Mamiya 6, yes, but your other camera ?

[thegman]

I bought in on digital this Spring. Picked up the new Canon 5D MKIII, got the Fuji X-Pro 1.
Nice, but neither one gives me the image quality my Mamiya 6 does.

I am somewhat frustrated, in that no matter what camera system I venture into. I rarely get as satisfied by the output that the Mamiya 6 gives me.

Thinking about trying another TLR, as 'blad's are OK, but I have held up side by side tripod mounted images
from the Mamiya 6 75mm Sekor and the Carl Zeiss Planar 1:2.8 F-80MM T ... and I still prefer the Sekor 75mm.
Any recommendations on something that will be an alternative to the 6, yet still deliver such kick ass sharpness, detail and tone?

I see you have a Horseman 6x12, if you like this sort of camera, look at Alpa (if you're rich), or Fotoman 69 for something similar. You're using a 4x5 film lens but only using the very sharp centre, so I'd imagine results can be pretty good, maybe as good as the Mamiya.

I don't think a Rolleiflex will give you the sharpness you want, but the overall look of the image I think is stunning, if I could choose to have any "look" in any camera, it would be Rolleiflex.

 

[OwenStegemann]

I think Dale really nailed it.

 

[Bobfrance]

We all feel lazy and a little spendy at times and wish for a wonder-camera that will do everything and still fit in our back pocket. 🙂

However, to those with eyes to see, no digital will look like medium format film, so if it works for you then stick with it. If you really want to use digital then you'll have to learn to like a different aesthetic.

Personally, I think if you can see and feel the difference in the process then why would you lose it just for a little convenience, surely your images are worth that to you?

I don't understand why the Mam 6 being out of production bothers you, but if it does then buy a Mamiya 7II.

I always feel that if you're carrying a camera because there might be photos to be had then why would you carry anything but your best tool? A good shot taken with a camera you don't like will always disappoint in some way.

When I want to carry less bulk, my extra camera is a Rolleiflex, because it is equally as good in its own way.

 

[MartinP]

Looking for a 'high-quality' result (whatever you define that to be) it seems laughable to scan your film. Alternatives may be to learn to to do your own RA4 printing and buy the current Mamiya 7II with a large film/paper budget, do your own RA4 printing from 10x8" sheet-film with an even larger film budget, or go medium format digital. The Mamiya, Hasselblad or Leica digital bodies will not help the photography part of things, but may well be 'sharper', and the basic Mamiya digi, standard lens and 56Mp back is only around $30k . . .

 

[thegman]

Also, look at GF670, I don't think the sharpness is better than Mamiya 7, but I don't think it's worse either, in my experience. Portability is awesome too.

 

[Aristophanes]

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.

You are getting $10.50 120 processing and scans on a Noritsu and are concerned about resolving power, then there's an issue and a whole other thread therein.

Pixel peeping scans cannot solve that problem nor the debate between film vs. digital. Your process is hybrid sounding like the crux of your dilemma.

The optical and focus capacities of the scanner create whole new level of interpolation. The only way to really compare is to wet print the Mam6 stuff and compare it to your scans. Then increase your scan quality via an Imacon or drum and re-compare. Then check it all out against digital for the shots you want. Now add up the costs.

Part of your self-created dilemma is economic: film is struggling to stay viable, affordable, and selective, so quoting a price is a value statement (will Portra even be around?). So is the time invested in any process only to have the rug pulled out. The durability of your Mam6 is also a big if (can anyone service them anymore?).

It sounds like you want a higher return on investment based on absolute sharpness vs. time of effort and value of equipment. That's an equation only you can answer.

 

[mrisney]

You are getting $10.50 120 processing and scans on a Noritsu and are concerned about resolving power, then there's an issue and a whole other thread therein.

Pixel peeping scans cannot solve that problem nor the debate between film vs. digital. Your process is hybrid sounding like the crux of your dilemma.

The optical and focus capacities of the scanner create whole new level of interpolation. The only way to really compare is to wet print the Mam6 stuff and compare it to your scans. Then increase your scan quality via an Imacon or drum and re-compare. Then check it all out against digital for the shots you want. Now add up the costs.

Part of your self-created dilemma is economic: film is struggling to stay viable, affordable, and selective, so quoting a price is a value statement (will Portra even be around?). So is the time invested in any process only to have the rug pulled out. The durability of your Mam6 is also a big if (can anyone service them anymore?).

It sounds like you want a higher return on investment based on absolute sharpness vs. time of effort and value of equipment. That's an equation only you can answer.

There is a convenience factor to the whole dilemma.
Yes, If I was a resolution fanatic, I bet I could source out some obscure built-for-Government-spec-Kodak lens on some weird DIY rangefinder that would be about as practical as lugging a coffee table around to take a picture. And it would probably not open up wider than f8.

Convenience wise, the Mamiya is wayyyyy ahead of a Hassleblad/RZ67/folding 120/ LF field view thing, ( BTW- I have considered the Plaubel Makina) .

Ughhh, those things are bulky, if I pull a camera like that out in a crowd, small children start to cry, and people dart for cover. Not what I have in mind. The Mamiya 6 is perfect in that regard, I can carry that in a Timbuk2 messenger bag, pull it out while being relatively discreet, and not draw too much attention to myself.

The same cannot be said for a TLR. Admittedly I get self conscious, when I have to anchor myself, and peer down the chimney of a TLR. I look like a camera nerd. People stare at me and my steampunk contraption, so much for inconspicuous shooting. sigh.

I got jazzed by micro 43 at first, I was like, cool a small camera that looks like an amateur thing, but deceptively can take good pics with legacy Leica glass. Sadly the sensor is so small, and legacy lenses tend to not get as good a results as the lenses engineered with fault calibration correction built into the firmware (20mm Panasonic 1.7 is a great lens BTW).

So back to square one, I am seeking out a camera that doesn't announce itself, that doesn't scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!!!! AND MY HIGH END TOY",
that is small enough that people don't glance over with stitched eyebrows, curious as to what exactly I think I am doing. Yet knock my socks off when I review it in LightRoom. The Mamiya 6 is such a camera.

 

[thegman]

Sounds to me like you want to stick with the Mamiya 6. Don't worry too much about future servicing, worry about it when/if it happens.

There is a convenience factor to the whole dilemma.
Yes, If I was a resolution fanatic, I bet I could source out some obscure built-for-Government-spec-Kodak lens on some weird DIY rangefinder contraption that would be about as practical as lugging a coffee table around to take a picture. And it would probably not open up wider than f8.

Convenience wise, the Mamiya is wayyyyy ahead of a Hassleblad/RZ67/folding 120/ LF field view thing, ( BTW- I have considered the Plaubel Makina) .

Ughhh, those things are bulky, if I pull a camera like that out in a crowd, small children start to cry, and people dart for cover. Not what I have in mind. The Mamiya 6 is perfect in that regard, I can carry that in a Timbuk2 messenger bag, pull it out while being relatively discreet, and not draw too much attention to myself.

The same cannot be said for a TLR. Admittedly I get self conscious, when I have to anchor myself, and peer down the chimney of a TLR. I look like a camera nerd. People stare at me and my steampunk contraption, so much for inconspicuous shooting. sigh.

I got jazzed by micro 43 at first, I was like, cool a small camera that looks like an amateur thing, but deceptively can take good pics with legacy Leica glass. Sadly the sensor is so small, and legacy lenses tend to not get as good a results as the lenses engineered with fault calibration correction built into the firmware (20mm Panasonic 1.7 is a great lens BTW).

So back to square one, I am seeking out a camera that doesn't announce itself, that doesn't scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!!!! AND MY HIGH END TOY",
that is small enough that people don't look over to me, and see what I am playing with. Yet knock my socks off when I review it in LightRoom. The Mamiya 6 is such a camera.

 

[brian steinberger]

So back to square one, I am seeking out a camera that doesn't announce itself, that is small enough that people don't look over to me, and see what I am playing with. Yet knock my socks off when I review it in LightRoom. The Mamiya 6 is such a camera.

So it sounds to me you've found your camera. Now spend the money to get another body. Then send both bodies and all lenses to someone that can adjust both RF's and lenses to match on both bodies and also CLA the bodies and you're good to go! This is what I have done and I couldn't be happier. As long as you keep then CLA'd every few years and treat them well you'll be fine.

I agree with the other poster about buying an enlarger and forgetting about scanning. That's what I do but I'm shooting black and white. I have given up on color film. For color film scanning is the only way to go anymore and that gets very expensive very quick (I know, I know, there still are optical color printers but let's be honest, we're not sure how much longer those supplies will be available). I love film, but only black and white film anymore, and that all get printed optically and the results are amazing!

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.

Just keep shooting! If it ain't broke and you're happy with the results don't fix it!

 

[semilog]

^--- Brian's post summarizes all the best advice within this thread.

 

[Moriturii]

Sell your 5D MK III (how much is it, $3000?), buy enlarger (people GIVE them away), paper, rolls of film, and chemicals for next year to come (if not next FEW years).

Dont forget, medium format costs the same as 35mm. It's just that you take 12 high quality photos instead of 36 fine quality pictures. Film, chemicals etc cost all the same between medium format and 35mm.

 

[mrisney]

Sell your 5D MK III (how much is it, $3000?), buy enlarger (people GIVE them away), paper, rolls of film, and chemicals for next year to come (if not next FEW years).

Dont forget, medium format costs the same as 35mm. It's just that you take 12 high quality photos instead of 36 fine quality pictures. Film, chemicals etc cost all the same between medium format and 35mm.

Hah, sez you, who is actively trying to sell his film gear on the DPI forums🙂
I thought long and hard about medium format digital, BTW. Too spendy at this time for me, and to do it right means tethered and tripod'ed. Meh.
Phase One, outside of the studio - I don't think it's quite portable enough for me at this point.
But the quest for MF film quality in digital probably won't be accessible unless I jump up to the level of a Phase One.

I had hoped that maybe a few Pentx 645 D'ers or Nikon D800E owners would chime in, but this is a rangefinder forum, so I can't expect that. If there are any other systems I am not aware of, that owners who have had a Mamiya 6 or 7 , have migrated to, I would be really interested to hear about that.

 

[Moriturii]

Hah, sez you, who is actively trying to sell his film gear on the DPI forums. Hah, I thought long and hard about medium format digital, BTW. Too spendy at this point for me, and to do it right means tethered and tripod'ed. Meh. not portable enough for me at this point. But point taken.

I only sell what I no longer need 🙂 You shouldn't compare my situation with yours. I will never stop shooting film, and I own no digital cameras (except a Fuji X10 that I bought for mom).

If you enjoy your Mamiya though, stick with it! You know you are going to LOVE it.

Good luck!

 

[Aristophanes]

Sounds like what you really want is the good old days where you had a relationship with a local pro lab who dip and dunk processed, then contact sheet or even machine proofed, and from there you picked the keepers for a quick optical enlargement, or a far more thorough "master printer" effort with their lock expert who did nothing but.

Now you are shooting film still, but for reasons of economy you're forced hybrid at a very low price ($10.50/roll including scans), so there's you're proofing. But from there it's all tricky. To get that master print there is no local optical outsource, it's DIY, and colour is a huge learning curve to get even close to, say, come close to what Egglestoneish appearance. So it's off to scanning land la la la la la la la.....choices, gad, the choices and tradeoffs.

And with that lesser clarity, you're sort of blaming your camera. It's a hybrid compromise.

Maybe rent a Pentax 645D for a week. I think for a crossover comparison you want an opinion probably best found at Luminous Landscape.

 

[mrisney]

Sounds like what you really want is the good old days where you had a relationship with a local pro lab who dip and dunk processed, then contact sheet or even machine proofed, and from there you picked the keepers for a quick optical enlargement, or a far more thorough "master printer" effort with their lock expert who did nothing but.

Now you are shooting film still, but for reasons of economy you're forced hybrid at a very low price ($10.50/roll including scans), so there's you're proofing. But from there it's all tricky. To get that master print there is no local optical outsource, it's DIY, and colour is a huge learning curve to get even close to, say, come close to what Egglestoneish appearance. So it's off to scanning land la la la la la la la.....choices, gad, the choices and tradeoffs.

And with that lesser clarity, you're sort of blaming your camera. It's a hybrid compromise.

Maybe rent a Pentax 645D for a week. I think for a crossover comparison you want an opinion probably best found at Luminous Landscape.

You have pretty much assessed my situation. MF analog and scanning is still affordable, in this day and age - if you factor in the post processing in digital format, so yes on all accounts.

If I have an image on my CD of 12 .tiff files that stands out, than yes, I can wet enlarge or drum/Imacon it - but that can be $50 for a
drum scan, so I have to think real hard if the image is all that, and frankly most are not. Maybe I should check out the D800E as well. The Canon 5D MKIII is OK, I actually think it surpasses my Contax G and Carl Zeiss. but as mentioned before CCD scanned 120 film is still on another level from what I am seeing from FF Digital, and definitely 35mm film scans.

I actually am debating about unloading my Contax G outfit. In the back of my mind, I know there is a demand for black body G2's and with the cost of L lenses, and ZE Zeiss lenses, maybe I cash out on that great Contax G outfit. FF digital has caught up, but those Contax G Zeiss lenses are so amazing ... oh I should stop there, that's another thread.

 

[semilog]

You have pretty much assessed my situation. MF analog and scanning is still affordable, in this day and age - if you add in the post processing in digital format, so yes on all accounts.

at $50 apiece one D800 body (without lenses) buys you 60 drum scans. And it sounds as though you have spent a lot more on gear than that. 60 drum scans is enough for a rather big exhibition.

 

[BardParker]

May I suggest that before you buy or sell anything, get a copy of the book, Letting Go of the Camera, by Brooks Jensen. It is a short book by the publisher of Lens Work. I found it very helpful to my situation. It was about $10 used on Amazon.

You have some wonderful camera systems. Keep the Mamiya 6.

Best regards,

Kent

 

[gavinlg]

Personally I think your mamiya 6 work is well worth the extra effort. Dump the digital crap if it's not working or needed and buy another mamiya 6, or a scanner to scan with - plustek 120 is out soon and there's always the v700.

I'm considering getting a mamiya 7 for myself - photographs like yours are what pushes me over the edge.

 

[thegman]

I use the V700 with BetterScanning holders, I think if you're not happy with those type of results, then you standards would likely only be met with Drum scan or digital medium format. The resolution you get out is amazing.

 

[Dan]

My cost for a 120 film processed and scanned to non compressed file format (.TIFF) is $10.50

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