[rollei_list] Re: On the Mamiya Rangefinders
- From: marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:17:39 GMT
I agree with previous posts and would go so far as to state that the Mamiya 6
the earlier version of the 7 is my favourite camera of all time.
It does lack a sturdy construction, but handles like a dream, plus big
negatives in the darkroom.
I don't think the lens quality is up to Rollei standards but that's true of
most camera though. I tried several teles and couldn't any of them to focus
consistently at anything other than small apertures at distance. The wide and
the standard are excellent.
Marvin.
Sent via BlackBerry® from 3
-----Original Message-----
From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:35:03
To:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: An Oldy but a Goody
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
<mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "ERoustom" <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
To: <
rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
> <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 <mailto:dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org>
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
<//www.freelists.org>
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
<//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list>
F‰ez"â²Óè²Ûh®‰ez)b²×ëyéb²Û(®®nÇ+‰·š¶º%•è¥ŠËkz«ž²×ëyéb²Û(®
"¶.nÇ+‰·¢žØ^²æãyË_‰é]9ò–ˆ
Šx"žÚ0Ãëyéb²Û(®'²æìr¸›y«k¢Y^ŠX¬¶·ª¹ë-~·ž–+-²ŠàÂ+aº{.nÇ+‰·¢žØ^²æãyË_‰é]9ò–ˆ
Šx"žÚ0Ãëyéb²Û(®§–)Þ±æ«r›•æ«r¯zÆ«y«ÚŠV›•æ†Ûiÿü0ÁúÞzX¬¶Ê+ƒö«r¯zÏë¢Y^ŠX¬
Other related posts:
