Medium format cameras and their feel

[dfarkas]

Perhaps I'm a bit biased, but after handling the S2 both in Cologne and in Louisville, I much prefer the feel to the Mamiya and Hassy. I think that the S2, while being smaller feels more solid, less plastic. And that is just the prototype. The lenses are also just great in their feel and balance when on the camera. The manual focus (constant clutch) ring is perfectly damped and silky smooth. Think somewhere between a 90 APO R and a 180 APO R Elmarit. They also feel much, much lighter than I would have expected, even though they are all metal construction.

For the final production model, I really, really want the same hand strap that came with the R9/DMR. For those that have used it, you know what I mean.

Anyone going to PMA in Las Vegas in March? I'm sure Leica will be bringing the S2 and lenses to fondle. If not, I'll be blogging from the show.

David

 

[shakeshuck]

no one makes lenses like Leica. I know that is fanboy, but most of the Mamiya, Zeiss and Schneider lenses I have used are just not there compared to Leica lenses

I hope I'm not asking for a flaming here...

Before I comment I will hold my hand up and say that I've never shot a single Leica frame. Maybe that's what I'm missing! But I remember the photo magazines I used to get in the 70s and 80s, and whenever an M-series lens came up for testing I was always dumbfounded; they were shockingly expensive and technically awful compared to the Nikon and Canon slr lens tests that were published. Barreling, pincusioning, mediocre edge resolution - they had it all!

Of course I appreciate that the look of a lens and the tech specs don't always correlate, it just sticks in my mind how consistently poor they appeared on paper. So why the massive following?

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I don't know what is going on there (I was born in '78), but the 70s and 80s were apparently the weak time for Leica. They were in financial turmoil and they were using a lot of old lens designs. Though I am curious as to what lenses they were reviewing, because most Leica designs were still to a very high technical standard. (Particularly lenses like the 50mm summicron, 135mm Tele-Elmar, 28mm elmarit and so on).
These days, there simply is not another manufacturer who makes lenses as technically perfect as Leica -- very low distortion, vignetting, extreme sharpness from center to edge. Nothing else like it, and it is backed up in the MTF, as well as real world shooting. I always try to be skeptical about it, but whenever I test it, the Leica lenses are simply better. That said, they may be 10% better but cost 4 times as much. The gain you get is not always worth the extra cash.

 

[woodyspedden]

I can only say that I use many leica lenses from the period you describe and absolutely love most of them. Some of my favorites are the 85 Summarex, The 75 Lux, the 50 pre-asph and the 35 pre-asph.

The most modern asph lenses are undoubtedly technically better particularly in terms of sharpness. Even a quick look at the MTF curves tell you what the differences are and should be. Point is that many photographers find delicious differences in the look and feel of the images from the older lenses compared to the newer (and sharper) counterparts. I am one of those.

I commend Leica for their progress in lens design and construction. I am sure that for many types of image making these attributes are critical.But I personally find the attributes of the older lenses e.g. lower contrast, good to great micro contrast etc make for images more satisfying to me. However at the end of the day the Leica brand is at the optical end of my image making so hooray for Leica

Woody Spedden

 

[fotografz]

I had a contax 645 a rollie 6000 system and a mamiya 645 afd. Quitre frankly I never liked the feel of the mamiya is the 645 md 111 have a better feel. Or is it just a reved up 645. I loved both my contax and rollie systems only went to the contax when I started shooting nature. I am contemplating getting abck into meduim format so whose who have shot with the contax and mamiya what do you think.

This is most certainly mondo personal opinion. Most of my MF shooting experience was with Hasselblad V cameras. When the Contax 645 became available with AF, it expanded the use of MF for my work and I added that system in a big time way.

Unlike the V gear, I NEVER loved that camera. It was just a tool to get the job done, but in reality the AF was frustratingly slow or hunted to much ... which was the reason I got the camera in the first place. If I wanted manual focus, the V with it's big, bright viewfinder and manual focus designed Zeiss lenses was a better choice.

While at Photo Plus in NYC, I handled a H camera and the low light AF was a revelation. It felt good in my hand. When Kyocera abandoned the Contax 645 system, I knew the AF would now never be improved. Bye, Bye Contax ... hello H.

I have to admit that, for the most part, my likes/dislikes are directly linked to results. I loved the V because it delivered what I was looking for from a 6X6. Camera's that deliver tend to win my heart and affection ... and number of cameras that have, I can count on one hand.

For my 645 work, the Hasselblad H delivered, the others didn't. That affects and taints my opinion with an aggressive bias. So, I don't particularly think it is ugly, or anything much negative about it ... and now after many years of delivering ... I'm actually begaining to have a bit of affection for it ... a first since the 203FE.

 

[PeterA]

hahah - the H isn't pretty lets put it that way - but it is my 'benchmark' system - nothing made by no body has come close to its total integrated quality and ability to get the job done...everything works - all the time. I love my H3D11-39 system and ever single lens in the H series I use.

Carsten - the Phamiya/Contax viewfinders aren't as bright as the Hasselblad viewfinder. I wont try and compare any 6X6 viewfinder with the DSLR types - for obvious reasons - everyone should have a 6X6 camera in their kit - such fun to use with film or digi.

 

[shakeshuck]

I can only say that I use many leica lenses from the period you describe and absolutely love most of them.

The most modern asph lenses are undoubtedly technically better particularly in terms of sharpness. Point is that many photographers find delicious differences in the look and feel of the images from the older lenses compared to the newer (and sharper) counterparts.

...personally find the attributes of the older lenses e.g. lower contrast, good to great micro contrast etc make for images more satisfying to me.

Woody Spedden

Thanks Woody, I suspected this must be the case.

 

[shakeshuck]

I always try to be skeptical about it

That's always a good approach in my book

 

[fotografz]

I can only say that I use many leica lenses from the period you describe and absolutely love most of them. Some of my favorites are the 85 Summarex, The 75 Lux, the 50 pre-asph and the 35 pre-asph.

The most modern asph lenses are undoubtedly technically better particularly in terms of sharpness. Even a quick look at the MTF curves tell you what the differences are and should be. Point is that many photographers find delicious differences in the look and feel of the images from the older lenses compared to the newer (and sharper) counterparts. I am one of those.

I commend Leica for their progress in lens design and construction. I am sure that for many types of image making these attributes are critical.But I personally find the attributes of the older lenses e.g. lower contrast, good to great micro contrast etc make for images more satisfying to me. However at the end of the day the Leica brand is at the optical end of my image making so hooray for Leica

Woody Spedden

Ditto Woody.

For years I shot with a Pre-ASPH 35/1.4 Summilux ... a very compact lens that produced delicious images ... and I lament trading it away for the ASPH version I now use. The best scenario would have been to have both.

 

[woodyspedden]

Marc

I suspect that in your hands the 35 pre-asph was a real winner.

The beauty of the older lenses is that they have a very unique signature, and those that know how to use that signature to their purpose can produce unique images. With the more modern, very sharp, low distortion lenses, you get a superb rendition but to me it is less than unique.

So I try to use the Summarex, Hexanon 50 1.2, and the pre-asph 35 and 50 Lux to get images i don't see in many places. I don't always succeed to be sure, but that is a function of my progress as a photographer, not the characteristics of the lens. I will keep trying and guys like Marc and Chuck Jones continue to get the really great shots.

JMHO

Woody

 

[faneuil]

I've been shooting Mamiya AFD II for about 4 months now and while I love the results I am getting, my major issue is the subtle, but very definitely present, shutter lag. I was shooting a 203fe with CFV back and there was no discernable shutter lag.

I hope to try out an AFD III for comparison.
Anyone have comments on AFD II vs III shutter lag?

Eric

 

[gogopix]

With "worse", do you mean darker, or something else? Would a Maxwell screen fix it?

Who would want to buy a dead system and then have to buy a special glass to make the viewer brighter?

Although the lenses have had some problems (ok a LOT ) the M system keeps bring out more lenses, at least. And Phase will likely help them...

Who in the wporld would want a defunct system (ok, so Zeiss designed glass) where you can't even be sure of service.

Who would stick with a system with somewhat slow AF, new systems have GOT to be what, maybe up to 10% faster by golly...

Who would want to buy a system know it has no future improvements..




Who?????











me

 

[dougpeterson]

I've been shooting Mamiya AFD II for about 4 months now and while I love the results I am getting, my major issue is the subtle, but very definitely present, shutter lag. I was shooting a 203fe with CFV back and there was no discernable shutter lag.

I hope to try out an AFD III for comparison.
Anyone have comments on AFD II vs III shutter lag?

Eric

You can shoot a Phase One AFD (same as an AFD III) head to head with your AFD II at a Phase One dealer. Shutter lag is a very tactile attribute, so shooting it yourself is the best way to answer your question.

However, my two cents are:
AFD II Shutter Lag: Moderately High
AFD III Firmware version 1.0: Moderately Low
AFD III Fimware version 1.4 and higher: Low/Very-Low


Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer | Personal Portfolio

 

[Guy Mancuso]

As a Phase AFDIII shooter I agree with Doug the shutter lag in version 1.4 is greatly improved.

 

[PeterA]

As a Phase AFDIII shooter I agree with Doug the shutter lag in version 1.4 is greatly improved.

It would want to be - because as it is - it sux.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

And next version there will be none, improvements Peter. At least they are trying to make them with a older style body. Next will be something new. Believe me the Hassy H3 is not perfect either nor is the Hy6. And the Contax can't change. It's called picking the poison that will not kill you fast. Also I think if your shooting it than have the firmware upgraded . There are 6 members here that helped Phase make the 1.4 improvements and Phase fixed every suggestion made.

 

[PeterA]

:ROTFL::ROTFL: - hahah you are so right Guy - none of them are perfect .let me know when you come across a perfect camera ok?

looking forward to the 'new' camera system..or whatever it is going to be.

 

[carstenw]

Who would want to buy a dead system and then have to buy a special glass to make the viewer brighter?

Do you use the stock screen? It is good, but somewhat dark, I find.

Although the lenses have had some problems (ok a LOT ) the M system keeps bring out more lenses, at least. And Phase will likely help them...

Yeah, well, the M lenses... some are good, others go to Tim Ashley Even Jack got a bad 45D. Mamiya seems so hit-n-miss, which at this price really bothers me. If at least one could count on getting a really good example with a bit of patience, but it seems like some of the lenses are just not that great. And the Phase T/S, at 3x the price, and 1/3 the quality? I have no words...

Who would stick with a system with somewhat slow AF, new systems have GOT to be what, maybe up to 10% faster by golly...

I don't use AF most of the time, and the rest of the time I use it to get in the right ballpark, and then do the rest myself. The speed is no issue for me. None of the MF cameras are A900s anyway, in the AF department.

Who would want to buy a system know it has no future improvements..

me

Me too

 

[gogopix]

Fulldoscosure;

I use a Maxwell screen (2 stops by my impression)

AF is slow and can hunt. So does every other one. Until we link to the human brain, AF will suffer;

Oh forgot, there IS a focus system made to link to the human brain

It is called MANUAL FOCUS (guess that's why I like Leica so much:angel

On the 'won't change' accusation on Contax; ok not perfect but I have a microware-Quasar don't make any more--has the BEST humidity sensor, has lived thru empy high 3 min runs, and is over 20 years old.

Many of the recent improvement beyond what Contax has I just don't think are necessary. and the hasselblad lens adapter works with focus correction without any special electronics needed for Focus confirm of Leica on Canon for example.

and BTW exposure, even with flash is spot on with both hassey and Contax lenses (AND Leica Visio! lenses.)

I see the 'can it be fixed 'question, but the 'it isn't going to improve' has no validity-many of the recent changes are to plastic, more electronic dependence, closed systems, less flexibility in using older glass and, as Tim Ashely finds, a serious lack of quality control (PS also revisit Reichman's exploding Hassey lens, and the "M" glass 28mm OOF discussions on LL)

Improvements? Maybe we are better off with putting money where it matters-in improved MF digital back

and yes, that's what I did with my "New MF system" money-I got the P65+



Victor

 

[DougDolde]

One thing I recently discovered about the Contax 645 with the waist level finder is that you CAN use it for verticals if it's on a tripod. You just have to look into the finder from the side instead of the top. Saves switching finders just to go vertical.