MacDaddy
Certified Machead
! hgoune ylkciuq ton tub
Tell me I'm nuts, or make a serious recommendation
- Thread starter MacDaddy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 3K
peter_n
Veteran
I have only seen results from the Mamiya 7 lenses and they are unbelievable. Truly.MacDaddy said:
remrf
AZRF
I would suggest (as others have) looking into a 4x5" view camera. There are 120 roll film backs available for the format and many labs that still process both 4x5 and 120. Take a look at my camera listing below. All of my 4x5" gear ,and lenses, and film holders, and heavy duty tripod, and digital meter, and roll fim backs cost me less than $2,000.
I would also suggest that you look up Photographic Works online. They are here in Tucson and do all of my color lf and mf processing. They also do professional scanning and a full sized 6x4.5 scan from them is a 250mb file. Maybe there is a digital out there somewhere that can match the results of an lf or mf film camera but I have yet to see it if it exists. And the ones that come closest cost 4 times what the Alpa does. By the way, I built a 4x5" "landscape" camera using my 90mm Schneider Super Angulon. Incuding the lens it cost about $300.00. It will shoot both 4x5" as well as 120 film and EVERYTHING is always in focus from near field to infinty. (see picture below)
In landscape film is still king. Digital is okay for product and weddings and news but as you have found out yourself it won't hang in there when you get to the larger print sizes.
I would also suggest that you look up Photographic Works online. They are here in Tucson and do all of my color lf and mf processing. They also do professional scanning and a full sized 6x4.5 scan from them is a 250mb file. Maybe there is a digital out there somewhere that can match the results of an lf or mf film camera but I have yet to see it if it exists. And the ones that come closest cost 4 times what the Alpa does. By the way, I built a 4x5" "landscape" camera using my 90mm Schneider Super Angulon. Incuding the lens it cost about $300.00. It will shoot both 4x5" as well as 120 film and EVERYTHING is always in focus from near field to infinty. (see picture below)
In landscape film is still king. Digital is okay for product and weddings and news but as you have found out yourself it won't hang in there when you get to the larger print sizes.
Attachments
Topdog1
Well-known
I would get a Noblex medium format panorama camera, deffinitely the way to go for a landscape specialist.
/Ira
/Ira
Topdog1
Well-known
MacDaddy said:
All of the Mamiya MF cameras and lenses are regularly available on eBay for attractive prices.
/Ira
Matthew Runkel
Well-known
Unless I'm mistaken, the ALPA is not a rangefinder. In any event, there are a number of more economical options, including but not limited to the following:
A view camera - You get your pick of amazing glass: Schneider 110 XL, Rodenstock APO-Sironar S, etc. You could use a 6x9 back if you wished, either on a 4x5 camera or with a dedicated 6x9 setup. There are some surprisingly lightweight options available. Take a look at the little-known Toho monorail: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm For much less than you would spend for the ALPA and one lens, you could have a superb view camera setup. Certain view cameras (e.g., some Linhof Technicas) are are equipped with a rangefinder, but this limits your ability to use any lens since each individual lens must be matched/cammed to the rangefinder.
A Fuji 6x9 rangefinder
A Brooks Veriwide - The second (modular) version based on a Graflex XL. It's worth searching for one with the 47/5.6 Super-Angulon, a fantastic lens, rather than the more-commonly-fitted 47/8. In addition to generally having a cult following, the early 47/5.6 projects a wider image circle (less visible fall-off) and is by all accounts sharper than the 47/8. Although not the same lens, the 47/5.6 (non-XL) was probably the model for Schneider's current Digitar and Helvetar offerings. The parameters and (computed) MTFs for the old 47/5.6 non-XL are pretty much identical to the new Schnieder Helvetar for the ALPA. The Achilles' heel of the Veriwide is the back, which besides doubling the width of the camera tends to develop light leaks due to poor trap design. You can replace the Brooks back with a modern Horseman 6x9 120 or 220 roll film back. To do this you also need a Graflok adapter plate to mate the back to the camera. The result is a small and reliable--if still somewhat quirky--6x9 wide-angle camera. A ground-glass back is available for precise framing and focusing.
A Fotoman camera - http://www.fotomancamera.com
A Noblex - The whole image is formed with the sweet spot of an exceptional normal lens.
A view camera - You get your pick of amazing glass: Schneider 110 XL, Rodenstock APO-Sironar S, etc. You could use a 6x9 back if you wished, either on a 4x5 camera or with a dedicated 6x9 setup. There are some surprisingly lightweight options available. Take a look at the little-known Toho monorail: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm For much less than you would spend for the ALPA and one lens, you could have a superb view camera setup. Certain view cameras (e.g., some Linhof Technicas) are are equipped with a rangefinder, but this limits your ability to use any lens since each individual lens must be matched/cammed to the rangefinder.
A Fuji 6x9 rangefinder
A Brooks Veriwide - The second (modular) version based on a Graflex XL. It's worth searching for one with the 47/5.6 Super-Angulon, a fantastic lens, rather than the more-commonly-fitted 47/8. In addition to generally having a cult following, the early 47/5.6 projects a wider image circle (less visible fall-off) and is by all accounts sharper than the 47/8. Although not the same lens, the 47/5.6 (non-XL) was probably the model for Schneider's current Digitar and Helvetar offerings. The parameters and (computed) MTFs for the old 47/5.6 non-XL are pretty much identical to the new Schnieder Helvetar for the ALPA. The Achilles' heel of the Veriwide is the back, which besides doubling the width of the camera tends to develop light leaks due to poor trap design. You can replace the Brooks back with a modern Horseman 6x9 120 or 220 roll film back. To do this you also need a Graflok adapter plate to mate the back to the camera. The result is a small and reliable--if still somewhat quirky--6x9 wide-angle camera. A ground-glass back is available for precise framing and focusing.
A Fotoman camera - http://www.fotomancamera.com
A Noblex - The whole image is formed with the sweet spot of an exceptional normal lens.
Last edited:
rool
Well-known
If you are that serious about landscape, I think a 4x5 is the way to go.
And get backs for roll film.
The price of the alpa is insane IMHO.
And get backs for roll film.
The price of the alpa is insane IMHO.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Thanks for the additional explanation. That helps a lot!MacDaddy said:
This doctor's prescription. 4x5, Baby!
S
schaubild
Guest
Hi Rob.
I just read your post about the temptation of the Alpa 12 TC. I think I can say something about that 🙂
First the quality of the camera. Easily said, lower tolerances give better image quality. Film flatness or exact sensor placement and precise mounting of lenses pay off in the end result. And this can be clearly seen in large prints. The Schneider lenses you get for an Alpa have lower manufacturing tolerances and are more thoroughly checked than normal production, the same can be said about the film backs manufactured by Linhof. Obviously this results in a higher price tag.
Now, how much better are the images? This can only be seen in a direct comparison of quite large prints. Direct means, the same image, taken at the same time, with identical processing and the prints lay side by side. Then the difference is obvious. If a print from any of the mentioned other cameras hangs at the wall, they all look good. The results have to lay directly side by side because our vision can't quantify the amount of sharpness or different shades of color if we don't get a direct reference beside. You can easily check this on your monitor when you do postprocessing with Photoshop for example. If you make only slight sharpening or subtle tone corrections, you need to see both versions of your image side by side to be able to quantify the amount of changes you just did.
Another thing that has to be taken into consideration is your image processing workflow. It doesn't help much to get the best possible image quality onto film if the rest of your workflow sucks. I don't know the quality of your lab, but to get as much quality from a negative you can't work with a normal flatbed scanner. You need a scanner with an optical resolution bigger than 3000 DPI. That means it starts with Nikon 8000/9000 goes to the bigger Imacon/Hasselblads and from there to Creo or drum scanning. If you don't scan with that resolution all quality advantages you might have had are gone.
Next point is the print size. If you only print 8x10, you need a resolution of 2880x3600 (=only 10.3 megapixels) if you print with 360DPI. With a full scan from a Nikon 9000 (optical resolution 4000 DPI), a 6x9 negative delivers in the range of 8700x13000 pixels (ca. 113 megapixels). This results in a printsize of 24x36 inches if you don't resize. And there the quality reserve shows.
Now, should you go for an Alpa? I can't tell. I went that way and have not regretted it. My workflow fits, I never print smaller than 13x19 and I'm more than happy with the results. And apart from the technical facts, the cameras are beautiful instruments.
If you need further information, please send me a PM
I just read your post about the temptation of the Alpa 12 TC. I think I can say something about that 🙂
First the quality of the camera. Easily said, lower tolerances give better image quality. Film flatness or exact sensor placement and precise mounting of lenses pay off in the end result. And this can be clearly seen in large prints. The Schneider lenses you get for an Alpa have lower manufacturing tolerances and are more thoroughly checked than normal production, the same can be said about the film backs manufactured by Linhof. Obviously this results in a higher price tag.
Now, how much better are the images? This can only be seen in a direct comparison of quite large prints. Direct means, the same image, taken at the same time, with identical processing and the prints lay side by side. Then the difference is obvious. If a print from any of the mentioned other cameras hangs at the wall, they all look good. The results have to lay directly side by side because our vision can't quantify the amount of sharpness or different shades of color if we don't get a direct reference beside. You can easily check this on your monitor when you do postprocessing with Photoshop for example. If you make only slight sharpening or subtle tone corrections, you need to see both versions of your image side by side to be able to quantify the amount of changes you just did.
Another thing that has to be taken into consideration is your image processing workflow. It doesn't help much to get the best possible image quality onto film if the rest of your workflow sucks. I don't know the quality of your lab, but to get as much quality from a negative you can't work with a normal flatbed scanner. You need a scanner with an optical resolution bigger than 3000 DPI. That means it starts with Nikon 8000/9000 goes to the bigger Imacon/Hasselblads and from there to Creo or drum scanning. If you don't scan with that resolution all quality advantages you might have had are gone.
Next point is the print size. If you only print 8x10, you need a resolution of 2880x3600 (=only 10.3 megapixels) if you print with 360DPI. With a full scan from a Nikon 9000 (optical resolution 4000 DPI), a 6x9 negative delivers in the range of 8700x13000 pixels (ca. 113 megapixels). This results in a printsize of 24x36 inches if you don't resize. And there the quality reserve shows.
Now, should you go for an Alpa? I can't tell. I went that way and have not regretted it. My workflow fits, I never print smaller than 13x19 and I'm more than happy with the results. And apart from the technical facts, the cameras are beautiful instruments.
If you need further information, please send me a PM
Xmas
Veteran
Zorki 1 & I-22 in good condition kchrome 64, don't use wider than f5.6, if you like the result, find some Kchrome 25.
When you take a shot use a pillar wall monopod or tripod...
I'd send you one of mine but they all need a CLA.
Noel
When you take a shot use a pillar wall monopod or tripod...
I'd send you one of mine but they all need a CLA.
Noel
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Seems to me you could spend maybe $400 or less and have a Koni-Omega (6x7; rangefinder) with a couple of lenses, like the 90 standard and 58/60. If you decide the quality isn't there (and these are really excellent lenses), then consider something bigger.
eagleI
Newbie
I have an Alpa SWA. I use it with a digital back. I love it. The quality and workmanship of the camera are incredible. The quality images I get are as incredible. I have two M6s and I am considering selling one (chrome) M6 and purchasing the M8 because I have a bunch of Leica M lenses that I would like to use on a digital camera. I'm hesitating because I think that I might be disappointed with the quality of the M8 relative to the Alpa. And also, the M8 currently has a bunch of problems associated with it. In addition, the M8 is only about 10 mp and the chip size is not full like the Canon cameras. I probably will buy the M8 after they iron out all their problems.
Richard
Richard
R
ruben
Guest
Xmas said:
Noel, a totally rational answer, but where can you find a Zorki 1 at $7500 ?
Xmas
Veteran
Ruben
For you I have a low serial 1a, cheap at $7500, that is the point a good Zorki is something that you can bike to work with, as one does...
Noel
For you I have a low serial 1a, cheap at $7500, that is the point a good Zorki is something that you can bike to work with, as one does...
Noel
Similar threads
