Alpstein - seen through Rokkor

[Peter S.]

Dear fellow camera collectors,

a few days before my well documented hiking tour I had been there
on a sunday noon. I had both the blue and the red XD-7 plus a colllection
of lenses with me. The weather on Saturday and Sunday morning had
been bad - but a intermediate high pressure system had been anounced,
and I got myself into the car and then into the teleferic to the mount
Hoher Kasten. When getting out of the teleferic there still was a dense
fog. But after a short descend the fog became thinner.



And after another 15 minutes I was able to catch a first peek on the
hiking area.



The hiking path follows the top of the right hand ridge.

A short while later the fog had lifted and showed mount Hoher Kasten,
where I started my tour.



The fog stuck into the valley of the river rhine (on the left hand side
when looking back). I was able to catch this picture just on the edge
of the fog.



Note that this scene is showing a part of picture 2 of the Hasselblad
series posted ago. Besides this was pretty uncomfortable to take, too...

I went on, and after two hours another view back showed my progress.



The hiking always went along the border of the fog within the
Rhine valley.

Later in the noon I was lucky to take a few great pictures of the
Kreuzberge, which present a spectacular view.



and this one...



I got one or two more - but these are not ready yet...

Best regards
Peter

[herron]

Peter:
Those shots in the fog are beautiful! Thanks for sharing them!

[nikonbob]

Another nice set of photos and the fog really adds atmosphere. Still, I think the difference between medium format and 35mm is more than obvious when comparing the posts you have made involving the same subject. I am just trying to convince myself to try med. format. Thanks for sharing.

Bob

[Peter S.]

Dear Bob,

I do agree, that there is a noticeable difference between these and the previously posted pictures.
I think the most obvious difference is the film material. The Rokkor pictures have been taken using
Kodak Elitechrome (EB) material, while I loaded the Hassie with Velvia.

The next thing is related to the square format and the large waist level finder. This makes a more
subtle difference to 35mm. Btw I don't think that a 35mm waist level finder (like the XK) would
come close to a real MF finder.

The third aspect is the limited number of frames on the 120 roll. The limited number of 12 exposures
makes You think about each frame You take (at least for me). This back's up the second argument
for MF.

From the point of technical quality MF has a big advantage over MF - I should post some 100%
crops from those 8500x8500 pixel monsters. They are nearly three times the film area than
135 film, and they contain this about three-fold amount of (picture) information. But: this is not
visible in this tiny internet representation of the pictures. Besides I am fully convinced w.r.t. the qualities
of the Rokkor glass. The more modern Minolta lenses might be inferior to the top league - but the
old Rokkors are not.

In summary I would say, that I might give up MF, if there were an urgent need for money.
But as long as I can afford, I would not. MF is a very attractive supplement to 35mm - but I (and most other
MF photographers) would still use 35mm for snapping - and for ultra wide angle and long telephoto
work.

If You are interested, I can post a crop e.g. from the Stauberen MF image. This will make clear
my resoning immediately...

Best regards
Peter

[nikonbob]

Peter

I have several folders and a TLR in 120 but I just can't get past the cost of film and processing where I live. Every time I see Medium Format photos I am almost convinced. Then again my older 35mm lenses of various makes do well enough for me. Maybe some day Ill make the jump and do a few rolls of 120.

Bob

[Peter S.]

Dear Bob,

I have no clue, what are the cost of processing in Canada or the US.

But where I live the situation is as this: I have to send my films by mail to the
lab - I found a pro lab in Stuttgart, which is about 100 miles away. I have to
pay twice 2.20 € postage. The development for a slide film is 3.80 € for 120
and 4.10 € for a 135 film (I suspect the 135 film is more expensive, since it is
longer and thus occupies the development machine for a longer time). Development
cost of 4x5" prints is also in the region of 4 €. I sent them the cartridges containing
the exposed film, and they remove the film (I find this handy)... but now I drift
OT.

I can assure You, that for the time being I don't plan to carry the 4x5" Camera into
the mountains.

Best regards
Peter

[Peter S.]

Dear Ron,

I fully agree! The main drawback of the MF gear is its size and weight.
Those three lenses (plus external light meter) require more space and are accursed with more
weight than my most completest set of Rokkor glass - and hell, even my current standard pocket
contains MD VFC 2..8/24, MC 1.8/35, MC 1.2/58, MC 1.7/85, MD 4/100 Macro, MC 2.8/135 (late
4/4 version) and MD 4/200. The complete set would add a wider wide, a longer tele, a second
body, and most likely a MD 1.7/50. And all this gear is lighter, and requires less space than the
Hassie stuff I lugged through the Alpstein mountains.

But lately I used a Tamron SP 3.5/70-210 on a SR-T 303 I did test. And it did well, too. Maybe
a bit less than the primes. But does this change my pictures? I don't think so.

Maybe I could even go digital - if I didn't hate modern plastics cameras that much...

Best regards
Peter