godfrog
Member
Some time ago I purchased a Minoltaflex III TLR, with the 75/3.5 Chiyoda Rokkor lens, which should be the same as the Autocord lens. This seems like a very well regarded lens, but I dont know how the performance at say F11 is expected to compare to something like a top of the line Rolleiflex.
I bought it (cheap) mainly for two reasons:
1. To try out MF and the TLR way of shooting. In this regard, the Minoltaflex is a hit, and regardless of other issues I will keep using it because Im enjoying shooting it.
2. To enable bigger prints than my DSLR.
On point two, the Minoltaflex doesnt deliver in the way I hoped it would. I have a APS-C DSLR (14.6 megapixels) which I have used for a few big prints with good results, but wanted to go even bigger. Even when doing what I can go get the best sharpness (tripod, cable release, no wind, careful focus, ISO50-100 film, F8 to F16), the Minoltaflex seem similar or slightly less capable than my DSLR at resolving detail at the same field of view. My prints showed this (although only two big ones made), and when looking at negatives/positives with an extreme (beyond 1:1) macro on my DSLR, the detail isnt there. Of course, Im comparing technology almost 60 years apart, but the 6x6 format does have 8 times the surface area.
So Im wondering, is this the expected level of performance of an average 6x6 TLR?
I bought it (cheap) mainly for two reasons:
1. To try out MF and the TLR way of shooting. In this regard, the Minoltaflex is a hit, and regardless of other issues I will keep using it because Im enjoying shooting it.
2. To enable bigger prints than my DSLR.
On point two, the Minoltaflex doesnt deliver in the way I hoped it would. I have a APS-C DSLR (14.6 megapixels) which I have used for a few big prints with good results, but wanted to go even bigger. Even when doing what I can go get the best sharpness (tripod, cable release, no wind, careful focus, ISO50-100 film, F8 to F16), the Minoltaflex seem similar or slightly less capable than my DSLR at resolving detail at the same field of view. My prints showed this (although only two big ones made), and when looking at negatives/positives with an extreme (beyond 1:1) macro on my DSLR, the detail isnt there. Of course, Im comparing technology almost 60 years apart, but the 6x6 format does have 8 times the surface area.
So Im wondering, is this the expected level of performance of an average 6x6 TLR?
Krzys
Well-known
Check the film flatness and post some photos here if you can. 
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Too many variables are involved- direct comparisons won't necessarily show what's really happening.
A print from a 6X6 negative (optically, through an enlarger) will have extra variables like the enlarger lens's quality, the flatness of the print, etc which will affect the results.
A DSLR image, pixel-peeped on screen is obviously 1st generation (and therefore has no gen-loss) will appear to be, or perhaps be really sharper. There is also some sharpening involved in most cases. Shot at jpeg, there will definitely be some. With raw files, some sharpening is applied during PP.
Before digital, we used to shoot commercial work with 4X5 when maximum quality was required- be it for posters or billboards. 6X6 cm negs, even those shot with Hasselblads were not used for anything larger than posters. But with digital, even 6mp material can be used for wall sized posters to even house sized billboards with little effort.
A print from a 6X6 negative (optically, through an enlarger) will have extra variables like the enlarger lens's quality, the flatness of the print, etc which will affect the results.
A DSLR image, pixel-peeped on screen is obviously 1st generation (and therefore has no gen-loss) will appear to be, or perhaps be really sharper. There is also some sharpening involved in most cases. Shot at jpeg, there will definitely be some. With raw files, some sharpening is applied during PP.
Before digital, we used to shoot commercial work with 4X5 when maximum quality was required- be it for posters or billboards. 6X6 cm negs, even those shot with Hasselblads were not used for anything larger than posters. But with digital, even 6mp material can be used for wall sized posters to even house sized billboards with little effort.
Lilserenity
Well-known
What size were you trying to print?
I have had great results from my Autocord even when using ISO 400 film. I wish I could post examples but I do all of my MF prints in the darkroom and don't have as yet a flatbed scanner (was gonna buy one last weekend but the water bill came through! d'oh!)
I can't really quantify the quality I see in my prints but they have plenty of detail and great tonality.
Admitedly I've only shot the camera at or wider than f/8 though I think.
Vicky
I have had great results from my Autocord even when using ISO 400 film. I wish I could post examples but I do all of my MF prints in the darkroom and don't have as yet a flatbed scanner (was gonna buy one last weekend but the water bill came through! d'oh!)
I can't really quantify the quality I see in my prints but they have plenty of detail and great tonality.
Admitedly I've only shot the camera at or wider than f/8 though I think.
Vicky
godfrog
Member
Thanks to everyone for the quick replies!
I cant post pictures now as I do not have a scanner yet. Ill be buying one when I move home to my home country in about 6 weeks, in order to scan pictures from my Minoltaflex as well as a bunch of 35mm film from my Olympus XA and Pentax ME Super.
About print size, the two prints I did were about 60x60cm, they look great at reasonable viewing distances (just like my DSLR prints). I was hoping to go larger while still letting the viewer get somewhat close.
As ZorkiKat said, there are a lot of variables involved, and Im in no way conclusively sure that my Minoltaflex resolves less detail than my DSLR. As was posted, I think film flatness might be an issue but I dont know how to check it or what to do about it. I read the later Autocord had less flatness issues due to the film being loaded at the top of the camera.
I guess what Im asking is mostly what peoples experiences are with 6x6 detail compared to DSLRs. Similar to mine, or are you getting much more detailed prints from your TLR?
I cant post pictures now as I do not have a scanner yet. Ill be buying one when I move home to my home country in about 6 weeks, in order to scan pictures from my Minoltaflex as well as a bunch of 35mm film from my Olympus XA and Pentax ME Super.
About print size, the two prints I did were about 60x60cm, they look great at reasonable viewing distances (just like my DSLR prints). I was hoping to go larger while still letting the viewer get somewhat close.
As ZorkiKat said, there are a lot of variables involved, and Im in no way conclusively sure that my Minoltaflex resolves less detail than my DSLR. As was posted, I think film flatness might be an issue but I dont know how to check it or what to do about it. I read the later Autocord had less flatness issues due to the film being loaded at the top of the camera.
I guess what Im asking is mostly what peoples experiences are with 6x6 detail compared to DSLRs. Similar to mine, or are you getting much more detailed prints from your TLR?
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
I think the way the print was made also matters.
A print made by projection will always lose a bit of sharpness.
Was your Autocord print made from a negative scan? Scanning the negative and making an inkjet or 'lightjet' print (as with the Fuji Frontier or Durst Lambda printers) removes the variables introduced by the enlarger lens and printer parallelism.
I've had some door-sized prints made from negatives shot with a 35mm RF. The film was ISO 25 BW, and I had expected less from it, even as smaller prints. But the inkjet print made from it, from a negative scan, showed more than what I expected. Enough quality to make it blend almost seamlessly with the other door-sized prints, but which originated from digital 8-10mp captures.
A print made by projection will always lose a bit of sharpness.
Was your Autocord print made from a negative scan? Scanning the negative and making an inkjet or 'lightjet' print (as with the Fuji Frontier or Durst Lambda printers) removes the variables introduced by the enlarger lens and printer parallelism.
I've had some door-sized prints made from negatives shot with a 35mm RF. The film was ISO 25 BW, and I had expected less from it, even as smaller prints. But the inkjet print made from it, from a negative scan, showed more than what I expected. Enough quality to make it blend almost seamlessly with the other door-sized prints, but which originated from digital 8-10mp captures.
rayfoxlee
Raymondo
A camera such as a Minoltaflex is getting on a bit, so you should check that the lenses are clear of haze and fungus etc. Also the lens panel may be out of alignment with the film plane and it may need re-collimating. I would think that many older cameras would struggle to match the definition of a higher end digital, unless the lenses are pristine and of good quality. Also modern coatings do make a big difference.
Good luck with tracking the problem down.
Good luck with tracking the problem down.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Most likely, the camera need adjustment. The lens is probably a Tessar design and should perform well, certainly as good or better than an APS-C sensor given the large negative size with stopped aperture to f/8 or f/11. Resolving power on film should be at least 44-50 lp/mm is aligned correctly.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
The emphasized part above may be a lot of your issue: viewing distance is important and if one tries to get closer, apparent resolution suffers.
Not to discount anything else said/suggested in other posts.
60 x 60 is a 10x enlargement and that may be reaching the limit of what a Minoltaflex is capable of. I'm not meaning to belittle the Minoltaflex here; I do know that when I start to get to around 10x, I am not getting the best possible resolution from any of my negs. Especially at close viewing distances.
Also, f/11 may niot be the 'best' aperture for that lens. I'd shoot something like what you want as your final image at all the apertures and see which looks the best.
Rob
dnk512
Well-known
Check the focus... shoot a ruler at an angle.
Film flatness may be an issue, or if someone took the lens apart (cleaning?)
My Autocord's rokkor may lack my 80mm Zeiss contrast, but is as sharp as anything I have ever seen.
Film flatness may be an issue, or if someone took the lens apart (cleaning?)
My Autocord's rokkor may lack my 80mm Zeiss contrast, but is as sharp as anything I have ever seen.
Ronald M
Veteran
APS C outclasses MF 2.25 sq
godfrog
Member
Thanks again for the replies!
Ill add that the camera has had a full CLA by a reputable camera service shop here in Tokyo. The condition of the camera is cosmetically less than perfect, but the lenses do not have mold or haze. There are a few scratches, but nothing that should affect sharpness. Focus is accurate as far as I can tell.
Ill probably take one more set of test pictures, the same scene at all apertures from wide open to F22 on Neopan 100. That should tell me if the focus is correct (from the wide open shot) and what the sharpest aperture is.
If its more detailed than my DSLR, Ill use the Minoltaflex for the upcoming cherry blossoms. If not, Ill just keep enjoying using the Minoltaflex for other kinds of photography where I wont be aiming for the biggest prints. Either way its a lovely camera.
Ill add that the camera has had a full CLA by a reputable camera service shop here in Tokyo. The condition of the camera is cosmetically less than perfect, but the lenses do not have mold or haze. There are a few scratches, but nothing that should affect sharpness. Focus is accurate as far as I can tell.
Ill probably take one more set of test pictures, the same scene at all apertures from wide open to F22 on Neopan 100. That should tell me if the focus is correct (from the wide open shot) and what the sharpest aperture is.
If its more detailed than my DSLR, Ill use the Minoltaflex for the upcoming cherry blossoms. If not, Ill just keep enjoying using the Minoltaflex for other kinds of photography where I wont be aiming for the biggest prints. Either way its a lovely camera.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Regardless of what you do, film MF is not likely to look as smooth as a good digital image. People continue to shoot film precisely because it doesn't have the look I think you are after.
Ronald M
Veteran
The only really good TLR were Rollie`s.
Lens formulas may be the same, but manufacturing skill comes into play. In the 50`s, Japan did not have it. They are scads better now.
Lens formulas may be the same, but manufacturing skill comes into play. In the 50`s, Japan did not have it. They are scads better now.
pschauss
Well-known
What shutter speed were you using and did you use a tripod?
Armoured
Well-known
I have no complaints about sharpness, but find the biggest difference with TLRs and medium format is the increased perceived tonal range compared to smaller formats (including digital). Most noticeable with black and white film. You may not see increased detail at all, depending on the other variables.
Last edited:
Mablo
Well-known
Well, don't know about other Japanese -50's TLRs but my Ricoh Diacord L is as sharp as my Rollei from the same era.
thegman
Veteran
Don't know much about TLRs, and I'm not sure what film you are using, but I believe Velvia has a very high resolution, 160 lines per mm. So on a 6x6 negative, you should have over 9000 lines. If you're not already using Velvia, give it a try.
You could also maybe try sending one roll off to a very good scanning lab, it'll cost you a bit, but you may be happier with the results. I initially sent off films to a cheap lab and was very disappointed with the results, then tried a more expensive one (Genie) and was very happy with the results. The resolution of the Velvia 35mm scans was at least as good as my DP-1, so medium format would wipe the floor with the Foveon sensor, and probably APS too.
But as has been said above, people are shooting film for the colour and tonality, and not so much resolution. Although I think with good lenses and film, the resolution is as good as comparable digital cameras.
You could also maybe try sending one roll off to a very good scanning lab, it'll cost you a bit, but you may be happier with the results. I initially sent off films to a cheap lab and was very disappointed with the results, then tried a more expensive one (Genie) and was very happy with the results. The resolution of the Velvia 35mm scans was at least as good as my DP-1, so medium format would wipe the floor with the Foveon sensor, and probably APS too.
But as has been said above, people are shooting film for the colour and tonality, and not so much resolution. Although I think with good lenses and film, the resolution is as good as comparable digital cameras.
thegman
Veteran
You could also have a look at this article:
http://www.photographical.net/epson_v750.html
It compares 6x6 film vs. a Canon 1D DSLR, the film is scanned at 3200dpi and I'd say it resolves a bit more detail than the 1D. Considering that scanners nowadays can do 5400dpi, 6400dpi or more, I think you should be able to squeeze more detail from your 6x6 negs. That said, there are so many places for it to go wrong, like lens, developing, scanning etc.
http://www.photographical.net/epson_v750.html
It compares 6x6 film vs. a Canon 1D DSLR, the film is scanned at 3200dpi and I'd say it resolves a bit more detail than the 1D. Considering that scanners nowadays can do 5400dpi, 6400dpi or more, I think you should be able to squeeze more detail from your 6x6 negs. That said, there are so many places for it to go wrong, like lens, developing, scanning etc.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I think this is the right attitude. Enjoy the camera as well as the process. Details and sharpness are easy to compare and argue about, but those are far from being the only factor that create a beautiful photograph.
Whether the details on the prints can satisfy you or not, that's a subjective matter.
For example: I made a 11x14 inches print (using enlarger) from 6x4.5 negative and I was very happy with the details. The image of droplets of water pop out from the prints and some of the viewers think that the print is still wet
If I were to take the same picture using the best 35mm DSLR and print it at the same size, will it be sharper and have more detail? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't care because I enjoy the process of making the darkroom print more than dealing with inkjet printers.