Re: Pros and cons of linked/siamesed MF cameras.

[erker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Erker)]

>1. If I have separate cameras, I can shoot hyper. If I link them, then I
>save a bit of time.  Which is better?

  True. Twinned cameras (ie/ bolted together but not
otherwise linked) only benefit is convenience. Easier
to handhold perhaps and maybe lighter since you don't
need a slidebar or other hunk of metal to hold them
together.

  The Stereo Ricohflex that Sam built for Joel is
almost completely siamesed.  Shutter and focus are
linked (not sure about aperture). He didn't link
the film advance because of the difficulty.

>2. Besides speed or ease, what is the benefit of twinning? Is speed really
>a factor in a camera that only gets 12 photos to the roll?

  Medium format film costs enough money that you want to
take your time and use a tripod whereever possible. Every
now and again you may want to shoot quickly (especially if
you give up on 35mm stereo) so it is a bit of a factor.

>3. Siamising makes sense if I can make the thing smaller or lighter.  With
>the focus linked, could I ditch the focusing/viewing section of *one*
>camera?

  The big issue IMO is having a linked shutter. No retinal
rivalry (RR) from shots not quite at the same time. Plus the
ability to use flash sync.

  Without a linked shutter you may have exposure missmatches
between cameras that differ on every shutter speed. So you
may need a cheat-sheet to adjust the aperture to compensate
for a 1/2 stop difference in the two shutters at certain
speeds. This'll slow you down.

  If you have focus and aperture and linked shutter blades
(not just the shutter speed settings linked) you can just
set up and shoot. No need to double check that all settings
are the same, and that you have the right fudge value for
the shutter mismatch.

>4. For that matter, why not dump *both* focusing/viewing sections?  Since
>I'm shooting hyperfocal, couldn't I just use the scale on the lens barrel?

  You could. But MF has less depth of field than 35mm
(even taking into account the reduced viewing magnification
which translates into a larger allowable COC {circle of
confusion}).

  My Ricohflexes have DOF scales based on a 0.08 mm COC
(the Realist is 0.03 mm for comparison). But I find infinity
in hyperfocal shots somewhat soft. So you would have to
calibrate you own hyperfocal preferences.

  Sometimes there just isn't enough light for hyperfocal
shooting and so you have to choose what to focus on. Having
a finder screen is worthwhile then.

  Or you may intentionally want to shoot with a blurred
background (portrait shot perhaps). Then you need to be
able to focus on the subject's eyes (in this example).

  To summarize you could live by scale focusing entirely,
depending on your shooting style.  AFAIK Kodak Stereos and
the Belplasca don't have rangefinders so you do just that
(remembering that 35mm has more DOF).

>If this subject has been swatted around already, or is too simple, just
>kick me.

  We've talked about some of these things but not exactly
like this.

  Perhaps if you told us the type of shooting you (plan
to) do.

Regards - Greg