mamiya 7 to 5d II (long post)

[cgiff]

As far as what I will be doing at school, Im very interested in this photographer's work. Not as much Terry Richardson or Lebowitz, more a combo of Meyerowitz's LF work and Gilden's "coney island" with some abstract influences thrown in. I don't know how to describe it. I want to pursue a career in the fashion industry, as I think it would give me the best outlet for my ideas. I can see my photos being used by companies like Patagonia and Urban Outfitters maybe, if I had to peg familiar examples.

I've spoken with a few professors at school and the word is that film is just no longer viable for 9/10 assignments. The turn around time and other materials would just be too costly, they've said. Though they do still offer both BW and color darkroom classes, which is amazing and I intend to enroll in each multiple times.

I've pretty much settled on lightroom 3 + alienskin exposure 3 as my post processing software of choice and from what I have seen that can produce some pretty convincing stuff.

I hope I don't sound like a pretentious dork when I say all this stuff. And hey thank you cgiff. What do you do?

I'm currently working as a photo editor at an international magazine/book publisher. I like seeing work like yours, less clinical than the usual glossy stuff. That's probably why my gut reaction was no digital.

But if you're doing school you'll definitely need digital to turn everything around. And shooting lifestyle/advertising you'll almost inevitably go digital for work. Give it some time to get used to the workflow and I'm sure you'll kill it, but bet you'll want to shoot the 7 for personal work every so often. That camera is soo much more fun to shoot with than my SLRs.

 

[gavinlg]

I am 100% comfortable with manually focussing. Was actually considering getting the Super-Matte screen in the event of getting a 5d II just so I could do just that. I don't know how easy it is though and would probably just revert to learning the buttons for AF, ha.

1DsIII was an option but had two drawbacks for me: no video and too big.

The super matte screen is worth it if you're using lenses faster than f2.8. Makes focus pop through the VF a lot more. For slower lenses it does darken the VF a lot.

Don't listen to the guys who say AF performance is bad and that you'll need to manual focus a lot - the 5d is one of the most widely used DSLRs by hundreds of thousands of pros worldwide - AF performance is reliable and solid, especially if you use the good lenses - moreso if you take the time to learn how it works in different situations

Also before you buy Alien Skin exposure software, do a bit of research on the Nik software.

 

[Steve Ash]

If you really love your Mamiya 7 and hated your 1DMkII the 5DMk2 is not your camera in the digital world either. The only solution I see is the Leica M8 or even better the Leica M9.

Regards
Steve

 

[LeicaFan]

The super matte screen is worth it if you're using lenses faster than f2.8. Makes focus pop through the VF a lot more. For slower lenses it does darken the VF a lot.

Don't listen to the guys who say AF performance is bad and that you'll need to manual focus a lot - the 5d is one of the most widely used DSLRs by hundreds of thousands of pros worldwide - AF performance is reliable and solid, especially if you use the good lenses - moreso if you take the time to learn how it works in different situations

Also before you buy Alien Skin exposure software, do a bit of research on the Nik software.

What? No it's not. For studio work, it's ok, but that's about it...

Edit: The AF on the 5D II is ok if you select a single focus point (even then, it hunts), but that's it.

 

[gavinlg]

What? No it's not. For studio work, it's ok, but that's about it...

Edit: The AF on the 5D II is ok if you select a single focus point (even then, it hunts), but that's it.

I know it isn't the most advanced, but after 4 years of using 5d's for newspaper photojournalism and magazine editorial work I'd have to disagree. Shoot center point, use good lenses and the AF is very solid. I've shot drifting events with this setup + 70-200mm and even AF tracking works fine.

 

[LeicaFan]

After 4 years of using 5d's for newspaper photojournalism and magazine editorial work I'd have to disagree. Shoot center point, use good lenses and the AF is very solid. I've shot drifting events with this setup + 70-200mm and even AF tracking works fine.

I had a 5D II long enough to tell that the AF was primitive. Center point is fine, but the outer points are useless. The AF of the 5D cannot compare to the D700/D3 and everybody on POTN and FM would agree. 🙂

Don't get me wrong, though. It is a nice camera and if you need lots of MP, nothing else can compare (digital and within the same price range, obviously).

 

[gavinlg]

I had a 5D II long enough to tell that the AF was primitive. Center point is fine, but the outer points are useless. The AF of the 5D cannot compare to the D700/D3 and everybody on POTN and FM would agree. 🙂

Don't get me wrong, though. It is a nice camera and if you need lots of MP, nothing else can compare (digital and within the same price range, obviously).

I didn't find it particularly different in performance than the d300 I used for a while... Either way, to say it's only useful for studio work is a bit silly. A good portion of top news and photojournalism photographs are made with 5d's.

 

[LeicaFan]

I didn't find it particularly different in performance than the d300 I used for a while... Either way, to say it's only useful for studio work is a bit silly. A good portion of top news and photojournalism photographs are made with 5d's.

I think the 5Dc gained popularity because it was the first FF digital camera that was reasonably priced. Comparing it to a D300 only makes it look worse since the D300 isn't even in the same league.

 

[Renzsu]

Get some Zeiss glass instead of the L zooms. You'll feel right at home with solid mf lenses. Better focus screen will be pretty much mandatory, stock is a bit dim for fast glass I believe.

 

[Jamie123]

As far as what I will be doing at school, Im very interested in this photographer's work. Not as much Terry Richardson or Lebowitz, more a combo of Meyerowitz's LF work and Gilden's "coney island" with some abstract influences thrown in. I don't know how to describe it. I want to pursue a career in the fashion industry, as I think it would give me the best outlet for my ideas. I can see my photos being used by companies like Patagonia and Urban Outfitters maybe, if I had to peg familiar examples.

I've spoken with a few professors at school and the word is that film is just no longer viable for 9/10 assignments. The turn around time and other materials would just be too costly, they've said. Though they do still offer both BW and color darkroom classes, which is amazing and I intend to enroll in each multiple times.

I've pretty much settled on lightroom 3 + alienskin exposure 3 as my post processing software of choice and from what I have seen that can produce some pretty convincing stuff.

I hope I don't sound like a pretentious dork when I say all this stuff. And hey thank you cgiff. What do you do?

I agree with cgiff, very nice work! I've also always liked Luis Sanchi's work (except the comps).

I have a 5DII and usually also a MF film camera (had a Hasselblad, then a Bessa III which I've sold and now I'm getting a Mamiya RZ). The 5DII is a good work camera. It does the job. I use mine mostly for model tests and a few small commercial assignments. I don't get as much pleasure from using the Canon as I do from using a film camera but, like I said, it does the job.
Your professors are right, for most assignments film is not viable. By the time you ad the cost of polaroids, film, processing and contact sheets and maybe even high-end scans you're easily approaching $300-500 (depending on volume) and at this point you might aswell rent a digital mf back. For jobs on the low end that's just not viable. On high end jobs it's a bit different as the cost for a digital mf back and a digital tech on set can easily make film look like a cheap alternative.

Anyways, get a 5DII. You need a decent digital camera. You probably won't love using it but you don't have to. The important thing is that it gets the job done well.

By the way, I see that you have a cargo collective site. I was thinking about getting one myself. Do you have any invites left you don't need? 😉

 

[Renzsu]

^ you don't need any invites anymore for Cargo. It's where I host my site as well and you should just shoot them an email and you'll get the registration info a few days later 🙂

 

[Jamie123]

I had a 5D II long enough to tell that the AF was primitive. Center point is fine, but the outer points are useless. The AF of the 5D cannot compare to the D700/D3 and everybody on POTN and FM would agree. 🙂

Don't get me wrong, though. It is a nice camera and if you need lots of MP, nothing else can compare (digital and within the same price range, obviously).

It's true that the AF on the 5DII is probably primitive compared to Nikon's or Canon's high end offerings. However, for lots of areas of photography, including most fashion photography, AF isn't terribly important. Besides, anyone who intends to use digital medium format in the long run better not get too accustomed to anything other than center point AF 🙂

 

[Jamie123]

^ you don't need any invites anymore for Cargo. It's where I host my site as well and you should just shoot them an email and you'll get the registration info a few days later 🙂

Thanks! I sent them an e-mail 🙂

 

[user237428934]

I had a 5D II long enough to tell that the AF was primitive. Center point is fine, but the outer points are useless. The AF of the 5D cannot compare to the D700/D3 and everybody on POTN and FM would agree. 🙂
.

When you look at the photos of the TO you will notice that the "primitive" AF of the 5D II will be good enough for him (as for many thousend other photographers). So why buy a camera with a better AF when you don't need it?

My 5D has a hunting focus sometime if I use the lens close to the minimum focusing distance or when the contrast is extemely low. You may have more problems with older non-USM lenses.

 

[Jamie123]

My 2c: Ι had a look at your website and it is indeed impressive. Looks like you're using Portra NC a lot? Like cgiff said, I reckon you'll have a hard time making digital files looking anything like that unless you're really good with colour in photoshop. What you'll get is digital electric blue and neon green, it takes some talent to tame it in post processing. Meyerowitz LF work looks so good precisely because it's LF, and this has nothing to do with resolution or sharpness but with perspective, long focal lengths typically used in LF and tonality. Forget doing that with a 35mm camera. Gilden's Coney island is 35mm B&W work with a rich range of tones, I guess you can fake that somewhat easier. As for Richardson... well my wife is still pissing herself laughing from when we got his book delivered 😛

Judging from the work on your website (and my experience switching between DSLR and 6X6) your biggest problem will be making the 3:2 ratio work for you. With 3:2 you cant just chuck something in the middle of the frame and expect it to work for you, it wont, at least not as easily as with 6X7.
3:2 lends itself to more playful and complex compositions, combining 2-3 different elements in one frame, making sure left and right halves balance visually etc. Dont know if 3:2 is harder but it is definitely different.

I think you're doing the right thing incorporating digi in your work, just take it slow and give it time to make it work for you. Dont worry about technicalities, they're unimportant.

I completely agree with this! When I (partly) switched to digital from mf film more than a year ago I had quite a hard time adjusting. Even though I had quite a lot of experience processing my scanned film I quickly learned that digital raw files were a whole different ballgame. It took me at least a year until I found out how I could process the digital images to look the way I want and even now I'm still learning (Actually, I long for the day I can just pass this task on to a retoucher!).
Also the 2:3 aspect ratio just doesn't suit me at all and the only way to solve this problem is to crop. I have recently added pencil crop lines to my focusing screen because in the throws of a photoshoot one can quickly forget to compose for a crop. I crop all my images (6x7 film and 2x3 digital) to a 4x5 aspect ratio (which is only a slight crop for the film images). It might be worth pointing out that this effectively reduces the 21mp to 18mp.
My biggest gripe with 35mm digital is still the lack of tonality compared to MF or LF film. The only solution to this is to go digital MF.


As for Richardson, if I may chime in, my girlfriend actually bought the book 'Terryworld' and I'm the one still pissing myself laughing about it. She didn't quite know what she was getting herself into when she ordered it for a photography class. My own thoughts about Richardson are a bit mixed. While I can somewhat relate to his (commercial) work I still wonder how he can get any kind of satisfaction (other than sexual) from doing the exact same type of work for twenty years.

 

[bigeye]

Digital is for speed - business. You already have the finest IQ going, but that isn't what it's about.

Pro photography is a balance of art, business and technology. As a student, you probably should study all 3, so you need to go through the digital passage.


(What is ironic is you'll be taught how to spend $10,000s on technology to get Sanchis' look from chromes and polaroids.)

Aside: 'Technology' obviously serves both the 'artistic' (w/new capabilities) and 'business' (speed, standardized workflow, etc) elements in a proportion each manages or judges for himself. What is cool about being an amateur is the removal of the business element so you can concentrate on the artistic, with just enough technology to support the qualities of your art. That's the place of film today... (What is too bad, given the advantage of our freedom, is that we amateurs are too lazy to make great art. Starvation must be a powerful force in creativity.)

Please excuse the ramble, but your situation sparked some thoughts...

- Charlie

 

[LeicaFan]

It's true that the AF on the 5DII is probably primitive compared to Nikon's or Canon's high end offerings. However, for lots of areas of photography, including most fashion photography, AF isn't terribly important. Besides, anyone who intends to use digital medium format in the long run better not get too accustomed to anything other than center point AF 🙂

I agree.

When you look at the photos of the TO you will notice that the "primitive" AF of the 5D II will be good enough for him (as for many thousend other photographers). So why buy a camera with a better AF when you don't need it?

My 5D has a hunting focus sometime if I use the lens close to the minimum focusing distance or when the contrast is extemely low. You may have more problems with older non-USM lenses.

By that same mentality, what's the point of buying anything that isn't necessary? If you have the option of a superior AF, there is no point in not taking it.. regardless of if you need it or not.

 

[rphenning]

Get some Zeiss glass instead of the L zooms. You'll feel right at home with solid mf lenses. Better focus screen will be pretty much mandatory, stock is a bit dim for fast glass I believe.

yeah, never touching another zoom lens if I can help it. Aiming for some real quality prime glass from canon, we shall see.

The 2:3 definitely lends itself to more complex compositions but considering I have only had about a year shooting 3:2 (first on a 4x5 monorail, then on the M7) I think 2:3 is workable. If not, there's always cropping I guess, even though I lose a chunk of image if I don't use the pencil outline trick. hmmmm. decisions.

 

[rphenning]

I think I might just wait until they have DMF backs with video. (just kidding).

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

1. There's nothing wrong with 5DMk2 AF. People were shooting Formula 1 races before AF, with 1st generation AF, 2nd gen AF and AF far more "primitive" than what the 5D offers. I have the 5D2. I have no problem using any of the focus points. If there is any hunting, it's because the sensor isn't on a contrast area. I don't expect miracles or for the camera to read my mind.

2. I haven't owned a Mamiya 7. I have had other MF rangefinders, though, including the Mamiya 6 and Bronica RF645. I was able to get pretty convincing simulations of my RF645+Portra 400 with the 5D2 and Exposure 2. Convincing enough that if i look back at the pictures, i probably don't remember which were film and which were digital. They're not exact, but close enough that i'm not reminded they're digital. And Exposure 3 is even better.

3. I used to like Luis Sanchis a lot. Haven't followed him in a while, though. I would imagine that stuff is Mamiya RZ with film. If you want to really shoot fashion, i wouldn't recommend a rangefinder. I've shot fashion and i've used rangefinders (35mm + MF) and would never dream of shooting with anything other than SLRs, especially if you want to do such 'tight' work as Sanchis. Having multiple film backs and closeup capability are two other features of the RZ that trump the 7 for this kind of work.

4. I agree with the 5D2 as the choice. And especially over a Nikon if you want to use primes. Nikon 50mm lenses have pretty bad, unpredictable bokeh. Not such a factor if you're used to closing down the lens as i see on your site, but it's something to be aware of. Of course, you could opt for the Sigma 50/1.4.... Same, though, with the 35mm focal length - the Canons are better than the Nikon AFs, except for the Nikon 35/1.8, but that's for APS-C sensors. Canon's 85s are also better. The inexpensive 85/1.8 EF has Sonnar-like bokeh. I sold my 85L and will be buying the 1.8. Not that the 85L is inferior. But, its size+weight made it too much of a 'specialty' lens for me. Now that i've stopped shooting models, i want an 85 for travel/environmental portraiture, etc.....

I don't think you're going to replicate the Mamiya 7+Portra aesthetic exactly. But, let's look at it a different way. That 'look' is essentially a combination of film, lens, and light and the interaction of those components. Processing is neutral. That's not really a formula you 'created' in a sense. You sorta chose it, or it was something you came upon and adopted. Who's to say you won't be able to actually create a look you like as much or more with the Canon? You will just have to be much more involved in that process, though. Photoshop is an amazing piece of software and plugins like Exposure get us much closer to the analog feel. You might just find something there that is 'better' than the Portra thing.

Regarding the claims that the Mamiya's IQ is far above the Canon's..... I've have all sorts of MF cameras, including the RZ, Pentax67, various 6x4.5s, Hasselblads, and Rolleiflexes. But, my digital pictures ALWAYS appear to be sharper than the film pictures. I'm aware that there's probably more 'detail'/information in a high res film scan from large film. But, apparent sharpness has little to do with that. And, the clean digital files are different from film - film has 'schmutz' in there with the 'detail.' You can muck up the digital files to get closer to the 'dirty' film. Not exactly, but convincingly enough that a print shows little difference if any.

Another thing to consider - when you shoot digital, don't use the white balance to make everything neutral. With film, you chose a daylight balanced emulsion and you accept the color casts and changes that invariably come when you have mixed light, or cool or warm light. Do the same thing with digital. You should shoot RAW, but choose daylight WB and see if that makes your pictures look less 'sterile.' That, to me, was one of the beauties of the work of guys like David Allan Harvey, when he was shooting film. The 'off' color temps.... With digital, people tend to clean that away. Unfortunately. If you shoot fashion in the studio, you'll probably want/need to keep it neutral, but outdoors?

Personally, i still prefer the look of film. But, i love digital's convenience, speed, responsiveness, etc. The one thing i still haven't adjusted to, though, is the FEEL of digital cameras. The 1-series is better in this respect, but the 5D2 still feels like a plastic consumer cam. I'd much rather use my FE2, sadly. You mentioned that the 1 series is too large, but i actually have the battery grip on my 5D2 to make it feel more solid. It helps. But, the downside is the size. I probably should just use a 1Ds, but don't want to spend that kind of money when i'm still trying to use film in all my critical situations.....