Mamiya 80mm f/4 Vs 35mm f/1.4

[Soeren]

I though I got rid of the bug but now it strikes back.
So a RF maybe on its way ( or maybe a 25mm Zeiss ZF 🙂 )
Im kind of intriqued by the M7II but then again I could get a 35mm outfit for the same money.
SO. how is the technical Quality from the 80mm f/4 using D3200 vs a 35mm f/1,4 using D400? Will the format shine through?
How does the M7II Perform in lower light conditions?
I guess it will fill the needs in travel, people/action/street(I hate those words 🙂 ) and landscapes. My initial use will be children on the hoof (?)
Kind regards
Søren

 

[Soeren]

Dooh

Dooh

Never mind.
I just read the chapter on MF RF's in the Rangefinder book :bang:
Kind regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

What conclusion did you reach after reading it?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

For anything requiring handling speed go 35mm. You can always push 35mm and use D3200 for even more speed and you may well need it (I use my Mamiya 7 with D3200 at Ei1200 and often found myself needing much more speed at f4).

I like the 6x7 D3200 negs a lot. Detail is limited by the crispness and 'look' is very unique and quite different to D400 on 35mm even enlarged to same size. D3200 is a relatively low contrast film which was very handy for some dawn sunrise landscapes shot handheld and on the monopod recently.

Film changes on 6x7 are frequent too. On my recent trip to India I wished I had my 35mm in addition to the 6x7, but feel I made the right choice in taking the one camera - the mamiya 7. One thing is for sure, D3200 will feature more heavily in future - I love it. You should see D400 in 6x7 - the detail is absolutely incredible so much so that D100 will now be carried in even smaller quantities.

As much as I hate to say it, it is not an 'either, or' scenario - the Mamiya 7 and 35mm RF are very different beasts and when shooting poorly lit alleys in Varanasi, india, I pretty well had to give up with the mamiya 7 even with D3200 (real speed about 1000-1200). My Leica with pushed 400 film and D3200 would have been just the ticket. But for general travel, the mamiya 7 is wonderful, although you will struggle to get much DOF with 100 speed film if shooting handheld, even during good daylight. Remember you need two stops more to get the same DOF with the equiv FL on the Mamiya 7, so the 65mm shot at F16 only gives the same DOF as a 35mm shot at f8 or so. The result was that I shot a lot of 400 speed film pretty well only used the 100 on a tripod, particularly when I wanted motion blur....or for portraits in good light.

PS, I would take 400 speed film in a Mamiya 7 over 100 in 35mm if I wanted 'technical quality', but there really is little competition for the ease, speed and convenience of 35mm with something like D400. D3200 is low contrast so if you encounter very low contrast scenes that you want to boost in contrast, you will struggle to expand D3200 much.

If you do not have a MF camera I would lean towards the Mamiya 7 for the exceptionally detailed portraits (no close crops possible due to min distance, but I am more of a 'person plus place' portrait photographer) and great landscape opportunities. Its a flexible camera, but compared to 35mm it will slow you down. The camera handles well in the hand but it is not as quick to manoever as as 35mm and does not leap up to the eye like a 35mm RF. Snap shooting is harder, compounded by DOF issues.

 

[Soeren]

What conclusion did you reach after reading it?

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger
That even with the fast films MF can deliver better technical quality, partly due to the ability to handhold at longer shutterspeeds than will be advisable with 35mm. But then again you write that for reportage there is no way that rollfilm or sheetfilm cameras can compete with the fast lenses of the 35mm format 🙂
But in my eyes the M7II will be fast enough for what I have in mind so now its down to counting the pennies.
Kind regards

 

[Soeren]

Dear Turtle
You read my mind here 🙂
Thank you for a very detailed ansver. I think that dealt very well with the question and my thoughts on the matter.
Kind regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger
That even with the fast films MF can deliver better technical quality, partly due to the ability to handhold at longer shutterspeeds than will be advisable with 35mm. But then again you write that for reportage there is no way that rollfilm or sheetfilm cameras can compete with the fast lenses of the 35mm format 🙂
But in my eyes the M7II will be fast enough for what I have in mind so now its down to counting the pennies.
Kind regards

Dear Soeren,

Yup, I'd pretty much agree, though it's marginal. MF + 3200 + 1 extra stop of hand-holdability is in some ways better than 35mm + 400-1000, but even f/2.8 is 2-3 stops slower (realistically, 2 stops) than the fastest 35mm films.

If the light is good, MF + 400 has it all, unless you prefer using the smaller, lighter cameras with less frequent reloading.

Cheers,

R.

 

[TJV]

I've never used black and white film in my Mamiya 7 but have shot thousands of rolls of 35mm HP5+, D3200, pushed HP5+ etc and from my experience, which is a lot of marginal light shooting in varied situations, I don't think I could get by without my Leica kit. These days I shoot pretty much only MF with the Mamiya, only colour, and I use a lot of bounce and fill flash. That makes the f4 limit of the Mamiya a bit of a non issue for me. If flash isn't a good idea then the Leica is really my only choice with colour unless I push process. Having said all that, when I look at photos taken with my fast Leica lenses and the character they have, I think if it weren't for the 3x2 ratio of 35mm I'd shoot with them a lot more when absolute detail isn't necessarily required.

Maybe I should delete the above and just write "apples to oranges."

 

[Soeren]

Dear Soeren,

Yup, I'd pretty much agree, though it's marginal. MF + 3200 + 1 extra stop of hand-holdability is in some ways better than 35mm + 400-1000, but even f/2.8 is 2-3 stops slower (realistically, 2 stops) than the fastest 35mm films.

If the light is good, MF + 400 has it all, unless you prefer using the smaller, lighter cameras with less frequent reloading.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger
I brought up 3200 ISO and f/4 vs 400 ISO and f/1,4 since they each are 3 stops apart so the result should be the same shutterspeed 🙂 But maybe I'm missing something here? It's obvious that i could take pictures in even lower light with f/1,4 and ISO 3200 but my question is about the lensspeed vs filmspeed and the resulting quality in well not low LOW light but around when you normally reach f/4 for a decent shutterspeed when the kids are playing around. As for your last paragraph Im sure I eventually will get a 35mm rangefinder but right now allmost anything will be lighter than my F100 and reloading is not an issue.
BTW I blame you and Frances for ínfecting me with the RF bug since it was after reading your book and articles on the Voigtländers I cought it 😀
Hmm I must admit though, its not an unpleasant condition 🙂
Kind regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger
I brought up 3200 ISO and f/4 vs 400 ISO and f/1,4 since they each are 3 stops apart so the result should be the same shutterspeed 🙂 But maybe I'm missing something here? It's obvious that i could take pictures in even lower light with f/1,4 and ISO 3200 but my question is about the lensspeed vs filmspeed and the resulting quality in well not low LOW light but around when you normally reach f/4 for a decent shutterspeed when the kids are playing around. As for your last paragraph Im sure I eventually will get a 35mm rangefinder but right now allmost anything will be lighter than my F100 and reloading is not an issue.
BTW I blame you and Frances for ínfecting me with the RF bug since it was after reading your book and articles on the Voigtländers I cought it 😀
Hmm I must admit though, its not an unpleasant condition 🙂
Kind regards

Dear Soeren,

The marginality (if there is such a word) comes from depth of field, in my book, and of course from the tonality.

With an Alpa and a wide-angle lens (38/4.6 on 44x66 for me, 35/5.6 on 56x84 for Frances), depth of field is scarcely relevant, but with even an 80/2.8 on 6x8cm (Mamiya back on Graflex XL) it can be tight. Especially if the kids are moving around.

Tonally I prefer to rate Delta 3200 at 2500 at most, and 1600 better still, so you need the reduced susceptibility to camera shake -- especially if you stop down for d-o-f. The Alpa is remarkable for this, because it is so easy to hold steady. Zeiss research indicates 50% better resolution on the film with the Biogon on the Alpa as compared with the Biogon on the SWC.

Actually, Frances increasingly prefers Delta 3200 at 2000 as her standard film in 35mm, because of her 'benign essential tremor'. That, or a tripod...

I'm afraid I have yet to find the cure for RF addiction, but allegedly there are many doctors who function perfectly well when addicted to much more dangerous drugs, so I decided just to live with it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Soeren]

Dear Roger Thank you for your answer. Hmm That didn't help talking me out of it 🙂 And they are rather "cheap" even new right now, So whats does the doctor prescripe? 😉
Argh Im gonna buy one.
Kind regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

So whats does the doctor prescripe? 😉
Argh Im gonna buy one.

Dear Soeren,

Possibly a lithium-bodied version?

(It would be very light and you'd certainly get some interesting reactions.) (Sorry.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

The three stop differential is not quite right as I would rate D400 and 320 and D3200 at 1200 which is a two stop difference. D3200 is not naturally 3200 and requires a push to get to this speed. It is not ISO 3200 whereas the 400 films are. 1600 I would say is about the limit ofr D3200 for you not to be visibly losing shadow detail. This is fine under very low contrast conditions when you can allow shadows which may fall on about Z4 to drop, but when you suddenly take a shot in brighter contrastier light you come unstuck really fast with D3200 rated at box speed esp if working quickly.

Although I do not own an Alpa, the resolution of the Mamiya 7 lenses really will blow you away. whether it is all about the optics, film flatness, ease of hand holding I down know. All I do know is that the more shooting I have done with the Mamiya 7 the more clear it is that the lenses do in fact resolve higher than the RF645 lenses and look like the very finest 35mm lenses on a neg 4 times the size.

 

[Soeren]

Dear Soeren,

Possibly a lithium-bodied version?

(It would be very light and you'd certainly get some interesting reactions.) (Sorry.)

Cheers,

R.

Not the least from my bank 😱
Kind regards