jplomley
Established
O.K., here is my situation About two weeks ago I bought an M6TTL (black, 0.58VF) in Like New condition and a brand new Zeiss 35/2 Biogon. I have put about 10 rolls of film through the system, both chrome and the new Tmax 400 (phenomenal film BTW processed in Xtol). One thing I like about the Zeiss lens is the 0.3 stop increments on the lens...makes bracketing chrome film a breeze. This truly is a beautiful system to use, and my first Leica. The Zeiss lens is uber-crisp. But here is my issue. I also shoot with a Mamiya 7 and 65/80/150 lens combination. The quality of this system almost matches that of my 4x5 Arca Swiss and Rodenstock APO Sironar-S series of optics. While the Zeiss lens certainly outperforms any SLR lens I have owned in the past, I can't seem to get over the fact that the IQ is not up to snuff compared to my Mamiya 7. And I realize I should not expect it to be, but I thought I could live with the shortcomings upon enlargement (more grain, less resolution etc etc) as a trade for the faster lenses and discreteness of the M6/Zeiss combo. But now I am thinking perhaps I made a mistake and the money I spent would have been better put towards a Mamiya 43mm, the last lens I need to make my Mamiya street kit complete. I'm driving myself crazy trying to figure out if this is buyers remorse or if I have just become too accustomed to the image quality of the Mamiya that nothing else will do no matter the benefits :bang:
George S.
How many is enough?
Around here, psychoanalysis starts at $350/hr. Before we begin, please PM me your billing address.....
jplomley
Established
And here I thought the first response would be "how much for the M6TTL"
icebear
Veteran
And obviously also the ZM 2/35 shouldn't be that hard of a sell .....
Avotius
Some guy
My mind got lost when you said Arca Swiss, I need to go clean up some drool.
................................
Back now, A M6 and a Zeiss 35 is a lot of money if you compare it to the Mamiya or the 4x5 (kind of) and in return you get portability and low image quality (comparably). Do you really need a Leica when you got a Mamiya 7? If you are going to take up street photography keep the Leica, if you are shooting landscapes or test charts, you know what you need to do.
................................
Back now, A M6 and a Zeiss 35 is a lot of money if you compare it to the Mamiya or the 4x5 (kind of) and in return you get portability and low image quality (comparably). Do you really need a Leica when you got a Mamiya 7? If you are going to take up street photography keep the Leica, if you are shooting landscapes or test charts, you know what you need to do.
Dogman
Veteran
Apple and oranges and horses for courses, you know. My Leica negatives can't match the quality from my old scratched and dented Mamiya TLR lenses. But I use Leicas more because they're easier to carry, quick to use and allow me to take more spontaneous pictures. For my purposes, that's the beauty of 35mm rangefinders. The image quality is there if needed but it's only excess horsepower.
jplomley
Established
Hi Avotius,
I bought the Leica mainly for underground (subway) shooting where the dimly lit conditions make it difficult to use the Mamiya due to a maximum aperture of f/4. Also, the extended DOF from 35mm was attractive for shooting from the hip when working on terra firma. However, I'm struggling with the IQ. Perhaps I need to consider an M8, but then I'm not sure I want to go down that road just yet...
Cheers,
Jeff
I bought the Leica mainly for underground (subway) shooting where the dimly lit conditions make it difficult to use the Mamiya due to a maximum aperture of f/4. Also, the extended DOF from 35mm was attractive for shooting from the hip when working on terra firma. However, I'm struggling with the IQ. Perhaps I need to consider an M8, but then I'm not sure I want to go down that road just yet...
Cheers,
Jeff
Avotius
Some guy
jplomley said:
Howdy Jeff. I use my Bessa and 35mm cameras in low lit conditions. I had a Mamiya 6 in the day and besides horrible build quality, I felt I needed more flexibility in my system. Faster lenses, smaller kit, etc etc....
As for the M8....thats uneven ground if you ask me. You get lots of DOF especially with a smaller then 35mm sensor. But....if you can get over all the nit pickery of an M8 then you got a great camera there. It would be perfect for shooting from the hip if you ask me, especially with a camera in one hand an a nice flexible cable release in the other. I have been recently looking at how I can sort out my Canon system better and the more I get into it the less I like it, the M8 really would be the perfect digital if it was not so fidily. Is the trouble of the M8 offset by the size and price? Only you can say, but there is some things to think about there.
Ya know....just keep the M6, shoot another dozen or two rolls then think about it again.
by the way, I just started printing my own bw photos in the dark room again, 35mm with the best lenses for it just cant hold its own at all compared to all those nice zeiss lenses on the old hasselblad, of course, but when I digitaly scan and then enlarge to the same sizes the difference is reduced. Surprising.
Honus
carpe diem
Jeff - I would recommend you post a couple of pics for us to look at. Post a Mamiya 7 street pic you like and a 35mm pic you think suffers in comparison. I realize that downsampled jpgs are no substitute to a good print, but unfortunately it is the best we can do here. Maybe with a couple of samples we could have a more meaningful discussion. Just a thought.
jplomley
Established
Ah, scanning B&W film, that is another issue. Sharpening signal without enhancing grain is a real issue with 35mm. I have compared XP2 Super at ISO 250 against the new Tmax 400 (at ISO 400, which is the true ISO), and the Tmax 400 grain was noticeably tighter. Goodbye XP2. Now I get a true 400 speed film. So far, I have found L* sharpening in Lab space to be the best approach for sharpening signal without amplifying grain. I'd be interested in hearing what other folks are doing.
I hear you on the Canon system. I'm about to offload a whole bunch of L glass to finish off my LF system (Schneider 110mm XL and telephoto bellows to support my recently acquired Nikkor 450M) and look at a higher end Creo iQSmart3 scanner. I get very nervous everytime I send my 4x5 chromes out for drum scanning and apparently the iQSmart3 compares favorably to a drum scanner, so I would like to include this in my current workflow. Kodak has a pretty decent rebate on their Creo scanners right now that I would like to take advatage of. For 35mm I am using the Nikon 5000 (soon to be sold to help fund the Creo).
Perhaps I'll give the M6 a few more weeks. I sure love the ergonomics and the Zeiss lens exceeded my expectations given it's low price point (relative to the Cron Asph of course). I had the Canon 35/1.4 and I would say the Zeiss bests it at comparable apertures in terms of resolution. The colors on chrome film also seem to have better saturation with subtle tonalities more finely rendered.
I hear you on the Canon system. I'm about to offload a whole bunch of L glass to finish off my LF system (Schneider 110mm XL and telephoto bellows to support my recently acquired Nikkor 450M) and look at a higher end Creo iQSmart3 scanner. I get very nervous everytime I send my 4x5 chromes out for drum scanning and apparently the iQSmart3 compares favorably to a drum scanner, so I would like to include this in my current workflow. Kodak has a pretty decent rebate on their Creo scanners right now that I would like to take advatage of. For 35mm I am using the Nikon 5000 (soon to be sold to help fund the Creo).
Perhaps I'll give the M6 a few more weeks. I sure love the ergonomics and the Zeiss lens exceeded my expectations given it's low price point (relative to the Cron Asph of course). I had the Canon 35/1.4 and I would say the Zeiss bests it at comparable apertures in terms of resolution. The colors on chrome film also seem to have better saturation with subtle tonalities more finely rendered.
jplomley
Established
Forgot to add that grain is less of an issue on 6x7 since you can scan at lower resolution for an equivalent 35mm print size. I find for a decent 11x17 printed with an image resolution of 300 ppi from 35mm, I need to scan at 4000 ppi, which is pretty much grain resolving. By comparison, I can scan at 2000 ppi for 4x5 and print a 18x22 at 360 ppi. Absolutely grain free images.
Vics
Veteran
I've always operated on the premise that the farther away my subject is, the bigger the piece of film needs to be, everything else being equal. If you're not shooting much within 8 feet of yourself. you probably don't need the M/ZM. Sell it to Icebear.
Vic
Vic
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Both, methinks.jplomley said:
I can help you get rid of the pain: just give me an address and I'll arrange for FedEx to pick it up.
furcafe
Veteran
To me this is the crux of the issue: is pure image quality more important than getting the shot in the 1st place? For any size print/slide, medium format will obviously be better than 35mm, assuming all the other variables are the same, but we all know that the variables aren't the same. On the 1 hand, if you can't get the shot you want in the 1st place w/your Mamiya, the superior IQ may be irrelevant. On the other hand, if you need to be able to blow up every shot to 20x24" & larger, then 35mm might not be big enough.
jplomley said:
Honus
carpe diem
Jeff - Embrace the grain, don't fight it. Otherwise, 35mm will never satisfy you.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Honus said:
So true. Scanning 35 mm B&W film has forever cured me of the fear of grain. Bring it on!
marke
Well-known
jplomley said:
Really? I thought one of the benefits of the chromogenics was their almost non-existant grain.
jplomley said:
I expose XP2 Super and Kodak 400CN at 320.
jplomley
Established
Mark,
I compared the same image recorded on XP2 at ISO 200, 250, 320, 400, and 800. I used my Sekonic 1-degree spot meter and placed the darkest portion of my scene in which I wanted to retain shadow detail in Zone III. I then scanned each image on my 5000 without ICE or GEM enabled (I don't like the artifacts that GEM produces and you give up too much sharpness using ICE). It was pretty easy to see that the least amount of noise was in the ISO 200 exposures. So IMHO, XP2 is an ISO 200 film, 400 in a pinch, and I would rather push TMY-2 one stop if I needed ISO 800. For ISO 1600 I use Delta 3200.
I compared the same image recorded on XP2 at ISO 200, 250, 320, 400, and 800. I used my Sekonic 1-degree spot meter and placed the darkest portion of my scene in which I wanted to retain shadow detail in Zone III. I then scanned each image on my 5000 without ICE or GEM enabled (I don't like the artifacts that GEM produces and you give up too much sharpness using ICE). It was pretty easy to see that the least amount of noise was in the ISO 200 exposures. So IMHO, XP2 is an ISO 200 film, 400 in a pinch, and I would rather push TMY-2 one stop if I needed ISO 800. For ISO 1600 I use Delta 3200.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
IMO (and I won't charge you the standard $350 RFF counseling fee ... send me a mere $200 and we'll call it even) this is a matter of psychological shift. The look of 35mm (grain, contrast modulus,etc.) is just different than MF & LF. I have shot all formats, though I currently have no MF gear except for a 120 back for my 4x5. My LF glass is Fujinon, certainly no slouch.
But I get just as much enjoyment from my 35mm b&w shots as I do my 4x5. Yes, it's different, and in some situations I wish I could handhold my Toyo field for street work, but there you go.
I would suggest forgetting comparisons. Shoot nothing but TMY-2 in 35 for a month or two, make prints and only look at those prints; put away all the MF & 4x5 prints. Disengage from the image standard of larger negs and accept 35mm for what it is.
After that, if you still can't appreciate it, sell off the gear and stick with what you really like.
But I get just as much enjoyment from my 35mm b&w shots as I do my 4x5. Yes, it's different, and in some situations I wish I could handhold my Toyo field for street work, but there you go.
I would suggest forgetting comparisons. Shoot nothing but TMY-2 in 35 for a month or two, make prints and only look at those prints; put away all the MF & 4x5 prints. Disengage from the image standard of larger negs and accept 35mm for what it is.
After that, if you still can't appreciate it, sell off the gear and stick with what you really like.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Robert & Ron have captured it well. If you're anti-grain, you're bound to be dissatisfied in 35mm at larger print sizes versus MF or LF, no? Seems like you're enjoying the experiment, though.