Mamiya 6, yes, but your other camera ?

[mrisney]

I bought in on digital this Spring. Picked up the new Canon 5D MKIII, got the Fuji X-Pro 1.
Nice, but neither one gives me the image quality my Mamiya 6 does.

I am somewhat frustrated, in that no matter what camera system I venture into. I rarely get as satisfied by the output that the Mamiya 6 gives me.

Thinking about trying another TLR, as 'blad's are OK, but I have held up side by side tripod mounted images
from the Mamiya 6 75mm Sekor and the Carl Zeiss Planar 1:2.8 F-80MM T ... and I still prefer the Sekor 75mm.
Any recommendations on something that will be an alternative to the 6, yet still deliver such kick ass sharpness, detail and tone?

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Ya know, Rollei makes an SL line in medium fomat, like the Hassy.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Any recommendations on something that will be an alternative to the 6, yet still deliver such kick ass sharpness, detail and tone?

Mamiya 7.


.....


I mean, seriously though, why are you looking for an alternative to the Mamiya 6? You haven't really given us a reason. And are you only looking for a digital camera? If you aren't satisfied with the image quality of a state-of-the-art, brand new $3500 camera, I don't know what else will please you. You'll have to get a medium format digital camera, which will be a lot more than $3500.

I guess if you're looking for other film cameras, consider the Rolleiflex 2.8f (the planar lens is supposedly better IQ than the hasselblad variant, I don't know how true that is), or the Rolleiflex SL series, or the Mamiya 7, or the Mamiya RZ67 if you like giant SLRs, or the Fuji GF670, or the Plaubel Makina 6x7 cameras.

 

[keytarjunkie]

To add, my secondary camera to my Mamiya 7 is my Fuji X100. It doesn't have comparable image quality, nor do I expect it to. If I did, I would buy a second Mamiya 7.

 

[semilog]

No other medium format camera has substantially better lenses than the native lenses for your M6. In particular, no TLR system has lenses that are better than the ones for your M6.

If you want better image quality in digital without going medium format digi and making a huge lens investment, well, you're going to have to get a really good lens with a narrower FoV, and a heavy tripod, and a big computer, and stitch.

Your call. Me? I'd buy some more film.

And if you're wet-printing, a better enlarger lens. And if you're not wet-printing, drum scans of a few of your best negatives or transparencies.

Or were you just trying to get us to give you permission to buy an S2?

 

[brian steinberger]

No other medium format camera has substantially better lenses than the native lenses for your M6.

+1

The only lenses in MF that come close are those for the Mamiya 7 which are just as amazing! I love the sharpness. Some people find them too sharp, or the bokeh offensive. I prefer sharpness over anything else in my photography so RF's, and the Mamiya 6 in particular is my favorite system.

 

[leicapixie]

Everything you have used is state of the art. I don't own the Canon 5D but it is one of the top cameras and systems in the world. Personally i doubt that Medium Format is better. I love Film but the reality is that Digital has surpassed film.
You are searching for what? I have tried the new acquisition of equipment to improve.my photography. I found that I was bored! I needed a new project. It wasn't equipment needed but GOOD use of what i already had.
The stores, the internet will all have expensive solutions.
The true solution is start again with utmost simplicity, a Holga, a point and shoot and start afresh.
Sorry the magic wand was stolen by Harry Potter..

 

[mrisney]

Everything you have used is state of the art. I don't own the Canon 5D but it is one of the top cameras and systems in the world. Personally i doubt that Medium Format is better. I love Film but the reality is that Digital has surpassed film.
You are searching for what? I have tried the new acquisition of equipment to improve.my photography. I found that I was bored! I needed a new project. It wasn't equipment needed but GOOD use of what i already had.
The stores, the internet will all have expensive solutions.
The true solution is start again with utmost simplicity, a Holga, a point and shoot and start afresh.
Sorry the magic wand was stolen by Harry Potter..

Thanks, I wish that was the case, because I like the simplicty of digital. Analog workflow is a P.I.T.A - but the results are worth it.
Take this example. I shot this a couple of weekends ago at the Portland farmers market, street shooting if you will, no lighting, no auto ISO, no bracketing.
So I get my Portra processed and scanned with a Noritsu Koki QSS-32 33. It's essentially a Fuji Frontier. The result
IMO it looks loads better than if I dangled one of the many other camera's I have bought, tried and then ultimately turned loose on Ebay
(This has been my mode for the past 4 years - to date I have gone through 14 different camera systems, digital and film)

The 6 is the best system I have come across, yet it's a dead system, obsolete, and as you claim, inferior to digital.
Yet, I cannot get results that are as satisfactory from other contemporary, warrantied, modern day systems. I am nagged that I cannot
find an alternative, and I am dependent on a system that is a dead end.

 

[jayavant]

Go large format.

 

[mrisney]

Go large format.

I do digital post process. 4x5 - to scan it right - and I have used the Epson V700, deserves drum. Thats big money.
My cost for a 120 film processed and scanned to non compressed file format (.TIFF) is $10.50 - Thats much more affordable than 4x5 scans.
I could go sheet film, but at that price point, I would probably consider a digital MF back.
120 scanning to digital is the sweet spot in terms of image quality to overall cost , IMO.

 

[Matus]

Scanning is indeed a possible issue with 4x5, but Imacon scans I am getting from a lab for about 7€ for 16bit RAW scans (2048 api - so you get 70 Mpix scan in 400 MB file) are very good.

If digital can not give what you want than stay with film. The only camera to replace the M6 and keep the image quality is probably Mamiya 7 or maybe one of the last Rolleiflex versions (I mean the FX model that costs about 3500€ 'new') and maybe the Contax 645.

But there are other medium format cameras with interesting lenses - like Pentax 67 and 105/2.5 or Contax 645 and 80/2.0 ... the list goes on.

I have the M6 too and just got a TLR to accompany it - no, not the same 'sharpness', but very beautiful rendering of a Tessar lens. I shoot 4x5' too, but much, much less.

What is it that actually makes you to look for another camera (or for a replacement of the M6)?

 

[mrisney]

I stumbled across Mamiya rangefinders, I had a Polaroid 600 SE at one point, and realized that getting Fuji FP 100C (positive) to digital is not trivial.
Flatbeds just don't do it for me. They are fine if you want to post on Facebook or something, but for exhibition quality, I have not been satisfied.
Anyways, I sold off a Polaroid SE 600, got the Mamiya 6, and was pretty much stunned when I got my first roll back processed and scanned.
I drew people into a room to look at what I was seeing on a 27" IPS monitor. Low whistles and sucked in breath, I realized I had a keeper of a camera.
Haven't had that reaction to anything since then.

 

[RFH]

Low whistles and sucked in breath, I realized I had a keeper of a camera.
Haven't had that reaction to anything since then.

I know what you mean. When I developed my last two rolls of Delta 400 that I had run through the Mamiya 6 with an orange filter, I actually laughed out loud in disbelief at the sharpness and resolution of those lenses. The 50mm is out of this world.
OP: You don't need anything else. Save your money and buy more film.

 

[semilog]

So what's the issue?

Keep the em-six. Use it. If you have money to burn buy a backup body. And for those images that are genuinely important, get wet-mount drum scans. Seriously, if you can't get the results that you think you require with that setup you need to be shooting large format, or medium format digital, or stitching.

But from what I can see, you're not even maximizing what you can get out of the em-six -- at least, if Noritsu scans are your benchmark. Sure, drum scans are expensive, but so is going through 14 camera systems in 4 years.

One 5DIII body buys a lot of drum scans.

If you've "gone through 14 different camera systems, digital and film" in 4 years, and you're still not happy with your results, I would, with the utmost respect, suggest that finding the right gear is not what's holding back your photography.

 

[keytarjunkie]

I do digital post process. 4x5 - to scan it right - and I have used the Epson V700, deserves drum. Thats big money.

I routinely scan 4x5 on both a V700 and an Imacon 848. The 848 doesn't even scan 4x5 at 3200dpi. The color control and overall detail is slightly better from the imacon, but not enough to warrant the cost difference (the imacon also requires a LOT of maintenance, whereas the V700 requires none) and to most peoples' eyes, sometimes even mine, the prints are indistinguishable. Especially with 4x5 at 3200dpi, you won't notice the difference if you're printing smaller than 60" wide.

The 6 is the best system I have come across, yet it's a dead system, obsolete, and as you claim, inferior to digital.
Yet, I cannot get results that are as satisfactory from other contemporary, warrantied, modern day systems. I am nagged that I cannot
find an alternative, and I am dependent on a system that is a dead end.

Well...I mean...get better then? I don't really know what to say. The White House photographer has been using a 5D Mark II for the past three years. Annie Leibowitz uses a X100 sometimes. Those are both pretty good digital cameras, and they're not even as good as the ones you're complaining about. I'm not saying you have to be as good as them, but, perhaps you're trying to solve your problem by buying dozens of expensive cameras when in reality you just need to work on making better images and learning how to process them correctly to get the look you want. There are a LOT of professional photographers who shoot digital and film, and are able to take their raw files and come out with an image that looks a bit closer to film, tonally.

Anyways, I sold off a Polaroid SE 600, got the Mamiya 6, and was pretty much stunned when I got my first role back processed.
I drew people into a room to look at what I was seeing on a 27" IPS monitor. Low whistles and sucked in breath, I realized I had a keeper of a camera.
Haven't had that reaction to anything since then.

Sorry, but that's not why it should be a keeper of a camera to you. Anyone can save up their money and buy a Mamiya 6, focus it, point it at something shiny, send the roll to a lab, and upload the photos to their computer. Having a "look" is very important, I'm with you there, but anyone who is using the Mamiya 6 with Portra has the same look as you do right now (after going through your flickr). Work on making more compelling images, and the rest will follow. You don't need a Mamiya 6 for that, and I'm pretty sure the 140 years worth of photographers who came before the Mamiya 6 was created will agree with me.

 

[kzphoto]

People are going to shoot me down here, but I was never impressed with the Mamiya 6. I get way better negs from a Fuji GW690iii or my Rollei 2.8F. I want to like it, I really do. But after 30 or so rolls of 220, I haven't had a single shot that was up to the Fuji or the Rollei. The Fuji has a sharper, more contrasty output. It reminds me of my Leica and Zeiss glass. Lots of pop and micro contrast. My next MF purchase will most likely be the GF670.

 

[smiling gecko]

ok...i have been alternating between my mamiya6 and a rolleiflex 6002...and have been very pleased with the results and the ergonomics...it's like a hasselblad el/elx with a very accurate built in meter with it's bulk being more like that of a TLR and isvery easy to carry around sans a camera bag. ymmv.

breathe, relax and enjoy.
smiling gecko, aka kenneth

 

[mrisney]

The Mamiya 6, Mamiya 7 or Hasselblad with the CF lens are in their own class. I have owned two Rolleiflex cameras, the Mamiya 6 and rented the Mamiya 7. The Mamiya lenses are definitely sharper than the Rolleiflex, but the Rolleiflex is also from the 1950's, so it is expected. The Mamiya cameras also have the best film flatness of them all, which helps the sharpness. I sold my 6 because I thought two 6x6 cameras was too much, but I miss it.

Way out in left field, but I have read that the 75mm Rokkor 3.5 on the Autocord does 125 LPM.
I have never done imaging with a Minolta Autocord, but at it's purported price point I am tempted to play.

I understand the inherit advantage that TLR's and rangefinder have over SLR's so I think I am ahead of the game, if I stay with mirrorless for film.

I have been experimenting with a 55mm f/4.5 Sironar Rodenstock Digital, on a Horseman 612SW. My inclinations and observations so far are -
that medium format glass out resolves LF glass, which even though the Horseman SW612 does 120 roll (easier on the wallet- in terms of scanning),
The Sironar Rodenstock lens is really LF glass on 120 1:2 (6x12) roll film. I went one step further and sought out the digital version, but me thinks its really just a rebrand, no new tech.
There were discussions, that contemporary MF digital sensors have such high resolution capabaility that the lenses are holding them back.
But whatever, LF glass is not as sharp as MF glass, it's great if your are doing wet enlargements or print size in excess of 24" maybe.

The Horseman 612SW is cool BTW (dig the 612 pano format), and with the the new Plustek 120 scanner coming out, I may hold onto it. But so far the Mamiya 6 still outclasses it.

 

[KenR]

Keep the Mamiya, buy a used enlarger for $100-200 and forget about scanning. You'll be so happy you won't even think about digital.

 

[thegman]

Everything you have used is state of the art. I don't own the Canon 5D but it is one of the top cameras and systems in the world. Personally i doubt that Medium Format is better. I love Film but the reality is that Digital has surpassed film.
You are searching for what? I have tried the new acquisition of equipment to improve.my photography. I found that I was bored! I needed a new project. It wasn't equipment needed but GOOD use of what i already had.
The stores, the internet will all have expensive solutions.
The true solution is start again with utmost simplicity, a Holga, a point and shoot and start afresh.
Sorry the magic wand was stolen by Harry Potter..

To say digital has surpassed film is like saying whisky has surpassed wine.

There is an article on twinlenslife.com showing Ektar 100 in 35mm outresolving, and of course showing better dynamic range than a EOS 5d Mk II. Obviously the Mk III will be an improvement on this, and perhaps outresolve the Ektar 100. If we assume that's the case, it stands to reason that that a Mamiya 6 or 7 will outresolve the EOS by at the very least a factor of 2, and probably more so.

Of course, you get a different film, like Tri-X, and the EOS will comprehensively outresolve it.

The point I am making is that to say digital surpassed film is to assume there is one type of digital camera, and one type of film.