Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mamiya lens comparisons, 645 vs RZ 67 series  (Read 4266 times)
dswiger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« on: October 14, 2012, 01:21:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I presently have a RZ67 kit with
65mm LA f4
110mm f2.8
180mm f4

The 65 seems the sharpest/best of these and I'm happy with the results
While I love the results and the RZ system, its weight is starting to be an issue
at my age Sad

I am getting a 645AFD soon & want to know how their lenses stack up
I will be getting mostly manual lenses, such as
35mm f3.5 N
45mm f2.8
50mm f4 Tilt
150mm f2.8

While still shooting film with this gear, will be looking towards a digital back soon & want
the best lenses for when that happens

Any experience/comparison with these systems?

Thanks
Dan
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2012, 12:36:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I presently have a RZ67 kit with
65mm LA f4
110mm f2.8
180mm f4

The 65 seems the sharpest/best of these and I'm happy with the results
While I love the results and the RZ system, its weight is starting to be an issue
at my age Sad

I am getting a 645AFD soon & want to know how their lenses stack up
I will be getting mostly manual lenses, such as
35mm f3.5 N
45mm f2.8
50mm f4 Tilt
150mm f2.8

While still shooting film with this gear, will be looking towards a digital back soon & want
the best lenses for when that happens

Any experience/comparison with these systems?

Thanks
Dan


Shooting film reducing the negative size from 6x7 to 645 will make a stronger impact on image quality than the difference in the lenses.
I would also say that is you are shooting wide open the prism will be limiting in that the magnification is low. On top of that the autofocus is not that good.

What type of shooting do you want to do with the AFD?

You might also want to consider a Contax 645
« Last Edit: October 17, 2012, 12:39:40 AM by FredBGG » Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2012, 05:55:48 AM »
ReplyReply


35mm f3.5 N
45mm f2.8
50mm f4 Tilt
150mm f2.8

While still shooting film with this gear, will be looking towards a digital back soon & want
the best lenses for when that happens

Any experience/comparison with these systems?

Thanks
Dan


If you're thinking of using the camera with a digital back then I would say (if budget permits) that you should try finding the "D" versions of at least the 45mm/2.8 and the 150mm/2.8. Especially the latter since it IS really that much better than the older model (and better than most if not all other 150mm lenses). Auto focus would be a bonus obviously

BTW the 50mm is a SHIFT lens not TILT (but I guess you know that already): It's a very useable lens especially with the 1.3/ 1.1 crop backs when stopped down a bit

Enjoy!

yair
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2012, 07:25:35 AM »
ReplyReply

35mm f3.5 N

Per memory this one is not very good. Suggest you research web.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2012, 08:28:12 AM »
ReplyReply

35mm N is not great.
Logged
dswiger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2012, 10:24:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Misspoke on the 50, I know it's shift only Undecided
Dropped the 35 as I don't shoot that equiv length much & did see a review that was not that great

I shoot mostly landscape, so AF is not a really a factor.
I have gotten quite used to manual focusing with the RZ and that really suites checking DOF instead of trusting a focus point & a number.
I will probably get the "C" focusing screen for the 645

Thanks

Dan
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1249



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2012, 05:06:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Dan,

As a owner of a Mamiya RZ and Mamiya 645 system this is my take.

The 24mm fish eye lens is excellent and with Photoshop CS6 and it new adaptive wide angle soft wear does a fantastic job at remove the affect of fisheye with out any loss in image quality so this becomes a very wide angle lens and a whole lot cheaper that the Mamiya 28mm lens.

The 35mm lens is in my opinion is a very good lens as I have the AF version and stopped down to F8.0-11.0 is very sharp. There are some who give this lens a bad rep but from the sample I have and have used it on many an assignment it has never let me down.

The 50mm shift is a fantastic lens and for me would be my favourite.

I am happy to send you some raw images if you would like to PM me so you can see for yourself.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
tony@tonyhowell.co.uk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2012, 06:16:24 AM »
ReplyReply

you may find my brief tests useful: -

http://www.tonyhowell.co.uk/lenstests.htm

The 35mm lens is bad!
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2012, 09:00:52 AM »
ReplyReply

From what I can tell about the 35 is that here is considerable sample variation.  The two I owned were not great, and one was better than the other.  I would have pursued it, sent it to Mamiya, but I don't shoot tht focal length often enough to really push it.

One thing about all lenses, if they are not right out of the box, send them back to the manufacturer.  They will fix them up.  I've done this many, many times with Canon lenses.

T

Hi Dan,

As a owner of a Mamiya RZ and Mamiya 645 system this is my take.

The 24mm fish eye lens is excellent and with Photoshop CS6 and it new adaptive wide angle soft wear does a fantastic job at remove the affect of fisheye with out any loss in image quality so this becomes a very wide angle lens and a whole lot cheaper that the Mamiya 28mm lens.

The 35mm lens is in my opinion is a very good lens as I have the AF version and stopped down to F8.0-11.0 is very sharp. There are some who give this lens a bad rep but from the sample I have and have used it on many an assignment it has never let me down.

The 50mm shift is a fantastic lens and for me would be my favourite.

I am happy to send you some raw images if you would like to PM me so you can see for yourself.

Cheers

Simon
Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2012, 09:12:59 AM »
ReplyReply

From what I can tell about the 35 is that here is considerable sample variation.  The two I owned were not great, and one was better than the other.  I would have pursued it, sent it to Mamiya, but I don't shoot tht focal length often enough to really push it.

One thing about all lenses, if they are not right out of the box, send them back to the manufacturer.  They will fix them up.  I've done this many, many times with Canon lenses.

T



Yes, I also think there is "user variation", meaning that a decent copy might be considered very good by one user (for example, if they use it mostly at f/11 - f/22), while another user might use it at shallower apertures and feel it is not up to par. And of course there is subjective sample variation - all things being equal - when it comes to what is subjectively acceptable to the user.

I agree that if a lens (or any product for that matter) is not right out of the box, it should be dealt with promptly. When it comes to lenses (and other expensive items), it is beneficial to have an appropriate expectation of the performance before purchasing. In that case, there should not be a surprise when you open the box, and if there is, it should be that the product is not a good copy, rather than you bought the wrong product.

As someone who advises, sells, and supports expensive photographic solutions, I don't want my customers time wasted trying out a product that they do not have an appropriate performance expectation for. I want them to know very clearly what the product should do for them before they spend their time and money on it. If it doesn't meet those expectations, then there should be something wrong with the product.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2012, 09:47:24 AM »
ReplyReply

The 24mm fish eye lens is excellent and with Photoshop CS6 and it new adaptive wide angle soft wear does a fantastic job at remove the affect of fisheye with out any loss in image quality so this becomes a very wide angle lens and a whole lot cheaper that the Mamiya 28mm lens.

The 35mm lens is in my opinion is a very good lens as I have the AF version and stopped down to F8.0-11.0 is very sharp. There are some who give this lens a bad rep but from the sample I have and have used it on many an assignment it has never let me down.

I had a 24mm fisheye and it was not very sharp even on 28MP (found it as new stock as late as ca. 2007). Same was for my copy of 35mm AF, though there is also a newer AF D? version of it which should be better.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2012, 09:57:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The user variation issue is very real, and leads to lots of boorish reviews of gear and many, many pages of argueing. Landscape, repro, portrait shooters are all looking for something different.  I've heard people pan the old 45mm AFd lens, but in my shooting of portraits, either film or digital, it was a fantastic, reliable lensfrom F4 on.  At 8-11 it was amazing, and focuses close enough that focus fall off is very pretty.  Waist up portraits with a P30 were awesome.  Corners aren't important to me, but I know they are to landscapes and repro etc.

The 24-70 Canon zoom, v1, is another example.  I've heard so many complaints, but truthfully, my two were fantastic for catalogue and fashion.  Super sharp at F11.  I sent both to Canon soon after buying them and they came back significantly better than when I received them.  (One bound up a bit when zooming, the other radicaly changed focus when zooming).  If I shot landscapes the 24-70 v1 is the last lens I would choose, but under lights they were great.

The internets is great because it gives consumers a voice, but is also horrific because the loudest voice is frequently wrong, misinformed, biased, assuming facts, extrapolating their experience to that of everyone else.


Yes, I also think there is "user variation", meaning that a decent copy might be considered very good by one user (for example, if they use it mostly at f/11 - f/22), while another user might use it at shallower apertures and feel it is not up to par. And of course there is subjective sample variation - all things being equal - when it comes to what is subjectively acceptable to the user.

I agree that if a lens (or any product for that matter) is not right out of the box, it should be dealt with promptly. When it comes to lenses (and other expensive items), it is beneficial to have an appropriate expectation of the performance before purchasing. In that case, there should not be a surprise when you open the box, and if there is, it should be that the product is not a good copy, rather than you bought the wrong product.

As someone who advises, sells, and supports expensive photographic solutions, I don't want my customers time wasted trying out a product that they do not have an appropriate performance expectation for. I want them to know very clearly what the product should do for them before they spend their time and money on it. If it doesn't meet those expectations, then there should be something wrong with the product.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7640


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2012, 11:22:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Just as a reflection. There are samples that are bad. It can happen to any make. I would recommend that anyone buying a new lens takes a couple of test shots and tests if the corners are similar. If the corners are very different it may indicate that the lens has some serious problem.

It is probably easier to return a lens immediately after unpacking than after a period where it may have seen significant wear.

This applies equally to MF or DSLRs.

Best regards
Erik

Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2012, 11:55:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Just as a reflection. There are samples that are bad. It can happen to any make. I would recommend that anyone buying a new lens takes a couple of test shots and tests if the corners are similar. If the corners are very different it may indicate that the lens has some serious problem.

It is probably easier to return a lens immediately after unpacking than after a period where it may have seen significant wear.

This applies equally to MF or DSLRs.

Best regards
Erik

Not quite Erik. It is in general different than for DSLR where there seem to be much more sample variations. Mamiya 645 is a relatively old system and when Phase One stepped in there was a mixed bag of lenses. Some were very good and some were not quite. The older MF lenses more so a mixed bag. The Mamiya D lenses were introduced after Phase One stepped in. Per what I understand they are given a better quality control than the other AF lenses, which among some are still very good lenses. Apparent there are some sample variation on the AF lenses, and also MF. Here is an overview of Mamiya lenses http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/lens-accessory-reviews/15710-mamiya-lens-overview.html

For other medium format brands such as the latest Rolleiflex lenses I have not heard of any bad copies yet - zip zero period. I believe it bottoms down to design and quality control. Also frank cultural since I experience made in Germany more reliable than made in Japan, regrettably. Medium format is servicing a higher end which should (and most time do) mean stricter requirements, and likewise also smaller series of fabrication. Hence they should undergo stricter quality procedures. If a lens is not acceptable it should be sent back for adjustment to perfect - within tolerance preferably. Regrettably, for service I have not experienced Mamiya Japan very good to deal with... which was part of reasons I gave up on Mamiya 645 system. My 45mm D went back to them two times, although it is a very sharp lens I would recommend.

Above said, my favorite Mamiya 645 lens was not the sharpest, the 80/1.9 N lens which was manual focus, very shallow DOF and an impressive low weight. It simply had a very nice character, though not as silky smooth as the Hassy 110/2 or Rolleiflex equals of f/2. The 80/1.9 was the last lens I sold off from my Mamiya 645 collection when I switched to Rolleiflex Hy6 system, the 45mm D was the second last...

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 11:58:52 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7640


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2012, 12:51:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anders,

I did not say that problems are frequent. What I can say that it can happen to any lens. I have seen at reports on at least two Hasselblad lenses, for instance, not counting the one that fell apart for Michael Reichman in Namibia. James Russel had major focusing error on one of his Leica lenses, as far as I can recall. S**t happens.

Look at the enclosed figure from Lens Rentals it has Imatest MTF plots of I guess around 50 lenses. There is a lot of variation. The Zeiss lenses may vary a bit less than the others. Of the 50 lenses one stands out, which is clearly a lemon. If you happen have that lemon lens it would better replaced.

For my part, I have or have had about 50 lenses, and two of those were obvious lemons. One I got immediately replaced the other I sent back just before warranty expired. The second lens was not fixed. It is well possible that other lenses were lemons, without me taking notice. But my experience is mostly with 135 lenses, of MF lenses I have only five and all MF lenses were used with film.

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

I'm fully aware the you (Anders) find that Joseph Holmes article on problems encountered on MF equipment is irrelevant, but you have never explained why. The article is here: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html

He found for instance that five out of twelve Phase One backs were out of focus. Mark Dubovoy has had four Phase One backs and half of them was out of focus.

The article has a long list of lens samples and I guess that more than half has issues. I guess it depends on Mr. Holmes and Mr. Dubovoy being meticulous, but still I think the information is relevant.

Some of the findings: "I take that as approximately a one-in-four chance of getting a good superwide, view-camera-type, German lens when you order one. And for every lens that gets rejected by one photographer, if the thing isn't made right by Schneider or Linos/Rodenstock or one of the other vendors who assemble elements to shutters (possibly including Linhof, Sinar, Horseman, and Cambo), it then just serves to reduce the chances of getting a good one for the other photographers to almost zero. And these things aren't exactly in great supply to begin with."

"Linos and Schneider -- get your act together!!! Make sure every lens shipped comes at least quite close to the MTF specs you yourselves have computed and in many cases published, if not guaranteed. If anyone on Earth is capable of superior quality control, surely your two companies are.

And Phase One -- you too! Make sure every back shipped is within your own 12 micron focus calibration standard. And that should include the loaner backs you give people.

Photographers -- expect trouble and look for it. Make wide aperture test shots at infinity and examine the results. Check to see that all four corners and the middle are sharp, and more or less equally so. Expect to have trouble focussing your M.F. digital cameras -- simply because the precision required is so extreme. [I intend to write an article on a great method for facilitating accurate manual focus of the Mamiya and Hassy H bodies soon, in early April, 2009.]"

Finally,  Joseph Holmes found a good P45+ back and a few good lenses and was much satisfied with the results. My understanding was that he and Charlie (Cramer?) went with Mamiya lenses.

Some other photographers also commented on Mr. Holmes article: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fellowphotographers.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very much possible that the situation improved since 2009. Still I would suggest that it is a very good idea to test every piece of equipment.

Best regards
Erik


Not quite Erik. It is in general different than for DSLR where there seem to be much more sample variations. Mamiya 645 is a relatively old system and when Phase One stepped in there was a mixed bag of lenses. Some were very good and some were not quite. The older MF lenses more so a mixed bag. The Mamiya D lenses were introduced after Phase One stepped in. Per what I understand they are given a better quality control than the other AF lenses, which among some are still very good lenses. Apparent there are some sample variation on the AF lenses, and also MF. Here is an overview of Mamiya lenses http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/lens-accessory-reviews/15710-mamiya-lens-overview.html

For other medium format brands such as the latest Rolleiflex lenses I have not heard of any bad copies yet - zip zero period. I believe it bottoms down to design and quality control. Also frank cultural since I experience made in Germany more reliable than made in Japan, regrettably. Medium format is servicing a higher end which should (and most time do) mean stricter requirements, and likewise also smaller series of fabrication. Hence they should undergo stricter quality procedures. If a lens is not acceptable it should be sent back for adjustment to perfect - within tolerance preferably. Regrettably, for service I have not experienced Mamiya Japan very good to deal with... which was part of reasons I gave up on Mamiya 645 system. My 45mm D went back to them two times, although it is a very sharp lens I would recommend.

Above said, my favorite Mamiya 645 lens was not the sharpest, the 80/1.9 N lens which was manual focus, very shallow DOF and an impressive low weight. It simply had a very nice character, though not as silky smooth as the Hassy 110/2 or Rolleiflex equals of f/2. The 80/1.9 was the last lens I sold off from my Mamiya 645 collection when I switched to Rolleiflex Hy6 system, the 45mm D was the second last...

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 01:06:35 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7640


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2012, 01:23:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a discussion regarding the Joseph Holmes article on GetDPI (found on Google):

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/6671-mf-digital-precision.html

Obviously both experience and expectations differ.

My suggestion is still that all new equipment is tested on arrival.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2012, 02:01:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik,

Assumingly someone using latest medium format gear is not a plain novice... thus should know what to look for in a lens !!!

I'm fully aware the you (Anders) find that Joseph Holmes article on problems encountered on MF equipment is irrelevant, but you have never explained why.

I do not recall having said so. Per memory, in a prior thread I stated I rather listen/read of the experience of other users. What more should I explain? Any lenses or gear that is out of tolerance I send for service, as should obvious anyone.

In above post I wrote of my own ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of Mamiya and Rolleiflex lenses and I referenced further experience. I believe that speaks higher than the general comments you posted. Per what I recall you have not used Mamiya or Rolleiflex?

Arguably medium format lenses adhere to stricter quality control than DSLR lenses, which are more mass produced.


Very much possible that the situation improved since 2009.

Mamiya certainly have improved their 645 lens line, which is still not perfect.

Not sure if Rolleiflex has improved in that time, but we are speaking of one of most reputable lens lines available. As stated I have not read or heard of any issue with their Schneider or Zeiss lenses, which does not mean they do not exist. An advantage is that on Hy6 we can simply modify the offset setting for each lens on camera... Smiley.

Regarding Phase One and Leaf backs, I would think none of new backs would be subject to the large error tolerances reported by Joseph Holmes. Actually, I recall not ever having heard of any Leaf back from factory being out of acceptable tolerance... Heck, even my rotating sensor seem to work complete flawless.

And???

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 02:05:25 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2012, 02:50:39 PM »
ReplyReply


It is probably easier to return a lens immediately after unpacking than after a period where it may have seen significant wear.

This applies equally to MF or DSLRs.

Best regards
Erik




NO - it is definitely easier to return a lens immediately after unpacking than after a period where it may have seen significant wear.  Cheesy Wink




Erik,

Any lenses or gear that is out of tolerance I send for service, as should obvious anyone.

Arguably medium format lenses adhere to stricter quality control than DSLR lenses, which are more mass produced.


Regarding Phase One and Leaf backs, I would think none of new backs would be subject to the large error tolerances reported by Joseph Holmes. Actually, I recall not ever having heard of any Leaf back from factory being out of acceptable tolerance... Heck, even my rotating sensor seem to work complete flawless.

And???

Best regards,
Anders

My thought is mass production is automated, and there's a reliance on the reliability and repeatable consistency of the machinery equipment and the process. While less automation is seen as having stricter quality standards and better results, the introduction of more human intervention is not without its own reliability issues.

I have seen - yes even Leaf, Anders  Grin - digital backs that have sensor positioning issues. But very very few reported from our users. And far more often when we have investigated focus issues for clients, the issue has overwhelmingly been with what is in front of the digital back (or what is behind the viewfinder), especially on older camera systems (people systems too), of course. The bottom line is that the issue should be and can be properly identified and resolved, because in almost any case it is resolvable, unless you're working with a dealer who lacks the conviction for completely satisfied customers.


Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7640


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2012, 03:35:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anders,

Regarding your views on the Joseph Holmes article I probably thought about this posting: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=71175.msg564471#msg564471

I got the impression that you found the Joseph Holmes article irrelevant in this context. I perhaps misunderstood your writing, if so I beg your pardon.

Regarding tolerances, the stated tolerances of the Phase One backs was 15 microns (0.015 mm) which is very good by any standard. At f/8 that tolerance would be good for 2 micron pixels! What Joseph Holmes found that several backs were of by around 120 microns (as far as I recall). I don't know how he arrived at that figure. It can be calculated from focusing error, of course, but how do you know the camera is in exact focus?

Steve Hendrix points out that the problem depends on what is in front of the sensor, which I presume is the camera, mirror assembly, focusing screen and possibly the camera adaptor for the back. But if you set four different backs on the same body and get two which are sharp and two which are not, the back is primary suspect. An alternative explanation could be photographer who cannot focus or camera not reproducing the same mirror position.

Anyway, my only statement was that any new equipment needs to be tested and returned promptly if found faulty. You started a discussion claiming that MF equipment had little of tolerance issues while mass produced Japanese equipment had loose tolerances. What Mr. Holmes article shows is that tolerance problems are very much possible on MF, so careful testing of new equipment is probably a good idea.


Best regards
Erik


Erik,

Assumingly someone using latest medium format gear is not a plain novice... thus should know what to look for in a lens !!!

I do not recall having said so. Per memory, in a prior thread I stated I rather listen/read of the experience of other users. What more should I explain? Any lenses or gear that is out of tolerance I send for service, as should obvious anyone.

In above post I wrote of my own ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of Mamiya and Rolleiflex lenses and I referenced further experience. I believe that speaks higher than the general comments you posted. Per what I recall you have not used Mamiya or Rolleiflex?

Arguably medium format lenses adhere to stricter quality control than DSLR lenses, which are more mass produced.


Mamiya certainly have improved their 645 lens line, which is still not perfect.

Not sure if Rolleiflex has improved in that time, but we are speaking of one of most reputable lens lines available. As stated I have not read or heard of any issue with their Schneider or Zeiss lenses, which does not mean they do not exist. An advantage is that on Hy6 we can simply modify the offset setting for each lens on camera... Smiley.

Regarding Phase One and Leaf backs, I would think none of new backs would be subject to the large error tolerances reported by Joseph Holmes. Actually, I recall not ever having heard of any Leaf back from factory being out of acceptable tolerance... Heck, even my rotating sensor seem to work complete flawless.

And???

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 03:38:09 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2012, 04:14:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anders,

Regarding your views on the Joseph Holmes article I probably thought about this posting: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=71175.msg564471#msg564471

I got the impression that you found the Joseph Holmes article irrelevant in this context. I perhaps misunderstood your writing, if so I beg your pardon.

Regarding tolerances, the stated tolerances of the Phase One backs was 15 microns (0.015 mm) which is very good by any standard. At f/8 that tolerance would be good for 2 micron pixels! What Joseph Holmes found that several backs were of by around 120 microns (as far as I recall). I don't know how he arrived at that figure. It can be calculated from focusing error, of course, but how do you know the camera is in exact focus?

Steve Hendrix points out that the problem depends on what is in front of the sensor, which I presume is the camera, mirror assembly, focusing screen and possibly the camera adaptor for the back. But if you set four different backs on the same body and get two which are sharp and two which are not, the back is primary suspect. An alternative explanation could be photographer who cannot focus or camera not reproducing the same mirror position.

Anyway, my only statement was that any new equipment needs to be tested and returned promptly if found faulty. You started a discussion claiming that MF equipment had little of tolerance issues while mass produced Japanese equipment had loose tolerances. What Mr. Holmes article shows is that tolerance problems are very much possible on MF, so careful testing of new equipment is probably a good idea.


Best regards
Erik




Agreed with most of what you're saying here Erik, with the emphasis on - test new equipment thoroughly and return for exchange or resolution promptly. With existing equipment - let's say you've shot with a digital back on your camera system for 2 years and you've noticed lately the viewfinder focus point and the resulting image focus point don't seem to agree -  then don't allow this to remain un-resolved. It is resolvable. It's only a problem and there is a solution.

There is 1 situation where 4 different backs on the same body with 2 in focus and 2 out of focus are not the digital back, and that is when it comes to what is behind the camera/digital back. But assuming that is good as well, then simply get it resolved.

If someone took every camera and lens combination - and precisely tested the focusing accuracy for each, a larger percentage would show as not being in proper calibration/alignment than is reported. There are some who are not aware they are not within the stated tolerances due to the nature of how they use the product, or the difference is not great enough for them to notice.

But I have never ever had any situation where the focus tolerances could not be resolved satisfactorily.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad