ok, camera nuts...

[charlesphoto]

Yeah, I guess I missed the R series vs Nikon and was thinking M. I liked the R8 as it was unlike anything else in ergonomics, but yeah, the R lenses were either too expensive for what one would get or (in a few cases) not as good. Of course, now there's a whole market of people adapting R lenses for Nikon's - their wide to medium primes esp (and the Zeiss) are much better than the Nikon equivalents (I know, I've shot them and not just read measurements) - at a price/size/weight trade off though. 

 

I shoot the M from 18 to 135 - the 135 APO is not easy to work with but makes stunning pics if you can nail it. Nice to have in the bag at times, but the stellar tele M imo is the little 90mm f4 macro-elmar (minus the close up goggles). It folds in on itself so is more compact to carry than a 50/f2 M, and is already stunning wide open at f4, which is not much more than one needs with a tele with modern digital sensors and higher iso's. 

[Ralf11]

one issue w.r.to lens 'quality' is that people often focus on a single factor - sharpness

 

today, people expect super sharpness corner to corner; in ye olden daze only center sharpness was the ... ah... focus

 

but many other factors are involved, including chromatic aberration, contrast & etc.  Leica lenses are said to have xlnt. contrast

 

there is also bokeh and other aspects of 'rendering' (the reason I kept my old MF Nikkors, and covet a 'feather bokeh' Olympus portrait lens - despite the fact that all my female friends are too old to be subjects for one...)

 

Finally, there is the use of the lens in the field - nano-coating is a key factor for reduction in flare, as was multi-coating soe years ago

 

then there is the 'flocking' inside the lens - IIRC, the later Zeiss/Hassy lenses (maybe the CF series?) had an upgraded flocking to reduce flare from diffuse sunlight (not just a beam in the field of view) - this is something that would apply for outdoors use, not indoors

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Are we still comparing Leica R (SLR) to Nikon/Canon? This is like comparing a Porsche minivan to a Honda Odyssey! 

 

135 kinda pushing it for rangefinder. The Leica M shined for street and unobtrusive photography. When you want to take great photos without having a hunking camera. Also compare only wide open 😉

No, not the R lenses. I’m talking M lenses, and yes, while there are much longer lenses in both the Leica screw mount and the M bayonet mount, but the 135 is longest lens that the M series could use with the built-in rangefinder graticule and parallax compensation. 

[jabbr]

13 hours ago, gmgraves said:

No, not the R lenses. I’m talking M lenses, and yes, while there are much longer lenses in both the Leica screw mount and the M bayonet mount, but the 135 is longest lens that the M series could use with the built-in rangefinder graticule and parallax compensation. 

 

Leica & Zeiss make a huge variety of cameras and lenses that I’ve used in both consumer/artistic as well as technical settings. Indeed the Leica camera division split from the technical division which incorporated Wild-Heerbrug — now Leica Geosystem (I have an Aviogon 6” that I removed from an old RC-8 camera — it’s a Bertele design and was the basis of his Biogon). Leica Microsystems is another division (where I first used R backs for recording purposes).

Similarly Zeiss, and I’ve used the Contax SLR in conjunction with Zeiss equipment. 

 

Back in the day there were a whole host of attachments to allow technical photographs to be used with the M such as bellows and this contraption called the Visoflex which — introduced in the 1930s! — converts the M into an SLR

 

In any case I loved using the M3 and M6 rangefinders with 21-90mm lenses, but now use these lenses on my Sony A7r-iii camera with adapters — it also takes my Canon 200/2.0 (sweetest portrait lens ever) 300/2.8 — as well as the awesome new Zeiss lenses, Hassy w adapters etc.

 

I never tried a 135mm lens on an M rangefinder because the region of interest gets tiny in the (optical viewfinder) — rangefinders work great with wide angle though.

[charlesphoto]

Focusing longer lenses (any lenses for that matter) is much easier with the M10 (they reworked the rf). The older 135mm’s are great vfm and hold up really well. Unfortunately my nice copy wouldn’t activate the rf cam in my M10 - it would the dealers M10 etc, just not mine. Not worth sending a $399 used lens back to Leica, so I picked up a used 135mm APO recently for half price at $2k!! Seems like a lot but a virtual bargain compared to hifi and will maintain almost 100% of its value. Like I said, not a daily driver, but nice for some jobs/situations where one needs a more compressed perspective. Best for non-moving or solitary subjects, though I have done concert photography successfully with it (though I’ll usually defer to my Nikon 80-200/2.8). 

[jabbr]

Let me add that back in the day you’d need to play with developers & chemical techniques to add the micro contrast that was a hallmark of the Leica lenses — nowadays it’s easier to dial in a bit of “clarity” in Lightroom. At the same time the digital sensors have crazy high resolution and the newer lenses have kept up so we are seeing aspherical designs everywhere (thank god for computers) 

[jabbr]

8 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

a virtual bargain compared to hifi and will maintain almost 100% of its value. 

Yes absolutely — I’ll add that with the in-camera image stabilization in the Sony, I was able to pick up some of those rather expensive Canon tele primes (non-IS versions) for attractive prices

[gmgraves]

49 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Leica & Zeiss make a huge variety of cameras and lenses that I’ve used in both consumer/artistic as well as technical settings. Indeed the Leica camera division split from the technical division which incorporated Wild-Heerbrug — now Leica Geosystem (I have an Aviogon 6” that I removed from an old RC-8 camera — it’s a Bertele design and was the basis of his Biogon). Leica Microsystems is another division (where I first used R backs for recording purposes).

Similarly Zeiss, and I’ve used the Contax SLR in conjunction with Zeiss equipment. 

 

Back in the day there were a whole host of attachments to allow technical photographs to be used with the M such as bellows and this contraption called the Visoflex which — introduced in the 1930s! — converts the M into an SLR

 

In any case I loved using the M3 and M6 rangefinders with 21-90mm lenses, but now use these lenses on my Sony A7r-iii camera with adapters — it also takes my Canon 200/2.0 (sweetest portrait lens ever) 300/2.8 — as well as the awesome new Zeiss lenses, Hassy w adapters etc.

 

I never tried a 135mm lens on an M rangefinder because the region of interest gets tiny in the (optical viewfinder) — rangefinders work great with wide angle though.

I once had three Contaflex cameras, the earliest had a selenium light meter on the front of the prism housing, the second one had a battery powered meter behind the lens, and the third was a full auto. Contaflex cameras used lenses that replaced the front element of the Zeiss Tessar 50mm f2.8 with both wide angle and telephoto “Pro-Tessar” lenses. In this case the “Pro” meant ‘in front of...’ rather than professional. 

Leica once had a catalogue of accessories for the III series screw mount as well as the M series bayonet cameras that was as thick as a paperback edition of ‘Gone With The Wind’!  It had everything from lenses (how about a 300 mm Kilfit lens with the mirror adaptor to turn a IIIC or an M3 into an telephoto SLR!). Leica often named their accessories with nonsensical three, four  and five letter names like the “Sbloo” wide angle auxiliary rangefinder.

Leica also made an adapter ring that sat flush with the M bayonet mount in the camera, and let M. Series cameras use the older screw-mount lenses, just like they were native to each other. I thought that was cool. I had several Canon screw mount lenses from the 1950’s that I used with my M3 via such an adapter. They worked fine and took excellent pictures. I had a Canon 135 and a 35mm wide angle lens with the Leica-compatible screw mount.

[Ralf11]

[charlesphoto]

This. Just announced. Screw a bigger amplifier, speakers, whatever. I want this. Owned a 500 C/M for years, and then an SWC (stupid, stupid to sell that a few years back). I even have a. tattoo of a 500 C/M. I want this.

 

https://www.hasselblad.com/cfv-ii-50c-907x/

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Nice!

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

This. Just announced. Screw a bigger amplifier, speakers, whatever. I want this. Owned a 500 C/M for years, and then an SWC (stupid, stupid to sell that a few years back). I even have a. tattoo of a 500 C/M. I want this.

 

https://www.hasselblad.com/cfv-ii-50c-907x/

 

Very nice. I’m curious — always respected Hassy but never owned — what is the difference between this vs H6D?

 

... vs digital back on 4x5 camera? 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

This. Just announced. Screw a bigger amplifier, speakers, whatever. I want this. Owned a 500 C/M for years, and then an SWC (stupid, stupid to sell that a few years back). I even have a. tattoo of a 500 C/M. I want this.

 

https://www.hasselblad.com/cfv-ii-50c-907x/

 

What's the lever for?

[charlesphoto]

33 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Very nice. I’m curious — always respected Hassy but never owned — what is the difference between this vs H6D?

 

... vs digital back on 4x5 camera? 

 

Well, the new body is super compact and takes interchangeable lenses and legacy lenses via adapter. I shot a book of breakdancers years ago with medium format - Mamiya 6/7 and Hasselblad SWC with a strobe and I would have loved one of these! I shoot very fluid and rarely look through the viewfinder at moment of capture. Anyway, it appears to be the sensor from their fixed lens rangefinder adapted to a back that can be used with vintage bodies and lenses. If priced right ($6k is the rumor I read) they'll sell a ton of these. Get your vintage Hassy gear now!

[charlesphoto]

12 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

What's the lever for?

 

Which lever? The film advance on the 500 C/M body? 

 

The grip on the new body looks super cool and super expensive. And man that was an annoying video. Didn't get the sound at all. 

[lucretius]

14 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

 

Which lever? The film advance on the 500 C/M body? 

 

The grip on the new body looks super cool and super expensive. And man that was an annoying video. Didn't get the sound at all. 

 

Ahh.  I didn't realize it was an old film camera body in the video.  I thought they were demoing the 907X body with the CFV II 50C digital back.

[jabbr]

14 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

If priced right ($6k is the rumor I read) they'll sell a ton of these. Get your vintage Hassy gear now!

Ah!

[Ralf11]

the new small Hassy is getting news & reviews all over the internet

 

That said, I just got back from some pic-taking adjacent to a lava flow and only took my m43 gear...  also had to listen to crummy Subaru car stereo on the trip.

[gmgraves]

On 6/22/2019 at 6:53 PM, jabbr said:

 

Very nice. I’m curious — always respected Hassy but never owned — what is the difference between this vs H6D?

 

... vs digital back on 4x5 camera? 

Kind of a silly Q. A camera is merely a box to hold and transport film. Hasselblads were nicely made two-and-a-quarter format camera, but other than that, the quality of the photographs depends on four major qualities: (1) the flatness and registration of the film plane. (2) the quality of the lens optics. (3) the accuracy of the shutter and and aperture, and (4) the accuracy of focus.

The Hasselblad, is just the “box” that transports the film across the film-plane. It does a great job because it’s so well made that it allows film backs to be interchanged without leaking light. As good as it was (is) it would be wrong to think it was the only camera of that quality. First of all Hasselblad didn’t make the lenses, Zeiss-Ikon did. Hasselblad did not make the shutters, Compur did. The shutters and irises were inside the lenses, not the inside of the Hasselblad. 

Just as good as the Hasselblad was the Japanese Bronica. Unlike the Hasselblad 500 series, the Bronica had a focal-plane shutter, inside the camera body, and Bronica’s lenses were made by Nikon which compared well with Hasselblad’s Zeiss-Ikon lenses.  Mamiya made several two-and-a-quarter format camera styles. The excellent twin-lens system called the C33/330, (I once had one with all the lenses, but foolishly sold it) and there was the single lens format Mamiya 645 system (two-and-a-quarter X one-and-seven-eighths) As well as a two-and-a-quarter X two-and-three-quarter SLR. Also don’t forget that Asahi made a two-and-a-quarter X  two-and-three-quarter pentaprism camera that looked like an outsized 35 mm Pentax as did The East German company Practica with their PentaSix. Not to mention Russian knockoffs of both the pre-war Hasselblad and the PentaSix (indifferently) made by the Kiev Photographic Bureau in that Ukrainian city.

Of course, Hasselblads and other two-and-a-quarter format cameras have the advantage of larger film frame areas. Meaning that with the same film formulations, for any size enlargements, the larger format needs to be enlarged less than a smaller format such as 35mm, thus showing less grain and better resolution. The ultimate, of course, is the 8X10 view camera (and next to that, the 4X5) obviously, a digital back for any of these larger formats can have more pixels per square inch than does a smaller format digital sensor, and the increase in resolution allows these digital pictures to be enlarged many more times than the picture taken with a smaller format digital camera before said picture starts to “pixilate” (the equivalent of film grain).  

 

[Ralf11]

well, there is also the mirror movement...

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

well, there is also the mirror movement...

Yes, but mostly irrelevant to the main point.

[Ralf11]

ok, the Hassy film body is a box with a moving mirror that connects to the film back and lens - all built to very high precision like a Swiss watch

[jabbr]

13 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Kind of a silly Q. A camera is merely a box to hold and transport film. 

Reread the question — I was asking wrt digital backs — Hassy seems to have several different systems. Folks with digital experience know that a digital back for an 8x10 will not typically have an 8x10 CMOS sensor — I’ve heard of using scanners! 

 

In any case compact size, ability to use manual lenses and attractive price make sense. 

[charlesphoto]

I think you mean 4X5 (an 8X10 'normal lens is 250mm and the cameras big, rare and expensive). Typically used where one needs tilts and shifts and macro capability. I have a good friend who shoots product and uses Phase One backs. I can't recall if it's Sinar or Alpa, but nowadays if one needs that capability for commercial these companies make view 'bodies' for digital backs, and he uses one of those as well as a Phase Body. 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Reread the question — I was asking wrt digital backs — Hassy seems to have several different systems. Folks with digital experience know that a digital back for an 8x10 will not typically have an 8x10 CMOS sensor — I’ve heard of using scanners! 

 

In any case compact size, ability to use manual lenses and attractive price make sense. 

You are correct. Digital view camera sensors are “scanners”. No one could afford a 4X5 much less an 8X10 sized sensor (not to mention the trouble actually making one!), so they use merely a single line of high resolution sensors, and they scan that across the film plane area. The scanner is shaped like a regular film holder that fits in front of the glass viewing screen displacing it after the photographer has lined up his shot and focused. The ones I have seen are always connected to a laptop and the image is scanned to that. The resultant raw file is huge and the shutter is not used but left open throughout the entire process. Such shots are really only practical for landscapes and architectural photos. Because the scan is two slow for moving objects.

But I understand that a company called “LargeSense” makes a self-contained 8x10 camera, but it only has a resolution of 3888X3072 pixels (!?) with one enormous 9X11 inch, 32-bit sensor (probably a composite sensor). Unfortunately, the camera is monochrome only, but it has a facility to allow multi-exposure color pictures using filters (there’s an old saying: “Everything old becomes new again” - shades of three strip Technicolor!). The LargeSense LS911 is very expensive; I wonder if the model number is a clue that this camera at US$105,000 is about what an entry-level Porsche 911 would cost?