Comparing the M8 to The M7 (Mamiya 7II that is!)

[gdi]

Inferior 65mm? Is the Mamiya 7 65mm not of good reputation?

I was just joking - in reference to an earlier comment that I chose the sharpest MF telephoto ever made for my comparison. The 65 is a great lens - I have seen no better MF lenses than the ones I have for the 7 system.

 

[srtiwari]

Point of View,
Your crops reassure me about my Leica gear.
BTW, what does "...Summicron 50 mm. 1.2 / f - 16 ISO 160..." mean ? Did you mean "1:2/f " ?
Subhash

 

[gdi]

Point of View,
Your crops reassure me about my Leica gear.
BTW, what does "...Summicron 50 mm. 1.2 / f - 16 ISO 160..." mean ? Did you mean "1:2/f " ?
Subhash

I think he meant 1:2, and yes, obviously the Leica system and M8 are outstanding. Such sharp results are to be expected - it is only when prepping for large prints that the handicap vis-s-vis MF is realized.

Also, I have noticed that even with less than huge prints the advantages of MF are usually noticeable (esp, of course w/B&W). After some of the comments here, I am motivated to try to improve my scanning or even outsource a sample rather than shelf the 6x7.


I know you use the 9000, Subhash - have you tried fluid scanning?

 

[Richard Marks]

JPlomley are you out there? He started a similar thread in December which ran on over a few months and at the time he was unconvinced about the M8 vs M7II. I made a prediction that over time the M8 would displace his Mamiya. I would really like to know how he is doing a few months down the line.

Richard

 

[wayneb]

Agree mostly with these very reasonable thoughts. Especially the preference of the film editing process.

Thanks to the original poster for the test, but I also agree I'd much rather see a comparison using a human subject, as I'm not so worried about the sharpness of text.

This is really the point, isn't it?

At the end of the day, your film is ending up being converted to binary code, just like any digi camera. And just like any digi camera, the world of digital workflow and editing is limited only by an individuals knowledge and taste. The problem with shooting film and digitizing is there's a huge bottle neck at the scanner end. Even outsourced pro scans, unless you've got a great relationship with a technician, are hit and miss because tastes and skill levels vary.

These days I pretty much exclusively shoot with my Mamiya 7ii. Through a loop, the trannies look like God him/herself. The scans however are clearly worse, when scanned on my V700, than 35mm trannies scanned on my Nikon Coolscan. They're okay for proofing and small book work, but if you choose to shoot MF, you really want a quality jump up from 35mm to justify the extra money, bulk and time. My M8 files we're better than V700 MF scans considering they gave a more forgiving starting point for editing and we're sharp out of the camera and not degraded during a scanning process. My limited skill working with DNG / Raw files were the problem, not the files themselves.
I've just bought a glass holder for a Nikon 9000 scanner I have access to at work. The scans I'm getting using that from my M7ii trannies are truely stunning and finally the results justify the medium format upgrade.

My honest opinion is I love the process of shooting and especially editing film. I think the M7ii is brilliant quality, clearly better in my experience than 35mm film or digi if scanned well, but the M8, and in fact any good digital camera, has an important place to fill. Like Jaap said, who wants to print that large and spend that much time and money scanning and editing all the time? If I didn't have access to a 9000ED I'd seriously consider getting rid of my 7ii, and I think that's the point of this thread, isn't it? The M8 is certainly good enough, if not overkill, for most situations that don't require you to print huge mural size images.

 

[Richard Marks]

I agree that sharpness of text is not something which is important. It might be worth looking at the Plomley thread, the consensus which emerged was that a good portrait does not need resolution down to the last hair follicle either. The real asset of the M7II is the ability to enlarge to humungous size. If you dont need this the M8 is likely to get pretty close up to A3, but it has the added bonus of good low light performance, is faster to use and easier to focus, with image review thrown in. This counts for quite a lot if you are taking portraits and can offset a small difference in resolution easilly in my opinion. When it comes to lanscapes where every detail counts and speed and ease of operation are less of an issue then I would favour the Mamiya 7II. I still wonder if the mamiya 7 lenses will ever end up focusing on a digital sensor. That would be very interesting!

Richard

 

[pss]

of course the Mamiya should give you more detail then the M8(depending on scanning how much more detail and how the dmax/range compares) anyone who says otherwise has blinders on....
but: i would say that up to a 11x14 or maybe even larger the M8 can easily compare and the m8 files can be rezzed up to pretty amazing size....for a camera that size....
how does a scanned image from a M6/7 compare? the mamiya would blow that out of the water!
completely different cameras and i would argue that the M8 is cheaper then the mamiya....if one shot on the mamiya costs 1$ (not really counting scanning) one only needs to take 2000?3000? shots to catch up with the m8 and after that the m8 saves money every time one clicks the shutter, not even considering the hassle of scanning/....
and one thing is clear if you really want to go big and have the detail without the grain, 4x5 or better 8x10 will be unbeatable for a while.....

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

How large?

How large?

I think he meant 1:2, and yes, obviously the Leica system and M8 are outstanding. Such sharp results are to be expected - it is only when prepping for large prints that the handicap vis-s-vis MF is realized.

Also, I have noticed that even with less than huge prints the advantages of MF are usually noticeable (esp, of course w/B&W). After some of the comments here, I am motivated to try to improve my scanning or even outsource a sample rather than shelf the 6x7.


I know you use the 9000, Subhash - have you tried fluid scanning?

I don’t know how large a print you need to make, This is a JPEG 18 X 20 inch. Straight from the M8 no editing. Point of interest, this photo just got excepted in the Orange County Fair, Ca. for judging this year. Out of 2500 photographs only 100 are picked for judging. I won’t know the results until next month.

 

[gdi]

Regarding the need for printing sharp text - don't miss the point that the comparison is to judge the ability of the M8 approach the print quality of the 6x7. So I would argue that text is a fair subject and a reasonable surrogate for any fairly detailed subject matter.

I would not think that choosing a less demanding subject - human portraits (though there are times when a very sharp portrait is preferable) - is the right approach in this case. Of course the 7ii is not your optimal portrait system, IMO, simply because you are limited by the near focusing limits.

Yes - if you are producing smaller prints (I may have time to run an A3 comparison tonight and will report back) then the M8 is darn good. But there is a significant resolution difference (even with the low end scanner) that I don't see any way to overcome . Especially if you are using M8 in-camera JPGs!

And as Richard points out - you will not be able to use the 7ii in the same low levels of light you can the M8 with the fast available lenses. But I do not find the Mamiya any harder to focus than the M8 and generally is as easy to handle - once film is loaded for the 10 available shots ! But it is the magnitudes quieter ( and actually a problem on a tripod - did it fire yet??!) if you need that, I really don't.

Now when we bump up to 4x5 or 8x10 - I agree the 6x7 gets kicked!

 

[Richard Marks]

Regarding the need for printing sharp text - don't miss the point that the comparison is to judge the ability of the M8 approach the print quality of the 6x7. So I would argue that text is a fair subject and a reasonable surrogate for any fairly detailed subject matter.

I would not think that choosing a less demanding subject - human portraits (though there are times when a very sharp portrait is preferable) - is the right approach in this case. Of course the 7ii is not your optimal portrait system, IMO, simply because you are limited by the near focusing limits.

Yes - if you are producing smaller prints (I may have time to run an A3 comparison tonight and will report back) then the M8 is darn good. But there is a significant resolution difference (even with the low end scanner) that I don't see any way to overcome . Especially if you are using M8 in-camera JPGs!

And as Richard points out - you will not be able to use the 7ii in the same low levels of light you can the M8 with the fast available lenses. But I do not find the Mamiya any harder to focus than the M8 and generally is as easy to handle - once film is loaded for the 10 available shots ! But it is the magnitudes quieter ( and actually a problem on a tripod - did it fire yet??!) if you need that, I really don't.

Now when we bump up to 4x5 or 8x10 - I agree the 6x7 gets kicked!

The issue with the larger formats does not "blow the M8 away" as a number of posts suggest. Yes there is mor resolution, but by the time its on paper the difference is a lot less than you think. I have actually compared the M8 with 5x4 for some close ups of popies (may take a while to find) sure there is more on the 5x4, but I only was able to expose 2 or 3, i rattled off loads with the M8 and ultimately got a better composition!:bang:

Richard

 

[rxmd]

I don’t know how large a print you need to make, This is a JPEG 18 X 20 inch. [...]

I believe what you say about print quality being good, but this is not an 18x20" print, this is a 500x399 pixel JPEG. We, the viewers, can't say anything about print quality from that, no matter how many rulers are in there for reference.

Philipp

 

[gdi]

The issue with the larger formats does not "blow the M8 away" as a number of posts suggest. Yes there is mor resolution, but by the time its on paper the difference is a lot less than you think. I have actually compared the M8 with 5x4 for some close ups of popies (may take a while to find) sure there is more on the 5x4, but I only was able to expose 2 or 3, i rattled off loads with the M8 and ultimately got a better composition!

Richard

I don't think there can be a reasonable argument that the M8 has close to the resolution of even a 6x7 negative, the difference is obvious. But that wasn't the point of my post.

To reiterate, the point was to explore the possibility of getting acceptable prints from the M8 at the size of the native scan I can do with my 9000. (I happily concede that there is more to be had from the 6x7 neg than my scanner can capture!) It's quite a challenge for any digital 35mm I have used, including the M8 and 5D.

So to even the playing field, I tried adding some noise to the M8 files to provide some "texture" to hide the artifacts from enlargement. This technique has been described previously in the the famous M8 vs 4x5 print thread. As my samples show, this technique does in fact disguise some of the negatives of the uprezzing process.

But can the noise technique be enough to make a 24" high print equal to the 7ii (which can show some grain with my scanner)? I need to do large test prints to answer that question - probably this weekend.

But last night I did do a a straight up test of the M8, without noise added, vs 7ii at A3, as suggested earlier. At this size and 360dpi, the M8 doesn't have to be upscaled a lot, and the 7ii is scaled down. The results are, at first glance, equal in the center sweet spot, but there is a slightly perceptible advantage in tone transitions going to the 7ii. At larger sizes it could prove quite noticeable, but added grain may sufficiently compensate, IMO. But without very close inspection, the M8 print looks as good. So this confirms that at smaller print sizes the source format may be less significant - not surprising?

BTW, it would be interesting to know how your 4x5 images were scanned.

 

[jplomley]

JPlomley are you out there? He started a similar thread in December which ran on over a few months and at the time he was unconvinced about the M8 vs M7II. I made a prediction that over time the M8 would displace his Mamiya. I would really like to know how he is doing a few months down the line.

Hey Richard, this subject sure seems popular. Right now I'm using the M8 roughly 40% of the time, the Mamiya 7 20%, and my 4x5 about 40%. The M8 and Mamiya are dedicated to the street genre while my 4x5 is used for both urban and natural landscapes. Which camera is the most enjoyable and requires the least amount of effort...M8 hands down. Which furnishes superior results for enlargement....4x5 chrome (or B&W reverse processed) drum scanned. Hands down, blows anything else out of the water with resolution, color palette and tones, Dmax, and the overall 3D effect. Being able to precisely control the plane of focus as well as perspective always allows the sweet spot of the lens to be used (f/22 on most LF lenses). So LF can be used without compromise and if one uses the modern Rodenstock APO Sironar-S or Schneider Asphericals, the results are mind blowing.

Now back to the M8. What I like about this camera is the small size and flexibility of changing ISO on the fly. Sure there are DSLRs out their that exceed the performance of the M8, but they are nowhere near as discreet and this is exactly what I was after. I've thoroughly enjoyed the M8 and in fact feel I have done some of my best street work since owning it. Knock on wood, no problems to report.

 

[jplomley]

A very timid subject captured with the M8 in low light at f/4. On the Mamiya 65mm lens, very little DOF would have been conveyed at f/4, and in fact this is not the "sweet spot" of the lens. On the M8 with a ZM 35/2 Biogon however, f/4 gives plenty of depth and the lens is uber crisp at this aperture. So with the M8 I think "flexibility", with the M7 I think "extreme quality" in a compact package albeit suited to a narrower range of conditions required for optimal usage. For 4x5, what a PITA, so this is reserved for subjects requiring the utmost detail with the intent of eventual enlargement to 20 x 24 (minimum) and beyond. Again, this applies to the landscape genre.

 

[jplomley]

Weird, looks like some artifacts on the posted image. I did not see this on the LUF or on my Cinema Display. Must be some poor resampling going on when uploading! The JPEG is only ~ 250 KB !!!!

 

[craygc]

Personally, I dont have much overlap with uses for small format M type cameras versus my Mamiya 7II's. Scanning a 6x7 neg on a Nikon 9000 at full res is delivering about 550 MB in colour or about 185 MB in B&W, either way it makes me think about what Im going to do with the results.

Most of my work is Asia documentary/street in style and for most of that I see no reason to shoot in 6x7 as its not really work I would be printing and/or framing. Careful and considered work is what I use the Mamiya for and when simultaneously carrying the little "m's" and the big "M's" I never have to question which camera I want for any particular shot. To me the Mamiya is not just a big "M" but rather a MF system that I can easily travel with, especially with multiple bodies.

 

[Richard Marks]

Hey Richard, this subject sure seems popular. Right now I'm using the M8 roughly 40% of the time, the Mamiya 7 20%, and my 4x5 about 40%. The M8 and Mamiya are dedicated to the street genre while my 4x5 is used for both urban and natural landscapes. Which camera is the most enjoyable and requires the least amount of effort...M8 hands down. Which furnishes superior results for enlargement....4x5 chrome (or B&W reverse processed) drum scanned. Hands down, blows anything else out of the water with resolution, color palette and tones, Dmax, and the overall 3D effect. Being able to precisely control the plane of focus as well as perspective always allows the sweet spot of the lens to be used (f/22 on most LF lenses). So LF can be used without compromise and if one uses the modern Rodenstock APO Sironar-S or Schneider Asphericals, the results are mind blowing.

Now back to the M8. What I like about this camera is the small size and flexibility of changing ISO on the fly. Sure there are DSLRs out their that exceed the performance of the M8, but they are nowhere near as discreet and this is exactly what I was after. I've thoroughly enjoyed the M8 and in fact feel I have done some of my best street work since owning it. Knock on wood, no problems to report.

Great to hear from you! I really think you have the ballance about right. I agree the new LF lenses are superb. I dont miss parting with my 5x4 stuff though. The issue for me was of the hassle associated with processing and scanning chromes. I did my own black and white 5x4 but this was always a bit hit and miss to get even development. You know I can not justify it but I really want an ALPA one of these days!

Regards

Richard

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

I believe what you say about print quality being good, but this is not an 18x20" print, this is a 500x399 pixel JPEG. We, the viewers, can't say anything about print quality from that, no matter how many rulers are in there for reference.

Philipp

This is a actual picture of a picture. I laid the rule for reference. The picture you see is on display at the Orange Co. fair as I type. Any one can see the photo at the fine arts building until the end of July. I made the first print 30 inches but the fair said it was two large for display. It had the same sharp appearance as the one shown. Bill

 

[gdi]

Hey Richard, this subject sure seems popular. Right now I'm using the M8 roughly 40% of the time, the Mamiya 7 20%, and my 4x5 about 40%. The M8 and Mamiya are dedicated to the street genre while my 4x5 is used for both urban and natural landscapes. Which camera is the most enjoyable and requires the least amount of effort...M8 hands down. Which furnishes superior results for enlargement....4x5 chrome (or B&W reverse processed) drum scanned. Hands down, blows anything else out of the water with resolution, color palette and tones, Dmax, and the overall 3D effect. Being able to precisely control the plane of focus as well as perspective always allows the sweet spot of the lens to be used (f/22 on most LF lenses). So LF can be used without compromise and if one uses the modern Rodenstock APO Sironar-S or Schneider Asphericals, the results are mind blowing.

Now back to the M8. What I like about this camera is the small size and flexibility of changing ISO on the fly. Sure there are DSLRs out their that exceed the performance of the M8, but they are nowhere near as discreet and this is exactly what I was after. I've thoroughly enjoyed the M8 and in fact feel I have done some of my best street work since owning it. Knock on wood, no problems to report.

Well the actual intent of this thread was different from the earlier one - as I posted comparisons of actual scans and files for prepping for print. To gauge the feasibility of finding a workflow to produce adequate M8 prints in a particular, fairly large size.

I already have both systems, and to be sure, my post is exploring the above - in hopes that maybe I could do without the added quality reserves of the 6x7. For me it is not an either or - I will not be selling the M8. It is too convenient and small, and I like the low light capabilities. And while I do print fairly large at times - it is not everything that gets that treatment.

I appreciate the posts highlighting the M8's advantages - but with me, it is preaching to the choir. And don't worry this thread won't go on for months, I will post my conclusions this weekend at the latest. I just have to make time to do my prints...

Thanks

 

[gdi]

This is a actual picture of a picture. I laid the rule for reference. The picture you see is on display at the Orange Co. fair as I type. Any one can see the photo at the fine arts building until the end of July. I made the first print 30 inches but the fair said it was two large for display. It had the same sharp appearance as the one shown. Bill

Nice, but how does that blown out area on the edge of the game table look in the final print?