Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: 35mm versus 120
From: "Bob Parsons" <bobp@dodo.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:12:33 -0000

Some years ago I was looking for a medium format camera for landscape
work. I part traded an M2 for a Hassleblad. Many times I'd leave the film in
the camera for some hours or even days between shots. Under these
conditions the lack of film flatness was a serious issue and certainly
showed on the final prints, especially with slow fine grained films. If you
looked at the reflection of light on the film after winding on you could clearly
see the bump where the film had been bent round the roller in the magazine
insert.  After returning the magazine twice to the importers I gave up trying to
get the problem fixed. One year later I traded the Hassleblad.

Later I returned to medium format with a used Rollei SL66. This also had
similar problems caused by an abrupt bend in the film path. However, it was
the tilting lens panel which sold me on this camera and is the reason I still
use it for landscape work. Ironically this feature can cause film flatness to be
even more if an issue. The tilting panel can give infinite depth of field, making
near-far sharpness possible at full aperture but the depth of focus at the film
plane is very small under these conditions.
I know Rollei recognised the problem and later SL66 magazines were fitted
with a larger diameter roller. To minimise unsharpness I don't use the next
shot if the camera hasn't been used for more than 15mins and after loading
don't wind to the first frame until I'm ready to use the camera.
One camera I've found to have no apparent problems no matter how long
the film is left in the camera (within reason <g>) is the 6x7 Mamiya M7-II
(medium format Leica !) the lenses are super sharp and need the film
flatness to give of their best.

Bob Parsons.