Jump to content

Mamiya 7 VS 24MP Digital?


susan_henderson1

Recommended Posts

<p>I know the film VS digital debate is getting old, but I've read about this to the point my eyes are sending a self-destruct signal to my brain. Ultimately, I want to be able to make large prints, say 30" to 40", and occasional 50" at the largest. I chose the M7ii because I figured it being a rangefinder combined with its highly regarded lenses would give me the resolution I need for big prints. But I guess I hadn't figured that scanning would prove to be such a major roadblock in getting from film to print. Based on what I've read, no "affordable" scanner can extract even close to all the information available in 6x7, and the pro level scanners (flatbeds and drums) are expensive and have a significant learning curve. What this mess has got me wondering is whether or not scanned 6x7 has any major advantage over 24MP digital. I've read, eg, the Pentax 67 VS Canon 1DS on luminous landscape, but I've read competing statements that suggest 6x7 is closer to 50-100MP when scanned properly.</p>

<p>I'm not even sure how many different options I've been through concerning this. All have pros and cons. Right now, the two I'm mostly considering is:</p>

<p>1. M7ii + pro scanner like Eversmart Supreme or Aztek Premier<br>

Pro: Should extract almost full potential from the Mamiya, more resolution than digital(???)<br>

Con: Expensive, plus all of the other disadvantages of using film and scanning instead of digital (long term cost, loss of all those handy digital features like white balance)</p>

<p>2. M7ii+ Epson V750 + 24MP digital + send-out scanning for "big print" shots<br>

Pro: Maximum versatility<br>

con: Even more expensive than 1, send-out scanning adds to cost</p>

<p>I think I'm closest to 2. The Epson would at least allow me to scan the Mamiya and get an idea of what I've got while allowing me to make smaller prints if needed. The digital will also help out in the film for figuring out exposure/aperture settings, and I can use it on shots that I don't need poster prints for. Of course, just thinking about this hassle about scanning has me almost wanting to just give up film for good, but then I get this sinking feeling when I think about selling the Mamiya. But I get a similar feeling when I think about dropping this kind of money on any of these options, really.</p>

<p>Any advice regarding any part of this dilemma (including alternative suggestions) is appreciated.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Susan, I went through the same brain twist that you are describing. <br /> I went with the Epson V7XX scanner initially, for 6X6, 6X7,and 4X5 sheet film. <br /> For MF and LF, the Epson is just fine for 8X10 prints, and prints up to the occasional 16X20.</p>

<p>Are you an amateur or a professional?<br /> What is your budget for a scanner?<br /> Do you regularly have at least one image per roll worthy of enlargement beyond 11X14 or 16X20?<br /> If you are selling large prints in the $400-$700 range, or more, then you will be able to<br /> recoup the cost of drum scans from a lab for those occasional prints enlarged to 40X50 or larger.</p>

<p>The price of a Nikon Coolscan has gone through the ceiling, now that it seems true production of these machines has ended,<br /> probably in 2008 or early 2009 at the latest. <br /> Now, you can get used Imacons for less than a new Nikon Coolscan.</p>

<p>Ask yourself some of the questions above. If you feel that your work flow, volume, and quality of your captured images are worthy of the investment, then by all means, get yourself a quality, dedicated film scanner.</p>

<p>If not, then the Epson line of V7XX family scanners, and the occasional send-out for drum scans, is a fine route for the budget minded, amateur or semi-pro.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not very experienced in scanning or in MF. However, Luminous Landscape's tests are not only questionable, but even the results that they do show are contrary to the commentary that goes with them.</p>

<p>Second point: you don't need a drum scanner or anything like it to get most of the detail from a MF frame. Nikon and Plustek have desktop scanners that cost 'only' a few thousand. You may as well get a CD of JPEGs with previews when you get your film processed. Use those to choose your best frames and go from there.</p>

<p>FYI, it has been demonstrated that 35mm film is very competitive with a high-res 24x36mm sensor. I dare say there isn't much in it, although the digital frame would be cleaner by default. So you can figure out where MF stands in relation to an FX DSLR.</p>

<p>I don't have an axe to grind. I'm posting so that the very worst advice you could get will not go unquestioned.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't print this big, but assuming 36" on the long dimension (which is a standard roll paper size):<br />(a) this is ~13x from a 6 x 7 negative, which is within reasonable limits from a Mamiya 7.<br />(b) this is 24x from a 1Ds III file, or 156 pixels per inch on the print, which is about half what a good printer is capable of.<br />So if it were me, I'd pay for someone to take high-resolution scans from the Mamiya negs.</p>

<p>Having said all that,<br />© An alternative is to turn back the clock a couple of decades, and print optically.<br />(d) Second alternative-- might consider 4 x 5 sheet film when you're getting into this size range.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think you are better off actually trying some tests yourself then surfing the web. If you have any decent digital camera you should be able to figure out pretty well what your prints will look like at the size you want. Then shoot some 35mm film and find someone who can scan it on what ever scanner you're interested in. You can scale the results to 6x7. Just make sure you stop down and use a tripod. </p>

<p>Personally I think you're asking the wrong question. The quality is there either way. There are better reasons to decide for one or the other.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I run a small custom printing lab, and also happen to use a Mamiya 7, so I am quite used to printing large files from it. You will not see much difference between 24mp digital and the Mamiya 7 up to about 20x24", after that, a properly scanned Mamiya shot (from black and white or slide film) will look better. The digital may well look sharper and finer grain at 20x24. This is more a function of the behavior of film versus digital at the extinction point of resolution than it is about sheer resolution (though at 6x7, it does have more detail in the film than full-frame 24mp film does). Film has a gradual fall to fuzziness and grain, which gives the impression that it has more resolution that it really does. When digital reaches the extinction point, it just stops completely. There are different algorithms for upsampling, but while they take away the squareness of the pixels, they do little to give the impression of resolution -- so upsampled digital files generally look over-smooth and blotchy on closer inspection. <br>

Have you considered an option 3? Mamiya 7 and higher end consumer film scanner like Nikon 9000, Minolta Scan-Multi pro or Imacon 343 and a less than 24mp camera? There are some rather excellent prosumer Canon and Nikon cameras in the 18mp range. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If your objective is prints up to 50", then having done both routes to 36" I'd rather use a drum scanned 67 than a 24mp digital. Mind, its not as clear-cut as pixel counting indicates because in reality most people won't expect prints that size to be viewed from up close and the need for a 300ppi print file isn't really there. I'd probably be looking for 180ppi, and thats achievable from a 24MP camera with a moderate amount of uprezzing. So--</p>

<ul>

<li>The cheapest way to get to a (say) 40" x 30" print with expectations of competence is undoubtably to use a digital camera </li>

<li>But there is more resolution available from scanning film than from a digital camera of that MP count. My 36" prints from drum scans do not rely on viewing distance for apparent sharpness. </li>

<li>To achieve that resolution then IMO you need to use a drum scan or as a clear second option an Imacon, rather than a Coolscan 9000. In my experience a good drum scan starts to make a visible difference vs a Coolscan at about 24" x 20".</li>

<li>I personally wouldn't consider analogue prints. I've printed digitally from MF originals for ten years now, because the combination of drum scan and LightJet or big Epson gave me sharper, more detailed , more controllable and repeatable prints than anything I've seen off an enlarger. Ten years ago clients had to pay a significant premium to get that and mine at least were pleased to do so having viewed the alternatives side-by-side. </li>

<li>Unless you are planning to make big prints from a large number of originals, many people will find it more economic not to own an expensive scanner. Its not entirely a numbers game since you might find the space/weight requirements of a drum scanner, the learning curve you have to get through, the requirement to manage and maintain a machine that was designed primarily for use in a lab/printer environment, and the fact that scanning itself is some way from being fun are also issues for you to think about.</li>

</ul>

<p>So , whilst I'm more drawn to your option 2, I have one query which is that I don't really feel I understand why you are feeling the need to buy a digital camera as part of option 2. I guess I feel that with a Mamiya 7, a decent flatbed scanner for screen -based applications and small/test prints, and a lab you trust to make drum or at the least Imacon scans , you're good to go for your large prints.</p>

<p>Having tried to work digital and film alongside each other for a while, I found that hard to do and that most times laziness took over and I stuck with whatever I had ready to go, and in my case that was digital- which I have to use for my stock agency work anyway. I can't always tell before I take a photograph whether it's going to have potential for a great large print or not, so I'd feel uncomfortable with having to make that choice at the point of taking. For me I decided that I'd be happy making prints up to around 36" x 24" and mostly smaller. For you if you certainly want 40" anf maybe bigger then the only way to assure that all the time at the best quality you can do, is to take everything on the Mamiya.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you want to print big I would recommend using a better scanner than an Epson V700/V750. I scan my images on a flatbed for internet and to make a final selection for hires scanning. I don’t want to print a massive amount of images, just one or two series a year, so for scanning I rent an Imacon at my local lab to scan big (350mb) files of which I then have lambda print made after processing them.<br>

I think film isn’t necessarily better, but, it looks very different, I prefer the look of negative film because of the wider dynamic range.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>An immense thanks to everyone for their thoughtful and informative responses!</p>

<p>@Marc Batters<br>

I'm a serious amateur, perhaps hoping to become a professional. I had hoped to limit my entire camera endeavor (for now) to about $8k. The M7+80mm+150mm ate up $2k of that, and either of the options I listed would barely bring me in at around that budget. I would say I typically have at least one image per roll that I want a 16x20 of, and perhaps 1 shot out of 3 rolls I would like a 40" or 50" print from.</p>

<p>@Karim<br>

I have seen where LuminousLandscape's results have been challenged, but there just seems to be such a variety of opinions on this subject in general and for all the talk, I've seen surprisingly few actual tests. I think RN Clark came up with apprx. 70-80MP for 6x7, but he also formulated something called Apparent Image Quality to explain the perceived difference in film VS digital, essentially encapsulated by the fact that digital has a better signal-to-noise ratio, and states that a 16MP would have almost equal Apparent Image Quality to 6x7. When you say "it's been demonstrated that 35mm is competitive with 24mp," what are you referring to?</p>

<p>@Dave Sims<br>

I actually have started considering 4x5, and I'm actually wondering why I didn't consider it sooner. This would certainly have saved me the problem of worrying about getting super-shot poster prints. Any suggestions on where I could start reading about LF cameras?</p>

<p>@Rob Piontek<br>

I am trying to set up a test. I had planned to borrow an A900 from a friend, but that recently fell through a bit and I'm back to sitting on my hands for the time being. I may look into renting one.</p>

<p>@Stuart Richardson<br>

I had considered a dedicated film scanner, but with the 9000 being OOP, drum scanners that have the same amount of resolution (like Howtek 4000) are much cheaper, and I'd still prefer the easier to use high-end flatbeds like a Creo.</p>

<p>@David Henderson<br>

Thanks for sharing your experience. First-hand accounts like yours are certainly very helpful. As for why I thought a digital would be useful in option 2, there's two reasons. One, I felt that the digital would be better for prints up to 16x20 if only because of the money I'd save on film and developing. Granted, it's not much in the short term, but film+developing works out to about $10 per roll, which translates to about $500-$1000 per year. Two, the preview functions on digital allow me to fine-tune shots before taking them, and this is much easier than "guessing" with the Mamiya's meter, which changes between lenses and that I'm still not quite used to using.</p>

<p>The latter is my own lack of experience with a rangefinder and film. Let me give an example: the other day I was out photographing some white, blooming trees. I took a few on my digital (Canon Rebel, the older 8MP version) and discovered that overexposing 2/3 a stop produced a better image. This is something I would never have caught with my M7. Again, this is certainly MY limitations as someone who's rather new to being serious about photography. I mean, I've been photographing from a young age, first with my mom's old Minolta XD11 and then with consumer digital, but I've more recently started learning about the art and the craft, and digital is certainly easier for the learning part of things.</p>

<p>As for the hassle of having, using, and maintaining a high-end scanner, I've tried to take that into consideration too, but those like the Creos are supposedly "built like tanks" (a constant cliche I've heard said about them from owners) and most seem to insist that they need very little servicing over periods of 10-20 years. Granted, that was when they were new, and there is certainly an unknown element as to how long a used one will hold up, but I still wonder if it wouldn't pay for itself in the long run even with considering repairs. It's hard to tell.</p>

<p>@Sander<br>

I wouldn't use the Epson for big prints, but just to have a way to digitize my Mamiya images to decide which to make big prints of.</p>

<p>@Mag<br>

I had considered this as well, but in the end I felt it was way too much hassle and the inability to print slides was a killer for me.</p>

<p>@Robin Smith<br>

It's pretty darn expensive. When the cheapest MF out there is $10k without lenses, then the idea of 6x7+high end scanner just seems more attractive. The Creo+M7+2 lenses comes in at about $8k.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's another few things following your latest post.</p>

<p>What are you going to do with all these big prints? For most people who aren't doing it pretty successfully for money, there's a limit to the amount of wallspace they can access and they tend to follow a route of making large prints to meet a known opportunity rather than making big prints for the sake of it. Don't forget these large prints are hard to store unless mounted and framed , and hard to look at unless on a wall. I mention this now rather than have you realise it later after you've spent several $k on a scanner . You should be asking yourself why most serious photographers, including professionals, don't own top-end scanners.</p>

<p>Second and related, if you can say on the one hand that you're not totally up to speed with the Mamiya 7 yet , but that one shot in 30 you make is worth printing at 50", and one in ten is worth printing at 20" x 16", then either you are a genius or there's going to be a huge drop in those numbers as you improve and the difference between the really good and the pretty ordinary becomes more apparent, I can promise you that if you have any talent at all, this is going to happen.</p>

<p>Third, if you want to take perfectly exposed shots with a mamiya 7 then IMO get used to a lot of bracketing, or alternatively and maybe better, consider getting a decent hand-held meter. The metering system in the Mamiya is not a strength. I used mine with a spotmeter virtually from the outset, albeit that i took slides in the main and they are more critical to expose. </p>

<p>Fourth you're still i see hanging on to this thought that it would be nice to use a digital camera for those shots that you won't print, or will print only to medium size (20" x 16" ), but a Mamiya 7 for those you deem to be worth a large print. I really do question whether you can tell the difference reliably before you see the images. You ( indeed anyone) will be prone to making a lot of misjudgments and sometimes you will end up wishing you had a higher resolution version of a subject and other times you'll be disappointed in how the film shots work out. It seems implicit that you will keep the digital for what you consider will be your second quality work , but then you want to make prints from it anyway. Most good photographers will only print at any size what they consider to be their best work and are selective within that. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Susan, I'll offer my experiences, but folks with backgrounds like Stuart Richardson and David Henderson have a lot more basis for their opinions than do most of the rest of us.</p>

<p>I'm not a professional, but photography is my life. I had a Mamiya 7II and a host of lenses, but after discarding two entire rolls of shots taken along a marine shoreline (something I've never done in my life), I gave up on the Mamiya, despite its reputation for some of the sharpest lenses in the industry. I don't think I'll ever understand why I just couldn't connect with the Mamiya.</p>

<p>With film, I'm currently using a Pentax 645 (had it for years) and a Hasselblad 501cm (had it for about a year). I'm also scanning on a Nikon 9000 (previously a Nikon 8000, and I got one of the last Nikon 9000s in the country, literally a day before they announced discontinuation of the scanner). I use Fujichrome Velvia 100 pro and Astia.</p>

<p>With digital, I'm using a Canon 1DsMkIII. My primary interest is landscapes.</p>

<p>I've discovered that I can get much better scans and prints from the Hasselblad than I can from the Pentax (that may be a "duh!" observation to some of you, but seeing the difference side by side has been revealing). I would expect the Mamiya lenses to be more on par with Hasselblad (that's just a semi-educated opinion with no basis in experience).</p>

<p>I can get about equal prints from a scan (either camera) and a Canon digital up to roughly 24"x36". Beyond that size, I'd much rather be scanning rather than using a 21mp digital.</p>

<p>At the same time, however, scanning can be a real pain. Dust is a killer, digital ice reduces sharpness everywhere, it's slow, it's a pain getting an individual frame lined up correctly, and there's a steep learning curve for all of the pre-scan functions that are available (much like preparing a RAW file for conversion). I know I'm not getting as much out of the scanner as I could, and I really should sit down and study the manual more -- just haven't done that yet, and I'm very happy with the scan/prints at my limited size.</p>

<p>At the same time, however (this is a common introductory phrase for me, indicating there are tradeoffs and no bright path to the best solution), I'm concerned about the future of film, especially some color emulsions. I've never been too concerned about this in the past, but with the virtual loss of 220, with the loss of some particular films, and with the loss of so many labs, I (a long-time film supporter) am starting to question the wisdom of pinning my future on this medium. If I did B&W I think I'd feel a bit more confident, but I use color.</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes at this moment, I'd have three or four choices, all dictated primarily by budget. </p>

<p>1. For the least amount of money, I'd get the film camera that I want (and I'd recommend renting a Mamiya 7 first if you've never used one in the past), a Vxx scanner to make initial scans and for web posting, and find a lab that will do quality scans of the few that I want to print larger than 16x24 (or maybe even smaller -- I have a V750, but it seldom gets used except to scan historic prints).</p>

<p>2. For a bit more money, I'd get the film camera that I want, a medium-end dedicated film scanner (Nikon or Imacon), make my own scans for 24"x36" or slightly larger prints, and send out only the scans for which I wanted exceptionally large prints.</p>

<p>3. If it's possible to make the largest prints that you want from a high-end flatbed, that would be my next step.</p>

<p>4. Finally, I'd get a good medium-format digital camera, such as the Hasselblad H4DII and 2-3 of their best lenses. For higher initial up-front cost, you're going to have <strong>far</strong> less on-going hassle down the line. I think (but I'm not positive) that a 40mp digital camera can produce stunning prints at the maximum size you want.</p>

<p>I'm considering a digital back for my Hasselblad, and if I find that to be viable I'm likely to give up film more than I already have, sell my Nikon 9000 scanner, and employ professional labs when I use film and need a good scan. If I had a good income (I'm retired), especially if that income were being derived from photography, option #4 would appeal to me the most, and that's based on my past experience using digital cameras as well as dedicated film scanners.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@David<br /> To respond to each of your paragraphs:</p>

<p>1. I have plenty of blank wall space. That was actually one thing that started me wondering about large prints and the best way to get them. Plus, there's no reason I can't pursue this semi-professionally, since my other profession allows me the time and opportunity.</p>

<p>2. This is a fair point, but I feel I should specify the only aspect of the Mamiya I have any real difficulty with is the meter. The 1 in 3 was a guess, and if I really think about it's probably closer to 1 in 5 or 7, but it's hard to say since I don't have much experience with printing at these sizes. But I'm certainly not a point & shoot photographer. I've often walked around for hours without taking a single shot because I didn't see anything worth photographing. I tend to wait until I see something that really catches my eye.</p>

<p>3. I'm not sure why you think a light meter or bracketing is a better option than using a digital camera, unless I'm going to be doing some post-HDR or some type of stitching. Bracketing would likely be more useful for DOF and focusing than metering, though I've gotten pretty used to figuring out the DOF I want/need on the M7, and I haven't had any problems focusing AFAICT, although I might notice some issues on larger prints.</p>

<p>4. This is another fair point, but I think you slightly misjudge my intentions. I don't think any 16x20 prints would represent my "second-quality" work. It's not like I would be frivolously printing at this size. I mean, is Monet's Impression, Sunrise really a "second quality work" compared to Snow at Argenteuil because the latter is on a bigger canvass? I think it's less about second-rate VS first-rate or even first-rate VS Top .1%, but simply that I think some images work better on a bigger "canvas" than others. I wouldn't call, eg, Steichen "second rate" next to Ansel, but I enjoy looking at larger prints of the latter more than the former, and smaller prints of the former more than the latter. Granted, maybe I would have difficulty telling the difference in the field, but I think I could be reasonably sure enough of the time that the savings would be worth it. The digital would also be much more practical for general photography applications like family gatherings or other instances where auto-focusing, zooms, long telephoto lenses, changeable ISO, et al. would be needed.</p>

<p>@Stephen Penland<br /> Thanks for sharing your own experiences. The M7ii is a finicky camera that has certain quirks that, if not fixed or compensated for, can ruin the image. When I bought mine I immediately had it calibrated, but the tech said it was perfect out of the box and (thankfully) didn't even charge me to look at it. I haven't had any problems with focusing or getting super-sharp results so far (looking at the images I had scanned at a local place) except when stopping all the way down. If you're shooting landscapes then that probably wasn't your problem. Thus far, I can't imagine throwing away ANY role on the M7, so perhaps yours just wasn't calibrated or had some other technical issue?</p>

<p>I also share your concern about the future of film, which is one thing amongst many others tempting me more towards digital. I mean, I love the look of film, even down to preferring film grain over the super-smoothness of digital, and combined with the cheaper prices for cameras with superior resolution and I'm having a hard time giving it up. Of course, that's before I consider scanning, which adds a whole other layer of messiness. One reason I was looking at the Creo is that it's a flatbed made to compete with TOL drum scanners and it should be much easier to use, even if I try wet mounting. That, combined with having an opportunity to get one at practically 90% off makes it very tempting.</p>

<p>As for your options, there are good arguments to be made for all of them, but I simply have to rule out MF digital right now because of the price, but I look forward to the day when I can get a Phase One IQ 180 for a few hundred dollars because the new Phase One IQ 500 has just been released. I've gone back and forth on all the others. The Creo has 5600DPI, which would produce 15.4k x 12.3k images, which is just big enough for 50x40 prints at 300DPI. A similar scan from West Coast Imaging is $100.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IMO an epson scanner is a waste of time for MF, for any use. I did not have anything I would describe as a success with my old epson. In contrast my Nikon 9000 is a a good tool, great results and a lot less work. But, IMO for most things a good 24mp full frame dslr with a good lens well do a better job. </p>

<p>It may sound like a contradiction, but MF gear is a good buy if you are in it for the long term. Manufacturing tech is getting better and MF sized sensors are becoming more of a reality for those of us who can not spend $20k on a camera.</p>

<p>Until then, I would suggest a good full frame DSLR. Or if you insist on film, a Nikon scanner or send it all out. Otherwise why shoot MF?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think you should go digital, putting your money into a Sony 900 or Canon 5D2, a couple of good lenses, and a big inkjet printer. You won't lose much on your Mamiya gear when you sell it and you won't have the hassles of scanning. I don't know if you described your subject matter, but you did allude to stitching and that can work for some subjects when you want huge prints....</p>

<p>BUT -- if that last paragraph just feels wrong to you, for whatever reason (affection for film/Mamiya/grain/workflow/whatever), then you should try for a few months continuing with the Mamiya and jobbing out your scans. I say this because you probably won't be happy with large prints from a scan done on a flatbed and any decent MF film scanner is going to be very expensive. You don't have to go to drum scans; digmypics.com scans 6x7 negs at 4000 dpi for $8 (there are cheaper services that come at the expense of American jobs, sending your film to India for scanning). That size scan produces a 30x36 print at 300dpi.</p>

<p>After awhile, you'll have enough information to go on. You can figure out how many keepers you get per year that are worth drum scans, you can decide whether you should invest in your own 4000dpi film scanner, and you can judge whether it's even worth sticking with film at all. You won't have "lost" anything, as you'll always have very sharp Mamiya film shots in your archive.</p>

<p>Bottom line: I'm thinking you're not an ideal candidate for large-format at this point (judging from your description of your Mamiya experience and ambivalence about scanning) and I would think long and hard before investing in a really high-end scanner with a steep learning curve and lots of time demands. Since MF digital is out of the question, there are only so many choices left for someone who wants big prints, and those choices are relatively easy to sort out (there are many, many full-frame digital-SLR samples available on the web that you can download for free and print out at 30x45 to see whether the quality meets your needs).</p>

<p>Re: your metering hassles, it's a simple matter to calibrate your Mamiya to any digital SLR (preferably a recent one, as the LCD is larger). Just shoot a roll or two at 1/3-stop increments, noting what the SLR (with comparable lens) says is correct metering, what is 1/3 under, what is 2/3 over, etc. Whichever frames of the film look right to you will give your answer, whether it's 1/3-stop under the "correct" assessment by the SLR meter or whatever. Then just take the SLR with you and compensate accordingly when setting the Mamiya aperture and shutter speed.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Susan:<br>

I had the exact dilemma. In my case I shoot a Horseman 6x7 view camera. I scan with a Minolta MultiPro. A fellow photographer named Klaus Puska has published a very detailed analysis between the Mamiya 7 and the Canon 5d Mark II. He even gives you the files to download and print yourself. Which is what I did. The answer for me at least was revealing Here is the link:<br>

http://www.naturewindows.com/articles/article090116.html<br>

hope this helps<br>

Jim</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@Don V<br>

That's an extremely sensible post, and I think I think I will end up eventually running some kind of first-hand test on this myself. As for the metering, what you describe is what I already do with my DSLR. AFAICT, the DSLR and the Mamiya meter pretty close to each other except in very dark or very bright parts, and simply using the preview on the digital I've gotten the desired exposures on the M7 consistently.</p>

<p>@Jim Hein<br>

That article seems to fall in line with the one on Luminous Landscapes, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm missing something when people insist that 6x7 has more resolution. Now, for that link, the fact that he scanned at 4000DPI on a "dedicated film scanner" makes me worry about what the difference a high-end flatbed or drum scanner would make. But I've yet to see any similar tests that suggest 6x7 on either has definitively more resolution. I'm probably just going to have to do my own tests.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Susan, I made a number of great images with the Mamiya 7II. Any problems I had with the camera were strictly me. For whatever reason, I found it hard to "see" good compositions in certain environments. It had nothing to do with the camera itself. As I said, I doubt I'll ever fully understand it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><<But I've yet to see any similar tests that suggest 6x7 on either has definitively more resolution.>><br>

Susan,<br>

There is so much made of marginal resolution differences. However, visual perception is more important than absolute resolution. The only question is which LOOKS sharper, and digital generally wins. I would be picking based on other differences, such as the format (I prefer 6x6, and I generally hate composing within the odd constraints of the standard long rectangle of 24x36 where much of the frame gets cropped), or idiosyncracies of certain film types. For example, there is software to emulate black and white grain, but I consider this to be rather cheesy for anyone other than large-volume wedding hucksters. I'm committed to film for the near future, but if I had $10,000, at this point I'd strongly consider a Mamiya or Pentax digital MF system. If you go the Mamiya 7 route, you will certainty surpass this investment with film and scanning costs. If you go with the Mamiya, you'll be able to use film anyway.<br>

Another thing to consider is the gigantic size of drum-scanned files. Do you really want to be dealing with 2 gig files?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Susan, if you only generate a few hundred large pictures per year several people who own a Coolscan 9000 will scan them for you.</p>

<p>I scan for other people and I never charge as long as it is low volume.</p>

<p>The Mamiya 7II produces excellent 30x40 prints from a Coolscan 9000. At 4,000 dpi from 6x7 it gives you aprox a native 300dpi scan for 30x40 output. It is perfect.</p>

<p>You can always drumscan a few select images but I never found the need.</p>

<p>If your intention is to produce fine art 30x40 prints a DSLR is not a feasible tool.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@ Scott Frindel Cole<br /> The Mamiya MF digital systems cost $20k+. The Pentax 645D is maybe an option, but we're still talking about $2k over my budget plus the cost of lenses. Sure, I'd make that up with film and developing over time, but I could probably shoot about 400-500 roles of film before I hit that point.</p>

<p>@MauroFranic<br>

That's another good suggestion. Free scanning would be great, but of course I don't want to take advantage of people either. But that's basically my major concern when I consider digital, that it won't suffice for 30", 40", and certainly not 50" prints. But all this hassle with 6x7 is certainly off-putting as well.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm in line with Mauro on expectations from 6x7 film scans in an LS-4000 vs a 24MP DSLR. My D3 is 12.1MP, and I find that 16"x20" is as big as I care to enlarge. Extrapolating by the square root law, that translates to 24"x30" from a 24MP camera. A lot depends on the subject and the manner of display. I'm thinking of a landscape hanging on the wall, where it has lots of detail and is subject to close examination.</p>

<p>30"x40" from a 22MP medium format digital back is a reasonable expecation too. There is no anti-aliasing filter on MFD backs, and the output resolution can be resampled by a factor of two without excessive degradation. As with film, you have to be very attentive to focus and vibration control to achieve good results at this size. The Pentax 645D has a price point competitive with the 1DsII, and used backs in this category are becoming available.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...