I use a Mamiya 7 as my MF camera of choice now - difficult to admit on the Rollei forum. I have had no problem with focus but since I use MF for landscapes at small apertures, and the Mamiya 7 lenses are slow anyway, it isn't tough. I would not use the Mamiya for people shots or closeups.
Frank On 16 Sep, 2007, at 12:35, chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
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 http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list