Medium format equivalent of Leica rf and...

[sanmich]

I was looking for a MF leica too...

6x6 and 6x7 are too square for my taste. mamyia 7 too expensive for experimenting freely...

4.5x6 is great but requires tilting the camera for avery landscape shot

and then, there is the fuji 6x9....

fantastic camera, far from pocketable but not very heavy or bulky when you think of the result. very easy to use. I grab in when I'm out for a landscape shot and it's great handheld..

only con, in my opinion: I would like to be able to change the lens, espescially for a tele...
Also if you like the elegance of the leica shutter, well forget it...
The Fuji gives me more like a "KAGLANG" every shot.

Just my 2c

Michael

 

[motosacto]

Here's another nutty option for you to consider: how about a Kodak Medalist II from the 1950's? Smaller (though heavier) than the Fuji rangefinders. Wonderfully sharp Kodak 100mm F3.5 Ektar lens (similar formula to the Voigtlander Heliar design). 6x9 film format. Very usable rangefinder/viewfinder setup. Takes 620 film, but can be converted to take 120.

What's not to like?

 

[StuartR]

I just want to back up Frank and the others here. I own and use a Mamiya 7II with 43mm and 80mm, a Hasselblad 203 FE with 50, 80 and 110mm lenses as well as a Rollei 6008AF with 40, 80 (Schneider) and 180mm lenses. Of all of them, the Mamiya 43mm lens would be my pick as the sharpest, followed by the Rollei 80mm. Hasselblad makes some beautiful lenses, but they are not light years ahead of any of the others. As you can see, I don't have much brand loyalty, so please take my comments as unbiased. They are based on my experience scanning the negatives on an Imacon 646 and in printing up to 20x24 in a traditional darkroom. Hasselblad makes some great stuff, but they are not any better than the best from Mamiya or Rollei.

 

[murrayatuptown]

Resolution is not the only parameter that determines lens quality, not is it the only parameter that determines APPARENT sharpness. Contrast/MTF is related but different. There are studies that show low spatial frequency (low lp/mm) components have a bigger impact on subjective sharpness than the high spatial frequency stuff at the right side of an MTF chart.

Rudolph Kingslake (Kodak & RIT) frequently referred to "definition" as another distinguishing factor among lens designs, but I have no idea how or if that can be measured.

It is well known, and Chris Perez mentions it, that film is the limiting factor in achieving resolution. 60-70 lp/mm is about the limit on film because of several factors. Aerial resolution measured in camera, but much more difficult (Chris did not set this up due to the hassle & difficulty), can show the actual resolution capability of a lens. It is not unusual for lenses of the quality you are discussing to have resolution well over 100 lp/mm. I once read a claim that a particular Koni-Omega lens could do 135 lp/mm centrally, and the Aero-Ektar 24" f/6 lens for 9"x18" format Monochromatic lenses allegedly had a 230 lp/mm maximum. (Perhaps irrelevant to pictorial use, but mentioned here as background support) can reach several hundred lp/mm or more. If you look at a lens resolution test data sheet it's a whole table of parameters, not just a single number.(http://www.uptowngallery.org/Murray/Metrogon/12inchLensdatasheet.jpg). This chart was for a 12" Metrogon for 9x18 format...not spectacular for resolution, but it DID other things well.

Film specs may also imply higher resolution (examples, Tmax, Polaroid 55 range I think between 120 and 180 lp/mm?), but delivered resolution on film is affected by combined limits of the film and camera. This is the main reason people cite approximately 60-70 lp/mm as an in-camera limit.

Someone else mentioned correctly that MF lenses do not need the overkill lens design needed for 35 mm because of the difference in neg size. This is well known with regard to LF lenses also. Some of the Kiron/Vivitar Series I lenses of the 70's came close to 100 lp/mm if their ads were truthful.

Lastly, there are the subjective issues....lab data alone don't completely define the 'look' given hardware produce.

 

[murrayatuptown]

One more thing - I am not at all flaming wildwildwes...

I'm just kind of flaming the oft-posted 'what's the best...' kind of question we see on every forum.