I have experienced no film spacing problems. The 'mirror slap' causes the camera to jump on lighter tripods.
I always mount this camera on a heavy manfrotto tripod.
However, I use the waist level finder almost exclusively. It makes composition and focussing very difficult. The prism viewfinder is very dark and gives a limited view. I would endorse Andrews comments up to a point. Using the adaptor I use a range of Russian lenses on both cameras. I own both a mamiya 645 and Pentacon Six. Don't forget about the convenient 86mm filter size on the 50 and 180 either. Remember, if you want to use these old lenses on a Mamiya, you loose Auto diaphram, so you've basically stepped back 40 years on camera handeling. My 120mm lens was very good also, but not any better than the 150mm lens I now have for my Pentax. Some people have had great things to say about the 180mm, but mine was incapable of taking anything but low contrast images, with lots of flare. The 80 I had was a dog, and so was the 180 "Sonnar". But I have to say, comparing it to my equivalent lens for my Pentax 645 I now own, it wasn't any better. Great color, resisted flare well, good sharpness and contrast, and low distotion. My 50mm was very good, the best lens of the lot.
There apparantly is considerable sample variations on these items, like many products from East Germany at that time. If you haven't handeled one of them and tried to focus though the pityful prism finder, by all means do so before wasting your money.As far as the lenses go, I have ownerd and tested on charts and in the field the 50, 80, 120, and 180 Pentacon "Zeiss" lenses, all in the MC versions. There is really no comparison in my mind between the archaic Pentacon with its terrible finder and chronic winding problems and a modern medium format SLR.
0 kommentar(er)
