That may be. It's quite weird though - even if I were to get a 7, I'd
never replace my
RB67, the precise composition and focusing ability, the close
focusing, and the longer
lenses have allowed me to make many images that could never be made
with a Mamiya 7.
I would really like both, yes please thank you :-)
For example, I was walking around on the beach one day with my RB67
(loaded with FP4) and
just the standard very-wide 50mm Sekor-C lens. I saw an interesting
bug, and instantly the
wide angle lens doubled as a 1:1 Macro lens because of the bellows
focusing:
http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs47/f/2009/214/2/d/Dune_Bug_by_philosomatographer.jpg
(yes, this is ~ 1:1 on a 6x7cm image field - not exactly Ultra Macro)
The lens has heavy field curvature at this usage (which goes WAY
beyond specification)
but I still ended up with a highly detailed 6x7cm negative that I
quite liked.
For far-away subjects, the equivalent rangefinder lens (which,
however, does *not* have a floating
system for close-up photography) would yield a maybe 10% better image
in real terms, but would
never have enabled images like the link I posted above.
The Mamiya Rangefinder is like a Leica M - huge price, severely
reduced flexibility, for
a slight increase in image quality, and of course smaller size. Two
very different animals.
On 22 Oct 2009, at 5:24 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> For some
> reason there is greater demand for that Rangefinder system than
> there is for
> the SLR systems in medium format. Maybe it's because those lenses
> are so
> good.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
