[rollei_list] Re: On the Mamiya Rangefinders
- From: "Mike Stoesz" <mstoesz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:25:03 -0700
I have had the early interchangeable lens Fuji G690. Great camera and sharp
lense, VERY HEAVY. I had the 65mm and 150mm lenses and would have the camera
today but it is much too heavy for me for hand-held use in the manner it was
designed. The later models with fixed focal lenses may not be as rugged but
weigh about 1/2 as much.
Mike in Laramie Wyoming where we received about .10 inches rain today (every
little bit helps in a drought)
--- marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: On the Mamiya Rangefinders
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:13:01 GMT
I totally agree with your last comment, lens preference is subjective.
I too ditched the Mamiya because of its obvious parts obsolescence that is on
the horizen.
I wonder how the Fuji 6x9 offerings are in comparison the rangefinder models?
Marvin.
Sent via BlackBerry® from 3
-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:19:02
To:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: On the Mamiya Rangefinders
Depends on what standards apply. In contrast and resolution, the
Mamiya 6 lenses I used distinctly surpassed my Rollei f3.5 Planar,
maybe by too much. Although I was consistently blown away by the
Mamiya lenses in those regards, overall I preferred the Planar "look;"
sufficiently sharp and contrasty, but with smoother tonality, more
lifelike, IMHO.
Lens quality is a complex issue. :-)
Allen Zak
On Sep 16, 2007, at 7:17 PM, marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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
---
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
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:
