parasko
Established
Hi all,
Like many, I'm contemplating the move from Leica M to Mamiya 7. I'm going to be using the Mamiya for landscape/scenic type projects, always hand-held and mostly Provia 400x.
Some queries:
1. How does DOF differ between medium format and 35mm?
By this I mean, do I need to shoot at f16, for instance, to achieve similar dof to shooting a Leica at f8? (Apologies, I'm not a technical person).
FWIW, I will be buying the 80mm and 65mm Mamiya lenses.
2. How much can I stop down these lenses before diffraction sets in?
3. Is it difficult to achieve maximum dof for landscape shots with the limitation of 1/500 shutter speed?
4. Is the Mamiya easy to use in Aperture Priority mode and what info. does it show in the viewfinder?
Any advice appreciated.
Like many, I'm contemplating the move from Leica M to Mamiya 7. I'm going to be using the Mamiya for landscape/scenic type projects, always hand-held and mostly Provia 400x.
Some queries:
1. How does DOF differ between medium format and 35mm?
By this I mean, do I need to shoot at f16, for instance, to achieve similar dof to shooting a Leica at f8? (Apologies, I'm not a technical person).
FWIW, I will be buying the 80mm and 65mm Mamiya lenses.
2. How much can I stop down these lenses before diffraction sets in?
3. Is it difficult to achieve maximum dof for landscape shots with the limitation of 1/500 shutter speed?
4. Is the Mamiya easy to use in Aperture Priority mode and what info. does it show in the viewfinder?
Any advice appreciated.
sahe69
Well-known
1. DOF is inly a function of focusing distance and chosen aperture, hence it does not change with the format. However the apparent DOF will be narrower with MF cameras.
2. f11-f16
3. I don't understand the question. If you want to maximise the DOF you'd be likely to have issues in the long end of the times and not short? Anyway that's what you have the B setting for.
4. Yes it is. It shows the shutter time with the accuracy of half a stop in the vf.
2. f11-f16
3. I don't understand the question. If you want to maximise the DOF you'd be likely to have issues in the long end of the times and not short? Anyway that's what you have the B setting for.
4. Yes it is. It shows the shutter time with the accuracy of half a stop in the vf.
dprees
Member
I use Mamiya 7 cameras and lenses for landscape work, and they can deliver superb results. However, DoF is an issue with them, as with other MF systems.
First, as is often the case with MF systems, the M7 lenses have over-optimistic DoF scales on them. Fine for little 5x7 prints, but not for bigger enlargments. I like to print 16x20s, or bigger, so I use the DoF scales in the following way: if I am using f16, say, I use the f8 DoF markings; at f22, I use f11 markings. This gives me acceptable sharpness at the print sizes I wish.
I like to have front to back sharpness in my photographs, and since the horizon is normally in the image, infinity has to be sharp. I thus use hyperfocal focusing, and tend to use the smallest apertures (f16, f22). extensively. For example, if I set f22 on the lens, I place the infinity symbol over the f11 mark (explained above). However, even at f22, I have to be careful about DoF in the foreground. Assuming the use of f22, and with the lens focus set to hyperfocal distance, the minimum foreground distance that is acceptably sharp is:
150mm: 20m
80mm: 5m
65mm: 3m
50mm: 2m
43mm: 1.5m
Others may feel differently about these figures, but I've come to this view after 11 years extensive use with the M7.
Clearly, at wider apertures, the DoF available will be significantly less.
You ask about diffraction. Of the 5 lenses I have, only the 150mm stops down to f32, and that's the only circumstance where I can see the effects of diffraction in the print. All my other lenses stop down to f22, and at that aperture, with all the lenses, diffraction is not a factor for me.
As an earlier responder has said, the 1/500th fastest spped is not an issue for landscape work. If you stop down for DoF, you will be using the slower speeds (unless you are working in the middle hours of the day, which is not normally the best time for landscapes). The good news is that the shutter on the M7 causes very little vibration, so you can hand-hold down to fairly slow speeds should you wish to. However, I have to say that the best results come from these superb lenses when a good tripod and a cable release are used. YMMV.
It's a great system, and relatively small and light for MF. However, I've recently purchased an M6 and three lenses, to give me a system capable of good 12x16s, in a small and light package. These Leica items take up the space of ONE M7 body in my backpack! Both are great cameras, but for FEEL, the Leica wins hands-down. For big enlargements, of course the Mamiya 7 is the best. It's now very difficult to decie which system to use each time I go out with a rangefinder.
First, as is often the case with MF systems, the M7 lenses have over-optimistic DoF scales on them. Fine for little 5x7 prints, but not for bigger enlargments. I like to print 16x20s, or bigger, so I use the DoF scales in the following way: if I am using f16, say, I use the f8 DoF markings; at f22, I use f11 markings. This gives me acceptable sharpness at the print sizes I wish.
I like to have front to back sharpness in my photographs, and since the horizon is normally in the image, infinity has to be sharp. I thus use hyperfocal focusing, and tend to use the smallest apertures (f16, f22). extensively. For example, if I set f22 on the lens, I place the infinity symbol over the f11 mark (explained above). However, even at f22, I have to be careful about DoF in the foreground. Assuming the use of f22, and with the lens focus set to hyperfocal distance, the minimum foreground distance that is acceptably sharp is:
150mm: 20m
80mm: 5m
65mm: 3m
50mm: 2m
43mm: 1.5m
Others may feel differently about these figures, but I've come to this view after 11 years extensive use with the M7.
Clearly, at wider apertures, the DoF available will be significantly less.
You ask about diffraction. Of the 5 lenses I have, only the 150mm stops down to f32, and that's the only circumstance where I can see the effects of diffraction in the print. All my other lenses stop down to f22, and at that aperture, with all the lenses, diffraction is not a factor for me.
As an earlier responder has said, the 1/500th fastest spped is not an issue for landscape work. If you stop down for DoF, you will be using the slower speeds (unless you are working in the middle hours of the day, which is not normally the best time for landscapes). The good news is that the shutter on the M7 causes very little vibration, so you can hand-hold down to fairly slow speeds should you wish to. However, I have to say that the best results come from these superb lenses when a good tripod and a cable release are used. YMMV.
It's a great system, and relatively small and light for MF. However, I've recently purchased an M6 and three lenses, to give me a system capable of good 12x16s, in a small and light package. These Leica items take up the space of ONE M7 body in my backpack! Both are great cameras, but for FEEL, the Leica wins hands-down. For big enlargements, of course the Mamiya 7 is the best. It's now very difficult to decie which system to use each time I go out with a rangefinder.
katgut@earthlink.net
Established
I have a Mamiya 6, and even stopped way down I never see the effects of diffraction. The larger negative probably hides such effects.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
For an easy rough guide to diffraction limits, in line pairs per millimetre (lp/mm), divide the aperture in use into 1500. This the limit at f/2 is 750 lp/mm (1500/2) while at f/16 it is 94 lp/mm.
In practice, lens aberrations limit resolution for most lenses until somewhere between f/4 and f/8 (188-375 lp/mm) and few films can record more than 125 lp/mm, simply because the film is not held flat enough and repeatably enough.
Then you have estimates of what constitutes 'sharp' in a print: anything frm 5 lp/mm (OK for a big print) to 30 lp/mm (Vernier resolution -- discontinuity in a line) via the native resolution of the eye, probably 6-12 lp/mm at 25cm/10 inches (there's considerable personal variation).
Finally there's the matter of loss of resolution on enlarging or scanning. This can easily exceed the equivalent of 10% on the negative for a big enlargement, eg. if you want 10 lp/mm from a 10x enlargement you'd better have more than 100 lp/mm on the negative.
All this explains why lenses for bigger formats stop down further. With a 35mm negative, a 12x16 inch/30x40 cm borderless print is a 12.5x enlargement and if you want 8 lp/mm on the print you'll need over 100 lp/mm (8x12.5) on the film. In other words, this is theoretically impossible at smaller than f/11 (and practically all but impossible anyway).
But from 56x72mm (Linhof 6x7) a 30x40 cm print is a 5.6x enlargement so for 8 lp/mm on the print you need about 45 lp/mm, theoretically impossible below f/32 or so. And from 4x5 inch you need maybe 25 lp/mm, theoretically impossible below f/60 or thereabouts.
Of course the MF and LF figures ignore film flatness and location.
Cheers,
R.
In practice, lens aberrations limit resolution for most lenses until somewhere between f/4 and f/8 (188-375 lp/mm) and few films can record more than 125 lp/mm, simply because the film is not held flat enough and repeatably enough.
Then you have estimates of what constitutes 'sharp' in a print: anything frm 5 lp/mm (OK for a big print) to 30 lp/mm (Vernier resolution -- discontinuity in a line) via the native resolution of the eye, probably 6-12 lp/mm at 25cm/10 inches (there's considerable personal variation).
Finally there's the matter of loss of resolution on enlarging or scanning. This can easily exceed the equivalent of 10% on the negative for a big enlargement, eg. if you want 10 lp/mm from a 10x enlargement you'd better have more than 100 lp/mm on the negative.
All this explains why lenses for bigger formats stop down further. With a 35mm negative, a 12x16 inch/30x40 cm borderless print is a 12.5x enlargement and if you want 8 lp/mm on the print you'll need over 100 lp/mm (8x12.5) on the film. In other words, this is theoretically impossible at smaller than f/11 (and practically all but impossible anyway).
But from 56x72mm (Linhof 6x7) a 30x40 cm print is a 5.6x enlargement so for 8 lp/mm on the print you need about 45 lp/mm, theoretically impossible below f/32 or so. And from 4x5 inch you need maybe 25 lp/mm, theoretically impossible below f/60 or thereabouts.
Of course the MF and LF figures ignore film flatness and location.
Cheers,
R.
parasko
Established
parasko
Established
A couple more questions re: viewfinder if I may, for those who are familiar with Leicas:
1. Are the viewfinder framelines as accurate on the Mamiya as they are on, say, the Leica M7 (which I find to be very accurate)?
2. How does the Mamiya viewfinder compare to Leica's? Is the Mamiya's more like the Lecia M6 or more like the MP/M7 which is more flare-resistant and not prone to 'white-out' in bright sunlight?
3. Any other differences between the Mamiya and Leica viewfinders?
1. Are the viewfinder framelines as accurate on the Mamiya as they are on, say, the Leica M7 (which I find to be very accurate)?
2. How does the Mamiya viewfinder compare to Leica's? Is the Mamiya's more like the Lecia M6 or more like the MP/M7 which is more flare-resistant and not prone to 'white-out' in bright sunlight?
3. Any other differences between the Mamiya and Leica viewfinders?
Turtle
Veteran
I shoot a Mamiya 7II and M quite a bit and here are my thoughts:
When you double the FL, add two stops to get the same approx DOF i.e shooting a 35mm M lens at f8, you need about f16 for comparable DOF on A 65mm on the mamiya. Use a 24mm at f5.6 and you are looking at f11 on the Mamiya 7's 50mm. This rule of thumb works very well for me.
The 80 and 65 are both superb, but I use the 65 far more. Optimum corner performance comes in a couple of stops down and at f8/11 it is blinding. At f11 and beyond the corners peak and at f16 the lens is still seriously sharp. I have never shot at f22 so cant speak for that, but would imagine it is OK, but not 'cut your eyeballs' sharp as f11.
1/500 is only an issue when wide open with fast film in bright light. I doubt you will have issues as you get two stops less DOF with this format compared to 35mm and so tend to stop down a bit more.
I use mine exclusively in AEL mode as the meter is very sensitive and smack where my focus patch is. Its more like a semi-spot, so I half press the shutter and take an appropriate reading, recompose and shoot. In AE mode I tend to find the results often way off if the meter spot is on something not representative of the exposure I desire.
The 400x trannies I had off mine were surprsingly good. The lenses are incredible and the film very, very good for a 400. I normally shoot B&W tho.
When you double the FL, add two stops to get the same approx DOF i.e shooting a 35mm M lens at f8, you need about f16 for comparable DOF on A 65mm on the mamiya. Use a 24mm at f5.6 and you are looking at f11 on the Mamiya 7's 50mm. This rule of thumb works very well for me.
The 80 and 65 are both superb, but I use the 65 far more. Optimum corner performance comes in a couple of stops down and at f8/11 it is blinding. At f11 and beyond the corners peak and at f16 the lens is still seriously sharp. I have never shot at f22 so cant speak for that, but would imagine it is OK, but not 'cut your eyeballs' sharp as f11.
1/500 is only an issue when wide open with fast film in bright light. I doubt you will have issues as you get two stops less DOF with this format compared to 35mm and so tend to stop down a bit more.
I use mine exclusively in AEL mode as the meter is very sensitive and smack where my focus patch is. Its more like a semi-spot, so I half press the shutter and take an appropriate reading, recompose and shoot. In AE mode I tend to find the results often way off if the meter spot is on something not representative of the exposure I desire.
The 400x trannies I had off mine were surprsingly good. The lenses are incredible and the film very, very good for a 400. I normally shoot B&W tho.
dprees
Member
parasako,
Being relatively new to the Leica scene, I cannot give definitive answers to your 3 questions. However, let me offer what I can:
1. On the Mamiya 7, the framelines are not that accurate; you end up with more on the film than is indicated in the viewfinder. To some extent, this is dependent on focus distance: at close focus, the framelines are more accurate than at infinity. I seem to recall that in the latter case, only 80% if the actual image is within the framelines. In practice, this discrepancy has never caused me any problems.
2. I find the Mamiya 7 viewfinder to be not as good as the viewfinder in my M6 classic. There can be a little flare now and then, and eye position can make a big difference. The M7 II is reputed to be a little better than the original M7.
When I first got an M7, it took me a while to get used to placing my eye in the correct position to focus properly -- part of this was how sloppy one can be with an SLR viewfinder, esp. with AF. The M7 viewfinder is perfectly usable, however.
3. The M7 shows the selected shutter speed in red LEDs at the bottom of the viewfinder. As a person who wears spectacles, this can sometimes be difficult to see, esp. when in bright sunlight. The two exposure triangles in the lower part of the Leica M6 viewfinder is far easier to see, for me.
In addition, the M7 lenses have a long throw between minimum focus and infinity. This sometimes can make focusing seem slower, since one has to rotate the focus ring quite a bit. My two modern Leica lenses (35 f2.0 ASPH and 50mm f2.0 Summicron-M) can be focused very quickly in comparison, esp. with the focus tab. My 90mm Tele-elmarit seems to have longer throw, and does not have a focus tab, so feels closer to the M7 lenses in this regard.
Finally, the focusing mark seems clearer on my Leica M6 than with my 3 M7 bodies, and when in focus, the two images are EXACTLY in alignment. I thought my M7s were perfectly adjusted (and I believe they are well within spec for the Mamiya, since they are serviced regularly). However, this is something the Leica does better, IMO.
The M7 is still a good camera, but it doesn't feel as nice as a Leica. But when the trannies are on the light-table, there is simply no contest -- 6x7 wins.
Being relatively new to the Leica scene, I cannot give definitive answers to your 3 questions. However, let me offer what I can:
1. On the Mamiya 7, the framelines are not that accurate; you end up with more on the film than is indicated in the viewfinder. To some extent, this is dependent on focus distance: at close focus, the framelines are more accurate than at infinity. I seem to recall that in the latter case, only 80% if the actual image is within the framelines. In practice, this discrepancy has never caused me any problems.
2. I find the Mamiya 7 viewfinder to be not as good as the viewfinder in my M6 classic. There can be a little flare now and then, and eye position can make a big difference. The M7 II is reputed to be a little better than the original M7.
When I first got an M7, it took me a while to get used to placing my eye in the correct position to focus properly -- part of this was how sloppy one can be with an SLR viewfinder, esp. with AF. The M7 viewfinder is perfectly usable, however.
3. The M7 shows the selected shutter speed in red LEDs at the bottom of the viewfinder. As a person who wears spectacles, this can sometimes be difficult to see, esp. when in bright sunlight. The two exposure triangles in the lower part of the Leica M6 viewfinder is far easier to see, for me.
In addition, the M7 lenses have a long throw between minimum focus and infinity. This sometimes can make focusing seem slower, since one has to rotate the focus ring quite a bit. My two modern Leica lenses (35 f2.0 ASPH and 50mm f2.0 Summicron-M) can be focused very quickly in comparison, esp. with the focus tab. My 90mm Tele-elmarit seems to have longer throw, and does not have a focus tab, so feels closer to the M7 lenses in this regard.
Finally, the focusing mark seems clearer on my Leica M6 than with my 3 M7 bodies, and when in focus, the two images are EXACTLY in alignment. I thought my M7s were perfectly adjusted (and I believe they are well within spec for the Mamiya, since they are serviced regularly). However, this is something the Leica does better, IMO.
The M7 is still a good camera, but it doesn't feel as nice as a Leica. But when the trannies are on the light-table, there is simply no contest -- 6x7 wins.