[rollei_list] Re: An Oldy but a Goody
- From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:35:03 +0100
Interesting to see that Xaviers Lambours was using both a Mamiya 7 and a
Rollei. Maybe he had read this!
Anyone know how easy to focus the Mamiyas are? I've never handled a
range-finder but hear varying reports on their ease of focus.
On 9/15/07, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ERoustom" <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 6:45 AM
> Subject: [rollei_list] An Oldy but a Goody
>
>
> > This is probably old news to most of you, but I found it
> > again, while "Surfing" and thought I'd share it:
> > http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
> > To summarize, it's the results of a test comparing two
> > Rolleiflexes, a Hasselblad, and a Mamiya.
> > Like all good writing, it's worth reading again.
> >
> > Rainy fall day with nothing on the agenda but 7 rolls of
> > film, and a two new print developers to try.
> >
> > Enjoy,
> >
> > Elias
>
> I am glad you posted this. I was not aware that Chris
> had revised his tests of the 3.5E. While I think these tests
> are pretty much valid, certainly as far as contrast and
> flare, any in-camera test of sharpness and resolution can be
> misleading because one must rely on the finder for focus and
> it is sometimes difficult to know how well it is adjusted.
> His finding regarding the Mamiya lens is not surprizing
> in light of the almost universal reputation these cameras
> have for sharpness and general quality.
> One problem I see is the flare around the edges he
> mentions for the 2.8E. The construction of the Rollei 3.5
> and 2.8 models is identical so the flare suggests that
> something is amiss here. I have gotten mask flare but it was
> from very severe overexposure, namely bright daylight
> pictures taken at f/3.5.
> Also, very small amounts of haze in a lens can reduce
> its contrast by a surprizingly large amount. Many lenses
> develop some internal haze. Often its not visible unless you
> shine a flashlight directly through the lens, they you will
> see it. The haze cleans off with ordinary lens cleaner but
> one must disassemble the lens to get to the internal
> surfaces so the haze is often never cleaned off.
> It would be interesting to see Chris's tests with the
> _negatives_ scanned directly to eliminate the variations of
> the enlarging process.
> My own feeling is that the Mamiya camera is probably
> aligned better than the others but that Mamiya lenses are
> also exceptional in quality. For the other tests I think the
> resolution is too low and may indicate some defocusing.
> It would also be interesting to compare the performance
> of the lenses using the aerial image to eliminate some of
> the variables of the cameras, i.e., film flatness and focus
> precision. It is certainly valid to test a complete camera
> as a system but tests made of the lenses alone would be more
> useful in evaluating them and also in evaluating the camera
> as a system since it would isolate some of the performance
> variables.
>
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
Other related posts:
