camera left to put that
on.
The above is perhaps a bit "over the top", but there's nothing wrong with
the realism of notion it is expressing.
We will not need MF cameras. They will simply put another housing (perhaps
even a telephone ;-)) around that chip. Put a lens mount on it, a display on
the back, and Bob's your uncle.
> [...] popular than the more pricey 16MP digital backs for MF. If 16MP
offered a
> serious advantage over 8 MP or 11 MP for digital users, then I would
> expect to see a lot more digital back users with 16MP backs. And we don't.
But not (!) because there is no advantage. Only because we are expected to
pay far too much for it. The things as the are today are way out of
proprotion. That's why the lower end will win. That's why the lower end will
bring in the revenue that will help the lower end to gain even more of an
advantage over the upper end by becoming more and more like the upper end
while at the same time holding on to its competitive edge (disproportionally
low price), which will increase the low end's winning potential no end. Etc.
The only thing to break this spiral would be a rather huge correction of the
high end's prices.
If that will not happen, the current MF and LF oriented high end will simply
cease to be.
I guess we fundamentally disagree. I do believe there will definitely not be
a place for MF in the future unless they start carving it out today.
Relying on present technology's shortcomings to ensure a MF future is the
most foolish thing MF industry (both camera- and digital back manufacturers)
can do. It would indeed be so stupid that not even shouting at the top of
your voice could put enough stress on that simple fact.
> In the above article, National Semiconductor figures they can make 16MP
> chips for "disposable" digital cameras as cheaply as today's disposable
> film cameras (actually recycled), i.e., under $10 or so each 16MP CMOS
> sensor chip. The problem is that a 64MP chip at today's volumes will still
> cost $10,000, not $40 ;-)
They also though the D-Finity was a break-through product. And that with
their invention of a three layer chip, noone would want to buy those crappy
Canons and Nikons anymore.
;-)
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > > It's that digital definitely is the future. And the moment that it will
> take
> > > over in all aspects (including quality - in the "more than good enough"
> > > bracket) is getting closer and closer.
> >
> > Definitely, and it is the "more than good enough" attitude that I think
> sucks.
> > Too many people are becoming satisfied with mediocre. Of course, I see
> that in
> > more than just photography, so perhaps it is a reflection of current
> society.
>
> You dont seem to grasp what "more than good enough" means.
> It does not (!) mean mediocre.
Well, in southern California, if you use that phrase, it does mean mediocre. I
guess this is the difference of the parts of the world where both of us reside.
> . . . . . . . .
>
> > [...]
> >
> > The consumer end drives the main photographic market, yet I think few
> > enthusiasts nor professionals would use the biggest selling consumer film
> > product: one time use cameras. I don't think medium format has ever been
> much
> > in the general consumer view, with the possible exception of folder
> cameras a
> > long time ago.
>
> Well, that "long time ago" is indeed where MF has been in general consumer
> use (but not just folders. there were many box-cameras too). Some might even
> argue that that's where the non-general consumer use of MF belongs too: some
> period in the past best forgotten.
> Anyway, a few enthusiasts and/or professionals will not keep MF afloat. The
> balance will not tip backwards towards film based MF again. So it's now or
> never: MF manufacturers (or rather the companies making the things that plug
> current MF systems into the Digido) must do all they can to prevent their
> current users switching to other things in the first place.
I will comment more in some other parts of this thread, since several other
people have brought up some points to consider. Basically, taking your
pessimistic view into account (and it might be 100% correct), I think all the
medium format companies should just liquidate their assets this year, and shut
down their companies.
>
> . . . . . . . .
>
> > [...] Bottom line is that these are very expensive cameras, and the
> economy is
> > still down.
>
> Plus, of course, it (Rollei AF) is not the only option beckoning those
> people who do still have money to spend...
Which seems like thriving in a niche market could be an answer. The problem
then becomes what volume of sales will sustain a niche? Large format is already
a niche market, yet there is still diversity, just as an example.
>
>
> . . . . . . .
>
> > > And i don't see much of a retro market either. What "retro" product can
> you
> > > see selling anywhere?
> >
> > The greatest retro market is automotive (and a few motorcycles) based on
> > [...]
> > Perhaps the reason you do not see much "retro" market is that you are not
> a
> > consumer of those types of things. It could also be that it is more of a
> US (or
> > North American) trend, and not very prominent in Europe.
>
> I see.
>
> No, the very reason why i do not see that retro market was because i was
> thinking photography. Apart form a brief 35 mm RF revival (which realy has
> gone again already), there simply is no retro-trend in photography.
The only retro photography trend I see, and mostly southern California (and
some other cites in the US), is more younger people buying used film cameras.
These could be considered accessories to match trendy retro style clothing
(especially anything with "That 70's" look), though the funny thing is that
many of these used camera buyers actually use their gear. While they may not
fit into enthusiast, nor consumer models, many of them like the aspect of
controlling the camera, rather than the automation controlling them. This is
the "technology backlash" reaction to too much technology in everyday life.
Retro is popular because it reminds one of simpler times, even though that
memory is created in those that did not live in those times.
>
> If anything, traditional brands most associated with "the good old days" of
> photography are in danger of becoming extinct. The only true, and strong,
> trend in photography today is that digi-thingy.
True, based on volume sales, or even number of articles. Of course, the reality
is about as true as the "paperless office". I think wireless imaging will soon
become the next big thing, and the future volume leader of "photography" (if
you can still call that photography).
>
>
> Whether it is something i like or not, whether i would part with my beloved
> MF equipment or not gladly is another matter. But that's the reality: we,
> the customers, drive the market. And we drive it towards digital. And that
> drive results in digital becoming better and affordable too. And at the same
> time it is driving MF towards its end.
So again, why should the medium format companies even continue? Why not
liquidate now, and get a last profit off their assets? Why did the distributor
for Hasselblad buy the company? Why did Tamron buy Bronica? Why does Mamiya
still advertise? Why did Rollei and Contax make autofocus cameras?
>
>
> > I only have a smaller view of marketing efforts in Europe, though in North
> > America, it seems that Mamiya are the only company that really advertises
> in
> > many locations. Some of that is combined digital and film capability
> promotion,
> > and some directed at the Mamiya 7 II. I rarely see Hasselblad products in
> many
> > ads, though that could be from the financial issues they had (maybe the
> buyout
> > could help that). With Rollei, hardly anyone knows these cameras in the
> US,
> > except in reference to really old Rollei TLR cameras. Most of the very
> sparse
> > Rollei ads are for P&S film and digital.
>
> I don't think MF manufacturers should advertise more. It would do absolutely
> no good. Unless...
>
> They (MF manufacturers) should instead go banging their fists on MF digital
> back manufacturer's tables, demanding they come up with more sensibly priced
> products, explaining that if they don't the game's over for both (!)
> manufacturers of MF equipment and the manufacturers of digital backs that
> have to be hung on MF cameras.
I think the price point will always be high. Even with Kodak making digital
backs, any Medium Format direct digital will be high. If you compare to the
cost of a scanner, around $2000, that is the competition for digital backs, and
I don't see them ever getting close. With that in mind, they (MF companies)
should liquidate assets this year.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>