Mamiya 7 vs 4x5

I suppose similar questions have been posted, but I really didn't

find the answer that I was looking for....

 

As the Mamyia 7 arguably has the sharpest lense lineup in medium

format, aside from movements, are there really any advantages to 4x5?

Shots are often land and cityscapes so a minimum aperature is not

uncommon. It is my understanding that large format's resolution

starts to degrade at smaller aperatures due to diffraction. Does this

happen in Medium Format as well and if so, is the effect as

pronounced?

 

The reason I ask is because I am interested in investing in either

the Mamiya 7 system or a Ebony RSW 4x5. When purchased from Robert

White (UK) my desired setup is identical in price.

 

Ebony RSW 4x5

+ 80/4.5 SUPER SYMMAR XL

+ 150mm f5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar-S

= $3382 (US $)

 

Mamiya 7 II w/

50mm + 80mm

= $3,382 (US $)

 

It seems that if there are no clear advantages of the 4x5 over the 67

than a 67 would be the way to go due to the portability...again I

could be wrong so any replies and/or comments would be greatly

appreciated.

 

If anyone has any other suggestions that could yield similar results

for less or comprable money and falls under the similar weight

category of those above I am open to it...

If you want to be in total control of image composition, depth of field, individual exposure + development, and perspective you need a view camera.

I don't know if my experience is a good guide, but let me outline it anyway.

 

I've used a Horseman Technical Camera on and off for some 30 years. The Horseman will handle up to 6 x 9 cm, but I use it almost entirely with 6 x 7 roll film holders. I have three lenses 65 mm, 90 mm (normal) and 150 mm. The optics are quite good, and the camera has limited movements, more in the front than the back.

 

Last July I got a Toho (not Toyo) FC-45X 4 x 5 view camera, which I like very much and which is ideal for my purposes, and I now have a 90 mm, 150 mm (normal) and 300 mm lens for it. The main difference I see is the flexibility resulting from full movements. But the larger image is also a pleasure to work with.

 

I've given the questions of depth of field, diffraction, and related issues a lot of thought, and I've come to some conclusions. What you do in effect when moving from 6 x 7 to 4 x 5 is you shift the fstop range by about one and one half stops. That is the amount more you have to stop down in order to get the same depth of field (for the same size final print viewed the same way) and that is also how much further you can stop down before diffraction becomes an issue. So it is pretty much a wash from that point of view. On the other hand, since you do have to stop down, that means you have to shoot at a correspondingly slower speed. A shot with the Horseman at f/16 at 1/60 becomes with the Toho one at f/22 at 1/30 or even f/32 at 1/15. That means for landscape photography with foliage, I have to wait for a break in the wind or choose the time I photograph very carefully. (Going from 35 mm to 6 x 7 is similar, it shifts the f-stop range for depth of field and diffraction by 2 stops.)

 

On the other hand, extended movements sometimes allow me to get away with a larger aperture (and hence faster speed). As with all things, it is a question of balancing one factor against another and then deciding what is most important for you. Myself, I would not willing give up camera movements.

Having both the Mamiya 7ii & a LF cmaera (4x5), I find that the methods of use of each are so very different they compliment each other rather than compete. If you can, I'd recommend renting a 4x5 (doesn't matter very much what kind) to see if the thing suits your style or if it will be too slow & frustrating for you. Otherwise, I'd start off with the Mamiya if you're used to handheld cameras & can live with a rangefinder. If you don't make huge enlargements, then the image size advantage won't matter that much. I think Michael Kenna, for example, almost always shoots with MF gear, so its not required that you use LF just because you shoot landscapes.<p>BTW, I know this is very subjective, but you might think about getting the 65mm rather than the 80mm if you tend to like a wider angle of view. The 80mm is slightly wide of normal, but not enough to do you much good with the typical landscape. Just my experience. Also, you'll save a fair amount of cash buying used.

Eric:

 

Diffractions pretty much a non-issue... it impacts smaller formats more, but you can shoot at larger apertures on those smaller formats with similar DOF. The real issue is film. The best MF lenses outresolve most color emulsions, or more accurately, the MTF response of the system is more limited by the film's MTF than the best lenses.

 

In practice, assuming modern color transparency film such as Velvia or Provia 100F, and assuming drum scanning and printing on a LightJet or Epson9600, the two formats will produce virtually identical results up to about 16x20-20x24. If you routinely make larger prints, say 24x30-30x40, 4x5 will win out. I have actually tried careful comparisons of side-by-side shots.

 

If you have traditional enlarger prints made, it depends on who's doing the enlarging and how. 4x5 should produce superior results, unless the lab isn't really skilled in printing from sheet film (film flatness needs attention in the enlarger and you need the right enlarging lenses). Most pro labs should produce better results from 4x5, but again, only in 16x20 or larger sizes.

 

The Mamiya is certainly far more portable, and much faster to shoot. If you specialize in fleeting light shots, 4x5 takes practice. The Mamiya, given its rangefinder base, requires care to focus telephoto lenses, on the other hand long lens work with 4x5 requires a large steady tripod and shielding from wind.

 

In the end, it will really come down to which style of shooting you like. If you like to take your time with each shot, you will enjoy 4x5. For cityscapes, the movements will be critical. On the otherhand, if image count is your measure of success, then the Mamiya may suite your needs. Both can produce truly wonderful images.

<i>...aside from movements, are there really any advantages to 4x5 ?</i>

 

<p>Perhaps the Mamiya gives you portability most of all.

 

<p>If you hand-hold the Mamiya, then the superb lens quality, for which you pay such good money, may become irrelevant, except when shooting at high shutter speeds. If instead, you decide to put it on a tripod, then why not get a light-weight view camera (6x9 or 4x5) ?

 

<p>With a roll-film adapter on a view camera, you can shoot whatever you like, and change film mid-roll. You can't do that with the Mamiya 7.

 

<p>Personally, I only use my medium format cameras when I need to travel. I use my 1950's Agfa folding cameras. When stopped down to f/16 or more, their lenses are pretty good. My 6x9 folder is even bigger than 6x7, so its lens is automatically that much better, as it were.

 

<p>See <a href="http://home.attbi.com/~kenlee333/photos/MillLaneLookingSouth.htm"> here</a> for an example. The 6x9 camera I used for cost 1/10 the price of the Mamiya, and folds down enough to fit in your pocket. Here's <a href="http://home.attbi.com/~kenlee333/photos/StarvedRock.htm">another one</a> taken with the same old camera from the 1950's.

 

<P>You might really enjoy <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm">Ken Rockwell's</a> article on film formats. One of the fun things he says is this:

<p>"<i>I paid $300 for my first used 4x5 camera including lens. This $300 camera made half the photos you see on my site. This $300 used 4x5 is sharper than a new $3,000 Hasselblad and worlds beyond a $5,000 Leica or Contax.</i>

 

<p>He also writes alot about the Mamiya 7 and 6 - and many other cameras and relevent issues. See <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm">Film Formats Compared</a>

I've used MF stuff for about two years now (Bronica GS with a couple of lenses.) I shoot slow to medium B&W films and consequently I'm always on a tripod. I'm going to make the change to LF because I use my camera like a LF outfit anyway. Shooting a MF camera hand held means you are going to shoot with the lens wide open a lot. I don't like the narrow DOF this gives me.<p>

 

Yeah most LF field cameras are heavier but not <i>that</i> much heavier. When it comes down to image quality bigger is better as far as film size goes.

Eric,

 

I own the Mamiya 7 with 65 & 150mm lenses and also own an Ebony 23S

view camera. They are incredibly different beasts. As has been said earlier,

the view camera will give you movements and much better prints when

printing large. Since I don't typically print beyond 20x30 the 6x9 format and

roll-film suits me fine. I think you have to decide how you like to work and

whether weight and compactness is important to you. The view cameras will

weigh more than the Mamiya 7. The Mamiya 7 also packs into a much

smaller space. If I were in your position I'd buy used first of all. Then I would

probably purchase a Shen Hao 4x5 ($625) and a few good modern,

multicoated lenses used. Then I'd buy a Fuji GSW690 or used Mamiya 6

system for travel or when you need portability. For the amount of money that

you're spending new on the Mamiya 7 or Ebony, you can get 2 very good

used systems.

 

Just my $.02...

When out shooting large format I always carry my Mamiya 7II with me. Quite often it allows me to grab a quick shot which turns out better than my carefully composed 4x5 image. For some recent examples; I grabbed the Mamiya while I was preparing for a large format landscape but spotted an eagle flying toward the scene. Yesterday I took a quick 6x7 snap of some horses with a full moon in the background before setting up the 4x5, then by the time I got the big camera ready, the animals had gone over the hill.

 

T-Max 100/Xtol is amazingly sharp and grainless in 6x7. At 11x14 enlargement it is difficult to tell from 4x5. Sometimes I keep color film in the Mamiya as an alternate to the B&W 4x5.

 

It's all good.

Eric,

 

<p>

Last week I was showing one my 4x5 chromes to a friend who shoots a Mamiya 7. We were comparing shots on the light table. Both Velvia, both on tripod, both of mountains. <p>

Results? Bad case of size envy. <br>

My old Burke & James press cam was every bit as sharp but carried a lot more detail (at least under a 8x loupe)

 

<p>

He picked up his M7 for about 1500 used.

I've got about $250 into my cam with a couple lenses and film holders<p>

In the end I think it really comes down to personal style. Both of your images and how you like to shoot. Not many shoot LF handheld. Movements are a big part of the creative advantage of LF. <p>

On the other hand if lugging around a big camera, several film holders, a darkcloth, tripod, etc, etc, is going to keep you from using your camera then you'd better stick with the medium format. <p>

My strongest recommendation is before investing any money is talk to some local photos and compare 6x7 and 4x5 slides.(real live chromes online images don't count) That might make up your mind right there. <br>

Also I'd really consider renting the gear before you buy. New gear depreciates a ton once it is used.. (even a little) A couple hundred up front in playing around could be very well spent. <p>

All you're getting here is opinions from people who may or may not have the same requirements, likes, or dislikes as you. <p>

Good luck whichever way you go.

Eric, the primary thing a rollfilm camera will not allow is the control of the exposure and development of each individual sheet of film. This is the main reason I discontinued using a medium format camera twenty-two years ago and made a commitment to the view camera. This principle is probably not all that critical with color film, but extremely important with B&W film and fine prints. I enjoy the B&W printing process. If I want to do color work, I use a 35mm camera and allow the lab to do the processing.

<i>aside from movements, are there really any advantages to 4x5?</i>

<p>

IMHO, the big advantage in LF photography is that the equipment is big and heavy, slow to setup, and requires painstaking attention to detail.

That is, it requires you to slow down. Physically. Mentally. You must, to do it.

<p>

When I do this kind of photography, and 4x5 is my only format now, I really consider the shot before I setup the camera. Is the composition what I want? Are the tonal values there to make an interesting print? Can I make the print say what I want it to say? <b>Should I burn a sheet of film for this image? Is it good enough?</b>

<p>

I take far fewer shots with 4x5, but my "hit rate" is much higher. Something to consider, all other things ("aside from movements") being equal.

Holy cow, is the Ebony that inexpensive? I have to look into the Ebony RSW... I had thought Ebony cameras were out of my reach. Does the RSW have full movements?

 

As others have said, the "clear advantages" of 4x5 versus 6x7 are a much larger image size and, especially, control over perspective and the plane of focus. As the image size gets larger, DOF gets to be more of a problem, and controlling the plane of focus is more of an issue. Also, I think it's easier to use filters like polarizers and ND grads on a camera where you see what the lens sees rather than through a rangefinder's viewfinder. OTOH, the clear disadvantage is portability, as you noted.

Eric:

 

I think Andrew Ito is absolutely right, you can buy both, used! I always carry a Wista DXII field camera, and a Pentax 645 or 67. Usually, I use the MF camera when there is something I need to shoot quickly (for example, quick changing light conditions). If, for some reason, I'll end with 2 similar negatives from MF and LF cameras, I always print the LF negative. If you're going to shoot cityscapes, the movements on a LF canera, will be important!

First of all, thank you very much to all who responded. To be honest I haven't ever looked at the chromes side by side and I think that would be an excellent idea. I already slow down a ton with my 35mm and rarely expose more than two rolls in an entire trip.

 

I dread the idea of "missing the moment" with the 4x5, but as its been said, I think it would be priceless to have taken that "final statement" that leaves little to be desired (apart from 8x10+'s).

 

For those who wonder as to why I would go with an ebony as a first 4x5...most people don't start driving in a mercedes...its because the RSW nonfolding camera is considered one of the fastest to set up and is really basic without comprimising stability...

 

I think that I might however start out with some cheaper lenses, though I know what focal lengths I like in 35, it very well may change.

 

Finally, I am just getting started in B&W, and though I honestly stink...but I could see myself getting into it.

 

One last question:

Some day I would like to go pro so my hobby will somewhat pay for itself. Is it more difficult to sell large format images to agencies or are they generally preferred or does it just depend on who you're selling it to?

 

P.S. By the way Brian Kennedy,

The Ebony RSW is that inexpensive (for an ebony) but it has heavily restricted movements. You're basically paying for barebones quality.

They only sell it at Robert White however as he has them specially made. You will not find them on the ebony website.

Besides that issue of image quality there is the issue of how do you like to photograph. For me, an admitted anal retentive, I love the slow meticulous process of LF photography. I love looking at the image on the ground glass, camera on a tripod and not hand held through a rangefinder. For others it's all just a big pain in the butt. So you need to deside what works for you. BTW I just started doing LF last year and I haven't had so much fun since I saw my first prints come up in the soup. Good luck.

One thing not already addressed is that the Mamiya 7 is essentially a wide-angle camera. 150mm ain't very long on 6x7 and it doesn't focus very close either. A view camera gives you incredible lens flexibility and perfect composition control- which you can't get with any rangefinder. I agree with the people who say that a view camera and the Mamiya 7 complement each other.

FWIW I sold my Mamiya 6MF outfit last year (2 bodies, 3 lenses) in order to buy an Ebony 45S, which I use for both rollfilm and 4x5. The reasons? Vast range of lenses; ability to get the foreground sharp by tilting the lensboard; avoidance of convergence by levelling the camera and applying front rise; ability to use 6x9, which for me is a wonderful aspect ratio; flexibility to develop single sheets; accurate framing on the GG; ability to check dof and focussing on the GG; and so on. There's nothing to match LF for all of these reasons and more. I do have a Rollei TLR for travel purposes, candids, etc!

Many people have pointed-out that 4x5 exposures are a bit longer than typical MF exposures and that you spend more time waiting for the wind to die down when using LF. Well, I agree that LF exposures are often times a bit longer than MF but, respectuflly disagree that you spend more time waiting for the wind to settle.

 

Regardless of what format I use, when I'm waiting for the wind to settle, regardless of what format I'm using, I don't trip the shutter until I think the scene has settled as much as physically possible.

 

Warning, newby LF statements ahead...

 

Anyhow, I've been shooting 645 and some 6x7 for a good long while. I gave up shooting the 6x7 because every time I used it, I was really attempting to achieve LF results. I guess the large image size of 6x7 lulled me into thinking that I was really using a view camera. Indeed, the image quality and tonal reproduction of a 6x7 is on-par with 4x5 however, in practice, the formats are worlds apart. In the future, I see myself sticking with the 4x5 and 645 and can see the day when my RB stuff ends-up on the auction site.

 

Regards

I can't add much to the excellent responses except perhaps my own experience as others have. For me it boils down to what is driving the pictures as to what format i'll use. If I have a color job that's well defined and customer driven, I grab my Mamiya and some Velvia. If I'm doing personal work just for my own pleasure with fine art as the motive, I will always go for the view camera as part of the pleasure of the total experience for me at least is looking at the world upside down. Question your motives for taking the pictures and go with the system that will best supply the end results with one end result being enjoying the total experience from start to finish. As others have suggested buying used is one way to have lots of cake and eat it too. My older Mamiya 6X9 system with 2 bodies, 4 backs, 50, 65, 75, 100, 127, & 150mm lenses and a host of accessories wouldn't fetch what the 40mm lens for the 7 will cost. Get the Ebony and a Fujinon GSW 690 to carry around your neck.

Regarding color, the only other thing I can add is that it is nice to be able to use individual sheets. High contrast, I might use print film, or use faster film as it gets dark, etc. One can do this with Hassy, but not M7.

 

When I was starting out, I used a speed graphic, which does allow some form of rangefinder focusing for "grab" shots. However, very limited in the movement dept. You might want to look at a Linhof technika, which allows rangefinder focusing on some shots. Combined with a graphmatic or new Fuji multi sheet film-holder, you can get off a lot of shots. It would be heavier, though and is a compromise.

 

Also, I think the main issue is less one of sharpness than of tonality. Both are sharp, but LF is smoother due to less grain. Also, I find specular points nicer, as they don't "spread" as much and become diffuse. Part of this, I think, is infectious developement in B&W (I don't know enough about color to say). Outside of the lens sharpness and contrast, there is film sharpness and contrast. I don't have a scientific test, but I use hassy and LF, and I think that I get a bit more dynamic range out of provia in LF.

 

Good luck,

 

Michael

Whatever you choose, remember that such decisions are seldom final. I once started out in 35mm, simply because that's what you start out with, right? Then I found that I was striving to achieve "quality" and had also taken fancy to still-life, so I got myself a used 4x5 monorail. Well, I liked doing landscapes as well, and then the monorail wasn't such a good idea. I also found large format a bit too expensive for my budget. So I eventually moved to Hasselblad MF instead, which isn't cheap either but I found a decent used body with a couple of lenses, and film is a lot cheaper. That was a dear friend of mine for several years, but then my daughter was born and I had also taken up wildlife photography. These subjects call for AF, since they're moving so fast. OK, so I traded my, by then rather extensive, Hasselblad equipment for Nikon F5 with lenses. <I>Guess what?</I> I've just bought and am currently restoring an old Linhof Technika since I lack the film size and camera movements for my landscape work. This time I'll keep the Nikon though! And, of course, MF would come in handy for aerial photography.... But than, you can't have it all. Or can you? :-) I know this didn't exactly help, but if I were to have just one system, I don't think it would be LF. It's a bit too much trouble to set up for shots that don't really need the size and movements. But then, if you can have both...

I have both systems and cannot tell the difference as to sharpness and resolution with 16x20 B&W which I print with the same film and development.

I can't add much to what has already been said.<br>I have owned and used a Mamiya 7II with 65mm lens.<br>My conclusions:<br>

Incredibly sharp lens; fly on the wall at 50 yds<br>

Fairly lightweight<br>

High built quality & ergonomics<br>

Handheld shots sharp even at 1/15 with care<br>

Perfect for street and travel photography<br>

Nearly impossible to use ND grads > easy to blow out highlights on transparency film<p>

Now I am using an Arca Swiss 4x5 F Metric Field.<br>My conclusions:<br>

Love the huge transparencies<br>

ND grad placement a piece of cake<br>

Slower, bulkier, tripod mandatory<br>

Greater % of keepers due to more deliberate use and ND grads<p>

 

<a href="http://www.painted-with-light.com">See my website for examples.</a>

First thought:,Im not sure that Mamiya's glass(although very good) is as good as some of the German glass for MF cameras?Second,a 4x5 negative is 3 times larger in area than a 6x7 neg,this alone should answer your question.