Pics on Old Rangefinder & EOS system?

[cmc_photo]

How about the pics on new eos system and older rangfinder camera?
After test 1 rool of film on my Yashica Electro 35GX and searching the pics was taken on older rangefinder camere in forum I found that the pics on oder rangefinder is soften then then pics was taken on Canon EOS system. Is that true?

[jdos2]

Lenses from the 50's and 60's weren't computed with much help from machines- modern ones are. Modern lenses tend to have generally higher resolutions, but there's NO way to make a blanket "new is better than old."

Besides, soft lenses are awesome for lots of photography, and even "soft" lenses can either come close, or completely match modern ones stopped down.

If all you want is "sharp," don't go 135 or even Medium Format. If you want "sharp," go all the way to large format. it'll give you what you want. 60 lpm on 8x10 is far sharper than you can achieve with 135!

[rover]

The greatest bargin in photography is the fast standard lens. For the EOS that is the 50/1.8. I have an Mark I version of this lens I purchased with my 10s back in 1991. It is a simple, inexpensive, perfected optical formula. In a sense, this same thing is what makes the fixed lens rangefinders of the 1970's so good. They are built around a simple, very good lens. Are they Zeiss or Leica quality? No, but the EOS/Nikon/Minolta... 50 isn't either. They all are very good though. I think that with today's technology there is more consistency in manufacturing, which is a big plus. My Canonet's lens is excellent, but I have read that there are others with lens that are not the same. So, maybe your GX unfortunately has a less sharp lens. An other thing to look at is that different lenses produce images with very different qualities. To me, I am most drawn to images produced with a Leica 50mm Summicron. They are very sharp, the image is smooth, I see a perfect balance in shots taken with this lens. I recently got a Minolta MD 50/1.4 which, again in my eyes, produced images that had similar qualities. My Canonet's lens to me is very sharp. The main subject in images that are well executed jump off the paper, but they do not have the balance I spoke of before. I guess I would have to say that my EF 50/1.8 is between these two descriptions. The most you can take from my words I guess is that this is a very subjective measurement. If you prefer your EF lens to the Yashinon, then it is a better lens. Enjoy

[Stu :)]

Firstly are we talking about sharpness, or do you mean resolution?

Being a former EOS system user and current LF and Hasselblad nut and 35mm RF convert heres my $0.02.

Depends which lens you use.
Sure a Canon L series prime lens will kick nine colours of s*** out of a pre 1980s Leica lens, but on the other hand a consumer zoom lens (i.e. 35-80mm 4.5-5.6) will pale when compared to the likes of a 1960-70s Canonet or even Russian Leica/Zeiss copy.

Carl Zeiss has done HUGE amounts of testing when it comes to things like sharpness versus resolution. If an image is too sharp your contrast blows out and you actually lose resolution. Sure if you blow up a 4mm by 5mm section of 35mm neg to 8x10 and compare the two results side by side with a loupe, the sharper lens will look better. But blow the whole negative upto an 8x10 picture, mount them on the wall, step back a meter then say which one looks best?
Sure the Schneider 300mm standard lens I use for the 8x10 is incredibly sharp, but I prefer the look of my 1890s design Carl Zeiss 80mm Planar on the Hasselblad.

A good article to read is Chapter 6 - 'Lens Shortcomings' of the LF bible (View Camera Technique by Leslie Stroebel). A book to read even if you're not a LF shooter. 9/10 times the theory will put you to sleep, the other one tenth will have you exclaiming "Hey, wow!" followed by the mad rush out the door with camera in tow.

On the other hand...

If you think your pictures are just plain 'fuzzy' and your focus and DOF is good, check for fungus on or inside your lens. This is common cause for 'fuzzy' pictures. Without film inside the camera, open the camera door, cover the light cell with some black tape, point the camera at a window or low wattage light blub and fire the camera. If you see what looks either a cloud or white specks/smudge, you've got fungus. Can be terminal if there's lots of fungus.
Another problem could be focus with your camera. Assuming you've got your eye in the 'golden zone' in your viewfinder (if you eye is off to either side, what looks to be in focus is actually not), your rangefinder could have been knocked out of alignment (ask any of the first Bessa R owners about that one). Unlike fungus, this can be fixed.

However... JD is right, if you want ultra sharp images, go 8x10. But then again they ain’t light and it takes about 5-10 minutes for three girls or two guys, or one brave luddite to set it up for a shot…

Stu

[cmc_photo]

I want post some photo from Yashica GX here but don't known how to do. Could you show me? Thanks

[rover]

If you want to post in a thread, click the POST REPLY button at the bottom right of the thread and there is an attach file field in that form. You cannot attach a file to a thread using the box at the bottom of the thread. If you wish to use the gallery, you need to establish an account on that page separately, and then you can click the upload photo button.

[cmc_photo]

The photo was taken by Yashica GX

[cmc_photo]

Here is one more photo from Yashica GX

[Doug]

Your photos look good to me, CMC... But of course it's not possible to see online the fine detail you should see in your print. But there's nothing obviously wrong here. In the second picture, the subject appears in focus, clearly sharper than the background.

[Stu :)]

They also seem good to me. Take the second photo, the Nike logo on the man's shirt seems sharp and in focus, you can even tell he hasn't ironed his shirt.

If something else seems 'fuzzy' please point it out...

Stu

[bmattock]

I suspect a nice open aperture - the front of the subject's shirt is in focus as mentioned, but the subject's face is slightly less so (except for the cheek). My guess would be either the focus was not correct, or the rangefinder is a tad off - depends on where cmc_photo focused.

Just a guess. But I really like the outdoor photo of the bridge. Very sharp, great color!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - and though most folks here know it already, I shoot rangefinder and classic SLRs with equal enthusiam - I love 'em all!

[cmc_photo]

Thank all of you for your information!