The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Why do you use MF? or: I am in the MF crisis...

KeithL

Well-known member
And last but not least: Why do you use MF???
All cameras and systems are compromises.

As far as my own compromises are concerned rangefinders were simply non-starters and technical cameras just got in my way. The last thing I want to think about when making images is equipment.

My current MF system is a compromise but it's the best compromise I could find.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I don’t want to go too far off topic and I also don’t want to make this “all about me” but at the same time I’d like to offer some clarification so here goes.

Jack & I had a conversation a month or so ago about what he’s written about regarding the comparison of the M9 and H-39. It gave me pause then I started thinking that so far as of today there’s simply no 35mm on the current market that can effectively compete with medium format. Sandy has a 1DsIII and while the IQ is outstanding I can still nevertheless spot the difference (9 out of 10 times) in images between hers and mine with the WRS/P45+. My personal hope is that the M9 will offer the same level as the 1DsIII but on a much smaller scale. Just the thought of carrying a camera with say a 50mm attached as well as a 35mm and 75 or 90mm stuffed in my pants just makes me giddy. :D

Okay now for more of the story about what I call my battered body syndrome. 30 years ago I suffered a head on car crash that left me with almost every bone on my left side broken. I healed as best I could; to the point I later became an Air Marshall which required very rigorous training. Prior to the accident I was also shot in the chest that caused some minor discomfort. All this was to the left side of my body and my partner for what ever the reason always wanted to be on my right side figuring it was safer there. Anyway for the past 30 some years (I turn 62 next month) I’ve been in pain of some sort or another and have learned to live with it. I’m far form disabled (unless you count my mental state) and still live a very active life.

I’m just at that stage of life where I no longer (and not because I physically can’t) want to load several lenses, the WRS, filters and tripod along with close to a gallon of water and go off hiking in search of the “image”. I want to start working smarter (never too late to try). If I know of an area that I want to return to with MF then I’ll do it; if on the other hand there’s an area I’ve never been to say Horseshoe Canyon or hiking down into the South Rim and see Havasu Falls then I want that small kick *** system I mention earlier. Then if I decide I just have to do it all over gain with MF then I’ll at least have an idea of the focal length I need and par down the overall weight of the MF gear.

I couldn’t agree more with Jack’s conclusion that it’s a freeing uplifting feeling to be down to two systems. I had that very same feeling after I sold the645 body and Mamiya lenses. I was on the verge of selling my 1DsII as it was just sitting there not being used since Alaska when I decided to have it converted to IR. While I’m glade I did I still don’t see that as a viable system but more than a current novelty that may in time be sold off. So until I get the M9 I still have one system to rely on for my landscape needs.

I also see this as a partial answer to Tom’s original post. Keep using both thinking the M9 as a complementary system to your medium format gear.

Oh and regarding AF – I stopped using AF over a year ago after getting the WRS. I’m about as fully manual a shooter as you can find. I’ve used ranger finders in the past and don’t see me having a major problem using them again however it’s the subject matter that counts and for me it’s landscape and not people or street shooting.

“-Who thinks that Medium Format does work for subjects other than exterieurs/interieurs and shots from parking lots of national parks as well as studio shooting? This is not meant critically but I am really trying to find out what makes sense and what does not.” I’ve taken long walks lasting several hours and many miles with my WRS and tripod so the answer (if I understand the question correctly) is I do. Medium format can be and is used in all types of situations from inside to outside. The only caveat is that I haven’t seen a MF system that can be as weather proofed as a dSLR.

"And last but not least: Why do you use MF???" The gorgeous files it gives me. The color, the tones, the mood, the detail. I know that I can take a single image and print large. I also know that if I take several images and merge them into a pano I can print that sucker huge (which is also the reason I love using a technical camera).

Guy – Thanks bud I’ll look into that. I currently use a Lowepro backpack that works well so long as I try not to take everything with me including the kitchen sink.

One last thought – therapy only works if you think there’s something wrong. Me, I’m a gear slut and proud of it! Guy, maybe the sessions need to be on contacting your inner gear slut self and letting go! :salute:

Sorry, this turned out longer than what I expected so for the length…:shocked:

Don
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I currently use a Lowepro backpack that works well so long as I try not to take everything with me...

Don[/FONT]
Don,

Lowepro makes a dual backpack beltpack called the Orion....it separates half way up so that you can omit the backpack upper part if desired. For short trips the beltpack is great...carry a sweater and a couple of Cliff bars in the upper part if you are out for a longer hike...all of the weight would be supported on your hips.

Bob
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
Again thanks for the thoughts and experience and I do appreciate the help.

Maybe I have made one mistake and tried to use the MF-gear for some part for things which are not its strength, maybe I should just use the MF gear for mostly static subjects and when I have a lot of time and otherwise just use the M9. Maybe I have used my MF gear to often without a tripod and maybe I just have expected too much from medium format AF (I do like the Hy6 for many reasons but the AF is clearly not great even for MF standards-maybe the AF of my Hy6 is even defective as much as it hunts).
Accepting the weak points of the systems maybe helps me to avoid more frustration.
Besides the AF I do see exposure metering and image review as weak points.

i will try to get a plan for what occasions I will use which system and avoid the more intuitive way I handled it before ("lets see-which camera do we take today)
Like M9 for long distance travel, familiy, casual and MF mainly for landscape and tripod shooting.

I think I also want to do 1 or 2 more comparison sessions to really compare what MF delievers and the M9 does not (I did 1 comparison but it suffered from focus error and therefore the Hy6 images were not really sharp).
The general rendering of the Dalsa-sensor in my back as well as the rendering of the Schneider lenses are very much to my taste.

Last not least I might size down the number of lenses I have for the Hy6.

In any case I will "give it a chance" for some time - and then make the decision if I still need/want MF or not.
 

pcunite

New member
t_streng,
I think that some people really value the image quality that is possible under the right circumstances with MFD. It is what is important and paramount to them. Others value a system which look perceptibly good at smaller outputs, still others want mobility above all else. All in all you have to find what really makes you happy outside of internet forums where people make small differences seem like the War of 1812.

Asking other people's opinions is good but just understand that they only see things from their perspective. If money was absolutely no object we might be able to answer questions honestly. But the sheer fact that MFD costs so much makes the images it produces look so much better. For you it sounds like the cost of MFD is making the images NOT look so much better. See how perception is playing a roll here?
 

mark1958

Member
I am in the same boat. I really like the images and i have gotten a few great ones that i am so glad i had my Hasselblad with me. WIth limited time to shoot and even during a landscape with fast changing light, getting the right spot is sometimes a bit of luck. I find that without the IS and high iso, and to really take advantage of the great detail, a tripod is essential. Sometimes i feel i miss some opportunities because of the increased time to set up.
So i am torn about selling or upgrading and exclusively going back to 35mm DSLRs.
I just cannot decide. M
 

Geoff

Well-known member
This is a familiar issue to me as well. 2 cents worth:

Originally, MF was a midway point between LF ad 35 mm, offering close to the convenience of 35 mm, but with enough film size to get a significant quality difference, more akin to 4x5. Not exactly fast, not exactly slow, somewhere inbetween.

I for one loved that - and carrying a TLR or MF SLR gear was worth the specialness. If it was a long day, the TLR was the way to go.

Now, with the digital backs, the whole equation is turned a bit goofy: the image quality of the smaller cameras (Leica for example) is much higher, and hard to resist. The carrying of a MF camera with a back is tedious all day, if not hard, and we're all getting older. So why MF digital?

The first reason is quality and control. I have a Phase 20 back on Rollei gear, and it has changed the way I shoot; not nec. for the better, just different. The camera is happiest on a tripod, and is the finest, fastest studio camera. I get great composition and wonderful files.

Out and about is less flexible: it needs good light, but takes wonderful shots. I can carry it around for a couple of hours, but not easily all day. Would a Hy6 be better? Yes, but the Sinar back is still a bit large - the Leaf is better.

The reality for me is that I still like the MF shooting experience: more control with the WLF, better composition, more keepers. That said, the M8 still gets most of the use, but as aligning the camera parallel to the picture surface remains so hard (and easier with WLF and MF), I'd rather have the MF setup.

Thus, I'm stuck on this one. Laying out massive cash for the sheer pleasure (expedience) of a better finder and better control is a bit silly. On the other hand, it does matter, albeit only for that and maybe the occaisional super large print. Otherwise, its hard to argue for it.

Still, I love the older stuff and those big lenses. But I went to shoot a building being wrecked this weekend and put four lenses in four coat pockets with the M8. Hard to argue with that!

Geoff
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I believe we agree that the IQ gap between MF and 35mm becomes smaller and smaller, plus some feautures of smaller cameras/systems get more and more advanced. Thinks like lifeview on the display, compensation for focus-errors per lens in DSLRS, advanced matrix metering, better lenses (like the new T/S lenses from Canon - anybody read the comparison from Rainer V. between the Artec and the new Canon T/S? )

The gap becoming smaller makes it more difficult to decide if one justifies/needs/wants MF or not.

Than there are other points besides IQ like viewfinder/ different handling etc. which come to my mind and which are a very personal thing.

Plus third thing is price and price development.

In the end it can also be a big different if it is used for hobby or for a pro.
If I had to shoot professionally and knew I have a) enough time for a session and b) the necessary infrastructure (to get the equipment where it is needed at the point of time it is needed and c) get paid for this in a propper way MF could make more sense than for someone with a "normal" job who has max. 6 weeks vacation per year, and spends those with family etc.

It is hard for me to tell my family that we leave the rubber boat at home so that I can bring my Artec and Hy6-system ;) (even though I bring more photo-equipment with me than others would expect, at least as long as we travel by car and not by plane)
And vacation and weekends are the main times where I have the chance to take more time for photography and get to places which I would like to photograph.
 

thomas

New member
Obviously you've bought MFD because of the file quality but maybe not because you wanted to gain a certain size of your prints.
I have to admit that I like the crisp look of MFD files (or maybe files of cameras lacking an AA filter). Still I think nearly all the DSLRs (and, of course, an M9) provide files with high bit depth, clean blacks etc. as well so that with regard to the achievable IQ the advantage of MFD is minor. IMO.
The advantage is more obvious if you print large (i.e. larger that 100% of the native file size). If you print really big there's no way around MFD (unless you want to stitch all the time. Or, based on film, 8x10).

But ... I think your problem is not gear related. My reading is that you actually don't have (and don't take) the time for photography (as you suggest).
Of course you can make a nice landscape snapshot while you go for a walk with your family. Or a nice panorama shot while you are hiking.
But in the first case your main interest is to spend time with your family and in the second case your main interest is hiking. In both cases photography is just an additional interest. In both cases the gear can't be easy to carry and easy to use enough. In both cases all that gear troubles you. In both cases the chance to be unsatisfied with the photographs you've shot is extremely high.
If you take the time - at least once in a while - to make photography your main interest and give it the time and concentration it requires and deserves ... I think then you will evaluate the gear completely different. It may very well be the case that even then your M9 turns out to be the preferred tool for you. That's fine then.

As to your particular gear: I think you decided for an outfit based on the fascination for the gear alone. But not based on your needs.
The Hy6 body, the Sinar back and the Rollei lenses are very bulky. In comparision e.g. a Contax 645 looks (and is) tiny.
The arTec is a very specialized tool and the core of its concept is the integrated sliding back. Which adds to the weight. The Cambo WRS, a Silvestri (or the like) are much lighter and much easier to carry.
Still... I think the gear is not really the problem...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Perhaps a little different perspective:

In 100 years nothing has really changed has it?

If anything, with film it was/is even more time consuming than it is with digital capture ... especially when it comes to view cameras.

Either you have the inclination for it, even a driving passion, or you don't. Trouble is, unless you shoot for a living, the urge can come and go.

What seems to trigger a crisis of confidence is perhaps the shadow looming over digital capture that promises to make it less than the next best thing just over the horizon.

What I mean is, that with film, you bought a Hasselblad 500 V camera and Zeiss lenses and kept it for 20 years of more. You might let it sit for a time and come back to it when the bug bit you again. You didn't worry, it was no big deal ... it delivered when you were ready. I'd sometimes let my Hassey V sit for a couple of years and then suddenly my passion for MF would be rekindled.

Personally, I believe that this last wave of higher meg, more feature laden Medium Format offerings has arrived at that point. Perhaps the reason that experienced photographers like Guy and Jack now do most all of their serious work with one MFD system. If I didn't shoot weddings I probably would do the same thing.

While others can say the gap between other formats and MF is closing ... it isn't even with-in a mile of being closed IMO. It was just that the Gap was so incredibly huge before. I don't mistake nice files from the M9, 1DsMKIII, D3X, or my Current Sony A900 as being anywhere in the same league as my Medium Format digital machine ... even with a 8X10 print ... let alone for some of the critical commercial work I do.

Frankly, I found that there is something profoundly disappointing about the IQ of everything else once you use a MFD ... or course that is IF IQ is what floats your boat.

-Marc
 

PeterA

Well-known member
You can send your Hy6 in for a calibration by Sinar and you will see a great improvement - otherwise my Sinar set is just one of 4 or is 5 or six MF systems I have collected for no better reason than I like the stuff.

Sometimes it is just best to admit to fetishes. th epoepl i dont understand are thoe who dont care about the camera just the print - this is weird very weird..to me anyway .. aprint is a different thing to a camera and its lenses.

a print can b made by anycamera..

my cameras arent any cameras they are my cameras.

-:)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
You can send your Hy6 in for a calibration by Sinar and you will see a great improvement..
DId you experience this? Maybe my AF is really just faulty. (it just does lock bad and needs forever and you never know if it has locked now in the right position or not)
I think I might add another thread to discuss Hy6 gear and see if my problems are normal or not.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
In 100 years nothing has really changed has it?
Exactly. When it comes to imaging, more real-estate is still better.

While others can say the gap between other formats and MF is closing ... it isn't even with-in a mile of being closed IMO. It was just that the Gap was so incredibly huge before. I don't mistake nice files from the M9, 1DsMKIII, D3X, or my Current Sony A900 as being anywhere in the same league as my Medium Format digital machine ... even with a 8X10 print ... let alone for some of the critical commercial work I do.

Frankly, I found that there is something profoundly disappointing about the IQ of everything else once you use a MFD ... or course that is IF IQ is what floats your boat.

-Marc
Couldn't agree more Marc.
~~~

Tom wrote,
I believe we agree that the IQ gap between MF and 35mm becomes smaller and smaller,
I think I need to clarify my perspective. Personally, *I* do not agree with this, and perhaps didn't make it very clear in my above responses. I said something like that from a net file detail standpoint, an M9 or Pro DSLR 2x stitch compares head-to-head with a single 39MP MF frame capture. So stated another way, I am saying a single frame from an M9 or Pro DSLR is basically *HALF* as detailed as a 39MP MF capture(!) I also said that the DR, hue and tonality were superior from MF, and that the current M9 and Pro DSLR really can't compete IMO.

This does not take away form the size, convenience, form factor, speed and feature sets of contemporary high-end DSLRs. They clearly have significant benefits and features that make them attractive or even superior choices for many photographic venues. So when it comes to obtaining ultimate file quality regardless of features, going bigger is still going to deliver the best results. But it is a choice that requires paying a cost in both additional time and money.

Cheers,
 

Paratom

Well-known member
But ... I think your problem is not gear related. My reading is that you actually don't have (and don't take) the time for photography (as you suggest).
Of course you can make a nice landscape snapshot while you go for a walk with your family. Or a nice panorama shot while you are hiking.
But in the first case your main interest is to spend time with your family and in the second case your main interest is hiking. In both cases photography is just an additional interest. In both cases the gear can't be easy to carry and easy to use enough. In both cases all that gear troubles you. In both cases the chance to be unsatisfied with the photographs you've shot is extremely high.
Thats a good comment and I agree for some part. I need to take time JUST for photography here and then.
The other thing is that hiking does often get me to beautiful places and let me experiecne beautiful light.
One approach is to go photograph, go to find a beautiful scene/light/moment.
The other approach is that if you are outside a lot you sometimes have luck to see very special places/moments/light and then you want to "shoot"/catch that moment.
But the most beautiful places for me were often not in reach of a parking lot but maybe up on a mountain/ close to a glacier etc etc.
But again- I really agree that I could/should go more often out with the main focus of photography and not with the idea to combine activity and photography.

....
As to your particular gear: I think you decided for an outfit based on the fascination for the gear alone. But not based on your needs.
The Hy6 body, the Sinar back and the Rollei lenses are very bulky. In comparision e.g. a Contax 645 looks (and is) tiny.
My decision was based on
a) my wish for a big/bright/interchangable viewfinder
b) in the beginning I just focused on maybe 2-3 smaller/lighter lenses like the 40/80/150 (but later I got inclined by the "monster-lenses" 110/2.0 and 180/2.8)
c) The 75LV is the back which was the best compromise IMO regarding noise-sensor size-flexibility (no micro lenses)-and price
d) if using WLF the rotating back made a lot of sense to me
e) I liked the rendering of the dalsa sensor as well as that of the Schneider lenses
f) I thought I would use fill flash more oftne but actually I dodnt so far

The decision for the Artec was driven by the thought that specially for doing T/S plus for focus accurancy a ground glass would really make sense (and I still believe it does). The Artec is not really heavy - the draw back is that you cant handhold it and it is wider.
As soon as you do use a griundglass the Artec should be much easier to use than a comparable camera.
On the other side I admit that sometimes a Alpa TC like camera would be fine as well- one does not allways has to use T/S and sometimes infinity focus is all you need.

I agree that the idea to have a very portable system would have directed against central shutter system like Mamiya or Contax.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Jack and Marc - while I have never question that there is a difference in IQ specially regarding tonality/color gradiations you guys make me suspicious if this difference is maybe bigger than I feel right now.

This encourages me even more to give it a try and to optimize my MF-photography and workflow.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
....
What I mean is, that with film, you bought a Hasselblad 500 V camera and Zeiss lenses and kept it for 20 years of more. You might let it sit for a time and come back to it when the bug bit you again. You didn't worry, it was no big deal ... it delivered when you were ready. I'd sometimes let my Hassey V sit for a couple of years and then suddenly my passion for MF would be rekindled.

....
-Marc
I also agree here - today and with the price development you (I should say I) do sometimes feel if I dont use some equipment much (now) than I should sell it better today than tomorrow before it has lost all its value.

Like a d3x - if you dont use it much better sell before they anounce the d3xII or the D900 or whatever....silly game.
I am glad it is different for lenses.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I also agree here - today and with the price development you (I should say I) do sometimes feel if I dont use some equipment much (now) than I should sell it better today than tomorrow before it has lost all its value.

Like a d3x - if you dont use it much better sell before they anounce the d3xII or the D900 or whatever....silly game.
I am glad it is different for lenses.
Well, it is even true for lenses, as Nikon rebuilt their complete lens lineup over the past years and one better sold before the new lenses were announced :confused:

Anyway, I agree that we are all in the same boat, as soon as you do not use a digital camera very often, it is better to sell immediately, before they announce the new model. I currently feel like that WRT my A900 and I felt the same about my M8 some 6 months ago before I sold it alread with lot of loss.
 

PSon

Active member
This is one of the most enjoyable threads to read; there are so many facets and interlinks. There are many good personal thoughts already posted so here is another one for you and I hope you find it well.

We all learn to walk with similar mechanics but each one of us must walk our own path. Forums and community in its purest form, provides us with great insights from personal experience and story to help us making the "right" decision. The decision we make is very important and it has a long lasting effect. I can go on with my story but I will cut it to the point.

1. We cannot compare apple, orange and etc.; pick one or eat them all.

2. Pick the right lens for each of the system; it makes a significant difference in your view of the system.

3. Make sure that the technical error is not the unknown factor that makes you want to sell your system; in this case it appears to be your auto focus with the Hy6 camera. Perhaps your camera has front focusing issue which is known to be with the new firmware update. Personally I like the square format camera the most despite some issues. I spent a long time to select the right Hy6 for myself and my friends and peers. I use this camera lot in manual and auto focus with the revolving adapter thanks to the 6x6 format. I do not have to add another hand grip to my camera in order to shoot in portrait mode in addition with the L bracket which all result in much more weight. Even in portrait mode, the Hy6 still allows you to use the waist level finder which has significantly less weight than the prism. Thus overall, the Hy6 camera is not very heavy by itself and with the film back, this camera is very light weight. The digital back alone is where the weight is added and some of the Rollei lens also add the heavy weights. Some of the Rollei lens are very light weight especially the new AFD lens compare to the manual focus lens for example, the SA 2.8/50. Weights is not always bad, in fact it can help to dampen the vibrations. In fact, the heavy Rollei lens can help the mirror vibration due to the strong slap of the mirror on the Rollei 600x camera. The Sinar Hy6 has another advantage; it is its optics. I find the Rollei lens to offer extremely rich in colors and the resolution on some of its lens is not only sharp but it covers from corner to corner. For example, the 180 AFD lens is sharp to the corners especially with the 60 megapixels back. I have tested the Rollei lens with the P65+ and have some preliminary data. In addition, the lens that I tested has no color cast as compare to the Hasselblad Zeiss 180mm lens. Also the bokeh of the Rollei lens is unique in medium format. In a time when folks move away from the Sinar/Rollei system I actually grew closer to my systems. It is for these reasons, I have bought 2 more systems in additional to my Sinar Hy6 to use my Rollei lens, Leaf AFi 7 with Aptus 75 and Alpa 12XY systems. Talk about weights the Alpa 12XY + The Rollei 55 PCS lens is very heavy but you can also see how crisp the image is due to better vibration control even on a small tripod that can handle the weights.

4. External influence factors vs. internal search; here experience is the best teacher.

5. I look at different systems and formats as integration and not overlap of my setup. For example, I soon will shoot my Sinar eMotion 75LV with my new Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm lens. No need of the Hartblei camera.

6. The forces within us compete with each other from time to time. There is no war but only battles to win within ourselves.

Best Regards,
Son
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
Wow Son,
I just feel like you sold me my own system another time :bugeyes:
This forum is great and I sometimes wish we all would live closer together since normally I prefer direct communication over internet.

2 questions: Does your Hy6 focus without hunting forth and back before locking? And how good does camera metering work for you? In my case I have to dial in anything between +.3 up to +1.5 and more sometimes still get underexposed images.

Just to make clear - I am also a person who tries to make his own experiences and own opinion but sometimes it really helps to exchange thoughts and experiences from other people/photographers. Plus its interesting to see if others make comparable experiences (and to make sure one is not on the path to getting crazy)

This is one of the most enjoyable threads to read; there are so many facets and interlinks. There are many good personal thoughts already posted so here is another one for you and I hope you find it well.

We all learn to walk with similar mechanics but each one of us must walk our own path. Forums and community in its purest form, provides us with great insights from personal experience and story to help us making the "right" decision. The decision we make is very important and it has a long lasting effect. I can go on with my story but I will cut it to the point.

1. We cannot compare apple, orange and etc.; pick one or eat them all.

2. Pick the right lens for each of the system; it makes a significant difference in your view of the system.

3. Make sure that the technical error is not the unknown factor that makes you want to sell your system; in this case it appears to be your auto focus with the Hy6 camera. Perhaps your camera has front focusing issue which is known to be with the new firmware update. Personally I like the square format camera the most despite some issues. I spent a long time to select the right Hy6 for myself and my friends and peers. I use this camera lot in manual and auto focus with the revolving adapter thanks to the 6x6 format. I do not have to add another hand grip to my camera in order to shoot in portrait mode in addition with the L bracket which all result in much more weight. Even in portrait mode, the Hy6 still allows you to use the waist level finder which has significantly less weight than the prism. Thus overall, the Hy6 camera is not very heavy by itself and with the film back, this camera is very light weight. The digital back alone is where the weight is added and some of the Rollei lens also add the heavy weights. Some of the Rollei lens are very light weight especially the new AFD lens compare to the manual focus lens for example, the SA 2.8/50. Weights is not always bad, in fact it can help to dampen the vibrations. In fact, the heavy Rollei lens can help the mirror vibration due to the strong slap of the mirror on the Rollei 600x camera. The Sinar Hy6 has another advantage; it is its optics. I find the Rollei lens to offer extremely rich in colors and the resolution on some of its lens is not only sharp but it covers from corner to corner. For example, the 180 AFD lens is sharp to the corners especially with the 60 megapixels back. I have tested the Rollei lens with the P65+ and have some preliminary data. In addition, the lens that I tested has no color cast as compare to the Hasselblad Zeiss 180mm lens. Also the bokeh of the Rollei lens is unique in medium format. In a time when folks move away from the Sinar/Rollei system I actually grew closer to my systems. It is for these reasons, I have bought 2 more systems in additional to my Sinar Hy6 to use my Rollei lens, Leaf AFi 7 with Aptus 75 and Alpa 12XY systems. Talk about weights the Alpa 12XY + The Rollei 55 PCS lens is very heavy but you can also see how crisp the image is due to better vibration control even on a small tripod that can handle the weights.

4. External influence factors vs. internal search; here experience is the best teacher.

5. I look at different systems and formats as integration and not overlap of my setup. For example, I soon will shoot my Sinar eMotion 75LV with my new Canon TS-E 17mm and 24mm lens. No need of the Hartblei camera.

6. The forces within us compete with each other from time to time. There is no war but only battles to win within ourselves.

Best Regards,
Son
 
Top