hasselblad lenses vs. mamiya lenses
Ram
> im thinking of buying a medium format camera ,
> i would be happy to hear
> any coments fron people who own either hasselblad?camera or a mamiya
camera ,
> any links that compare MTF between both?companies lenses?
and is there an absolute answer to the question whith is sharper?
thanx
ram
Wamsey1
I think if Hassy could prove their lenses are sharper than Mamiya their ads
would scream this info.
Also, if Mamiya could prove their lenses are shaprer than Hassy, their ads
would scream it.
John Serrano
Ok, I am only speaking from experience and not tech data. The
Hassablad’s optics are superior BUT the negative size in relation to
print size is the determining question. I shoot portraits. There is a
noticeable difference in sharpness and resolution from 24x30 and larger.
The larger 6x7 negative of course holding together better as the
enlargement size is increased. Note: the Square neg printed in a
rectangle gives you the same format as a 645. Hold that neg up to a 6x7
and you will begin to see the difference between the sizes and why what
I'm saying is true.
Hope this of some help.
John
Stwist
True, Hassy lenses ARE contrastier (read "sharper", better MTF,) than
Mamiya 6x7 camera lenses. This means you should buy Hasselblad if that is
what you want/need.
I, too, am a portrait guy. The Mamiya is far superior for my purposes, i.e.
large prints and creamy smooth skin. (Ooooo!)
Are you doing architectural transparencies or weddings???
Fred Whitlock
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
John Serrano <phot...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<34A7C0...@earthlink.net>...
If it helps without offending anyone I can tell you that some Zeiss lenses
for Hasselblad are marginally better than Mamiya RZ lenses and some RZ
lenses are marginally better than Zeiss. Not surprising. Every lens line
has some designs that are stronger than others. I'll offer two examples.
The 180 Zeiss Sonnar is marginally better (contrastier) than the Mamiya Z
while the 50 Mamiya Z is a little contrastier (and sharper in the far
corners at f5.6) than the 50 Distagon. Both the RZ and Zeiss products are
world class lenses of spectacular performance, but it isn't accurate to
make a sweeping statements like "this lens line is better than that one"
despite what popular culture dictates. The above are based on tests,
incidentally, and are subjective conclusions. Good shooting.
Fred
dan...@mail.idt.net
T. Schooler wrote:
>
> God. Here it goes again. Just can't let it rest can you ?
T,
Actually, it's you that 'just can't let it rest'. DCJ, besides being fully correct, has every
permission to post his finding. Surely, even a man so intelligent as you, can endure a
factual viewpoint, presented without reference to any earlier disagreement.
Why not just let the comment pass?
DG
dan...@mail.idt.net
Picture This wrote:
> I neither refute nor support this data, but it's
> certainly not irrefutably cogent. And most notably, it's
> irrelevant in the real world.
Just in the nick of time again. Why, picture that.....
DG
mark quandt
You people have got to be kidding! You aren't going to convince ME that
all Hasselblad lenses are sharper than all Mamiya lenses! I've seen the
proof! I defy you to find the results of any Hasselblad SLR camera/lens
combo sharper or more contrasty that the Maimiya 7 and any of it's
lenses. I have yet to see results from ANY camera as sharp as that
medium format rangefinder. Again, mine is one opinion amoung thousands,
and it's submitted respecfully. I do beleive fully in what I'm saying,
though!
Mark
DCJPhtgrfy
John Serrano <phot...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ok, I am only speaking from experience and not tech data. The
> Hassablad’s optics are superior BUT the negative size in relation to
> print size is the determining question. I shoot portraits. There is a
> noticeable difference in sharpness and resolution from 24x30 and larger.
> The larger 6x7 negative of course holding together better as the
> enlargement size is increased. Note: the Square neg printed in a
> rectangle gives you the same format as a 645. Hold that neg up to a 6x7
> and you will begin to see the difference between the sizes and why what
> I'm saying is true.
Actually, a square negative cropped to a 4/5 proportion is larger than that of
a 645 neg. A 6x7 neg is considerably larger than both. These size differences
are illustrated at http://members.aol.com/DCJPhtgrfy/formats.html
DCJ
T. Schooler
>Actually, a square negative cropped to a 4/5 proportion is larger than that of
>a 645 neg. A 6x7 neg is considerably larger than both. These size differences
>are illustrated at http://members.aol.com/DCJPhtgrfy/formats.html
God. Here it goes again. Just can't let it rest can you ?
Picture This
>Actually, a square negative cropped to a 4/5 proportion is larger than that
>of a 645 neg. A 6x7 neg is considerably larger than both. These size
>differences are illustrated at http://members.aol.com/DCJPhtgrfy/formats.html
This subject again ? Please, let's not. For the record, the only
thing illustrated at the aforementioned web site is one person's
conclusion. I neither refute nor support this data, but it's
T. Schooler
>Actually, it's you that 'just can't let it rest'. DCJ, besides being
>fully correct,
I see. Since his conclusion differs from yours, then that means
you were wrong.
>Why not just let the comment pass?
I might ask you the same question.
dan...@mail.idt.net
T. Schooler wrote:
> I see. Since his conclusion differs from yours, then that means
> you were wrong.
Well, let's correct that to 'seemingly intelligent' then. I believe the pertinent portion of
the quote DCJ posted was:
"Actually, a square negative cropped to a 4/5 proportion is larger than that of
a 645 neg."
There is no disagreement between DCJ and I on this point at all. As for the difference in
terminal percentage between my and DCJ's conclusions, I'm no math wiz and will gladly
defer to his result as the correct one. My apologies to DCJ for being absolutely wrong.
> I might ask you the same question.
Well?
DG
Picture This
>Just in the nick of time again.
In time to avoid the revival of an inane thread ? Hopefully.
>Why, picture that.....
Indeed. Reading between the thinly guised lines, I might
suggest you learn how to read message headers.
Picture This
>Actually, it's you that 'just can't let it rest'.
That could be said of both T and DCJ. And of
you as well.
>Why not just let the comment pass?
Yes, why not ?
Picture This
>I see. Since his conclusion differs from yours, then that means
>you were wrong.
perhaps. Let it ride please, all of you.
T. Schooler
>I'm no math wiz and will gladly defer to his result as the correct one. My apologies
>to DCJ for being absolutely wrong.
Wow. There is hope for the galaxy after all :-)
>> I might ask you the same question.
>Well?
Surely you jest. The question I might ask is, why not let the remark pass ? As
you suggested. You challenged me for not letting it pass, when I challenged
him for not letting it pass, while you didn't let it pass.
Got that ? :-)
dan...@mail.idt.net
T. Schooler wrote:
> Surely you jest. The question I might ask is, why not let the remark pass ? As
> you suggested. You challenged me for not letting it pass, when I challenged
> him for not letting it pass, while you didn't let it pass.
>
> Got that ? :-)
You see TS, I know that you know that we all know, that in reality, DCJ is 100%
correct and that you're 100% incorrect. And 'Picture This' knows that I know, since
he's, at best, a parcel part of you, that you know, you are incapable of imparting a
correction of your mistake. Why, I just don't know. Get the picture?
As I said (which was without "challenge" BTW): "Surely, even a man so seemingly
intelligent as you, can endure a factual viewpoint, presented without reference to any
earlier disagreement."
Now how many 'perspectives' does a parcel part take?
I do challenge you to not answer this!
DG
T. Schooler
>You see TS, I know that you know that we all know, that in reality, DCJ is 100%
>correct and that you're 100% incorrect. And 'Picture This' knows that I know, since
>he's, at best, a parcel part of you, that you know, you are incapable of imparting a
>correction of your mistake. Why, I just don't know. Get the picture?
I don't know that you know that I know that he is correct, because I
don't think he is. I stand by what I've said all along. I'm just tired of
arguing about it. Obviously you are not. Got that ? Second, rephrase this
about Picture Pefect please. Are you saying we are one and the same ? Have
you checked the message header origins ? He posts from IBM.net. I'm on worldnet.
Are you delusional ? Is this how you deal with everyone who disagrees with
you ? Don't answer, it's rhetorical. I've read your posts on dejanews
remember ?
>As I said (which was without "challenge" BTW): "Surely, even a man so seemingly
>intelligent as you, can endure a factual viewpoint, presented without reference to any
>earlier disagreement."
Why would I dignify it with a challenge ?
>I do challenge you to not answer this!
Oops. Too late. Maybe you will take up the challenge? Of course not.
Last word Danny would never do so.
T. Schooler
>You see TS, I know that you know that we all know, that in reality,
>DCJ is 100% correct and that you're 100% incorrect. And 'Picture This'
>knows that I know, since he's, at best, a parcel part of you, that
>you know, you are incapable of imparting a correction of your mistake.
>Why, I just don't know. Get the picture?
I don't know that you know that I know that he is correct, because I
don't think he is. I stand by what I've said all along. I'm just tired of
arguing about it. Obviously you are not. Got that ? Second, rephrase this
about Picture Pefect please. Are you implying we are one and the same ? Have
you checked the message header origins ? He posts from IBM.net. I'm on
worldnet. Are you delusional, or is this how you deal with everyone who
T. Schooler
>You see TS, I know that you know that we all know, that in reality, DCJ is 100%
>correct and that you're 100% incorrect. And 'Picture This' knows that I know, since
>he's, at best, a parcel part of you, that you know, you are incapable of imparting a
>correction of your mistake. Why, I just don't know. Get the picture?
>As I said (which was without "challenge" BTW): "Surely, even a man so seemingly
>intelligent as you, can endure a factual viewpoint, presented without reference
>to any earlier disagreement."
>Now how many 'perspectives' does a parcel part take?
>I do challenge you to not answer this!
A man who obviously has WAY too much time on his hands. Hey Danny boy,
since you seem to relish conspiracies, who REALLY shot JFK ?
And what about JR ?
Paul Cavka
I went to an Andre Serrano exhibition a couple of months ago. His
Cibachrome prints were beyond belief. I didn't think it was possible to
have such fine grain on such a large print. Approximate size was probably
around 40x60 inches. All his images where shot on an RB67. I was so
impressed I traded in a couple of Nikons and got one. I'm in the process of
trading in my Mamiya 645 in on a second RB.
Even if the Hassalblad lenses are a little sharper, you have to remember
that the usable neg is a lot smaller. I also think you can find a lot more
used Mamiya lenses and backs than you would Blad.
Regards
Paul Cavka
Ram <gali...@netvision.net.il> wrote in article
<34A65B11...@netvision.net.il>...
Joseph Albert
In article <19971230014...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
DCJPhtgrfy <dcjph...@aol.com> wrote:
>Actually, a square negative cropped to a 4/5 proportion is larger than that of
>a 645 neg. A 6x7 neg is considerably larger than both. These size differences
>are illustrated at http://members.aol.com/DCJPhtgrfy/formats.html
a 6x6 cropped to 4:5 is only very slightly larger than 645, 44/42 or about
5% larger. 6x7 is only 56/44 or about 30% larger than 6x6 cropped to 4:5.
your web site is very nice, but it perpetuates the sometimes believed
myth that ratio of area is what determines gain in quality, when in
fact, the best gauge is ratio of linear dimension. You will only have to
enlarge a 645 negative about 30% more than a 6x7 one to get the same
size image. thus, grain will be about 30% coarser with 645 or 6x6 cropped
to 4:5 aspect ratio. sharpness will often be even closer since most
6x7 optics are not designed to the same sharpness standards as optics
for 645 or 6x6.
Joseph Albert
=======================================================================
email sent to the address in header is discarded automatically. I will
receive email sent to the address: joseph_albert <at> hotmail <dot> com
=======================================================================
hagu...@student.gu.se
I see it this way: To me Hasselblad is the perfect compromise between
weight, camera size and image size. If low weight is first priority one
of the range-finder cameras is probably the best buy (Fuji 690, 670,
Mamiya 6, 7); if weight is no priority at all look at the Fuji 680. If
high-tech stuff as multi-spot metering, etc is what you like I guess the
Rollei 6008 is the right thing for you; there are also two AF
medium-format cameras: Pentax 645 and Fuji 645. If spending money is the
what you like get one (or two or three) high-end H'blads or Rolleis:
don't forget the SQ 1000/8 for Rollei and the FE 350/4 for H'blad.
Remember... 1) There's no law that says that a square neg must be cropped
when printed; I print all my 6x6 negs square, and I'm not alone. But if
you HATE squares you should perhaps stay away from it (you see it all the
time in the finder :-)) 2) There's no Holy Doctrine of Zeiss superiority
(or Rodenstock superiority, or Schneider-Kreuznach superiority, or...
etc). My new Zeiss Sonnar 180 rattled like a maraca when I took it out of
the box; the front lens-package was loose... 3) Hasselblad is probably
not better built than any other of the major camera brands; it has more
metal parts, perhaps, and a certain "feel" but in the long run I'm not
certain that it is more durable than metal is more durable than plastic
or composite.
Again: every camera outfit is a compromise!
Håkan Gunnarsson
Göteborg, Sweden
In article <34A65B11...@netvision.net.il>,
gali...@netvision.net.il wrote:
>
>
> > im thinking of buying a medium format camera ,
> > i would be happy to hear
> > any coments fron people who own either hasselblad?camera or a mamiya
> camera ,
> > any links that compare MTF between both?companies lenses?
> and is there an absolute answer to the question whith is sharper?
> thanx
> ram
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Peter Hardman
JC17FL wrote:
> <snip>
> I know for a fact that many so called "pros" don't even know how to check their
> own lenses (or lenses that they are buying) for "haze", "fungus", etc. I've
> even seen so called "pros" pick up a lens with a known fungus problem and
> declare it "clean", "clear", etc. and buy it !
> <snip>
OK, so how _do_ you check a lens for fungus, particularly the 'haze'
type?
--
Regards
Pete Hardman
< The opinions expressed herein are not those of my employer >
DCJPhtgrfy
jal...@nyx.net (Joseph Albert) wrote:
>In article <19971230014...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>DCJPhtgrfy <dcjph...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Actually, a square negative cropped to a 4/5 proportion is larger than >that
of
>>a 645 neg. A 6x7 neg is considerably larger than both. These size
>>differences
>>are illustrated at http://members.aol.com/DCJPhtgrfy/formats.html
>a 6x6 cropped to 4:5 is only very slightly larger than 645, 44/42 or >about
>5% larger. 6x7 is only 56/44 or about 30% larger than 6x6 cropped to >4:5.
>your web site is very nice, but it perpetuates the sometimes believed
>myth that ratio of area is what determines gain in quality, when in
>fact, the best gauge is ratio of linear dimension. You will only have to
>enlarge a 645 negative about 30% more than a 6x7 one to get the same
>size image. thus, grain will be about 30% coarser with 645 or 6x6 >cropped
>to 4:5 aspect ratio. sharpness will often be even closer since most
>6x7 optics are not designed to the same sharpness standards as optics
>for 645 or 6x6.
Near the bottom of http://members.aol.com/DCJPhtgrfy/formats.html
I did address the issue of linear enlargement, and how it affects image size. I
said the following:
"Assuming that the same lens resolution is used throughout the three
formats, one may interpret from the data that a 16 x 20 print from a 645
negative cropped with an E mask, a 17 1/2 x 22 print from a 6x6 negative
cropped with a D mask, and a 21 1/4 x 26 1/2 print from a 6x7 negative
cropped with a B mask will all appear to have the same resolution and
grain structure. Each print size is rounded to the nearest 1/4 inch. (In
this example, each negative experiences a linear enlargement of
approximately 10.3 times.)"
DCJ
CDTack
>>I see. Since his conclusion differs from yours, then that means
>>you were wrong.
>
>
>
>
>perhaps. Let it ride please, all of you.
Couldn't agree more. I say, whoever is capible of making the best living at
photography, or pleases the most people with it has the best
equipmant...period! Give me a vision and an instamatic, and I'll challenge the
best of 'em.
Happy New Year everyone!
ct
Mr 645
I use both Mamiya 645 (Supers) and Hasselblad (503CX) cameras almost every
week. Shooting them side by side. I have yet to be able to show that one is
sharper than the other. I use the Hassy 50mm FLE, 80mm t* and 150mm CF lenses
as well as the Mamiya 45mm N, 70mm LS. 80mm 1.9 and 150mm f3.5 N lenses.
I was starting to think that Hassy was better built as I had a couple of
Mamiya mechanical problems over the past couple of months, but just this past
weekend I had two problems with the Hassy. One 220 back which was purchased
new only 2 months ago began winding the film very loose. I had to unload the
roll in the dark room as it was about 50% thicker than it should have been.
The next day a backup 501C locked up and that camera, while 6 years old has
less than 50 rolls thru it. it is only a back up. It's obvious that any
brand camera can have problems and I think it really comes down to going with
the system that has the features and handling that you want.
Jon
Tom Clark
I read all the stuff about the two being more or less equal, but I had to
see for myself.
So I loaded the same type of film into my Mamiya RB67 and my friend's
Hasselblad.
I was using the normal 90mm lens on the Mamiya and the normal 80mm on the
Blad.
We set up the tripods side by side and composed the image in the two
viewfinders
as nearly identical as we could. We set the exposures the same and we
snapped the
pictures.
I sent the two rolls to the same professional lab in the same package.
Except for the square Vs rectangular pictures, the resulting images were
indistinguishable in the
standard proof size of 4x5 or 5x5.
My next experiment will be to select a matching negative from each set and
enlarge an eye
to 8x10 size. I'll post something here to let you know the results.
Tom Clark
Ram <gali...@netvision.net.il> wrote in article
<34A65B11...@netvision.net.il>...
>
Andre
>Except for the square Vs rectangular pictures, the resulting images were
>indistinguishable in the
>standard proof size of 4x5 or 5x5.
i assume you are trying this with color film ,if you try it with B&W film
and print using the same enlarger,filter etc... you will notice that they're
both as sharp but the zeiss lens is quite a bit more contrasty, especially
when you are shooting wide open or close to that. Not necessarily a good
thing though, i've started to put contrast lowering filters on my zeiss
lenses for shooting people.
Dave Munroe
Tom Clark wrote:
>Except for the square Vs rectangular pictures, the resulting images were
>indistinguishable in the standard proof size of 4x5 or 5x5.
As we'd expect at such a low magnification.
>My next experiment will be to select a matching negative from each set and
>enlarge an eye to 8x10 size.
For such an experiment, I wouldn't depend on the lab's work. I've taken
multiple photos of the same subject (with tripod, cable release, mirror up),
on the same roll, and had them printed (16x20) by a highly regarded pro lab.
With multiple prints of even the same frame, I'd get some prints sharp and
some so blurry you'd think they were using a coke bottle for an enlarging lens
(the negatives, of course, were crisp). Clearly, the person doing the work in
the lab was very inconsistent and simply didn't care.
To do such experiments right, you need to reduce as many of the large
variables as you can; this necessitates doing your own printing.
-Dave
liam darkfaer d'tristesse
> I sent the two rolls to the same professional lab in the same package.
>
> indistinguishable in the
> standard proof size of 4x5 or 5x5.
I thought the advantages of Zeiss glass was in the contrast,esp when you
start magnifying to 20x20 or 20x24...
-jon
--
jrl.n...@blast.princeton.edu
---------------------
=====================================================================
Given F=ma, prove E=mc^2.
Let F=E. (1)
Let a=c^2. (2)
Therefore, by substitution:
F=ma == E=mc^2.
==================================================================
ANTHONY MAW
Hi:
I think it is a myth nowadays to assume that the Swedish/German made
Hasselblad equipment is inherently better than Japanese cameras. There
was a notion a decade or so ago (not entirely unfounded) that Japanese
medium format was not as rugged as the Hasselblad nor that the lenses
were as sharp.
I have shot both Mamiya RB67 (70's vintage), Mamiya 645 (70's vintage)
and Hasselblad (70's and 80's vintage). I can personally attest that
the Mamiya equipment was inferior as far as sharpness and contrast
goes. However, I have seen some pretty impressive results lately with
the NEW Mamiya 645 Pro lenses and the RZ67 stuff.
If you can ignore the rants of "old timers" who insist on the
superiority of European equipment, you might be able to save quite a lot
of money and yet still get the same image quality with better
versatility with the current generation of Japanese (Mamiya equipment).
--
Disclaimer: The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the
views of my family, my religion, my employer, my karma, the human
species ,life on Earth or any other conscious entity in this Universe.
http://mypage.direct.ca/a/amaw/, mailto:am...@direct.ca , Tel: 1 604 327
5407