From: briang@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey)
Subject: Re: MF Rangefinders (Was Re: More Medium Format Questions?)
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:41:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.223207.8504@walter.bellcore.com> hsong@ardour.bellcore.com (G. Hugh Song) writes:
>In article <6eph021Z2eyj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman) writes:
>|> 
>|> How is the quality of the lenses which will couple with the rangefinders
>|> of the "smaller format" (2 1/4 x 3 1/4 ?) press cameras?  I've been
>|> thinking of a medium format alternative to my 4x5 for travel purposes,
>|> not being sure that I want to pay the probable premium to ship my
>|> huge pack which holds the 4x5  in addtion to the 35mm bag when I fly.
>|> There's also an appeal to having some movements available but being able to 
>|> switch to the rangefinder focusing and the wire "sports finder" that I 
>|> remember from the (already old) Graphics I used when I was in high school 
>|> in the 60's.
>|> 
>|> But I have trouble believing that the lenses which will couple with the
>|> rangefinders could be as good as modern medium format lenses.  I'd
>|> hate to spend the money and tote the weight to obtain only a marginal 
>|> improvement in image quality over 35mm. 

   I had a Linhof Super Technika 23 with Schneider lenses.  The standard
   105/3.5 Xenar was sharp as a tack (I had to say it.)  I have some photos
   taken with it that scream out "sharp!"  It worked well all the way down
   to 1:1, where it was still many times sharper than 35mm.  The 180/4 Xenar
   was also sharp, though I used it less and cannot say for sure just *how*
   sharp (relative to 35mm) it was.  The 65/? Angulon was not sharp and 
   vignetted.

   I think that older lenses of wide angle or telephoto design are probably
   quite inferior to new lens designs, but the "normal" lenses like these
   Xenars were pretty well refined back in the '30s and I doubt that modern
   ones are noticeably better.  Coatings would be the main improvement.  I
   think that, if you are using the press cameras as rangefinders, you tend
   to lose more sharpness to inaccurate or out-of-cal rangefinders, non-
   coupled cams, or camera shake (these guys are heavy) than to lens
   sharpness.  If you use the groundglass focusing and movements with the
   normal lenses (or buy modern wide angle view camera lenses), then you 
   should be pretty pleased with them.  In fact, that is a good point to
   make:  you can buy modern view camera lenses for these cameras and have
   the best of both worlds.  A good custom camera tech can even match the
   rangefinder cams to the new lenses. (Bill Crispien of Custom Camera 
   Craft did so for me.)

>|> Opinions?

   OK, 'e said "opinions."  That's what 'e got.

>|> Barry

>with Fuji's.  I could confirm the lens in Fuji SW690 is a 6-element 
>wide angle from the brochure which shows a cutaway diagram of the lens.

   I have a Fuji GS-645.  It is the folding Fuji.  I don't know why those
   knuckleheads quit making the GS-645 - it is the handiest good quality
   camera I have every seen!  It is very simple: 75/3.5 lens, rangefinder,
   metered manual exposure.  It is very light in weight - much lighter 
   than the 35mm P&S cameras, and is only slightly larger when folded.  I
   travel internationally in my current job, and the GS-645 takes up 
   less space in my briefcase than the Vivitar 285 which I also carry.

   There are no interchangeable lenses, and often I wish it had a wider
   one than 75mm, but overall I am extremely pleased with it.  If Fuji 
   would start making one with a 35 or 50mm lens I'd go right out and buy 
   it in a heartbeat.

   The other Fujis do not really fit the description of being small and
   light which, as I recall, was one of the criteria of the posting which
   started all this.  They are not called "Leicas on steroids" for nothing.
   Even the current (non-folding) GS-645W or GS-645SW models are as large
   as a 35mm SLR with winder and 85mm lens attached.  They are lighter
   than such a combination, though.  These cameras aren't really all that
   expensive.  You can get the GS-645, used, for $500 or less; and new
   GS-645W or SW for around $600 through NY dealers.  The 6X7 and 6X9 
   Fujis are more like $800 (gettin up there) and the 6X17 is $2500 (and
   huge.)

   If we're including wide angles in this, there are also the Linhof 6X12
   and 6X17 cameras.

>Another question:
>Does the retrofocus wide-angle suffer really significantly  compared to
>true wide angles?
>According to my research, standard symmetric design go down to the focal-
>lengths listed below for different SLR systems such as:
>
>Mamiya RZ:	110mm
>Mamiya RB:	127mm
>Fuji GX680:	125mm
>Pentax 67:	 70mm
>Bronica GS1:	?

   As I mentioned, earlier, I think it is in the wides and teles (and in
   zooms, where applicable) that the major improvements have been made.  I
   don't think I'd worry too much about the sharpness of a modern wide angle 
   from any of these manufacturers.  I can't speak from personal experience,
   though I'm saving for a 50mm for my RZ.

>You can see what you lose in order to have a rotating back.
>Below these lengths, the lenses all seem to be of retrofocus design.

   Interesting connection.  Actually, the revolving back isn't the problem;
   at least, not with the Mamiya cameras.  There is a set distance from the
   lens mount to the film plane.  The smaller you can make that distance, 
   the shorter of a focal length lens you can make of a "normal" design
   before having to "resort" to retrofocus.

   In fact, I'm not so sure you're really *losing* anything with these
   designs.  I'm not convinced that "true" wide angle is necessarily better.
   They have a tendency to project a curved plane of focus onto the
   negative.  Perhaps these more complex designs project a flatter and more
   linear image on the film.  I'd prefer that, even if it does mean my lens
   is a bit heavier and has a few more elements.  Everything is a tradeoff.

   Also, 6X7 is sufficiently large, anyway, that I'd hate to have to flop 
   the camera on its side to make verticals.

-- 
--Brian M. Godfrey
  atlastele.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo