jplomley
Established
I must admit I am mainly a lurker on this terrific forum, but alas must make a posting since I am in need of some help. I am currently shooting a Mamiya 7 with 65mm lens for my street photography and am scanning all my B&W negs on either a Cezanne Elite or Imacon 949. I make prints that are a minimum of 20" x 24" which are just incredibly detailed with amazing tonal range. I am currently printing files with 360 - 480 ppi image resolution on an Epson 7800 on either Harman or Hahnemuhle media, but have access to an Epson 9800 when I need to print larger. I am planning a trip to China in April and would like to also shoot color. Furthermore, one of the disadvanatges of the Mamiya is that the lenses are a bit slow (f/4 for the 65mm) and I can imagine the need for f/1.4 or f/2 optics and high ISO with low noise. I will only be happy with big tack sharp prints, so this rules out 35mm film. So I'm leaning towards digital to give me something close to MF quality. I've tried a DSLR for street work, and it just does not work for me. So that means a rangefinder, and the only game in town for the quality I hope to achieve is the M8. So my main question is, how big can I practically uprez before I see a loss in image quality. Is 20" x 24" achieveable when the optics are not a limitation (as they are on so many DSLR systems), and how would this print compare to one derived from the process described above for the Mamiya 7.
I'm really hoping that someone who has both systems has done such a comparison and will pipe in. Alernatively, is there anyone in the Montreal area who would be willing to do a Mamiya 7 vs M8 test?
I'm really hoping that someone who has both systems has done such a comparison and will pipe in. Alernatively, is there anyone in the Montreal area who would be willing to do a Mamiya 7 vs M8 test?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Apples to pears? I think that is an impossible comparison...But to be constructive. I have had top quality prints without uprezzing at 1m wide..
jplomley
Established
"Top quality prints at 3 ft wide from a 10 MP camera". Really! This was not my experience using a full frame DSLR with the best prime lenses from the manufacturer. I guess it depends how you define "top quality".
Not sure why the M8 vs Mamiya 7 is such an impossible comparison? If the same image is recorded on the M8 (RAW processed, converted to B&W, tweaked in Photoshop, uprezzed with Genuine Fractals) and the Mamiya 7 (XP2 scanned with a Cezanne Elite to a final print size of 20" x 24" at 480 ppi) and the final prints compared, I don't see why this is not a fair comparison. Two different media, each optimized for a specified print dimension and compared. All I want to know is can I get comparable results from an M8 to what I am currently acheiving on the Mamiya 7, and if not, what is the best print size I can hope for while maintaining critical sharpness?
Not sure why the M8 vs Mamiya 7 is such an impossible comparison? If the same image is recorded on the M8 (RAW processed, converted to B&W, tweaked in Photoshop, uprezzed with Genuine Fractals) and the Mamiya 7 (XP2 scanned with a Cezanne Elite to a final print size of 20" x 24" at 480 ppi) and the final prints compared, I don't see why this is not a fair comparison. Two different media, each optimized for a specified print dimension and compared. All I want to know is can I get comparable results from an M8 to what I am currently acheiving on the Mamiya 7, and if not, what is the best print size I can hope for while maintaining critical sharpness?
Matthew
Established
A couple months ago I had a 24x36" print made from one of my M8 files processed in the manner you described (RAW, PS, Genuine Fractals) and was very pleased with the results. Though as I have never shot with the Mamiya or did I ever print MF film I couldn't give you a direct comparison.
Ben Z
Veteran
I don't have a Mamyia but I do have a 4x5 and a Rollei 2.8F Planar. However I don't have a drumscanner, just an Epson V700. I'm sure the scanner, not the camera, is the weak link, but either my 20D or M8 (which are both very close once the raw's are processed optimally for each) gives results at least equal if not better. And it's a lot less hassle than film and scanning.
mfogiel
Veteran
Speaking seriously: in colour it will be close to a tie with the advantage for Mamiya 7 shots (if you can get them in the first place - the M8 with faster lenses and higher ISO will be more versatile). In B&W you can forget M8, 6X7 film will blow it away in tonality and resolution.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I shoot lots of 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5, also making big prints (lesser scanner than you have).
You are scanning 6x7 negs with one of the best consumer scanners in the world. You will not get close to this with ANY small format digital capture. The big Leaf backs perform pretty close to this level, but there are other limitations by that point.
I don't have an M8 to do a side by side. But I just can't see it as feasibly coming close on a 24" print. Sub 11x14, probably, but not big prints, not compared with Imacon and Cezanne scans.
You are scanning 6x7 negs with one of the best consumer scanners in the world. You will not get close to this with ANY small format digital capture. The big Leaf backs perform pretty close to this level, but there are other limitations by that point.
I don't have an M8 to do a side by side. But I just can't see it as feasibly coming close on a 24" print. Sub 11x14, probably, but not big prints, not compared with Imacon and Cezanne scans.
Last edited:
S
StuartR
Guest
I am with Rogue Designer here. I use a Mamiya 7II with the darkroom and an Imacon 646, as well as the Leica M8. The M8 makes some lovely shots, but it cannot be compared to the Mamiya 7 in terms of sheer print quality. Perhaps if you shoot color negative...I don't, so I don't know. But with black and white film at 20x24, the Mamiya's advantage is too great. The M8 can make nice prints at this size, but they are not comparable. I will look around and see if I have any photos of similar things from both cameras.
Avotius
Some guy
I used to have a mamiya 6 which I personally think is a better cam then the mamiya 7, and I sold it for build quality issues. The funny thing is when I was working with the mamiya 7 later, it was built even worse. Im all for the M8 here...
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Avotius said:
I agree - they're more fragile than they need to be. But the original poster seems most concerned with pure image quailty issues, especially at very large print sizes.
I just can't reconcile prints at a minimum of 24" with ANY small format digital.
Personally speaking - with Genuine Fractals I generally don't like to go over a 50% increase in overall size (average, it varies with specific image content, GF does better with some types of images than others), and with the epson printers, I don't like to print below 240 dpi. So from the M8, GF and an Epson, I'd think the biggest print I would feel comfortable trying for on average, would be 16x20".
Note: this is just based on the numbers and past experience with digital SLRs, GF and the printer mentioned - I have not used an M8 to know what it is really capable of in comparison to other digital capture devices.
Last edited:
jplomley
Established
Cheers everyone for the feedback. For those who have made reference to 4x5, I actually shoot all my landscape with an Arca Swiss F-Field camera with Rodenstock glass now using the new Velvia 50. Hence the need for an Epson 9800 from time to time. Having said this, I have toyed with the idea of picking up a Fotoman for street work, but the Mamiya 7 optics are just so sharp, I'm not sure I would be gaining much in IQ in going 4x5, but would be giving up a lot in convenience. Concerning the robustness of the Mamiya 7, I've yet to have any problems, and I've got the original version. I've probably put close to 500 rolls through it.
Rogue designer, you are correct, the Cezanne Elite and Imacon 949 are about the best pro-level scanners you can get without going to a drum scan, which I occassionally do for my 4x5 work when I want monster prints. As an aside, I will be looking at the new Creo IQ3 and comparing to the Cezanne. I've heard positive things about the oXygen software and SOOM feature. For those that are interested, the Cezanne does provide sharper scans than the Imacon and with better dynamic range.
So it looks to me like I will have to start looking at color negative films and pick up another Mamiya 7 in order to shoot both color and B&W in order to produce 20" x 24" prints. Nikonmaster, I don't like to print images with resolutions less than 360 ppi as this is the sweet spot for the Epson printers, although in some instances I find marginal improvement at 480 ppi. 120 ppi image resolution would give pretty poor image quality. And you would be surprised how many people (photographers especially) press their nose right against the print. Especially when that print appears razor sharp from afar, they want to see just how well it holds up to scrutiny. And then they inevitably ask, what digital camera did you take that with. I just chuckle.
Rogue designer, you are correct, the Cezanne Elite and Imacon 949 are about the best pro-level scanners you can get without going to a drum scan, which I occassionally do for my 4x5 work when I want monster prints. As an aside, I will be looking at the new Creo IQ3 and comparing to the Cezanne. I've heard positive things about the oXygen software and SOOM feature. For those that are interested, the Cezanne does provide sharper scans than the Imacon and with better dynamic range.
So it looks to me like I will have to start looking at color negative films and pick up another Mamiya 7 in order to shoot both color and B&W in order to produce 20" x 24" prints. Nikonmaster, I don't like to print images with resolutions less than 360 ppi as this is the sweet spot for the Epson printers, although in some instances I find marginal improvement at 480 ppi. 120 ppi image resolution would give pretty poor image quality. And you would be surprised how many people (photographers especially) press their nose right against the print. Especially when that print appears razor sharp from afar, they want to see just how well it holds up to scrutiny. And then they inevitably ask, what digital camera did you take that with. I just chuckle.
hofrench@mac.co
Established
Ben Z said:
I had to choose one thing to quote from in my reply, but in fact there was just too much to chew on in this thread. There is no way a 20D or even an M8 should be beating out your Rolleiflex - even scanned on the Epson. I own a lesser Epson scanner, and it's results with my Rolleiflex negs is superior to the M8 on large prints.
I agree with Avotious on the Mamiya 6 being preferable to the M7.
To answer the original question, though, the M8 is easily capable of printing very fine prints at the dimensions you've indicated. I'm in the midst of printing a similar size for a show right now.
kuzano
Veteran
The answer should be simple-unfortunately
The answer should be simple-unfortunately
Every scenario -- photographer, computer operator, equipment used -- renders different results.
However, on the front end there is one very glaring difference in the capture.
An M8 in RAW captures 10 megapixels of information. I use RAW because no processing is done on that information when it comes out of the camera.
It is estimated that on a 35mm transparency there is approx 12 megapixels of information that could be gleaned from the slide with proper processing.
Now on your Mamiya 7II (6X7- right?), the estimate of pixel information is 25-30 megapixels of information captured by the film.
Pretty straightforward, until you start processing the information with the wide array of equipment and software.
So, I did not answer your question, but this is a starting point to consider, if the question had to do with the camera choice. The final answer is how good the equipment is to get to the final result.
I think it's pretty difficult to consider that a desktop scanner is not going to undo some of the advantage of the capture with medium format, whereas the scanners you mentioned at the beginning of the question should certainly yield results favoring the mamiya for capture.
The answer should be simple-unfortunately
Every scenario -- photographer, computer operator, equipment used -- renders different results.
However, on the front end there is one very glaring difference in the capture.
An M8 in RAW captures 10 megapixels of information. I use RAW because no processing is done on that information when it comes out of the camera.
It is estimated that on a 35mm transparency there is approx 12 megapixels of information that could be gleaned from the slide with proper processing.
Now on your Mamiya 7II (6X7- right?), the estimate of pixel information is 25-30 megapixels of information captured by the film.
Pretty straightforward, until you start processing the information with the wide array of equipment and software.
So, I did not answer your question, but this is a starting point to consider, if the question had to do with the camera choice. The final answer is how good the equipment is to get to the final result.
I think it's pretty difficult to consider that a desktop scanner is not going to undo some of the advantage of the capture with medium format, whereas the scanners you mentioned at the beginning of the question should certainly yield results favoring the mamiya for capture.
S
StuartR
Guest
You should take it as a compliment. When someone puts their nose to your print, it means they are interested in your work. They want to see more. Just because it looks better when you see it as a whole does not mean that only philistines examine work closely. I agree that resolution at the microscopic level is a distant second to the macroscopic presentation of the print, but improvements in the detail and resolution of the print have consequences at a distance too. Primarily in improved tonality and a more "realistic" impression. If that is not what you are going for, then don't worry about it.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
What about Tonal Response?
What about Tonal Response?
Am I the only person here who thinks that there's more to "image quality" than mere lines of resolution? That tonal resolution - the ability of a photographic system to differentiate between tones, and the extremes of the scene's tonal range that the system will faithfully render - is at least as important? Because if tonal reproduction is unimportant, let's just stick with two tones in our systems: light and dark, and have no gray scale at all, and call it good enough. We'll call it 'graphic arts', instead of photography.
Which is why, when I desire to create monochrome images of high contrast landscapes, I choose a particular processing regimen that includes image capture via silver gelatin monochrome film, and a controlled, calibrated development process designed to render the maximum in tonal range available on the resulting negative. Which is also why I would not use, in this particular example, an image capture medium with reduced tonal range, such as transparency film - or the newer electronic capture systems; they lack the control of tonal response that is desired.
I cannot resist the temptation to comment on Ben's additional point, about some newer technology imaging systems being "...a lot less hassle..."; if convenience and minimum of hassle were the sole deciding factor, I doubt much in the way of real creativity would result. Those who have a passion - an obsession - with a field of art are not at all sidetracked by mere inconveniences; on the contrary, they often choose the most inconvenient, difficult methods just because the results are more toward their liking.
Regarding the OP's desire to create high-quality color imagery: obviously as image format size is scaled up, one's choice in fast lenses diminishes. It's a tradeoff between format size and lens performance. Only you can answer the question; but if you throw in the issue of tonal response, then a film-based system may yet remain an optimal choice, such as your choice of Mamiya 7 and color neg film.
Good luck, and keep us posted.
~Joe
What about Tonal Response?
Ben Z said:
Am I the only person here who thinks that there's more to "image quality" than mere lines of resolution? That tonal resolution - the ability of a photographic system to differentiate between tones, and the extremes of the scene's tonal range that the system will faithfully render - is at least as important? Because if tonal reproduction is unimportant, let's just stick with two tones in our systems: light and dark, and have no gray scale at all, and call it good enough. We'll call it 'graphic arts', instead of photography.
Which is why, when I desire to create monochrome images of high contrast landscapes, I choose a particular processing regimen that includes image capture via silver gelatin monochrome film, and a controlled, calibrated development process designed to render the maximum in tonal range available on the resulting negative. Which is also why I would not use, in this particular example, an image capture medium with reduced tonal range, such as transparency film - or the newer electronic capture systems; they lack the control of tonal response that is desired.
I cannot resist the temptation to comment on Ben's additional point, about some newer technology imaging systems being "...a lot less hassle..."; if convenience and minimum of hassle were the sole deciding factor, I doubt much in the way of real creativity would result. Those who have a passion - an obsession - with a field of art are not at all sidetracked by mere inconveniences; on the contrary, they often choose the most inconvenient, difficult methods just because the results are more toward their liking.
Regarding the OP's desire to create high-quality color imagery: obviously as image format size is scaled up, one's choice in fast lenses diminishes. It's a tradeoff between format size and lens performance. Only you can answer the question; but if you throw in the issue of tonal response, then a film-based system may yet remain an optimal choice, such as your choice of Mamiya 7 and color neg film.
Good luck, and keep us posted.
~Joe
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It might be interesting to take a look at this thread on LUF http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html.
David Adamson is certainly not a nobody in printing land, and he seems to think th M8 files are something special when making large prints. Even if one does not agree (although it is hard to disagree without seeing the prints, and I defy everybody to do so with mine, my door is open), it is thought-provoking.
David Adamson is certainly not a nobody in printing land, and he seems to think th M8 files are something special when making large prints. Even if one does not agree (although it is hard to disagree without seeing the prints, and I defy everybody to do so with mine, my door is open), it is thought-provoking.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
jplomley said:
I guess you were doing something wrong. It is quite possible to get top quality prints from a 5D at that size, as it is with an M8. That they don't look like 654 prints is quite obvious, but then a 645 cannot doesn't look like a view camera....
S
StuartR
Guest
That's completely understandable, even admirable, but I put realistic in quotes because I did not mean it in the sense of "realism" as in the sense of reproducing something exactly as it is if you were to see it before you on the street, but realistic in the sense that the photo depicts the scene with a high degree of fidelity. You can have a realistic photo of a surreal subject.
But anyway, I really think you are totally wrong if you think that only philistines examine work closely. As an artist you should know that different people approach art from different backgrounds and to write off a huge group of people just because they look closely at a work is ridiculous. If people are curious about a work, they will naturally examine it on several different levels -- as a whole, closer at specific areas, and perhaps close up to see detail.
If you use Thomas Struth as an example, someone might look at his photo of the pantheon from 15 feet away to take it in, come up to 5 feet to see the crowd, and then take a quick peek at 2 feet to make out individual people or architectural details. If you watch people at museums, you will probably find that most people look at art like this. Surely not all of them are philistines. In the same way, when listening to a string quartet, many people will focus on one instrument for part of the performance and concentrate on that line, particularly if they are already familiar with the piece. It is just another way to approach a work.
But anyway, I really think you are totally wrong if you think that only philistines examine work closely. As an artist you should know that different people approach art from different backgrounds and to write off a huge group of people just because they look closely at a work is ridiculous. If people are curious about a work, they will naturally examine it on several different levels -- as a whole, closer at specific areas, and perhaps close up to see detail.
If you use Thomas Struth as an example, someone might look at his photo of the pantheon from 15 feet away to take it in, come up to 5 feet to see the crowd, and then take a quick peek at 2 feet to make out individual people or architectural details. If you watch people at museums, you will probably find that most people look at art like this. Surely not all of them are philistines. In the same way, when listening to a string quartet, many people will focus on one instrument for part of the performance and concentrate on that line, particularly if they are already familiar with the piece. It is just another way to approach a work.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eric T
Well-known
I have made 20x30 prints from M8 photos and they look great. Once you see what the M8 will do, I bet that your Mamiya 7 will get far less use. I haven't used my Mamiya 645 in months.
And the fast lenses available for the M8 will allow you to take shots in circumstances not possible on the Mamiya 7.
Eric
And the fast lenses available for the M8 will allow you to take shots in circumstances not possible on the Mamiya 7.
Eric
jvr
Well-known
Eric T said:
I have to agree just a little bit with Eric. I have a Rolleiflex 3.5 Planar that I _used_ a lot but that compares very well with the M8 in colour. On B&W (even with a V700) the Rollei still wins in terms of tonality, especially on big prints (R2400). But the difference is small so the Rollei gets out less and less.
I also have a Fotoman (the 617, 6x17) with a Schneider 90/8 Super-Angulon. Chromes from it are breathtaking and B&W is unbelieveable (I understand why people use large format). But it's not a "street" camera. Although I've used the Fotoman handheld, that's not the type of camera I like to lug around hanging from my neck. And I have no problem with a D100+300/4...
.On large prints (Epson panoramic paper, almost 60cm wide), I can easily see a difference between the M8 and the Fotoman (even using a V700, even using a R2400). Even my 14 year daughter easily sees the difference and everytime "prefers" the print from the Fotoman. Be it colour or B&W.
On the other hand, stitched panoramas by the M8 (or another good digital camera) are another story.
But the results I get with the Fotoman+Schneider+V700+R2400 are simply out of range with a M8, even on a 60cm print. And I have 2m prints from Fotoman setup that have a tonality and "volume" that the M8 does not duplicate. The only way of geting this look is to stitch several fotos from the M8.
That said, although I really love the images from the "LF" Fotoman (ok, panoramic LF...), I guess the future will be M8+stitch, unless taking picures of somthing with a lot of movement in it...
I feel (and that deserves a new thread) that in the last few years I've been moving in the wrong direction. Trying to squezee every last bit of "technical performance" out of the medium is a noble endeavour but it should not get in the way of making good pictures. And I sometimes get myself doing it, either when taking the picture or when analysing (you see? bad word, that one, I should be using "seeing", not "analysing"...) it afterwards...
Does anybody else feel this way?
Last edited: