Related Links:
Fill Flash Primer

This FAQ compliments our guide to budget medium format cameras. We also have a series of pages dedicated to the strengths of various camera types with additional information on single lens reflex (SLR) cameras, twin lens reflex (TLR), rangefinders (RF), press and view cameras, and other miscellaneous models.

Q: What kinds of photography are best done with SLRs? TLRs? View? Rangefinders? What features are handy for each specialty?

In the above table, 1="a good choice", 2="usable", 3="some difficulties in use" under camera types (view camera includes 6x9cm as well as 4x5 inches). Under features, Y=definite advantages, N=not specifically needed, P=possibly an advantage, C=not a major consideration, and X= not easy to use. Mr. Ray's table is a good starting point, but you should read further to learn why each system or feature has the listed factors.

We shall start by examining some of the features of medium format cameras in some detail. Once you understand what the different features and options are, you should find it easier to select what medium format camera will work best for your style of photography. My own experience is that there is no one "perfect" medium format camera. A major part of the fun of medium format is trying and using different types of medium format cameras. Medium format includes a wide range of film formats, from superslides (4x4cm) to 6x4.5cm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9cm and rollfilm in 4x5" view cameras, plus the panoramics (6x12, 6x17cm and a variety of swinging and rotating film formats). The trick is to find the best match of camera features to your needs - and budget!

Shutter Types

Leaf Shutters

Pros:
• X-synch at any speed provides balanced flash in high ambient light shots

Cons:
• cost more
• speeds may vary
• maximum shutter speed 1/500^th (1/350^th true)

Leaf shutters use swinging curved blades to open and close a roughly round opening for exposing the film. Thanks to this design, leaf shutters can synchronize with electronic strobes (or flash) at any speed. A major advantage is that you can use any combination of shutter speeds needed with your strobe to match lighting in outdoor portraiture and similar situations - called fill-in flash or fill-flash or synchro-sunlight.

If you aren't balancing ambient and flash exposures in weddings or portraiture or using electronic flash, this capability is less useful. You can balance strobe lighting with focal plane shutters, just at a more restricted range of shutter and aperture settings, and at a slower maximum X-synch speed. But for freezing fast moving subjects like hummingbirds while keeping a naturally lighted background, fast leaf shutter flash synch can be an essential tool.

Leaf shutters built into lenses used on system SLR cameras (e.g., Hasselblad 50x, Bronica SQ, Mamiya RZ.) add about 1/3^rd to the price of lenses compared to similar non-leaf shutter equipped lenses. They have to be serviced periodically, adding to maintenance costs. They may well differ in actual speeds between lenses, resulting in minor exposure differences that may be seen in critical work on slides. But if the shutter goes out on one lens, you can still use another lens with its shutter, unlike a focal plane shutter camera.

The upper speed range of leaf shutters is usually quite limited, often only 1/500^th of a second. That top speed is often optimistic, and more often you get a true 1/350^th second or so on older cameras. Temperature may impact speed accuracy too. In really cold weather, you need to take precautions and perhaps have the lubricants replaced in your camera and leaf shutter lenses at a service center.

Focal Plane Shutters

Pros:
• highest shutter speeds
• low cost (one shutter in body)
• less speed variation

Cons:
• slow X-synch speeds (1/45^th to 1/60^th typical),
• minor stretching distortions

At the X-synch shutter speed or slower, the first curtain is fully open before the second curtain starts to cover up the film. The entire film area is uncovered, allowing you to use a strobe to expose the entire film surface at one shot. So at this X-synch shutter speed or slower, you can use an electronic strobe or flash to expose the entire film surface. At faster speeds, the shutters never fully open. Instead, you get a slit of varying widths (corresponding to various exposure times) which travels across the film surface. If you fire a strobe during this time, you can only expose the film exposed by the slit.

On most medium format cameras, this X-synch speed is rather slow - often 1/45^th to 1/60^th second on older models (e.g., Bronica S2/EC) and not much better on most newer models. At these X-synch speeds, it is possible to get a second "ghost" image in addition to the desired flash lighted image when the ambient light is high enough. You can usually prevent this by using smaller apertures so less ambient light gets to your film, and using more flash power to offset the smaller aperture. But you lose some artistic control over depth of field. You also can't use faster shutter speeds to freeze action because the maximum X-synch speed is slow (1/45^th, 1/60^th). Naturally, in lower ambient lighting conditions indoors (or outside) or at night, the strobe will light and freeze the action, and there won't be enough ambient lighting to cause a "ghost" image. You can also pick a film speed (using interchangeable backs) that provides some depth of field and aperture control too.

But if you are using flash, you are still stuck at 1/45^th or 1/60^th shutter speed setting due to the modest X-synch speeds of medium format cameras. This limitation is also true in 35mm SLR focal plane cameras that often have X-synch speeds of only 1/60^th or 1/90^th second too. My point is that most 35mm SLR users make lots of photos, using strobes, without running into many limitations.

A major advantage of focal plane shutters is that they can have very high shutter speeds (simply by narrowing the width of the slit etc.). Most focal plane shutters go to 1/1000^th second, and some go beyond. Focal plane shutter SLR camera system costs are often substantially less, as you are only buying one shutter in the camera body rather than multiple shutters (in each leaf shutter lens). Maintenance costs may be less, due to less mechanics to go wrong or maintain. But if your camera body shutter fails, you need to have a backup body or else!

A medium format leaf shutter camera such as a TLR or rangefinder (Fuji..) may be a good compliment for the 35mm SLR user. You can use fill-in flash for portraits and get the larger medium format negative benefits while still using the strengths of the 35mm SLR you already have and own. See budget Medium Format pages.

EV Interlock

The EV interlock locks the shutter and aperture speeds so that you can see all the equivalent settings at once. Moreover, you can simply twist the lens rings and the right aperture and exposure settings will be maintained. To change the lens aperture or shutter speed independently (changing the EV value), you have to push a bar or control releasing the interlock. This release lets you rotate the shutter speed or aperture ring independently of the other setting. When you let go of the release button or bar, the new EV value is set and the lens aperture and shutter speed equivalents are locked in for the new EV setting.

The fact that this is not seen on most modern cameras limits your choices if you like this system. This system is different from auto-aperture modes more familiar to most 35mm users, so we mention it here. Personally, I like the EV system, since I often photograph under relatively constant lighting conditions in cityscapes or outdoors. I also like being able to see all my shutter speed and aperture combinations at a glance. It is easy to dial in what I want, without having to mentally check to see if the shutter speed is right now that I've changed the aperture setting. You can also bracket for depth of field effects in your shots, or select settings based on handheld shutter speed requirements.

An alternative I recommend is to pick up a good light meter which can do both incident as well as reflected light readings (plus flash if you can afford it, e.g., gossen luna pro F). Many of these meters will show all the acceptable shutter speed and aperture combinations to you directly on their dial. Some of the latest digital meters only show one combination, and you have to punch a button to see the other combinations on the small LCD screen or calculate them mentally. My digital spotmeter only reports one reading too, but features a simple rotating dial that lets you dial in the other (EV) equivalent combinations.

Interchangeable Backs

Finally, interchangeable backs camera bodies permit the use of Polaroid backs which can be very helpful in evaluating lighting and composition for critical shots.

Polaroid Backs

Polaroid materials can also be their own final film image. Some photographers use Polaroid emulsion transfers. They create original artworks by taking and transferring the Polaroid image to a sheet of paper, and manipulating the image during developing and processing. More conventionally, some Polaroid film stocks (p/n 55) provide both a black and white print and a black and white negative of good quality. Unfortunately, the negative has to be fixed in a weak sodium sulfite solution shortly after developing if it is to be permanent, which can be messy to carry around. But you can use that resulting negative in the darkroom to produce any number of prints and images. Finally, you can use the Polaroid print itself as the final image. As one possible use, these test shots can also be given away when doing travel photography as a goodwill gesture for local peoples.

A few specialty Polaroid cameras deserve mention. The Polaroid model 110 series cameras featured a high quality view camera lens in a good quality leaf shutter which could be adjusted and flash synched. Naturally, this camera can serve as a Polaroid test camera, in effect replacing some aspects of a Polaroid back on many cameras (e.g., exposure).

But you obviously can't tell much about how your final image with a 40mm ultrawide angle lens will look by using the normal lens which is all that is available on this model 110 Polaroid test camera. Unfortunately, these older cameras took now obsolete films, so costly conversion to more available pack films is required for easy use. The Polaroid 600SE is a variant of the related Mamiya rangefinder cameras, with its own lenses and backs.

Film Inserts

In practice, I find film inserts are worrisome if you are in an environment where dust or dirt can get into them or the back. It doesn't take a lot of sand or dust to scratch up your film. Some photovests make it easy to carry the spare inserts in a relatively clean place in the field, but this setup seems to work best in a studio with an assistant standing by. In such situations, it may be easier to have the assistant also just reload the film magazine and remove the exposed films as part of their duties.

A few cameras such as Hasselblad 500c/m use matching film inserts and magazines, in the hopes that this approach will improve film flatness.

The big disadvantage of the film insert method is that it restricts you to rollfilm use, which is another way of saying you can't use Polaroid film backs on them Since Polaroid film backs are a major advantage of the system camera for studio and field users needing precise lighting and composition checks, this missing capability is a major loss. If you do elect to get a camera such as the Mamiya 645 models which do NOT feature interchangeable film backs, be sure you really, really don't need the benefits of Polaroid film back option.

Standard 120/220 rollfilm backs:

Rollfilm type 220 is roughly twice as long as 120 rollfilm, but manages to fit on similar sized film spools. How? The 220 rollfilm doesn't have the paper backing along its entire length, just at the start and at the end of the film roll. Naturally, you can't use 220 film in an older style camera with the red or ruby window for locating film advance, since there are no numbers printed on the back of the film itself. Moreover, the 220 rollfilm would be exposed by light from the red window.

Some of the medium format system cameras such as Hasselblad's A12 (120 rollfilm) and A24 (220 rollfilm) interchangeable magazines can only use either 120 rollfilm (A12) or 220 rollfilm (A24) but not both. Other manufacturers such as Bronica provide a switch that can be adjusted from 120 to 220 rollfilm. In some cameras, you also have to slide a film pressure plate in the camera from one position (120 rollfilm) to another position (220 rollfilm) to adjust for different thicknesses of rollfilm. The 220 rollfilm is thinner, as it lacks the paper backing.

16/32 Exposure Backs:

You also have to put a matching film mask in your camera's viewfinder to show the 6x4.5cm image area. Most such backs are arranged for horizontal shooting, so you will have to turn the camera on its side for vertical shots. Usually this trick requires a flipping arm on your tripod and a prism to make it less awkward with a 6x6cm camera. A few odd-ball Hasselblad model backs provided vertical 6x4.5cm shots, but only 12 shots on a roll, which could also be gotten by simply cropping your 6x6cm slides. I say 15 or 16 exposures because some manufacturer's backs were unable to ensure getting 16 exposures, or opted for a more conservative 15 exposure design. Similarly, some backs can do both 120 and 220 rollfilm, providing variously 16 or 32 exposures. In some cases, you have to buy different backs to use 220 rollfilm than 120 rollfilm in 6x4.5cm format.

The big advantage of such 16 or 32 exposure backs is more shots per roll of film. If you intend to crop to 6x4.5cm prints, then this 16/32 back may be a useful option. There are some arguments for simply cropping the 6x6cm image, such as built-in shift lens features by using the full 6x6cm image and simply cropping it to 6x4.5cm.

My personal experience with such 16/32 backs has been mixed. Ideally, you would want to have both 6x6cm and 6x4.5cm backs available so as to match the back and format to the subject (round, horizontal, square composition..). But you also want to have interchangeable backs so you can have different film types available, such as black and white film, color print film, color slide film, and perhaps a fast and a slow color slide film? To duplicate that flexibility in 6x4.5cm, you would need four additional 16/32 backs. That is a lot of expense and weight to carry for the modest benefits of a few more shots per roll.

Super Slide Backs (4x4cm):

Only a few camera makers came out with specific superslide backs as a result (Hasselblad's being the most common). But even if you don't or can't get a superslide back for your camera, you can get superslides simply by composing your images for 4x4cm and cropping the film to fit the mounts. You can use sharp scissors or a custom film cutter ($30 up) and 2x2" slide projector superslide snap-in or glass mounts.

70 mm film backs:

Despite the fact that the film is 70mm wide, most backs do not provide larger horizontal image sizes but stay with the standard 55mm or 56mm image size used by the regular 120 and 220 film magazine backs. The high cost of 70mm film backs, need to buy film stock from specialty stores, the need for film loading and processing equipment, and the associated hassles with processing the film are among the reasons that 70mm never became really popular with the average user. If you have a need for lots of film loaded, then 70mm film may be a solution. But for most of us, multiple 220 film backs loaded with film, which can be swapped out in seconds, is a better choice. But if you really need 56 or 250 exposures preloaded, say in an underwater camera or nature study, then 70mm film may be the answer.

Cut Film Backs:

Ground Glass Focusing Backs:

Rollfilm Backs:

A hidden disadvantage to rollfilm backs on 4x5" cameras is that medium format lenses often have higher resolution than most older large format lenses, although there are some outstanding and often pricey large format lens examples of equally high resolution. So you may find that with a rollfilm back on a 4x5" camera your images are slightly less crisp or contrasty than similar shots with a medium format camera and optics.

Another major issue is that most mini-view cameras have standard bellows, which have to be replaced if possible with specialty wide angle bellows if closer focusing wide angle lenses are to be used. Such wide angle bellows are not available on many models of mini-view cameras, and where available, the possible range of wide angle lenses is usually limited to 65mm or longer (not wider), with 47mm Super Angulon Xl lenses being an absolute maximum for wide angles on most standard mini-view cameras (such as Horseman, Linhof 2x3..). A similar problem afflicts use of wide angle lenses on 4x5" cameras, where wide angle bellows and recessed lens boards may make it possible if inconvenient to use wide angle lenses as wide as 65mm and perhaps 47mm too. But many such lenses have minimal shift and tilt ranges on the full format, and even when used with rollfilm backs of 6x12cm or even 6x9cm may show vignetting problems. A related issue is extreme light falloff or vignetting of the edges of the image, necessitating a center filter (which itself can cost $200-600+ US). My point here is that is isn't cheap or easy to get really wide angle photos using medium format, especially if starting with a rollfilm back and mini-view camera approach.

On the other hand, the major reason for using a rollfilm back on a 4x5" or even mini-view camera is to get those camera movements (see section) such as tilts and shifts that aren't available on most medium format cameras. These camera perspective controls make it possible to do many things with a rollfilm back and mini-view or standard 4x5" view camera that can't be done any other way. Various studio layouts, close-ups, and subjects such as architecture can particularly benefit from the various tilt/shift capabilities that rollfilm backs and min-view or view cameras can provide.

Another major issue is that most view camera lenses tend to be longer in focal length than similar lenses on medium format. If you need wide angle shots, this is a particularly irksome problem, as few view camera lenses are truly wide angle used with a 6x6cm or 6x4.5cm rollfilm adapter. For example, a 47mm Super Angulon on 4x5" is considered a very wide angle lens, and even a 90mm Super Angulon on 4x5" is more like a 28mm on 35mm SLR for horizontal angle of view. But 90mm provides a slightly telephoto view on most 6x6 or 6x4.5cm medium format cameras, and a 47mm lens is only a slightly wide angle optic in 6x6cm terms. You can switch to a 35mm Grandagon XL to get a wider angle effect with some limited shifts on rollfilm (none on 4x5" which it doesn't quite cover), but the $1,200+ US price tag may be a deterrent. In short, while you would really like to find a low cost shift and tilt/shift option using a mini-view camera, you often can't find really wide lenses which will provide movements on rollfilm for a modest price.

Interchangeable Finders

Prisms

As you can probably guess, a fully coupled or integral metering prism can directly read shutter speed or aperture settings from the camera (depending on design and mode options). You adjust the shutter speed or aperture while the prism meter shows the correct corresponding value of aperture or shutter speed to achieve a proper exposure. In the most modern designs, there are microchips and data bus channels that tell the lenses and camera body how to perform complex exposure tasks (e.g., Rollei SLRs). Some cameras can also use their prisms to achieve various complex auto-exposure and TTL flash modes. The issues of metering area, from overall to center-weighted to matrix metering to spot metering are all available on some high end camera models with the right prism systems. As you might expect, such prisms are very pricey and complex items.

Some of the newer 645 systems are designed from the ground up to have and use metering prisms. But many older systems were designed with the waist level finder setup, and the add-on prisms are often top-heavy and unwieldy. The older prisms may be larger, with higher magnification, making viewing easier. But these same prisms have higher light losses due to older mirror technology (e.g., silvered versus aluminum mirrors). Sadly, you will also often find older mirrored prisms suffer more from separation. Separation is just that, when the mirror coating separates or flakes off from the edges of the prism. Naturally, this mirroring defect causes problems for the viewer. Older prisms also use glass which absorbs more light than newer glasses, according to some sources. Taken together, modern prism designs may be up to a full stop brighter than identical size and weight older models.

Another prism related choice is whether to get a 45 degree or 90 degree prism. The 90 degree prism is handy for tripod mounted shots near eye level, as you can simply look through the prism at the subject and shoot. The 45 degree prism is nice for hand-held shots where you can hold the camera and look down through the 45 degree prism while holding the camera comfortably at mid-chest level (typical SLR/TLR). A warning point is that many Polaroid backs stick up behind their cameras when mounted, interfering with some prisms (especially 90 degree prisms on some popular systems). So if you intend to use Polaroid backs, check into these problems carefully (and also inquire into the need for tripod spacers if you intend to use the Polaroid back on a tripod mounted camera too).

Porroprisms

Waist Level Finder Prisms

My personal experience with mine are mixed. They are light and nifty for making it easy to use your SLR and TLR at eyelevel. One prism seems to mate with many 6x6cm camera waist level finders, including Rolleiflex TLR, Kowa 6x6, Hasselblad 500c, and Bronica EC/S2. Not many prisms are interchangeable between models, let alone brands, in most lines. But the image isn't very bright, as it is far from the viewing screen when mounted atop the waist level finder. The prism is a bit top-heavy, and you wonder if it isn't going to fall off if you shake it violently. Worst of all, there can be some light leaks around the edges or top on some mountings, which can cause bright bars of light to hit the screen on some setups. In short, a nifty idea and some fun uses, but I can see why they stopped making them.

Waist Level Finders

Most waist level finders can also be used without the accessory popup magnifier in place. You can often focus in bright light simply by looking down at the SLR or TLR held at waist level. This trick is very handy for street shooting, since it doesn't look like you are shooting photos, compared with having a Leica at your eye. Another trick is to use the popup magnifier on the WLF at waist level. With the correct eye-camera alignment, you may be able to use the magnifier to focus more accurately (in good to bright light anyway). Of course, you can focus accurately with the popup magnifier at upper chest, head slightly down level too. Another hidden advantage of the WLF is that you can often dismount it and use it as an emergency loupe on a slide table (see loupe pages).

Another popular emergency trick is to hold the camera above your head to shoot over crowds, as at a parade. This trick takes some practice too. But with good light, hyperfocal settings on a wide angle lens, and simply looking up to compose, you will likely get some usable shots. Remember that many cameras have timers too, so you can set them off upside down even if you can't reach the shutter release. I also find a monopod makes it easy to pop the camera up above the crowd or to get a shot from higher up, again using the lens self-timer (V setting).

A few waist level finders solve the problem of following action by incorporating a sports finder. A good example is the dual WLF on the Rolleiflex 3.5F series TLRs. You can use the WLF without the magnifier, or with the magnifier. But you can also pop a front and rear panel down out of the way, and look through a rectangular opening in the waist level finder that acts as a sportsfinder. Now you simply use hyperfocal or infinity focus settings, as appropriate to light and subject. You compose the shot by looking directly thru the sportfinder's square opening at the action, simply following it as if watching with your eye. The sportfinder shows you roughly what your composition will look like on film. Unlike the flipped (left for right) reflex viewing on the TLR/SLR, the sportfinder is a direct view with your eye through the WLF opening. So you can easily follow action and movements naturally, compose in the sportfinder, and rapidly shoot and advance film.

Sportfinders

The wire frames show the proper aspect ratio (e.g., square for 6x6cm cameras, 2 by 3 ratio for 6x9cm cameras..). Different frames show what different lenses will likely record on film, such as a 180mm, 135mm, 90mm, or 58mm Koni-Omega 6x7cm rangefinder lens kit. Naturally, you can also build a similar sportsfinder with careful alignment.

However, many commercial sportsfinder may have some method for adjusting for parallax, such as movable arms for peep-sites or tick marks on the forward bar. These parallax adjustments are most useful if you need to do closeup shots with the speed of a sportsfinder. Usually, sports and action shots aren't very closeup, so the lack of such parallax adjustments isn't critical to many users

With good outdoor lighting, you can often use hyperfocal techniques to set optimal f/stops and focusing distances. For example, the typical medium format normal lens (75-80mm) set at f/16 will have everything in focus from under ten feet to infinity (when focused at 20 ft). At f/8, the same lens will have everything from 20 feet to infinity in focus (when focused at 40 ft). You can easily calculate other hyperfocal distances, or determine them from your lens distance and DOF markings. With everything in focus from 10 feet to infinity at f/16, you can simply set the appropriate distance (here, 20 feet), f/stop (here, f/16), and shutter speed (depending on your film speed). Now you can simply point and shoot! The sportfinder shows you directly a rough guide to what will be in your composition, without having to look through a prism or eyepiece. This technique is the fastest way to track and shoot action shots, and also has many uses with street photography too.

Chimney Finders

The chimney finder uses no prisms or mirrors, so there is very little light loss from the bright screen viewfinder. Lacking all that glass, the chimney finder is also surprisingly light, often just 5 or 6 ounces. As you would expect, the chimney finder is also very low cost, often hardly much more costly than the plain waist level finder. Most chimney finders have a variable diopter eyepiece setting, which can be rotated through a range of -3 to +0 to +5 diopters. If you have failing vision and use glasses, this feature is very useful. ~ A rubber eyepiece helps keep out stray light (and protect glasses), further enhancing the high contrast view. ~ Being six inches or so high, these finders enable you to hold the typical 6x6cm SLR (such as Hasselblad or Bronica) at mid-chest level while looking down through the camera. As with the waist level finder, the image is upright but reversed, right for left.

One extra benefit of the chimney finder is that it acts as a modest magnification slide loupe when used with 6x6cm slides on a light table. The quality of the optics are often first-rate, color corrected, with variable diopter adjustments too. The resulting view is equal to a 2X to 3X and up to 5X loupe, depending on the individual chimney finder optics. In general, the chimney finder has the highest magnification usually found among the various waist level finders and prisms and other viewfinders, making it the most precise and accurate in focusing.

You can also use some pop-down 2X magnifiers (including ones modified from 35mm SLR makers such as Nikon or Spiratone). These magnifiers let you see only the center area of the image, but make crisp and precise focusing easier. When popped up out of the way, you can use the standard optics as before. A few viewfinders have threads which make it easy to put in a diopter correction eyepiece, which can also be a higher magnification element if desired for permanent attachment.

Bubble Finders

I am not above using my huge Ikelite optical viewfinder with masks for various lenses. This finder has terrific eye relief since it was designed to work with an underwater camera while the user was wearing a mask. Besides cost ($100+), the Ikelite big finder is painted a super bright dayglo orange, to make it easier to find if dropped on a colorful coral reef. But I find many older finders a bit small and harder to see and use, so I am glad to have the maskable Ikelite finder, especially since it is good for very wide angle lenses. I have also built some panoramic ultrawide finders using rectilinear Topcon fisheye lenses from surplus big-screen TV digital light projector optics. So there are some low cost options too!

Unfortunately, even expensive bubble finders usually suffer from a considerable degree of distortion, making it harder to visualize the true undistorted image (e.g., from the rectilinear Zeiss Biogon 38mm lens on the Superwide). You also cannot precisely frame compositions using them, but have to resort to clumsy ground glass backs and closeup loupes for precise on-film framing using a rigid tripod. On the other hand, the Hasselblad superwide bubble finder does have a nifty feature of a prism looking down at the bubble level on the camera, making it easy to get the camera precisely level. In my own experiences with a Plaubel Veriwide 100 camera, I have found that the bubble finder takes some getting used to, but provides a very good idea of what will be in the final image, albeit a distorted view. An integral wire sportsfinder on the same camera gives a good idea of what the undistorted image will look like, for much lower cost, but without being quite as precise as to where the edges will be on the film (due to variable eye positioning?). In short, I use both, but I often use the bubble finder by itself to scout out good positions before setting up the camera and tripod.

Rangefinders:

Since you are not looking through the lens, the brightness of the viewfinder doesn't change as you switch lenses. Many rangefinders use a yellow filter or similar contrast enhancing tricks to make it much easier to focus in dimmer light than many SLRs. Moreover, it doesn't matter if the lens is a wide angle lens, which would be much harder to focus accurately on an SLR. On a rangefinder, the same accuracy is preserved, making it often more accurate in focusing wide angle lenses for many users with marginal vision (versus on their SLRs).

The focusing mechanics are coupled to the lens through a series of cams or levers, so focusing the rangefinder also focuses the lens. Since you aren't looking through the lens, you have to rely on the rangefinder being accurate and in alignment. Unfortunately, rangefinder mechanics can be misaligned by dropping or rough treatment, so you have to check focusing accuracy periodically (esp. after drops).

Rangefinders also suffer slightly from parallax errors. Looking through the rangefinder window gives you a view that is offset a few inches above and often to one side of the lens. So the lens has a slightly different view than you do. At distances below 10 feet or so, and especially for closeups, these parallax offsets can result in cutting off tops of heads and other framing errors in the on-film images. A few rangefinders have moving parallax bars to show the correct framing, or remind you to compensate for parallax.

The real weaknesses of a rangefinder relate to not looking through the same lens that is taking the photograph. A wide angle lens may generate some distortion effects that are hard to visualize looking through the rangefinder window. On an SLR, the exact distortion effects and image can be precisely seen and framed. On most 35mm rangefinders where very wide angle lenses are used (24, 21, 15mm), an expensive accessory optical viewfinder mounted in a flash shoe gives some closer rendition of the wide angle effects. But it still isn't what you see is what you get, as on an SLR. So very wide angle photography is harder to do on most rangefinders.

The rangefinder window often incorporates a set of framing marks for different lenses. For example, the Koni-Omega RO200 has both 90mm and 180mm lens framing lines. An accessory wide angle viewfinder can be used with the 58mm lens. But the overall view of the scene through the rangefinder doesn't change size. The 180mm framing lines are a smallish square in the center of the 90mm frame. That makes it hard to see and frame precisely with longer lenses. The usual limit on 35mm rangefinders has been 135mm lenses. The longer telephoto lens for Mamiya 7 II rangefinders uses an accessory telephoto finder too. But telephotography is not a strong suite for most rangefinders.

As you would probably expect, closeup photography on most rangefinders is also problematic. One option is a closeup diopter lens using a wire framing tool to show the plane of focus. Skittish little critters often don''t stick around when they see that framer coming! Macrophotography remains a strong point for SLRs.

Fast Lenses:

The good news is that the lack of fast lenses doesn''t matter much Since most medium format negatives are at least twice as large (circa 5 times the area) of a 35mm negative, you can use faster film and achieve the same or better grain size as on a 35mm negative. At the same time, you will retain many of the benefits of the larger film format, including greater ease in darkroom work and improved shadow detail and greater acutance of the film. So I can shoot 400 ASA film and still get better results than when using 100 ASA film in 35mm format for 8x10" and larger prints or slides.

The net effect is to enable me to get similar shots on medium format with an 75mm f/2.8 lens used wide open as I would with an 50mm f/1.4 lens on a 35mm SLR.

Unfortunately, there is one issue with narrow depth of field where the faster lenses can yield different images than I can get with slower lenses used with faster film. Used wide open (e.g., f/1.4), a 35mm SLR with fast lenses can yield very narrow DOF selective focus shots that can't be gotten any other way. At one foot (.3m) with a 50mm f/1.4 lens (on 35mm SLR), you have a depth of field of 0.1 inch (1/4^th cm.). For an 80mm f/2.8 lens at one foot (.3m) on a medium format SLR, you have a depth of field of 0.14 inch (1/3^rd cm). More often, you can only close focus your 80mm f/2.8 lens to about 2 feet (.6m), yielding only 0.7 inch (1.6cm) depth of field. So in theory, you can get very narrow DOF effects with a fast 50mm f/1.4 lens used closeup. In practice, few of us use such narrow DOF shots where we need worry about needing less than 3/4ths of an inch DOF (see DOF calculator).

Most of us are fighting a battle to get more depth of field, not less. The larger f/stop numbers of medium format camera lenses (f/22, f/32, even f/45) provide major benefits over 35mm SLR lenses which rarely go beyond f/16 or f/22 due to diffraction effects. This is handy, since the longer focal lengths encountered in medium format reduce DOF significantly compared to that available from equivalent field of view 35mm SLR lenses.

A new generation of faster films is on the way, promising to raise film speeds by a factor of 10 times for the same grain size. This new process will let the new films rival today's CCDs for sensitivity to light (i.e., CCDs win by 10X higher light sensitivity over film today). Such faster films will continue a trend which has already benefited medium format users. The original color films had single digit film speeds (e.g., ASA 6). Today's faster color films provide excellent results at film speeds of 100 ASA, 200 ASA, and even 400 ASA for some uses. Now imagine being able to use 2,000 ASA film in place of 200 ASA film today for the same grain size and enlargeability! Today's medium format cameras will be able to be used at generally higher shutter speeds and without their slower lens speeds (f/2.8, f/3.5..) being a problem.

Camera Movements

Shift Lenses

Shift lenses have other uses. I use a full left shift and a full right shift on my 35mm SLR shift lens to give me two 35mm images which provide the equivalent of a panoramic 2:1 image (24mm x 72mm long). You can also use a shift lens when you can't move (e.g., in museums..) to eliminate reflections in glass, or trees and signs or other distractions to the left or right side of the subject. Simply shift until the distraction is shifted out of the picture. Too bad shift lenses are so very expensive for medium format cameras!

Camera and lens movement controls (shifts, swings, tilts, drops..) are the strong point of view cameras using bellows and movable camera and lens standards. With these features, you can control every aspect of how the image looks. The mini-view cameras are smaller versions of their 4x5" and larger view camera brethren. They may be setup to use rollfilm directly, or take a variety of standard rollfilm and cut film backs. Some of the older press cameras had limited movements which could be used to considerable advantage.

The unique Rollei SL66 camera featured a bellows design on a system camera with interchangeable lenses, viewfinders, and film backs. One key advantage to the Rollei SL66 design was the ability to provide a 7 degree downward tilt. This limited degree of tilt control is very handy for many subjects. Indeed, the Rollei SL66SE is one of the premiere macrophotography setups, given its built-in bellows, metering, tilts, and easy lens reversing capabilities.

Some older bellows (e.g., Spiratone, Novoflex) provided medium format cameras with front standard tilt/shift controls. A rare Kowa 6/66 bellows also provided automatic leaf shutter synchronization and a wide range of macrofocusing with some limited tilts and shifts. Bronica's deluxe bellows for the Bronica S2/ECTL provided a wide range of tilts and shifts, but with the interesting trick of working at infinity with the standard lenses. This deluxe bellows in effect converted all of the standard lenses into wide ranging macro-lenses with closeup tilt/shift capabilities.

To make this setup work at infinity, Bronica had a removable helical focusing mount on the body. By removing this thick helical focusing mount, you could mount the lenses on the bellows and still have them focus at infinity. That's the good news. The bad news is that the thickness of the compacted bellows is such that at infinity, you can't use any tilt/shift movements with the standard lenses. However, you may be able to use a wide range of tilts and shifts with such bellows units. You simply need to remount view camera and various folder and enlarger lenses with 6x6cm or better coverage on an adapter board on the front lens standard of this tilt/shift bellows. This approach works because these older Bronica cameras use a focal plane shutter.

The key problem with such solutions is that wide angle lenses with coverage for 6x6cm with tilts and shifts are expensive and hard to find below the 47mm Super Angulons borrowed from view camera users. This is one reason why the rather limited shifts of the Kiev 45mm shift lenses for 6x6cm are so interesting, despite their relative scarcity and cost ($650 US+). A more wide ranging medium format shift lenses for 6x6cm would likely cost four or five times that. However, you may be able to homebrew a shift lens for low cost if you are handy with minimalist tools and optics.

Arc/Flex Body Cameras

Panoramic Shift Cameras

Digital Backs

The big advantage of digital backs is that enable the photographer to deliver digital files directly to the buyer with minimal delays. A second benefit is the savings over time in paper and development costs, including labor. Fewer shots are lost too. You can instantly see on a monitor what your last exposure looks like, and take another shot if needed.

The big disadvantage is that not only do you need major financing to buy a digital back, but you also need to buy and learn to use an entire array of computers, scanners, printers, and various software programs at an expert level. Another problem lies in the rapid obsolescence and depreciation of your investment and learning efforts. You have to spend a lot of time keeping up with new software and technology to meet customer demands too.

Digital backs come in several major types. The most expensive use at least three sensor arrays plus light splitting prisms and optics to enable getting a maximum quality red-green-blue image of even rapidly moving objects. A less expensive approach uses just one pricey sensor array and rotating filters to synthesize the RGB image data. Obviously, you can't use this setup for rapidly moving objects in many situations. The least expensive digital backs use a single array of sensors which are mechanically moved across the film plane opening. Naturally, this approach works best with still life and landscapes and other non-moving subjects.

One major problem in going digital with your current camera is that the sensors and associated electronics are too thick to enable placing the sensor array at the desired point of focus (where the film would normally sit). One solution is to put an expensive fused fiber optic plate at the point of focus, and conduct the light to the sensor. Another option is to redesign the camera and come out with a "digital" model, including features like lens motor and aperture controls for digital back usage. With a $20,000 US or more digital back, you can afford to spend a few thousand dollars more for the latest digital back compatible body.

A related problem is lens coverage is often much larger than the sensor array size. So you may find that your lenses are acting as if they were on a teleconverter, and only the center part of the image is being digitized.

Interchangeable Lenses

Availability?

Roughly 85% of all Hasselblad C leaf shutter lenses sold consisted of three lenses in the standard medium format photographer's kit - 50mm wide angle, 80mm normal, and 150mm telephoto lenses (see posting). If you want a 30mm f/3.5 fisheye, you may have to hunt and wait to buy one, as only 1,000 or so were made, representing only 1 of every 400 lenses sold. Only 1% of the lenses sold were 500mm f/8 telephotos, so don't expect to find one at every used dealer either. Some lenses such as the 105mm ultraviolet quartz lens or the 24mm Zeiss fisheyes for Hasselblad 500 series are so rare that you may have to wait years to see one come up for sale.

Check out pricing anomalies carefully too. For example, the relatively rare 135mm portrait lens for Koni-Omega 6x7cm rangefinders costs roughly double the other lenses (e.g., $600+ US). Why? The lens was only made for a few years. This lens is ideal for taking portraiture photos, unlike the more common 180mm telephoto or 90mm normal lens, both of which lack closeup focusing capabilities. So for those pros and semipros who need such a portraiture capability with their KO/RO cameras, the extra price is justified by the utility and rarity of this optic.

I have observed similar pricing anomalies in the Kowa 6/66 Price Guide. Here, the cost of items needed by professionals such as metering prisms and polaroid backs are also significantly more than common items like the 150mm and 55mm lenses. Both of these common optics are relatively good buys, but watch out for the rarer lenses! The used 150mm and 55mm are both discounted circa 1/3rd off the new consumer price from the 1970s. But the rarer 40mm and 35mm rectilinear lenses used prices are over 50% above the 1970s consumer prices. So while the common 150mm and 55mm lenses are relative bargains, the other optics are often quite a bit costlier due to their rarity today. Some useful optics, such as the Kowa 2X teleconverter, have never been seen by one of the major dealers and repairers of such cameras. Other items like the 35mm lens may only sell a few a year worldwide. So be sure to carefully price out the cost of interchangeable lenses and their availability before buying into a camera system.

Lens Choices

For example, the Rollei SL66 is listed as having a 30mm f/3.5 fisheye, a 40mm f/4, a 50mm f/4, and an 80mm f/2.8 normal lens. If you are a fan of the 60mm "wide normal" lens as on many Hasselblad users cameras, you are out of luck. If you like 180mm, 200mm, or anything between 250mm and 500mm, you are also out of luck. But there is a 1000mm lens in both f/8 (glass) and f/5.6 (mirror) options, but each costs more than many new cars.

On the other hand, the Rollei SL66 has built-in tilting bellows, easy lens reversing rings built-in, and a line of 5 macro luminar bellows lenses. So this is the ideal camera for many closeup photographers. My point here is that I would find the Rollei SL66 with its built-in tilting bellows to be a great camera if I wanted to do various kinds of closeup photography.

But it wouldn't be my ideal camera if I wanted a lot of affordable tele-lenses on a focal plane body. For that, I would prefer something like the Bronica S2/EC, where I have 105mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 200mm, 250mm, 300mm, 320mm, 400mm and 500mm lenses. But while the Bronica S2/EC line had 69 lenses in the 75mm normal lens range and up, it only had 9 lenses between 30mm and 75mm. And I have never seen that 30mm fisheye for sale either! So other cameras would be better choices for a wide angle fan(atic).

This lens lineup explains one reason why I like my Kowa 6/66 SLRs as a match to my Bronica's strengths in telephoto and closeup work. I have 40mm, 45mm and 50mm lenses for the Bronica, and 35mm and 55mm wide angles for the Kowa 6/66 with leaf shutters. The 35mm Kowa lens is the widest rectilinear wide angle lenses ever made for a 6x6cm SLR. If you want such an undistorted wide angle lens coverage, you have to buy a Kowa 6 or Kowa 66 and hunt for this lens! So the two lines cover up each lines individual weaknesses.

In a similar vein, it may make sense to buy a single camera to get a particular lens or capability. For example, I intend to add a Kiev-60 with 30mm fisheye lens since the low cost (circa $500 US) makes this such a great buy. Similarly, I have a Plaubel Veriwide 100 for use as a panoramic ultrawide camera, with its 6x10cm image covering an image similar to an 18mm ultrawide lens on a 35mm SLR. Such ultrawide coverage is very hard to achieve using any other approach, since none of the medium format SLR lenses have such ultrawide coverage.

Speaking of Kiev 60 and Kiev 88 optics, their low cost relative to other new medium format optics justifies some closer inspection. There are three (3!) wide angle shift lenses available (45mm, 55mm, 65mm), although the shift ranges are a bit limited and prices on the high end of our budget range (circa $800-1,000 US). While new wide angles include the 30mm fisheye and 45mm and 65mm wide angles, older 50 and 65mm Carl Zeiss Jena optics in Pentacon-6/Kiev60 mounts help round out the lens line offerings.

Similarly, the 120mm, 150mm, 250mm, and 300mm current lenses are supplemented by older 180mm, 300mm and 500mm telephoto lens options. Here again, our point is that by combining the new and used market offerings, we can cover many holes in the new lineup with older lenses at used lens prices. If you really need a modest degree of wide angle shift lens capabilities, the Kiev lenses have the best depth at modest prices.

Budget Lens Lines Observations

Kiev-60/88 - 3 wide angle shift lenses (!), uniquely affordable 30mm fisheye ($200 US), outstanding Zeiss and Schneider earlier Pentacon-6 mount (Kiev60) lenses, lowest cost new medium format SLR lenses (under $1,000 US), low cost bodies with both Kiev-60 and Kiev-88 body with Pentacon-6 lens mount options, good selection of wide and telephoto lenses, 2 Schneider zooms (75-150mm and 140-280mm), 40/50/55/60/65mm wide angles, 120/150/180/250/300/500mm telephotos, but no macro flat field specialty lenses...

Kowa 6/66 - leaf shutter lenses, ranging from 35mm (widest rectilinear on 6x6cm) to 40mm, 55mm, 85mm, 110mm macro flat-field, 150mm, 200mm, 250mm, and 500mm. Some items are very rare, such as the 19mm fisheye (widest on 6x6cm and medium format overall), 2x teleconverter, and tilt/shift bellows. Single coated optics. Cheapest leaf shutter SLR lenses in 6x6cm.

Hasselblad 50xC/200xF - wide range of lenses, often available on rentals unlike others listed here; 30mm fisheye (rare 24mm), Hasselblad Superwide camera with 38mm Zeiss biogon, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 80mm, 100mm, 105 UV, 120mm (macro), 135mm (macro), 150mm, 160mm, 180mm, 250mm, 350mm, 500mm etc. full lens line, but few are in bargain price range even used, a few zooms (140-280mm and 60-120mm) and shift lens converters (1.4X) plus specialty shift body cameras (flex body and Arcbody which takes special lenses (Roddenstocks 35/45/75mm), note not all lenses work on all bodies (e.g., if leaf shutter required, C or CF lenses..). You probably already know that these Zeiss and other high end optics (Schneider, Sigma, Roddenstock..) aren't really budget items...

Rangefinders

Koni-Omega 6x7 series, only 4 lenses, 58/60mm wide angle, 90mm normal, 135mm portrait (not common), and 180mm telephoto, low cost leaf shutter optics ($250-350 US except 135mm in $600+ US range)

Mamiya Universal - wide leaf shutter lens range from 50mm, 65mm, 90mm, 100mm, 150mm and even 250mm optics, 75mm and 127mm with extended coverage for polaroid backs, with multiple formats to 6x9cm, fixed backs (no shifts), modest prices (50mm is circa $500+, others in $250 or less range except 250mm, which doesn't couple to rangefinder..

Mamiya Super 23 - only 3 lenses, 65mm, 90mm and 150mm, but camera back had tilts and shifts usable with ground glass back; 6x9cm rangefinder...

Graflex XL - leaf shutter Zeiss lenses in 58mm, 80mm, 95mm, 100mm, 180mm and 270mm offerings, plus ability to modify lenses to lens boards; rigid body (no movements) 6x9cm rangefinders...

Graflex XLSW - fixed 47mm super angulon wide angle lens, rigid body, rangefinder, 6x9cm, just under $1,000 US....

Linhof/Horseman and related miniview cameras generally are adaptable to a number of lenses, although limited rangefinder coupled lenses in each series, and beware wide angle limits due to fixed bellows bulk...

Lens Mount Adapters

Lens mount adapters are particularly attractive if you already have the right lenses and buy a matching camera. For example, what if you have a lineup of very nice Zeiss (CZJ) and Schneider lenses for Pentacon-6/Kiev-60 mounts? The mamiya 645 becomes very attractive thanks to the available $150+ US lens mount adapter from KievUSA or Cambridge Camera. Or if you prefer the pentax 645, the Zoerkendorfer Kiev-60 to pentax 645 adapter becomes quite interesting. But neither lens mount adapter will feature auto-diaphragm operation, so manual metering and lens operation is mandatory. And your 6x6cm lenses will be bigger and heavier than the same focal lengths in an auto-diaphragm 6x4.5cm pentax or mamiya lens model. So such borrowings may be useful for infrequently used lenses, especially telephotos and macros but perhaps less so with wide angles and fisheyes.

Shift Lens Mount Adapters

Glitches

Motorized Winders

The prime motorized medium format camera has been the Hasselblad 500 EL/ELM series, which continue to be popular for studio and nature applications to this day. I recently added a low cost 500 ELM body and 250mm lens to do remote nature photography, using a low cost radio control link (Prinz) and homebrew 500 EL/ELM DIN adapter. The more popular use for the motor drive camera design is in a studio, where you can use an infra-red or radio remote control to take a shot. This trick makes it possible to distract the subject, especially children, while still letting you get the shots you want.

You will probably want to look into battery issues and stock spare rechargeable batteries. If you run down the older 500EL motor driven Hasselblads, you may need a spare battery to complete a shooting cycle and unfreeze the older bodies. The newer bodies have an alternative approach. Conversely, you can retrofit NICAD and 9 volt batteries in place of the pricey and obsolete VARTA batteries used on the older Hasselblad models.

I have focused on the Hasselblad motorized cameras, as they are the cheapest (with bodies from $300 used up) and most plentiful on the market. You can also find some motorized Rollei 6x6 cameras (such as the Rollei SLX and Rollei 600x series cameras) which are the zenith of motorized electronic medium format cameras in terms of features (and costs).

You may also find some odd-ball motorized cameras, such as those used to take aerial photographs in WWII and custom 70mm cameras designed for photographing school graduations. There are also some accessory winders for the older Hasselblad 500 series cameras which lack winder options. But be sure your style of photography justifies the cost, weight, and reliability issues associated with motorized medium format photography before you buy!

Interchangeable Screens

Lots of budget cameras such as Bronica EC/ETCL and Kowa 6/66 also feature interchangeable screens, as do many current SLRs such as Hasselblads and Rollei 600x series. On the original Hasselblad 500c series, you could get a technician to replace the screen and realign the camera. So while the screen was fixed, it was replaceable with later options. Some transitional 500c models featured an interchangeable screen option, which was standard with the 500c/m and later models.

Lately, a number of folks have been interested in remounting older screens in their classic and budget cameras. For example, the relatively low cost Bronica SQ-Ai screen has been remounted in a classic Bronica S2a as a replacement. Various technicians will do this exchange if you ask, including some screen makers such as Maxwell. Users of Kiev budget cameras have similar screen upgrade options for older cameras (e.g., pentacon-6). Others have done this to use a budget cost brighter screen (e.g., the Bronica SQA series) rather than pay $200-300 US for the official Hasselblad version. Because of the interest in budget options, I have added these notes here to highlight that you can get a modern screen into an older budget medium format camera whose chief limitation may be the one or two stop darker screen.

If you can't find a budget screen option, you may be able to survive with a simpler approach. For example, if you need grid lines for architecture shots, you can scribe a grid on a clear sheet of plastic (e.g., from a report cover) and cut to fit under your system's prism or waist level finder. You can do the same for masking (e.g., 6x4.5cm horiz/vert). So some simple tricks can provide additional utility to any camera for a few minutes effort.

Accessories

I have some sample price guide sources pages, including Bronica S2/EC and Kowa 6/66 which highlight who the dealers are who carry the items, what the range of prices are on the used market, and which items are rarer and hard to find. McBroom's Blue Book does a very good job of providing information on lenses and accessories for most user medium format cameras, including older models and lenses and backs.

For broader accessories, a good resource is the Shutterbug annual buying guide. Most of the listings relate to major advertisers, but you will at least get a brief note on what's available and aimed at medium format (and LF and 35mm) pro and semi-pro photographers. Other magazines such as PDN (Photo District News) and even Popular Photography cover medium format camera related topics and accessories. The Shutterbug, Popular Photography, and Petersen's have annual issues or major articles devoted to medium format photography too.

You will also find a lot of books devoted to photographic gear and gadgets. Building a library of photobooks and magazines is also a good way to gather information on photo gadgets and accessories, both new and old. Some books for collectors will also cover older items and their use (e.g., Parker on Rollei TLRs), but be aware that collectible accessories are often rarer adn more pricey than the cameras they go on.

You can also use the "bingo" cards in the back of most magazines to request information on accessories. This approach will soon yield all kinds of items of interest, and at least keep your mailbox from being empty. You can also search on the Internet, as well as relevant mailing lists to find out what other owners of your kind of camera are using for accessories.

Flash Options

A few medium format cameras feature TTL flash control, similar to many 35mm SLRs. This option is great for areas like macrophotography, where using TTL flash eliminates calculating bellows factors and simplifies shooting. With "average" subjects, you should also get excellent flash results. But most cameras don't have TTL flash, so this feature is achieved by a sensor on the flash. Most of these sensors can be mounted remotely via a cord (and a few latest models use radio or IR links to control the strobe(s) remotely). This ability is critical as most studio flash lighting involves off-camera strobes at various angles to the subject (along with slave strobe triggers for multiple flash units).

All flash systems are not created equal, or alike. You will find some flash units consistently associated with some brands and users, often due to availability of electronic adapters and nifty mounting brackets for that gear (as well as required power output and cycling speed). An example would be the Metz 45- series flash units on the Hasselblad 50x cameras as a frequently cited combination. You can find more about current flashes for medium format, including accessories, in the annual Shutterbug issue dedicated to that topic (and back issues in most libraries).

Conclusion

The best resource to check the pros and cons of many medium format camera systems is noted pro photographer Danny Gonzalez's medium format camera reviews. You can find out more about interesting individual models from our Medium Format Camera Library and Links Pages. For medium format cameras and accessories, you will also find the Shutterbug annual buying guide to be of interest. Individual issues of Shutterbug focus on medium format cameras, flash units, and other accessories. Other resources such as books, magazines, and catalogs can provide much useful information. I have picked up a number of older catalogs from EBAY which have had unique information in them. Vendors such as John Craig and other sellers of literature and camera manuals can also be a source of insight into camera and lens and accessory choices. Finally, the Internet and WWW online resources continue to grow daily, and you will find more and more information available online - though many search engines try to hide all the good stuff in the midst of millions of hits! Good luck!

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From: InfinityDT@aol.com
Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers

austin@darkroom.com writes:

Depends on the focal length (and format).
----------
From: Simon Lamb
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: 35 vs MF, was: Serial numbers

Now there's a topic for debate. What is the definition of a fast lens? Do you regard f/4 as fast? I usually think of f/2 or wider.

I agree with half that statement (re: focal length) but do I understand what you mean about format. A 110/2 would be a medium-fast lens even in 35mm format (about 70mm), but the 250/4 (about 160mm) is rather slow, as a 180/2 (Leica makes one) is the "fast" lens in that range, with f/2.8's made by most companies. Still, given film of equal ISO, 35mm format offers much greater speed at all focal lengths relative to MF. The mitigating factor is being able to use faster film in MF with results equal to 35mm using slower film. Up to a point. The ultra-high-speed film (1600-3200 and beyond with push processing) is not an option with MF to my knowledge.

From MEdium Format Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001
From: miaim@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: [medium-format] MF SLR-vs-RF

you wrote:

>Hi.. I'm new to the list and am currently not a MF user...  I am hoping to
>move up to MF in the near future and I'm trying to decide how....
>
>I'm looking at some SLR's and a few range finders, and I am looking for some
>info/comparisons of the different formats...  I like the small/lightweight
>of the RF, but I'm not sure about the non-TTL viewing.

I've been using MF for about a year, and in the space of that year have managed to accumulate SLR, TLR and rangefinder systems. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. Don't let anybody try to talk you into the inherent superiority of any one approach. As with life, it's all about compromises, and MF is perhaps the most compromising area of all of photography.

With a MF SLR, you really have to decide if you will indeed need different lenses enough to pay the rather hefty price that additional lenses cost. Additionally, many MF SLR's are heavy enough and have violent enough mirror actions that they are best when tripod mounted. (The Pentax 67 is notorious in this regard.)

I've not really been nearly as hampered by the lack of TTL viewing as I'd previously thought, prior to my getting and using TLR and RF. Some TLR's are capable of amazing images, at bargain basement prices, but may find little usage if the supplied viewfinder is so dim as to make composition difficult. (My Rolleicord fits into that category.) RF's such as the Fuji series can be remarkably handholdable, but have their own quirks and limitations. There is no one perfect solution.

Were I you, I'd ask the following questions of myself before even worrying about the relative merits of TTL viewing:

*What percentage of shots will be handheld?

*What percentage of shots can only be accomplished with other than standard lenses?

*What percentage of shots will need to be focused/composed in dim light?

*How important are features like an in-camera meter? or a bulb setting? or flash sync. at all shutter speeds?, or ????

*What's the biggest enlargements you plan to routinely do, and is the capability to occasionally do giant blowups important enough to pay a penalty in both weight and price?

*How much is a modern camera with a warranty and factory service worth to you?

I'd highly recommend visiting a really well stocked used camera dealer and laying hands on as many different types of MF cameras as possible given the limitations of locality and practicality. I've seen well reviewed cameras that once I picked them up I realized that I'd personally never use them. (The Koni-Omega and the Mamiya RB67 come to mind, yet both have their avid fans.)

I'd suggest reading "The Medium Format Manual" by Michael Freeman, and perhaps also "Medium Format Cameras" by Theodore DiSante if you can find it in your library.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I'd suggest that if you aren't already developing your own film you give serious consideration to how and where you are going to get your film/prints/slides processed prior to embarking into MF. A lot of folks are shocked to find out the comparitive cost of processing roll film vs. 35mm.

Good luck, good light,
Mike Swaim

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001
From: ShadCat11@aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: [Rollei] Leaf Shutter Speed

you wrote:

I think it is obvious that the amount of light with a small aperture is INCREASED (as I explained why in other posts), therefore the shutter "speed" is DECREASED (effectively LONGER).

So, at f22, if the shutter speed is set to 1/500....it's effectively, say, 1/360, which is a decreased shutter speed, and increased amount of light.

I always thought this was a settled matter. Data sheets stuffed into Kodak transparency film boxes some years ago advised those with leaf shutter to allow for an additional +1/2 stop if 1/250th sec. @ smallest apertures and +1 stop for 1/500th sec. @ same.

My two Rollei TLRs seem to work fine with 1/2 stop compensation at 1/500th sec., none necessary at any other setting.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Leaf Shutter Speed

you wrote:

>> Austin
>>
>> It MIGHT have been "The Eye, the Camera, The Image",
>> but I may be wrong on this.
>
>I have them all...and I did pull out that one...and no, I didn't see any
>reference to reduced shutter speeds at small apertures...or even close...
>
>> BTW, Richard and Bob are correct in their statements.
>
>that may very well be true...but I want to know why, because it makes no
>physical sense.  I believe the opposite is true that you have TO reduce  the
>shutter speed at smaller apertures, not that the shutter speed is
>effectively reduced.

I just posted a long thing on this. I think I see source of the confusion so I will repeat a part here.

When the shutter is used at maximum opening the shutter blades act as a stop while they are opening and closing. So, for part of the time the lens is being stopped down by the shutter. The actual time is the same but the amount of light getting to the film is reduced from what would be expected from the full f/stop being used. At small stops the proportion of the time the aperture is partially obscured by the shutter is less, so the exposure time is effectively longer.

If you take a shutter and hold back the trip lever so that you can work the shutter open and closed manually you can see how the shutter blades open in a star-fish sort of pattern and obscure part of the opening until fully opened. You can do this trick with most Compur and Kodak shutters but not Wollensak shutters.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

From: alan@blakely.com (Alan Blakely)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Architectural Photographers Association
Date: 1 Oct 2001 

The Association of Independent Architectural Photographers (AIAP) was
launched recently.  This is a professional organization exclusively
for architectural photographers.  The AIAP website is located at: 
http://www.aiap.net.  One of the main features of the AIAP website is
the "Find a Photographer" search where photography buyers can locate
an AIAP photographer, and then link directly to their website and
email.  The AIAP website also offers a wealth of resources for
architectural photographers.  I'm a member and wholeheartedly
recommend it.



Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com>
Subject: [HUG] Re: 503CW or 203FE

you wrote:
>First, if you were me and price aside, would you buy mechanical or
>electronic? why?

Price aside, I think your first consideration should be whether you'd 
primarily prefer leaf of focal plane systems. The former offers flash sync 
at all speeds; the latter offers faster lenses. I know that with 'blad you 
can swap lens and use leaf lenses on a focal plane body, but if all you'll 
ever us is leaf shutter, the 5xx series is probably the way to go.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com


From: rworthy@kna.to
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei TLR use in my work
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 

Convential thinking is that a TLR is the right "tool" for the job in
photographing children. All the basics that make a TLR handy and useful in
photography apply here; no "aiming" of the device at the face, a myriad of
different methods (over the head or a small wall or partian, around a
corner, ect) the ability to flash snyc at any speed, not losing the subject
when the shutter fires, ect.

Another overlooked feature is the softness (pertaining to skin tones, that
is) that a older lens can add to the subject, although I have lots of
experience photographing my children, I have little to add in the way of a
professional children's portrait artist...but I can say that I have much
respect for them. Personality and charm are as important as correct f-stop,
focus, and shutter speed settings.

That said, my favorite "children's" camera is a lowly Yashica A with a
triplet Yashimar taking lens. Of all the pictures and snap shots I've taken,
the ones taken with this camera (outdoors, in available light) are my wife's
favorites. A slight softening, smoothing effect of the image causes that
perfect, young skin to simply glow, and its good for the elderly too- I used
this camera to take portraits of my 80+ year old mother-in-law and was
treated to the same pleasing effect. This is just one of the ways that a
"different" camera can prove useful. I wonder sometimes if the triplet-lens
Rolleicord's impart the same qualities to a image? I've never owned or shot
a Rolleicord.

Of course, the childrens photo's taken with Rollei's are wonderful too...my
favorite one of those is a picture of my (then) 5 year old son Alex, on his
first fishing trip. I used a "pre-war" (sorry Marc!) Automat with a Xenar on
Porta 160 and the portrait was stunning; crystal clear water and every
pearly-white baby tooth showing in his broad smile...not to mention the
multi-colored trout hanging on the end of the line!

Nolan Woodbury



From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which MF camera for portraits and weddings?
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 

On Thu, 06 Sep 2001, Penelope wrote:

>I am wanting to move up from 35mm and wondered if anyone could suggest a
>suitably versatile medium format camera for both studio use and wedding use.
>What would be the most useful features to look for?

I could write a whole book to answer your very general question, but I don't
have the time or the space to do it here.  So, I'll say that the most useful
features on a medium format camera are:  interchangeable lenses and film
magazines; and, specifically to weddings, the lenses should have leaf shutters
to make daylight balance fill flash easy.  The camera should allow easy
viewing and composition, both vertically and horizontally, when on a tripod,
which is normally where it is when shooting portraits or products; but shouldn't
be so heavy and cumbersome, that it can't be easily used hand-held as well and
carried all day without too much fatigue.  If you can satisfy those criteria,
then 90% of the battle is won.

However, the most important decision is format.  Square or rectangular?  If
rectangular, then 645, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9?  They all have advantages and
disadvantages.  Only you can decide what's best, or better, for you, because
only you know how you work.

Also, do you want a reflex or rangefinder camera?  Reflex provides more
accurate viewing and composition, but rangefinders are usually smaller, lighter,
quieter, and easier to focus in dim light.

As an example of my choice, I had initially considered the Pentax 6x7, but
ultimately picked 6x6 instead, mainly because the one thing I lothed with 35mm
was flopping the camera on its side to get a vertical, which was especially
inconvenient when it was on a tripod.  With 6x6, I didn't have to do that, and
wasting a few frames of film for that feature was more than just compensation.
 I also rejected the Mamiya RB 67.  Too big.  Too heavy.  Too cumbersome.  A
great studio portrait/product camera when used on a tripod, but 90% of my medium
format work would be on location, so I needed light weight and compactness.

I decided on the Hasselblad from all the available 6x6 cameras, but couldn't
justify the cost or even afford it, at the time.  I compromised with the Mamiya
C220.  It didn't have interchangeable film backs, but it was cheap enough that
I just bought a second body instead.  I started with just the 80mm lens for
everything, but about 6 months later added a used 135.  I used that system for
about 10 years before finally upgrading to the 'Blad in '84.  I bought all of
it used, most of it circa 1970 vintage.  My system is very minimal:  2 - 500C
bodies, SWC, 60, 150, 4 - 12 backs, proshade as well as dedicated lens shades
for when I don't need the proshade, "stovepipe" finder, and various nik-naks. 
I can shoot 99% of what I'm commissioned to shoot with the above setup.  For the
other 1% of the time, I rent or borrow.

Good Luck choosing. 

--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net


From: Billy Somewhere.else@not.here.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: asked, not answer...
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 

Franklin Jonathan wrote:
> 
> Typos, typos...  I meant to type "asked" and not "answer."
> 
> Frankly, there is no foolish question except the one not answer.

I always smile when I see someone respond to a typo, 
then leave a typo in their response.  That's the main
reason that I elect not to correct other's grammar et al,
I'm sure my posts are rife with errors - and I don't care.

Anyway, I prefer the aphorism:
"There's no such thing as a stupid question, 
just stupid people".

On to the point, before you get further beat up for 
innocently asking what actually turned out to be an 
incredibly vague question, let me suggest reading some 
of Phil Greenspun's site:
http://www.photo.net/photo/tutorial/camera
http://www.photo.net/photo/what-camera-should-I-buy
http://www.photo.net/photo/medium-format/choosing
Phil's got a great line "Given that there is hardly any 
difference between modern Japanese 35mm cameras and yet 
folks are paralyzed with indecision, I sometimes wonder 
how it is that anyone comes to buy a medium format camera."
-- 
-Billy e-mail - billy_rpd at yahoo dot com checked weekly
Look - RPD FAQ - http://rpdfaq.50megs.com
Please support descriptive subjects by ignoring generic
posts!


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 
From: Dale Dickerson vze2g2z8@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Great New Product from Mike Fourman

Hi Kelvin

>It could be skill too ;)

Well many be a little ;-)

>Focal plane lenses can be faster than leaf-shuttered lenses, by design.
>You will notice that pattern when comparing equivalent lenses of Pentax 6x7,
>CZJ P6, K88 versus Broinca SQ/GS, Mamiya RB/RZ.
>
>Downside is vibration. Leaf-shuttered lenses suffer less vibration from the
>moving shutter... and allow x-sync to their top speeds (which are usually
>slower than focal plane too).
>
>
I think the Rollei, Hassy and copy cameras gloss over the leaf shutter
lenses major weaknesses: 1) slower lenses 2) the need for exposure
corrections at higher shutter speeds. "High shutter speeds and small
lens openings with leaf shutters produce slower effective shutter speeds
resulting in more exposure than the indicated shutter speeds/f-number
combination. This is caused by the geometry of the len-shutter-diaphragm
assembly combine with inertia of moving parts and is not a manufacturing
defect" (Kodak Professional Photoguide 6th edition page 18) At f16 and
1/500 of a second gives 1 stop over exposure! The effect starts at f8
and 1/500 of a second or f16 and 1/125 of a second with 1/3 of a stop.
In most applications a 1/3 of stop is a minor problem.  How many of us
would say being 1 stop off in our exposure is minor problem?


When was the last time you heard a leaf shutter camera owner say, "I
shoot that with Portra 400 NC, my 4/150mm at f16, 1/500 and a fill
flash. I also used a 2x ND filter to correct the error of my leaf
shutter speed/f stop combination."

Dale



From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Flash Synch: What Is It?
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 


To take a flash picture, one pre-requisite is that the entire frame be
exposed.  At high speed (eg 1/500 or higher) part of the frame may
(will) be covered by the second curtain of the shutter.

(Note that SLR camera "shutters" are one curtain "opening" and a second
curtain "closing" the shot.  At high speeds, the closing curtain is in
movement at the same time as the opening curtain, so they form a wide
slit in travel accross the film.  The faster the shot the narrower the
slit.)

Most SLR cameras trigger the flash when the first curtain of the shutter
has fuly opened (but the second curtain hasn't begun to close).  This is
Flash Sync.  In short:  "Don't fire the flash until the shutter is fully
open, but fire it before the Shutter closes"  Due to mechanical
constraints, the speed of flash sync is usually in the lower speeds of
the camera.

Older cameras had flash sync's of 1/60 of a second.  New SLR's have
flash sync's of 1/125, 1/200, 1/250 or 1/300 (Depending on make &
model).  With the "above 1/60" flash sync's you can still take flash
shots at slower speeds.  (eg: if the flash sync speed is 1/200, you can
take a flash picture at 1/60 if you so desire, all the way down to
BULB).

New/advanced flash units can make "flat" flash shots that are less
intense, but over a longer period of time... this allows some
camera/flash combinations to go to very high speeds...eg: 1/8000 sec
with the Minolta 5400HS/5600HS and Maxxum 7 or 9 bodies.  This is hardly
useful most of the time!  But occasionally being able to stop action at
1/1000 is useful ... eg: stop the wing movement of an insect.    (Nikon
and Canon have their "hi-speed" flashes too.)

Another feature of advanced SLR's is "Rear Curtain Sync" which fires the
flash just before the 2nd curtain begins travel.  In this way, moving
object "blur" appears behind the movement rather than in front of the
movement.

Scanlin G wrote:

> What is flash synch and how does it work?
--


From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Dumb Question
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002


P Lawson wrote:
> When looking through the viewfinder on medium format cameras is the picture
> upside down? or normal like 35mm.


The short answer is that the with one exception the image is right side up.

Here is a long answer.

It depends on what kind of viewfinder you are talking about.  If you
were to look at a ground glass in the actual image plane (as I can with
my medium format Horseman Technical camera), you would see an upside
down image with left-right orientation preserved.   If you look at the
viewing screen in a typical twin lens reflex, you see an upright image
with left-right reversed.  That is because the image coming through the
top lens is projected upward using a mirror.   If the medium format
camera is a single lens reflex---like any 35 mm single lens reflex---it
undoubtedly has a prism viewfinder which presents the image upright and
with left-right orientation preserved.  I believe there are two types of
eyelevel viewfinders for the Mamiya TLRs, one of which reverses
left-right and the other of which doesn't, but in both cases the image
is upgright.

If the camera uses a rangefinder for focusing, then there is no reflex
viewing on a ground glass, and the optical viewfinder shows an upright
image with left-right orientation preserved.  It is like looking through
a window.

--
Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu  


From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004

"Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> This is probably the most important reason why a leaf
> shutter can not be used in this way and why it has to exist in the lens near
> where the diaphram is.

No the leaf shutter is placed where it is as small as necessary.

And the overriding benefit to the leaf shutter is optimal flash synch so
you can balance ambient and flash light to whatever ratio you want.



From: "Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 

If the leaf shutter were not in a lens in an SLR then it would have to go
somewhere and inside the camera. The rear of the lens is near where the
mirror will flip up in any case so no room there. So you are stuck with
having to put it back near the focal plane. That's a very big "hole" for the
leaf shuuter to cover. It's housing would be outside this so you are looking
at changing camera design to fit it in. Also it would have to be a very
strong spring to get the blades to open and shut at something like 1/500th
sec over such a large diameter and you can forget about 1/1000th second. And
I doubt it would last more than about 500 firings before breaking. And it
would take some strength to cock the shutter.

"KM" nospam@net.com wrote...
> I was cleaning my RZ and began wondering why each lens must incorporate its
> own leaf shutter, then began wondering why we find leaf shutters only in
> lenses. I understand why the shutter has to be in the lens for rangefinder
> systems (proxmity of wide-angle rear elements to focal plane = insufficient
> space), but why couldn't they be incorporated into SLR bodies?
>
> In current leaf-shutter systems like the Bronica ETR and Mamiya RB/RZ, doing
> so would make the lenses smaller and lighter. In focal-plane systems like
> the Pentax 645N, you'd get flash synch at any speed.
>
> I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation I'm overlooking.What is it?





From: "Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 

"Bob Salomon" bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote
> Lassi Hippelainen lahippel@ieee.orgies.invalid wrote:
>
> > because they can expose all parts
> > of the image gate the same amount of time.
>
> Only at the synch speed or slower. At faster speeds only part of the
> image is exposed at any one time as the shutter becomes a moving slit.
> The higher the speed the narrower the slit.
>
> This is why you have limited flash synch with a focal plane shutter vs a
> leaf shutter.

You didn't get what he wrote which was "because they can expose all parts
of the image gate the same amount of time." He didn't write "at the same
time". He wrote "the same amount of time". What he was pointing out is
perhaps the most important feature of leaf shutters is that because they
exist near the lens aperture diaphram then they work in the same way at
reducing the light. If you reduce the aperture then the image doean't go
dark at the outside and towards the centre as you reduce it. It gets darker
the same amount all over the frame. So if the leaf shutter is there it does
not matter how long it is obscuring the edge of the image in relation to the
centre of the image. No matter how the blades are working, the effect is
spread over the whole image. So the centre does not get more exposure than
the edges, even though the centre of the blades is open for longer than the
edges. So if the leaf shutter were at the back near the film plane then the
centre of the image would get exposed more than the edges of the image due
to the way the blades have to open and close. You would need an extremely
fast-acting blade system to overcome this so that the time in transit for
the blades was negligible compared with the time the blades were fully open.

But a focal plane cloth shutter gives regular exposure over the whole of the
area. The film edges get as much light as the centre as the slit moves
across. Each part of the film gets exposed for the same amount of time (not
"at" the same time). This is probably the most important reason why a leaf
shutter can not be used in this way and why it has to exist in the lens near
where the diaphram is.





From: "jjs" nospam@please.xxx
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004

steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> Enough with the design details - which one provides the sharpest image overall?

Sharpness is in the lens. It doesn't matter what shutter you use.

Some people (myself, for example) feel that the leaf shutter has less
vibration and it's a good thing. I won't get into arguments about this.
Suffice to say, I always pre-fire the 500c when shooting on a tripod. If
you feel the same way, then a leaf shutter is the way to go - IMHO.

Yesterday I walked down the photogaphy aisles in the university library and
found a book that showed how shutter speed related to sharpness. There were
noticable differences (at admittedly ridiculous magnification) in hand-held
1/250th pictures compared to tripod shot 1/250th, but it makes sense - a
fraction of a millimeter of movement at the camera is hugely magnified.


From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: 3 Apr 2004 

"Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com wrote
> No. Roland is correct - logic should tell you that, rally, apart from
> anything else. The only cameras that get away with leaf shutters in the
> bodies (Pentax Auto110, for example) do so by having specially designed
> lenses that effectively have a node where the shutter is.

Maybe this is the case with the Auto110. Actually there have been
quite a couple of cameras with standard design lenses and leaf
shutters on the body. In the 50s and early 60s there were quite a few
rangefinder cameras with shutters in the body but the lenses did not
have a special design. Some cheap rangefinders like the Konica C35
have behind-the-lens shutters, and their lenses are standard Tessar
designs where both nodal planes are INSIDE the lens. The Vito B camera
made by Voigtlaender in the 50s also has a behind-the-lens shutter,
and the lens is the same Skopar (Tessar) design as used on many other
cameras of that brand.

> That is correct - though lightness is also a factor, and some see having a
> shutter in each lens as a reliability issue: if one breaks at least you can
> go on using the other lenses.

But that's not the main reason behind it. The first reason is that
placing the shutter in the nodal plane is the best place concerning
vignetting etc, as already mentioned. Another reason is that you would
need quite a big leaf shutter to be able to mount powerful lenses with
longer focal length. On most leaf shutter cameras with interchangeable
lenses, the range was restricted to f/4 135mm lenses or so - no longer
and no more powerful lenses. If you compare a 135mm lens for a Kowa
leaf shutter SLR to a 135mm focal plane lens design you can easily see
which compromises the designers had to make to get the light through
the (rather small) shutter opening. In the nodal plane, the cone of
light rays has the smallest diameter, and a shutter placed in the
nodal plane can be much smaller (and requires much less compromises in
lens design) than a leaf shutter on the body.

Winfried


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 

Wilt W wrote:

> < fantastically fast speeds too.
> With (slow) liquid crystal technology where it is today, i can't help but
> wonder why we haven't seen any developments in that direction.>>
>
> How about 'Because the light has to go THRU the device, and that itself
> degrades the image. And it provides additional surfaces on which dust
> collects. Digital SLR suffer from the need to keep the CCD clean of dust,
so
> imagine how a light-shutter would affect things, too!

Light goes many solid objects, having dust collecting surfaces already.
Modern lenses are not short of those.
Dust directly in front of, or even on the sensitive layer/sensor poses
problems of an rather different magnitude than those caused by dust on lens
elements. After all, a Kerr-cell type shutter can be positioned inside the
lens. It could even be integrated into the optical design of the lens.

The liquids used in the Kerr-cells i know off are all slightly coloured (and
highly toxic), and that is a problem. But then, that's what i was hoping
advances in the field of liquid crystal "technology" would have solved by
now. After all, typical liquid crystal displays in use today are very clear,
colourless and highly transparent, c.q. very dense. If only they where fast
enough...



From: "KM" nospam@net.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 

I was cleaning my RZ and began wondering why each lens must incorporate its
own leaf shutter, then began wondering why we find leaf shutters only in
lenses. I understand why the shutter has to be in the lens for rangefinder
systems (proxmity of wide-angle rear elements to focal plane = insufficient
space), but why couldn't they be incorporated into SLR bodies?

In current leaf-shutter systems like the Bronica ETR and Mamiya RB/RZ, doing
so would make the lenses smaller and lighter. In focal-plane systems like
the Pentax 645N, you'd get flash synch at any speed.

I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation I'm overlooking.What is it?



From: wiltw@aol.com (Wilt W)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 02 Apr 2004 
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

I used to use a 35mm SLR (Topcon Auto 100) with the leaf shutter in the body 40
years ago! The problem is that the shutter can only be a certain size by
default, and putting it at the focal plane is problematic for that reason. In
my camera, the leaf shutter was where the lens mounted to the body, keeping it
somewhat smaller than at the focal plane, but that limits the rear element
size, and therefor the ultimate speed of the lens.

--Wilt


From: "Georg N.Nyman" gnnyman@comcast.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 

Hi,

I would like to try to answer the original question -
shutters need to be designed such that the exposure time of each part of the
image is more or less the same to get an evenly exposed image. The location
of the leaf shutter needs therefore determined in such a way that its
opening and shutting mechanism produces an evenly exposed image on the film
plane. It therefore can only be positioned in one certain place within the
lens, where its mechanism works with the light flow in the mentioned proper
way. On top of it, by definition, it is circular and therefore would
require more space if positioned close to the film plane than if it is
placed between the lens elements. Usually it also is located very closely
to the diaphragms of the aperture and they can only be located where the
have to be optically - again same reason - uniform image exposure. And by
definition the diaphram need to sit in or very close to the aperture plane
or one of the conjugated planes of it. If you place the aperture not in the
correct plane, you get not only uneven exposure in the film plane but also
vignetting etc.

If you like to know more about it and in detail, email me directly. I
presume that the full explanation would be not really of interest for most
readers as it would involve more details about lens design and I am not
sure if readers would like to read a lot of theory....

Regards George Nyman



Dean Hoffman wrote:
> There have been SLRs with a leaf shutter incorporated into the body. The
> Kowa 35mm slrs come to mind. Unfortunately these involved complex linkages
> that were prone to failure.
>
> "KM" nospam@net.com wrote 
>> I was cleaning my RZ and began wondering why each lens must incorporate its
>> own leaf shutter, then began wondering why we find leaf shutters only in
>> lenses. I understand why the shutter has to be in the lens for
>> rangefinder systems (proxmity of wide-angle rear elements to focal plane = insufficient
>> space), but why couldn't they be incorporated into SLR bodies?
>>
>> In current leaf-shutter systems like the Bronica ETR and Mamiya RB/RZ, doing
>> so would make the lenses smaller and lighter. In focal-plane systems like
>> the Pentax 645N, you'd get flash synch at any speed.
>>
>> I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation I'm overlooking.What is it?


From: "jjs" nospam@please.xxx
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 

"Georg N.Nyman" gnnyman@comcast.net wrote 
> Hi,
> I would like to try to answer the original question -
> shutters need to be designed such that the exposure time of each part of the
> image is more or less the same to get an evenly exposed image. [...]

And obviously, the larger the leaf shutter, the more limited the top shutter
speed. Look at the Copal #0 with 1/500th compared to the *gasp* Ilex #5
which has a (nominal) 1/50th top speed (which I find is actually closer to
1/30th).


From: "jjs" nospam@please.xxx
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: convertible lens RF? Re: Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 

steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote 
> Why hasn't this approach been used more frequently in 35mm as well? [...]

Funny this should come up. One of my student workers just now returned my
Contaflex, which as you know is an SLR that with a Prontor leaf shutuer and
X,M synchro, and of course it has interchangable lenses. It remains one of
my favorite miniature cameras with the 30mm lens.

Why wasn't it used more? For one, it's expensive and entails rather strident
limitations. To make this Contax system work there is one common lens behind
the shutter and all the lenses use it as the rear element. I can post some
pictures of the lens system if you like.





End of Page