Lynx or GSN?

[tedwhite]

I had an XA, and indeed it was the smallest RF camera I've ever seen or owned. It's a very useful street camera as no one notices it. Pictures are quite good, though I'm not sure how much one could enlarge an XA neg beyond 8X10.

The one that beats it - and is almost as small - is the Yashica T4 Super, but it's an AF camera and not an RF.

Ted

 

[FallisPhoto]

I had an XA, and indeed it was the smallest RF camera I've ever seen or owned. It's a very useful street camera as no one notices it. Pictures are quite good, though I'm not sure how much one could enlarge an XA neg beyond 8X10.

The one that beats it - and is almost as small - is the Yashica T4 Super, but it's an AF camera and not an RF.

Ted

The problem with the XA is -- that I have big hands! It was too small. The controls were a little on the fiddley side for me. To me, the Lynx and the G-series RFs feel just about right. Incidentally, most of the better AF cameras incorporate electronic rangefinder technology in order to focus accurately. http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/camtec2.htm In a way, it just might be a rangefinder (of sorts) after all.

 

[FallisPhoto]

I had an XA, and indeed it was the smallest RF camera I've ever seen or owned. It's a very useful street camera as no one notices it. Pictures are quite good, though I'm not sure how much one could enlarge an XA neg beyond 8X10.

The one that beats it - and is almost as small - is the Yashica T4 Super, but it's an AF camera and not an RF.

Ted

Almost forgot to address the rsest of your comment, but somewhere between 8x10 and 11x14 is pretty much going to be the threshold of enlargement for any decent 35mm camera. That is the point where performance begins to deteriorate enough that it can be detected with the human eye. The XA has a very good lens, but it's on the tiny side, like pretty much everything else about it. Thus, although it may have fewer flaws than usual in the lens, proportionally the few it has cover more of the surface. Thus, because those flaws get enlarged along with the image, it can't make it much past 8x10 without problems.

 

[tedwhite]

Fallisphoto:

Thanks for the photozone.de link. Quite an informative site and very well written. I'm wondering if the English I read is a translation from German, and if so, it's superb.

Also, it's a well-balanced discussion of the advantages/disadvantages between the SLR and RF cameras, and I learned from it. And so, apparently my T4 Super uses a beam version of the RF concept?

And you make a good point about why the XA's lens has its limits.

With a 35mm SLR I have succeeded quite often in making a crisp 11X14, but only rarely have I done so at 16X20, maybe 8-10 times.

However, with a Rolleiflex, 16X20 is no longer an elusive goal.

Ted

 

[tedwhite]

Pesphoto:

I was demonstrating the GSN I got from you to desertshooter, a fellow RFFer. Then I told him all about the Yashica _guy adapter and said, "Here, I'll show you." Opened up the battery compartment and there, to my surprise, was the long original Mercury battery instead.

It looks new, actually, and I was wondering if it was in the camera when you got it or whether you have a secret stash of these?

If it's newish, I suspect it will last for some time.

Ted

 

[FallisPhoto]

Fallisphoto:

Thanks for the photozone.de link. Quite an informative site and very well written. I'm wondering if the English I read is a translation from German, and if so, it's superb.

Also, it's a well-balanced discussion of the advantages/disadvantages between the SLR and RF cameras, and I learned from it. And so, apparently my T4 Super uses a beam version of the RF concept?

And you make a good point about why the XA's lens has its limits.

With a 35mm SLR I have succeeded quite often in making a crisp 11X14, but only rarely have I done so at 16X20, maybe 8-10 times.

However, with a Rolleiflex, 16X20 is no longer an elusive goal.

Ted

You're welcome to the link, Ted. Personally, I found it slightly slanted in favor of SLRs, but it was still informative. I found it interesting that each system's weaknesses were almost exactly matched by the other's strong points. The two systems do indeed suppliment one another -- to an almost ideal extent.

And I'd be surprised if any properly working medium format camera of good quality, with a decent lens, couldn't make a sharp 16x20. A 6x6 Rolleiflex TLR shouldn't have much difficulty at all -- unless maybe you're talking about the Rollie 35? If so, I think you probably need to look closer.

In 35mm, anything beyond 11x14, even with the best cameras, is called "empty enlargement." 11x14 really is the threshold. Beyond that you don't get any benefeit and performance starts visibly deteriorating. It is partly because of small format lenses simply being smaller (and nothing being perfect), but is also inherent in small format film. Even an ultra-high resolution film, like Efke KB25, has limits -- and 16x20 would be beyond them. You can just blow something up so big before tinly little flaws become obvious ones. Small format is just no substitute for medium or large format. If you're going to be making 16x20 enlargements, you really ought to be using a format that is more capable of it. If you like vintage cameras, I'd recommend an Agfa Isolette III, an Ansco Speedex Special R, a Bessa II, a Balda Super Baldax, or even the previously mentioned Rolleiflex TLR for that (obviously with the upper rung lenses).