Richard Marks
Rexel
Enjoy your M8
I really would not get too bothered with head on comparisons. Ill make a prediction that you use your M8 a heck of a lot more than your Mamiya7. (Report back in 6 months)
best wishes
Richard
gdi
Veteran
I agree on both Richard's points. Head to head image comparisons aren't going to tell you anything that intuition hasn't told you already. ( I have done the tests transitively - M7II to 5D and 5D to M8)
But for convenience digital is way ahead and the M8 will likely be used far more often. The M8/M7 combo lets you have it both ways - superior image quality of 6x7 for large prints and B&W, and the great carry package and convenience of the M8.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I use my Mamy7 for landscapes and my R-D1 (not even an M8!) for everything else. To my way of working, they are not substitutable one for the other, despite any questions of image quality. For landscapes I want the long tonality and the je-ne-sais-quality of MF. For everything else, I'll take the R-D1.
/T
/T
Richard Marks
Rexel
I can not really argue with this but the greater resolution of an M8 compared to the RD1 would certainly narrow the gap. The issue that did it for me with medium and large format was the difficulty getting good prints from trannies. the trannies were superb, but anything less than a really high end scan and printing meant a real loss of quality. The process was aslo becoming very expensive and very slow turn arounds. I suppose i might have looked at a decent MF scanner, but this would be not so far off the price of an M8. I would bever be completely without some form of MF and have a very inexpensive mamiya TLR which I use for moments of black and white / darkroom madness. This is enough for the rare moments when I want a 'big' neg' but its not so often!
Richard
Last edited:
S
StuartR
Guest
One advantage I would give to the Mamiya is the super-wide angle quality. The M8 has the WATE which while good, cannot compete with the 43mm. Again, the 15mm voigtlander, while good, also can't touch the 43mm. The closest would probably be the 15mm Zeiss, but it is quite expensive (so is the WATE!), even compared to the pricey 43mm. Don't get me wrong, I love both the M8 and the M7II, but the 43mm does not have a comparison in the M system...not even the excellent 21mm asph or biogons on film....the 43mm has essentially zero distortion, fairly low vignetting, and astounding sharpness. It really is a perfect lens.
Not that that is a perfect photo...can't fault the lens though. I don't have a crop ready, but that sort of light line going up the hillside above the building is a fence...the individual fence posts are easily and clearly made out on a 20x24 inch print.
Not that that is a perfect photo...can't fault the lens though. I don't have a crop ready, but that sort of light line going up the hillside above the building is a fence...the individual fence posts are easily and clearly made out on a 20x24 inch print.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Stuart
I agree the mamiya 7II wide angles are pretty outstanding. But for out and out landscapes I found the difficulty of using the Mamiya 7 was a lack of control using grey grad filters and actually did a lot of landscapes with Hasselblad and large format. I also valued the ability to change film backs a big plus. Things are a bit different using RAW image bracketing and I can usually get by. Most of my photos are portraits now. The M8 took out my Hassy in 6 months and my LF gear went about 3 months ago. I really do not miss them.
I wonder if the Mamiya 7 lenses will ever end up focusing on a digital sensor. I really hope so!
Best wishes
Richard
I agree the mamiya 7II wide angles are pretty outstanding. But for out and out landscapes I found the difficulty of using the Mamiya 7 was a lack of control using grey grad filters and actually did a lot of landscapes with Hasselblad and large format. I also valued the ability to change film backs a big plus. Things are a bit different using RAW image bracketing and I can usually get by. Most of my photos are portraits now. The M8 took out my Hassy in 6 months and my LF gear went about 3 months ago. I really do not miss them.
I wonder if the Mamiya 7 lenses will ever end up focusing on a digital sensor. I really hope so!
Best wishes
Richard
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
It still a sizable gap, though.
I purchased a scanner capable of excellent scans and a 24" printer for less than an M8 (CS9000 and an Epson 7600 refurb w/warranty). So, while you can spend the equivalent on just a scanner, you don't have to.
I develop my own color so I shoot mostly transparencies or B&W (and IR) and I don't find it hard to get great prints after developing a decent workflow. But prints are never going to give the stunning effect of projected transparencies, just not possible, unfortunately.
Of course scanning is time consuming and my scanner has been in the shop for going on 2 months - so it is another thing to break!
[/quote]
S
StuartR
Guest
If anything, this is the kind of thread that demonstrates how intensely personal camera preferences and usability are. For example, I have never used a graduated filter or any kind of filter other than an orange, red or yellow filter on black and white film -- they just don't play a role in my work. I can understand how they would be difficult to use on a Mamiya 7, though I don't know how they would be much easier on the M8...I suppose just having the preview.
Anyway, as for portraits, unless you are primarily doing environmental portraits, the Mamiya 7 is clearly not the right camera for the job. Medium format portrait lenses are in the 110-250mm range, and focusing these at a 1m range (if you can even make lenses that focus that close) is exceedingly difficult for a rangefinder. The M8 has a much easier time of it because the comparable lenses from 75mm-90mm have much more depth of field. The mamiya 7 was not designed for portraits, and while it can do some in a pinch, it is not what it is about. It is basically the same thing as trying to use a 135mm lens on a .72 Leica -- sure, it works, sometimes it is even great, but if you are going to be shooting primarily with a 135, an SLR is a much better tool. It doesn't really make sense to criticize the Mamiya 7 (not saying that you are) for not being great at portraits or neutral grads in the same way that it does not make sense to criticize the M8 for being a less than stellar performer of sports photography. Neither are geared towards those ends.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Great! So here we are. A Mamiya7 is fabulous for landscapes, but not so good for portraits. I think this is where i came in to this debate. Below is my post in this thread 4 months ago!
"Well I have owned a Mamiya 7 with the 65mm lens a few years back. It was a wonderful machnine in its own right but far too slow for portrait work. The other thing which annoyed me was that it is difficult to focus close enough. Also the viewfinder had a rather irritating in built polariser and the focusing patch is nothing like as bright as on a leica M. The 65mm lens was good but it needed stopping down to at least f8 to make it sing. It was also quite a heavy lump. In order to get the best out of it I tended to mount it on a tripod.
Absolute image quality the medium format option is going to have more detail when you get up to 34" enlargements. But only when evrything is spot on. The appeal of Leica lenses is their ability to isolate certain aspects of an image, wide open, blindingly sharp at the focal point and then a nice fall off. This is very adictive and one starts to look at the aesthetics of the image more than edge to edge sharpness. Also the impact of the images is often very noticeable without needing to enlarge massively. The M8 certainly has enough quality for big enlargements but dont kid yourself that it will have all the detail of a medium format tranny. But do you always need this detail? Sometimes it detracts more than it brings.Current trends for portraits are very much less formal now and if you are looking for spontaneity, then the lighter faster, better performance wide open leica in my opinion is going to give you a much higher hit rate. Personally there is no way i would swap my Leica M (filn or digital) for a mamiya 7.
myoptic3
Well-known
jplomley, you ask some questions that seem to have struck a nerve here. Here's my take: there just isn't enough information w/ an M8 to get the sizes that you want. No amount of resizing is going to add any more information (detail) that isn't there in the first place, and you will certainly lose detail. Digital images do not look like film, no matter how good the sensor, so you might want to rent a high end Canon or Nikon DSLR w/ a sharp prime lens and see if those images give you what you want, which I doubt they will.
Medium format is medium format, and if you want to keep that tack sharp look, you will have to settle on smaller prints w/ a digital camera like the M8. That's not that bad. An M8 should give you prints like you prefer up to, maybe, 12 x 18. So if you want to use a lighter kit on your travels that has faster lenses this is an option.
I know what you mean about people getting up close to the work. I wouldn't worry about that if it's B&W though, as some grain is fine. It is the color work that you don't want to see pixalation or grain or especially noise.
My work is w/ 35mm and B&W film, and I print w/ only the black ink. You do get a lot of grain doing this, but it suits my style of work. From normal viewing distances the work just pops. But if you are after the close up contemplative approach, you might want to rethink your size demands.
Medium format is medium format, and if you want to keep that tack sharp look, you will have to settle on smaller prints w/ a digital camera like the M8. That's not that bad. An M8 should give you prints like you prefer up to, maybe, 12 x 18. So if you want to use a lighter kit on your travels that has faster lenses this is an option.
I know what you mean about people getting up close to the work. I wouldn't worry about that if it's B&W though, as some grain is fine. It is the color work that you don't want to see pixalation or grain or especially noise.
My work is w/ 35mm and B&W film, and I print w/ only the black ink. You do get a lot of grain doing this, but it suits my style of work. From normal viewing distances the work just pops. But if you are after the close up contemplative approach, you might want to rethink your size demands.
St.hawk
Newbie
This Is a GREAT thread! It leads right into the question I have for the gurus here. I shoot an m6 and have been looking to get a digital camera to shoot color work. I am currently working on a photo project about cancer and am in people's homes as well as health care facilities and labratories, low light. I had been toying with the ide of getting an M8 but when I tried one I discovered that it was incredibly noisey. Loud enough that I could really hear it over the din of passing cars! What gives?! I'd like to go the leica route but this is really driving mee nuts. Not to mention the fact that in order to get the same look as with the M6 I'll HAVE to buy a 24mm lens. I thought about getting a Mamiya 7 II but the lenses are too slow and the the limited amout of shots on a roll means a ton of inconvienience. Now I'm thinking of using a Nikon D3 to do the job instead. It might be as loud as the M8, and since there isn't a crop factor to worry about I can use my favorite (for slr anyway) 35 1.4 AIS lens. The Nikon rep is sending me a D3 to use for a couple weeks so I'll have shots to look at but I'd like to hear if anyone else finds the M8 incredibly loud. Maybe theone I used was a Friday camera? Any thoughts?
-Jeremy
-Jeremy
S
StuartR
Guest
While the M8 is louder than the film M cameras, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is "incredibly loud". I have not heard the D3, but I would be surprised if it were quieter. It is certainly more obtrusive...it is very large...both the camera and the lenses. Even if the M8 is marginally louder, it is certainly less intimidating. Granted, a lot of that is about how the photographer carries themselves, but all else being equal, an M8 is a lot less obtrusive than a D3 or 1Ds.
Anyway, is there a reason that you are not interested in shooting film? A lot of good documentary work has been shot on color...if you mostly shoot film anyway, you might as well give it a shot. Provia 400@1600 is pretty impressive, as are the newer versions of portra and NPZ. They certainly won't give you the grain free high iso of the D3, but they have their own charms.
Anyway, is there a reason that you are not interested in shooting film? A lot of good documentary work has been shot on color...if you mostly shoot film anyway, you might as well give it a shot. Provia 400@1600 is pretty impressive, as are the newer versions of portra and NPZ. They certainly won't give you the grain free high iso of the D3, but they have their own charms.
Richard Marks
Rexel
If you really want to go Leica there is now the possibility of a quieter shutter upgrade for the M8. The work you are doing is not exactly candid as if you are visiting peoples homes they will know that you are there! Every image has an element of compromise. The light levels in normal rooms are fine at ISO 320. Light in laboratories on the other hand is usually particularly good. I expect the visually 'lower key' image of the M8 will more than offset shutter noise when compared to a big SLR set up. In practice I have not found M8 shutter noise a problem. It is years since I have used a Nikon SLR but a lot of the noise with mine was actually the appertre on auto focus lenses stoping down. (this may be better now?). If you aleready have a favourite Nikon lens and want to be low key how about shooting at least some of it on FM2 or FM3 and Fuji Neopan 1600. It works an absolute treat! Personally auto focus makes me lazy and my composition tends to suffer. It sounds a really interesting project. Good luck with it.
Richard Marks
St.hawk
Newbie
Actually the only concern I have about the D3 isn't the noise its the size of the camera. Its definitely obtrusive but with a Full frame sensor and being able to use lenses I already have it is the cheaper option. I used to shoot F3s with a 35 1.4 lens and still have one of them and the lens with it. the lure of the D3 was that I could actually use this lens again.
Obviously I could use film, but I really don't see any point in it. I only printed a small amount of my color work my self and would never do it again. Its a hassel! Its hard enough for me to get my B&W work done. 8-P I think that color film will be gone in the next 5-10 years, digital will have fully taken its place. B&W, of course, will linger for ever as a necessary tool of educating new comers, as well as the love and fondness of Pho-Jo, Document, and other artists.
My F3 sounds like a .22 rifle going off in a quiet space. And the problem I was having with the M8 was that it fired but I kept waiting for it to finish cocking the shutter. What does it cost to get the "upgrade"? I'd love to get my hands on another and see if its any quieter. Anyone near South bend, Indiana want to hang out in Chicago and shoot for an afternoon?
-Jeremy
Here's a sample-
Obviously I could use film, but I really don't see any point in it. I only printed a small amount of my color work my self and would never do it again. Its a hassel! Its hard enough for me to get my B&W work done. 8-P I think that color film will be gone in the next 5-10 years, digital will have fully taken its place. B&W, of course, will linger for ever as a necessary tool of educating new comers, as well as the love and fondness of Pho-Jo, Document, and other artists.
My F3 sounds like a .22 rifle going off in a quiet space. And the problem I was having with the M8 was that it fired but I kept waiting for it to finish cocking the shutter. What does it cost to get the "upgrade"? I'd love to get my hands on another and see if its any quieter. Anyone near South bend, Indiana want to hang out in Chicago and shoot for an afternoon?
-Jeremy
Here's a sample-
Attachments
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
I really can not see the point of going to the D3 if you are planning to put your trusty 35 f1.4 on it. Focusing an auto focus SLR with a manual lens using focus confirmation is not that easy. It would be tricky if not impossible to get a split image micro prism onto a D3. This does not sound like an easy to use set up especially if available light levels are low. If you are sure you do not want to use film then it is really the digital slr vs rangefinder debate which comes up on this forum in its many guises and draws no firm conclusions. You simply have to try both again and make your choice. (incidentally your query does not really relate to this thread if you are not considering film). Personally I do not find the M8 shutter noise that loud and I would be amazed if the D3 were quieter. Is it possible that you have become a bit oversensitive to shutter noise? True candids where the subject has 'no idea whatsoever' they are being photographed are pretty rare these days. Its more a matter of keeping gear inobtrusive, not lookling like Paperazzi, and keeping lens changes and use of flash to a minimum. Unless you can achieve these things, shutter noise is not in my opinion the limitting factor. Ironically the Mamiya 7 shutter is unbelievably quiet. I used to wonder if it had actually gone off!
best wishes
Richard
best wishes
Richard
S
StuartR
Guest
I would agree with Richard here. I guess my take would be that unless you are doing something like street photography, the first shot never goes unnoticed. If you plan on doing a documentary on cancer wards and patients in distress, the only way you are going to get them to forget you are there is to let them know that you are there, let them know why, and then just stay in the background and take your photos. At that point, unobtrusiveness is more about your body language, the way you shoot and what type of photos you intend to make, rather than what camera you use. If you read or hear about how the best documentary photographers work...Mary Ellen Mark for example (a Mamiya 7II user by the way...she has high regard for the camera as well as the people at Mamiya USA), they inhabit the place they are shooting and the people ignore them...it is not that they don't know that they are there...she will still use a flash for example, but they have grown comfortable with her presence. At that point, she could be shooting with a Linhof and nobody would notice. Or, more appropriately a 20x24 inch polaroid camera!
willie_901
Veteran
I was able to shoot with a D3 for a bit.
Focusing manually with the D3 is easy because the viewfinder is larger and brighter than those on the DX Nikons. Also, the green focus light works well. With some practice, Nikkor manual focus lenses are very useful on the D200/300/D2/D3 cameras.
Like all SLRs, (even those with split circle screens) the D3 will be more difficult to focus in low light. The D3 will be louder. The D3 will have less noise at high ISO. The D3 will be heavier. The D3 will not require IR filters or coded lenses for wide angle focal lengths. The D3 will have mirror slap vibrations. The D3 in-camera processing minimizes chromatic aberrations. The D3 has many features (mainly for sports photography) you may never use. The D3 files are larger (which requires more computer resources). The D3 is more complicated to learn and operate. The auto WB on the D3 is more developed. If you ever need to use AF, you can with the D3. The D3's size may intimidate some people (subjects).
These are two very different cameras. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
Please report back how your three week trial period turns out.
willie
Focusing manually with the D3 is easy because the viewfinder is larger and brighter than those on the DX Nikons. Also, the green focus light works well. With some practice, Nikkor manual focus lenses are very useful on the D200/300/D2/D3 cameras.
Like all SLRs, (even those with split circle screens) the D3 will be more difficult to focus in low light. The D3 will be louder. The D3 will have less noise at high ISO. The D3 will be heavier. The D3 will not require IR filters or coded lenses for wide angle focal lengths. The D3 will have mirror slap vibrations. The D3 in-camera processing minimizes chromatic aberrations. The D3 has many features (mainly for sports photography) you may never use. The D3 files are larger (which requires more computer resources). The D3 is more complicated to learn and operate. The auto WB on the D3 is more developed. If you ever need to use AF, you can with the D3. The D3's size may intimidate some people (subjects).
These are two very different cameras. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
Please report back how your three week trial period turns out.
willie
Tuolumne
Veteran
Mamiya 7 and GWB
Mamiya 7 and GWB
I was scanning chromes taken with my Mamiya 7 and 65mm lens combo and decided to post this one here. It is a 100% crop of the George Washington Bridge, one of the support cables taken from about a quarter mile away. You can easily see the twists of the support cable and on the original, clearly make out the hex shape of the nuts that hold the vertical cables to the arch cables. The rivets on the near tower, not visible in this crop, pop out at you, each one in 3d high relief. I don't have an M8 to make a comparable photo, but this one is damn fine.
/T
Mamiya 7 and GWB
I was scanning chromes taken with my Mamiya 7 and 65mm lens combo and decided to post this one here. It is a 100% crop of the George Washington Bridge, one of the support cables taken from about a quarter mile away. You can easily see the twists of the support cable and on the original, clearly make out the hex shape of the nuts that hold the vertical cables to the arch cables. The rivets on the near tower, not visible in this crop, pop out at you, each one in 3d high relief. I don't have an M8 to make a comparable photo, but this one is damn fine.
/T
Attachments
Tuolumne
Veteran
GWB rivets
GWB rivets
...and here are the rivets and one of the guard stations, also taken from about 1/4 mile away (same photo as above, different region cropped). In the lower right corner you can see the small portion of the photo selected in this 100% crop.
/T
P.S. Fuji Provia 100f, scanned on an Epson 4990 at 2400 dpi, default settings unchanged, post processed with Picasa ( "I'm feeling lucky", followed by a standard "Sharpen", then "crop at 100%" and save to disk with SnagIt 8).
GWB rivets
...and here are the rivets and one of the guard stations, also taken from about 1/4 mile away (same photo as above, different region cropped). In the lower right corner you can see the small portion of the photo selected in this 100% crop.
/T
P.S. Fuji Provia 100f, scanned on an Epson 4990 at 2400 dpi, default settings unchanged, post processed with Picasa ( "I'm feeling lucky", followed by a standard "Sharpen", then "crop at 100%" and save to disk with SnagIt 8).
Attachments
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
I do not think any of us are in any doubt about the increadible resolving power of the Mamiya 7II. What I have tried to explain is that for me there is more to an image than pure resolving power. I think I have also argued that for portaits the Mamiya 7 is less than ideal (see earlier discussions). Bellow is a pic with the M8 and 75mm lux at1/60 hand held ISO 320. I love the sharp focus on the nearest eye and the gentle fall off in focus and the natural lighting. For me trippling the resolution would detractd more than it would add.
