Mamiya 6, yes, but your other camera ?

[mrisney]

Please tell me where you are sending your film to get these scans.

Citizen Photo in Portland, Oregon

Rangefinders are the ideal form factor for my type of shooting. Smaller than SLR's, less cumbersome than a modular system like a M645 or a Hassleblad CM. BTW, I feel like I have owned or used over weekends, for the past 4 years, the entire spectrum of medium format manufactured film cameras (whew I am tired just thinking about it),
before arriving at the Mamiya 6. Quiet, and without a reflex mirror, it's possible to shoot hand held down at 1/15 - if you hold your breath, and hold steady. Plus it has leaf lenses, and the Mamiya 6 and 7 lenses are just spectacular.

But this is rangefinderforum, so I am preaching to the choir.

Medium format film still has some unique advantages over digital, at the moment. Unless you vault up to much more expensive digital systems like the Hassleblad HD4 or a Phase One back, and are prepared to suffer significant depreciation in value. It seems a stretch to get the quality of imagery that you can get with 120 film with it's digital counterpart - also there is
a vast market of professional grade medium format film cameras that are available today, as working professionals have dumped this gear and gone digital completely. People like myself are able to acquire some of the finest lenses and engineering of analog equipment, for a fraction of a price that it was originally sold for 15-25 years ago.
So for now, I am riding that curve. But things will change, and my question is for anyone who is shooting in this hybrid manner, whats your intuition or your even vague road map forward?

I am happy to continue with film, but somewhere in my mind, all good things must come to an end. And when I inevitably drop my Mamiya 6, or Kodak decides they no longer want to support the 120 film market, or cannot survive Chapter 11 (The recent announcement that the cinema industry will cease celluloid distribution of releases
- switching to digital completely in 2013 does not bode well for Kodak).
What then ? This is the dilemma that a film shooter, in general, deals with I suppose.

 

[shadowfox]

Way out in left field, but I have read that the 75mm Rokkor 3.5 on the Autocord does 125 LPM.

That's it ??
This is what Mark Hansen said about a Super Ricohflex that I sent to him for service:

"All came out well, so I collimated the lenses and found the taking lens to be an excellent performer with 328 line pairs per millimeter at 3.5!"

😀

In all seriousness, I think you should take more pictures.
Gears matters only to a certain point. If I tried 14 different cameras and can't be happy with the results, I'd be looking somewhere else for the problem. But of course, I'm speaking for myself.

 

[shadowfox]

What then ? This is the dilemma that a film shooter, in general, deals with I suppose.

No dilemma, keep using film.
If enough of us do it, film will continue to be produced.
Simple, really.

 

[david rowland]

I have a 2 mamiya 6 bodies and the 3 lenses one of the things I like about the system is that I pretty much own every thing in the system apart from the close up adapter (of limited interest). I shoot b&w in one body and Ektar 100 or reala in the other. I get the film dev and scanned for about £6 a roll which gives me small but good lab scans. I bought a drum scanner off ebay for £88.
the negs I like I scan high res, up to 400mb the camera outfit fits into a small shoulder bag that I am quite happy to carry all day.
i'm a pro photographer and have a phase one P45+, nikon dslr , large format hasselblad medium format film etc.

Image quality wise the mamiya is as good if not better than the blad although it doesn't focus as close. certainly it more portable than large format and faster to use. If I buy a mamiya 7 I'd have more lenses and more back problems. I make 2ft square print from it and the quality is great. unless you need wider than 50mm longer than 150mm then stick with it buy a load of film and find a great project to shoot , we all waste good shooting time chasing kit reading new instructions books ,testing lenses and generally going in circles rather than pushing the button. I can't be bettered relax and enjoy it.
Dave

 

[2WK]

Sell the 5d3, and the xpro systems and get a Pentax 645D?

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Everyone talks about the plustek but I'm disappointed in it, not in quality but in system availability, it won't accept 35mm pano images because the software can't interpret anything other than the standard framing. it won't accept 70mm film, it won't do anything above 120, it's very limited, and for $2,000 the kinds of photographers that would use it often have multi system formats and don't want to own separate scanners for each film type.

Only taking 35mm and 120 is just ridiculous. Fail!

I talked to the guy designing it that's where this info comes from.

On the other hand I agree some glass is limiting the pixels of the digital MF, but they also have a lot of room to expand (ie true 6x7 not 645) so it's really about them not wanting to go "full frame" so to speak.

"...that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" ~Dennis Miller

~Stone~ The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[StoneNYC]

Sell the 5d3, and the xpro systems and get a Pentax 645D?

If he likes Mamiya why wouldn't he go to the Mamiya 456 digitals or "phaseONE" which is the same company.

~Stone~ The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[steveniphoto]

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.

+1 this statement.

 

[dtcls100]

BTW... digital has not surpassed MF film, quite possibly 35mm though, especially with the new Nikon D800 cranking files out at 18x24 at 300dpi. The best I used to do with 35mm slides on a Coolscan 4000dpi scanner was 12x18 at 300dpi. So I say yes digital has surpassed 35mm, but certainly not the Mamiya 6.

Actually, if you look at Part 1 of the film versus digital comparison test on the Zacuto website -- which is an extremely well done, comprehensive and professional test involving real industry experts in both film and digital -- digital cameras like the Canon 5D Mk II couldn't match even half frame 35mm film (i.e., movie film stock) in terms of fine detail, color accuracy, exposure latitude, highlight rendition, and tonal gradation -- although digital performed better in very low light. In this test, the results were blown up enormously and shown in an IMAX movie screen and viewed by industry experts. No other film versus digital comparison comes close. Digital looks great on its own, but film still looks better in comparison. The Part 1 video is about half an hour, but is well worthwhile viewing.
It bears emphasis that many film versus digital comparisons that find digital to be superior rely on the bogus comparison of a film scan versus digital, conveniently ignoring that a film scan loses much of the resolution and detail found in the original negative or original slide. A fairer comparison would be an optical print from film versus a digital print. Here, a well done optical print would likely be superior. It bears noting that most prints of film images are now digital scans of the film, which eliminates much of the resolution and subtlety of the original film image.
The widely held notion that digital is superior is largely premised on two things -- digital's lack of grain and digital's emphasis on artificially sharpening the edge details of objects, which gives the "impression" of greater sharpness. However, digital still often doesn't yield the same fine, low contrast detail as film and therefore can appear somewhat less natural and less pleasing.

 

[StoneNYC]

Actually, if you look at Part 1 of the film versus digital comparison test on the Zacuto website -- which is an extremely well done, comprehensive and professional test involving real industry experts in both film and digital -- digital cameras like the Canon 5D Mk II couldn't match even half frame 35mm film (i.e., movie film stock) in terms of fine detail, color accuracy, exposure latitude, highlight rendition, and tonal gradation -- although digital performed better in very low light. In this test, the results were blown up enormously and shown in an IMAX movie screen and viewed by industry experts. No other film versus digital comparison comes close. Digital looks great on its own, but film still looks better in comparison. The Part 1 video is about half an hour, but is well worthwhile viewing.
It bears emphasis that many film versus digital comparisons that find digital to be superior rely on the bogus comparison of a film scan versus digital, conveniently ignoring that a film scan loses much of the resolution and detail found in the original negative or original slide. A fairer comparison would be an optical print from film versus a digital print. Here, a well done optical print would likely be superior. It bears noting that most prints of film images are now digital scans of the film, which eliminates much of the resolution and subtlety of the original film image.
The widely held notion that digital is superior is largely premised on two things -- digital's lack of grain and digital's emphasis on artificially sharpening the edge details of objects, which gives the "impression" of greater sharpness. However, digital still often doesn't yield the same fine, low contrast detail as film and therefore can appear somewhat less natural and less pleasing.

I have to say these film vs digital discussions are always annoying, most people don't have drum scan access, and no lab uses an enlarger anymore, so for REALISTIC purposes, digital is better than film on 35mm even if its "technically" better, you can't see that in a grainy print...

Ultimately the customer doesn't care about the fact the film strip is better, they aren't buying a film strip, they are buying a print, and for most anyone, a print off a 5D Mark II/III will be sharper than a print by a lab because the lab will scan too, usually at 2000x2000 or up to 4000x4000 but 22mp is higher at 300dpi digitally, I've looked at my prints from both, and even taken shots of the same thing, and it's obvious how much better the 5D version is. But the Mamiya 7 prints are certainly better.

Normal people don't believe in statistics they believe what they see

~Stone~ The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[mrisney]

Well I did follow the advice - and bought a backup 6 body. I think I found a digital camera that compliments the Mamiya 6. Not the same dynamic range, but the colors, resolution, and overall IQ are close, ... real close.

And the thing is not going to cost me a fortune when digital obsolesence inevitably kicks in.

Sigma DP2M.

Stay tuned for images comparisons, oh and I did order Plustek 120 scanner as well. But the DP2 Merrill arrives Weds.

 

[GaryLH]

Well I did follow the advice - and bought a backup 6 body. I think I found a digital camera that compliments the Mamiya 6. Not the same dynamic range, but the colors, resolution, and overall IQ are close, ... real close.

And the thing is not going to cost me a fortune when digital obsolesence inevitably kicks in.

Sigma DP2M.

Stay tuned for images comparisons, oh and I did order Plustek 120 scanner as well. But the DP2 Merrill arrives Weds.

Have fun w/ Merrill. 😀. The mamiya 6 both the modern and folder were one time on my radar until I bought the Fuji 670.

Gary

 

[mrisney]

Have fun w/ Merrill. 😀. The mamiya 6 both the modern and folder were one time on my radar until I bought the Fuji 670.

Gary

I had a Fuji GSW 690 II. Was not sharp enough for me.
Good post on Foveon vs Fujinon Texas Leica

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3260604


Mamiya Rangefinders - both the 6 and the 7 are still in a class above Fuji 120's IMO

 

[GaryLH]

I had a Fuji GSW 690 II. Was not sharp enough for me.
Good post on Foveon vs Fujinon Texas Leica

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3260604


Mamiya Rangefinders - both the 6 and the 7 are still in a class above Fuji 120's IMO

Sorry I meant the Bessa iii also known as Fuji gf670.

Thanks for link


Gary

 

[StoneNYC]

Well I did follow the advice - and bought a backup 6 body. I think I found a digital camera that compliments the Mamiya 6. Not the same dynamic range, but the colors, resolution, and overall IQ are close, ... real close.

And the thing is not going to cost me a fortune when digital obsolesence inevitably kicks in.

Sigma DP2M.

Stay tuned for images comparisons, oh and I did order Plustek 120 scanner as well. But the DP2 Merrill arrives Weds.

Please let me know how the plustek performs, I just bought an epson v750 because I have the 35mm pano insert for my mamiya and the plustek can't scan them apparently. And I shoot 116/70mm which also doesn't scan. But I wonder just how different in quality they are. Thanks

 

[leicapixie]

Your usage of many different cameras and their systems over a weekend or slightly longer does not bring a familiarity, needed in a good relationship. Like an important thing in everyone's life, the first time is usually not that great!
Leica-M need about a year to feel part of one..
Shorter usage may show all the problems of un-familiarity of that system.
I know some good photographers who hate Leica. It's not their camera..
I've used LF, MF and 35mm plus now digital, till recently as a professional.
i found no bad cameras, most lenses esp. normals perfect in nearly every kind! i said earlier you are looking for a magic item..
In place of a monitor, go blow some money and make prints. On my monitor, my small P/S digital looks like anything scanned from my Nikons,Minoltas, Canons and Leica.. OK the Leica lenses seem to "see' more shades and variances of colors and the images look "fuller". My Rollei turns out a creamy look, that is hallmark of 120/MF.
Large format is not for me! It can yield stunning results, see Avedon's. "The West". i can use it..but happiness is not written on my forehead.
So again do yourself start having prints done. The scans good as they are need a print. i print or have prints made. It's another part of the Universe.

 

[mrisney]

Your usage of many different cameras and their systems over a weekend or slightly longer does not bring a familiarity, needed in a good relationship. Like an important thing in everyone's life, the first time is usually not that great!
Leica-M need about a year to feel part of one..
Shorter usage may show all the problems of un-familiarity of that system.
I know some good photographers who hate Leica. It's not their camera..
I've used LF, MF and 35mm plus now digital, till recently as a professional.
i found no bad cameras, most lenses esp. normals perfect in nearly every kind! i said earlier you are looking for a magic item..
In place of a monitor, go blow some money and make prints. On my monitor, my small P/S digital looks like anything scanned from my Nikons,Minoltas, Canons and Leica.. OK the Leica lenses seem to "see' more shades and variances of colors and the images look "fuller". My Rollei turns out a creamy look, that is hallmark of 120/MF.
Large format is not for me! It can yield stunning results, see Avedon's. "The West". i can use it..but happiness is not written on my forehead.
So again do yourself start having prints done. The scans good as they are need a print. i print or have prints made. It's another part of the Universe.

Traditional wet darkroom print? The answer to that is No, because I no longer do them, and the reason is because current inkjet prints surpass chemical prints in every respect. No contest.

With my EIZO ColorEdge, negs, slides (particularly the ones with leaf lens, rangefinder Mamiya 6 ) scanned with something above Epson flatbeds look fantastic.

 

[dtcls100]

I have to say these film vs digital discussions are always annoying, most people don't have drum scan access, and no lab uses an enlarger anymore, so for REALISTIC purposes, digital is better than film on 35mm even if its "technically" better, you can't see that in a grainy print...

Believe it or not, there are still some folks who continue to print on their own, on old fashioned optical enlargers. For those folks the differences are not theoretical at all . . . .

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes but those people are few and far between and not all of us have the space for that kind of thing.

My point was that a lab can't print my image better on film because they scan too...

And clients want a faster turn around time than an enlarger affords, and they don't want a physical image anyway, they want a file emailed to them.

That was my point, for most photographers who are in it as a business, unless they are LONG established, a new photographer can't operate that way, they would actually lose money.

I guess I've sort of lost my point, except that for the MAJORITY of photography purposes a scanner comes into play at some point in the process if you are using film.

Vogue (even national geographic), vanity fair, any news paper, modeling, book publishing, weddings, corporate events, etc.

The only case I can think of would be massive 6 foot x 7 foot framed landscape images would sell at a price high enough to be worth using an enlarger and not many people are buying $30,000 prints...

I'm new here, so don't hate me, I'm also not trying to start a war about this. But I've literally taken the same shot with a digital, and a 35mm and a 6x7 and only the 6x7 was any kind of competition when it came to the sharpness and clarity. Scan was at 4,000x4,0000. Highest you can reasonably get, at $10 per IMAGE. A drum scan would have cost over $100.

So that's where I'm coming from.

Sure optically it may be better, but it's just not financially feasible and competitive to be optical for MOST photographers with a few exceptions of course.

~Stone~ The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[mrisney]

This might just work ....