Landscape: 6x9 camera vs. Mamiya 7 w. 50 or 43

<p>Asking for a friend:<br>

Let's say you already own a Mamiya 7 with the 50mm lens, and want large landscape print capability:<br />(LF is not an option; looking for best MF landscape solution)<br>

Consider 6x9 such as the Fuji GSW with a 65mm lens, or stick with the Mamiya and buy the 43mm lens for it?</p>

<p> </p>

I use a GSW with 65mm, and not only for landscapes. The image quality is excellent, but that's not the only reason I use

it. I take the GSW when I want a 3:2 frame on 120 film instead of 35mm film.

And I pay the price in term of size. The GSW is really bulky.

Going around with the Mamiya and two lenses is not like going around with two cameras, both quite big, in my opinion.

<p>Perhaps your friend might first consider the format of the large prints he wants to make. I use the 65mm version of the same Fuji 6 x 9 cm camera but often make 16 x 20 and occasionally 20 x 24 inch prints. The 6 x 9 negative would normally print without cropping to 16 x 24 or 20 x 30 inch print sizes.</p>

<p>In so doing, I am not getting much greater benefit of negative size than a 6 x 7 cm negative that is effectively a negative of 5.6 x 7 cm, when printing to 16 x 20. The difference in the two negative sizes is therefore not very great when you consider using either size to make those conventional large print paper sizes. The 6 x 9 cm has the advantage in vertical architectural use off being able to tilt the camera slightly to minimize keystoning of vertical lines or in the use of the 9 cm width to make 3 x 9 or 4.5 x 9 ratio panorama images.<br /> I usually print to 13 x 20 or 16 x 24 prints with the Fuji, reducing the size of the standard papers in order to get full benefit of the larger negative quality but that may not be the choice of your friend. Apart from the question of paper sizes and the two systems, the Fuji is a very good camera, not expensive compared to the Mamiya 7 and 50mm lens, but without exposure measurement or automation. Both optics are good enough (the Mamiya may be slightly better on paper) for high quality enlargements to the preceding sizes. The 50 and 65mm on their cameras are roughly equivalent (due to different aspect ratios) to the 28mm lens on the 35mm system, but the 43 mm on the 7 will give him a wider angle if he needs that (at a cost).</p>

<p>Another thing to consider is that when using slower higher resolution films the Fuji may more often need a tripod than the 7 with a 43 mm lens, owing to the lesser DOF of the former. He should try to find a Fuji with low shutter actuations (the numbers on its baseplate counter have to be multiplied by ten) as servicing is getting increasingly more difficult with time as these cameras age. I have had my Fuji for about fifteen years and it soldiers on, but it is not intensively used. It is fairly bulky but not so much if you are happy with just one focal length. It is also more robust than my Mamiya 6 of about the same age, a brilliant smaller (6 x 6 cm) system, but which has caused me two repair bills, one for the film advancement mechanism malfunction, the other for a 50 mm lens requiring repair to its in lens shutter solenoid. The 7 may be better in that regard.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What will be the aspect ratio of the desired results? - I'd pick a camera accordingly. <br>

Is "(LF is not an option; looking for best MF landscape solution)" a darkroom imposed restriction? - If so, I'd try to get hold of a MF view camera. Large print capability kind of rules out hand holding anyhow, so why not get the real thing? - I'd hope a Technica or M679 kit to be more bang for the buck than the RFs which are better suited for high end happy snapping but its been ages since I checked prices.</p>

<p>This has been covered quite a few times over the years but here's my take on the matter! I bought a used Fuji GSW690II years ago as an additional camera when I used a Pentax 67/67II system as my main camera. </p>

<p>Plus points are the image size, the transparencies from the Fuji were like jewels when viewed on the light box, endlessly sharp. A great camera to take with you hillwalking as the wider image format seems to lend itself to that very well.</p>

<p>Minus point 65mm simply isn't all that wide in 6x9cm format, it is horizontally equivalent to 28mm in full frame these days but very tight top and bottom, especially compared to images taken with the Pentax on a 55mm lens which covered the same horizontally but had a huge amount more top and bottom to them. And depth of field is tight if you are trying to do near to far landscape images unless you are down to f16 or f22, a 65mm lens does not have anything like the depth of field of a 28mm full frame lens.</p>

<p>If your friend already has a Mamiya 7 and 50mm lens I can't see any huge advantage in buying the Fuji as that combination will actually give you a wider field of view than the Fuji can, approx 25mm wide versus 28mm in full frame or old 35mm film terminology. The advantage with the Mamiya 7 is that you can add a wider or longer lens instead of having to bring another camera. From my point of view the Mamiya 7 and 50mm lens would be an ideal setup for wide angle landscape photography. I still have my old Fuji GSW690II sitting in a cupboard, my last medium format camera but as things stand I just can't see me ever using it again so will probably sell it this year sometime.</p>

I have the Fuji 690GSW and a

Mamiya-7 with the 43mm. I use the

Mamiya more often. It is smaller, has a

meter, lenses, and is optically

equivalent.

<p>I'll add a few observations. I had the M7II/65mm, a 6x7 Fuji/90mm and a Fuji 6x9/65mm. The lenses are all outstanding, but there was something really special about Velvia transparencies made with either of the Fujis. I used them for landscape/travel/hiking. The Mamiya was used handheld more than the Fujis; it's smaller, quieter, has a meter, AE and it just feels better in the hand and around your neck, sort of like a big Leica. The Fujis can also be used handheld, but they're better on a tripod with a cable release; using a separate meter slows down the process, so I used it more like a view camera.</p>

<p>The Fujis are rather industrial in design and build; they're simple, well made and durable enough, but you won't mistake them for a finely-crafted piece of equipment, like a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex. The Mamiya 7II is on another level altogether. The Fujis are purely mechanical with no battery, the Mamiya is an electronic camera. The one thing I hated about the Fujis was setting shutter speeds slower than one second, it was a real chore and image-degrading camera movement was always a possibility. Either way you won't go wrong. </p>

<p>Jochen raised the same point as I did regarding the aspect ratio, which for me was a clincher in making large prints. If you use the 2:3 ratio for prints the Fuji gives you approximately 54 sq. cm of negative versus the Mamiya which provides only 33 sq. cm. of effective negative (cropped to the equivalent 2:3 aspect ratio). This advantage for me is why I bought into the manual Fujifilm professional camera (which prior to GS series discontinuance provided 6x7, 6x8 (Japan release) and 6x9 models).</p>

<p>If you do much other than landscapes, the Mamiya may have advantages, like my Mamiya 6 used for street, nature, some architecture, and other non landscape subjects. If you are primarily a landscape photographer, with the benefit of additional time for previsualisation, exposure measurement and image capture, you may find the Fuji adapted to your need.</p>

<p>The Fuji doesn't have all the automatic features and lens expandability of a Mamiya but itssimplicity may well assure a longer life expectancy. The unique shutter counter provides good indication of when CLA may be advisable. Other than its minimalist exterior, the main part of the lens assembly is formed of metal like Hasselblads or Rolleis, and the shutter mechanism is likewise. The built-in plastic lens hood may bother some as it is slightly wobbly during, but not after, its extension, but unimportant in my case. You also have to treat the exterior resin composite body with normal care. It actually becomes a benefit in really cold weather (winter landscape photography) where metal of some other landscape cameras is uncomfortable to the touch.</p>

<p>Whether you shoot slide, color negative or film (not mentioned in the OP) is also important. 6x9 slide projectors are quite rare (the case also for 6x7), although digital transformation may be your preferred route, thereby ignoring that problem. Negatives to digital or to print are not a problem with 6x9 (on the contrary, for large negative size reasons) unless you print in the darkroom and do not have a 6x 9 or larger format enlarger.</p>

<p>Both are good systems and you can decide based upon your priorities regarding fim medium, aspect size, quality, lens expandability, simplicity and durability, automation or not, and convenience.</p>

<p>How big is "large"? What aspect ratio? How is he going to make prints ( digital or analogue) and if the former how is he going to scan the negs? Does he use a tripod? </p>

<p>I have had no problem having 36" x 30" prints made from drum scans of sharp Mamiya 7/50mm slides, that don't depend on long viewing distances for sharpness. </p>

<p>David, I understand your point and would suggest that the intended viewer is important in that print acceptance. <br>

In former darkroom printing days (and probably today) the standard for quality, whether colour or black and white, were the contact prints from LF cameras, often 5x7 or 8x10 inches (or larger) that permit some ease of viewing the contact print. Enlarged images fall short of the subtle tonality quality of those contact prints and certainly that occurs noticeably once the magnification of the negative or slide exceeds a certain value. Some would say that is only 4X or 6X, at most. Of course, it all depends on how critical one might be in assessing the technical beauty of a recorded image. Large is the parameter determined by the degree of acceptance of viewer and photographer. </p>

<p>Arthur. Yes,the subscript to my rather terse question is</p>

<ul>

<li>The photographer might be able to get what he wants without buying anything, or</li>

<li>The photographer may not be able to get what he wants no matter what he buys.</li>

<li>The decisions taken by the photographer regarding how he supports his camera, what medium he starts with and whether he will spend the money on the best quality scans quite possibly bear on whether the photographer can satisfactorily reach his definition of "large" more than what medium format camera/lens he or she might choose. Unless he or she is prepared to optimise these other elements, they may as well stop worrying about buying further MF gear. </li>

<li>Of course I missed the whole area of competence. If the photographer is less than very good at focussing the camera, making the right decisions on where the point of focus should be, handling depth of field issues, composing and exposing the frame nicely, & potentially making a digital print file then again he or she may fail to achieve much benefit from any extra money they spend. </li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>"Let's say you already own a Mamiya 7 with the 50mm lens, and want large landscape print capability:<br /> (LF is not an option; looking for best MF landscape solution)<br /> Consider 6x9 such as the Fuji GSW with a 65mm lens, or stick with the Mamiya and buy the 43mm lens for it?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I was looking for a medium format landscape solution and a medium format group portrait solution, I narrowed my choices to the 6x9cm Fuji with a wide angle lens and the 6x7 Mamiya with a wide angle lens. I decided on the Fuji because the Mamiya was too expensive for my budget.</p>

<p>However, if I already owned a Mamiya 7 with the 50mm lens, I would buy the 43mm lens if that is what I thought I needed.</p>

<p> </div>

<p>Personally I would go 6x9. But that is because I have this desire to get a LARGE format roll film camera.</p>

<p>But from another perspective. If he only has a 6x7 enlarger, buying a 6x9 camera also means he has to upgrade his enlarger to an enlarger capable of printing a 6x9 negative (usually a 4x5 enlarger). So the total cost and effort of going from 6x7 to 6x9 increases.</p>

<p>For me, the practical (lower cost) approach would be a wider lens for the Mamiya.</p>

<p>Seems implicit in the OP and maybe in some of the answers, that the 43mm lens will get you bigger prints than the 50mm on the Mamiya 7. I can't see that it'll make much difference to print size capability. What you'll get is wider angle photographs. Can't see merit in buying 43mm if, as indicated in the OP, the objective is print size.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...looking for best MF landscape solution..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought the objective was the best medium format landscape solution.</p>

<p>I think he means that the solution has to be MF rather than LF</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>(LF is not an option; looking for best MF landscape solution)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and that this bracketed statement qualifies and imposes limits on what he says his friend wants, which is "large landscape print capability"</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18335349-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p><div></div>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18335350-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="544" /></p>

<p> Clearly I need more practice with this image uploading ( and how to edit ) , so not to confuse the point of this<br>

display , the top picture is incorrectly labeled , it's the Fuji GL690 with the 65 mm f5.6 lens and the bottom is<br>

taken with the Mamiya 7 and it's 50 mm lens . Peter</p>

<p>Thank-you to all for so many thoughtful & detailed comments: Far beyond my "friend's" expectations.<br />Apologies if this topic has been covered - my bad. A search returned no immediately obvious hits.<br /><br />Figured 6x9 would be a poor man's LF, and have advantage over 6x6 or 6x7 in achieving familiar aspect ratio of 135 in a large print, without tossing a lot of the neg; going for wide, without resorting to panos, etc.<br />If consensus is cropping negs from 50 on Mamiya won't significantly impact final quality (all things considered), great - one less camera.<br>

"large print" = 13x19 to 20x30<br>

Landscape = built urban-industrial environment, + the odd desert/ocean/hill<br>

100% tripod / slow film - all types - but mostly BW<br />Nikon 9000 / digital print / special negs to pro service for drums or big prints<br /><br /><br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p><br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have to agree with Jochen (on page 1); if you're serious about landscape, and you're working on a tripod anyway, you don't want to be limited to a little viewfinder. You can get a folding press/view camera and have ground-glass focusing and even some camera movements; most of a LF experience, without the size or expense. Mine is a Graflex, a Century Graphic, made in the early 1960s. You could get a Horseman or Linhof if you wanted it newer.<br>

You have a wide choice of lenses, and you can get 6x9, 6x7 and square backs for it. It even has a rangefinder (though only calibrated for one of your lenses).</p>

<p>I don't see any problem in getting prints of 20x30 from a good Mamiya 7/50mm neg. Fact is on the long side you'll have 11000 pixels to play with so at 30" you're still over the 360ppi that some inkjet printers prefer, without interpolation. </p>

<p>I think you <em><strong>could</strong></em> use the Nikon 9000 right up to the 20" x 30". But you will IMO have passed the point at which a drum scan (or even a virtual drum like an Imacon ) would begin to yield a better result. So pleased to see you're considering that option for the biggest prints/best negs.</p>

<p>Here in Vancouver , drum scans of medium format film start at $150 each ! Is this the same else where ? Peter</p>

<p>Well 2 minutes research of prices here in the UK provided a well-regarded source offering prices of £16 (c $20) for a 5000ppi scan from a 67 colour neg; £2 less for b&w. That's more than ample for the sizes the OP wants.<br>

Another 2 minutes finds USA drum scan offers on 67 drum scans/16 bit at or below $50<br>

Seems like Vancouver isn't the place to get drum scans done. Fortunately its pretty much a global market these days.</p>

<p>Those are almost cheap ! Excuse my ignorance , but how does 16 bit compare to 5000 ppi ? Peter</p>