Mamiya 7ii or Canon 5D Mark iii

<p>I'm a second year photography student. I started photography with a Rebel XT 5 years ago but eventually i became very interested in film and medium format. I started shooting with a Mamiya C330 and went on purchasing more medium format bodies. I currently have my Mamiya C330 along with Hasselblad 503CW, Mamiya RZ67. For school projects that require a digital camera or for events (making money on the side) i use a Canon 7D. <br>

What I'm eventually interested is printing my work and selling to to galleries. I'm not a fan of doing wedding or events. If galleries don't work out I'm more interested in doing portraits and studio work and trying to make money that way. But i'm keeping my hopes up and aiming for gallery type of work and going into that direction.<br>

I have recently become interested in Mamiya 7ii due to its size and the fact that i can carry it around everyday without much of a hassle. This would probably allow me to do more street type of photography and candids. The weight allows me to be able to take images without the use of tripod. On the other hand my digital camera is not the best out there. Its lacking megapixles i need for large prints but at the same going from 18 to 22 megapixles is not that big of a difference.<br>

I already have two great medium format cameras, do you think adding a third one (mamiya 7ii) would have any benefit over the other two? Should i just upgrade my digital camera.<br>

I should also mention i will have access to Imacon scanner in our school from next year. As of now i scan with the Epson scanners.<br>

Thanks in advance</p>

<p>If you really want to see an improvement use a wet darkroom.........this will blow you away.<br />Analog to analog..<br />You will not be held back by scan quality.<br /><br />Once you try that first, you will know your answer as to whether you want to go analog or digital.<br /><br />Just my 2cents.......mileage may vary.</p>

<p>A few points</p>

 

<ul>

<li>If you want to get gallery representation in places where you stand half a chance of getting your print prices up high enough to actually make some money, what you need is ideas for photography portfolios rather then camera equipment. If you're different and you're quality, you stand half a chance of at least getting your pictures in front of people willing and able to pay reasonable sums for photographs. What none of these gallery owners and managers are likely to ask you is what cameras you've got, and if you tell them they might well not know enough to be impressed. So, first point- think photographs not cameras. </li>

<li>Its quite likely that you have all the cameras you need to create the sort of images that will make people want to buy your work. Where do you find your current range restricts you? Given what you've got already I think there's more chance that you find you've got the wrong system in your bag than you don't own what you need to get a particular shot or series. If you can't identify a clear and important weakness in your current array, then I'd contend that you may not need another system.</li>

<li>I used a Mamiya 7ii for ten years alongside a 6x6 slr. I used it for maybe 15% of the frames I shot. I bought it because sometimes I wanted a rectangular framing and didn't want to get there by cropping 6x6. Equally there were times when I absolutely could not use a tripod , and times when the weight really was an issue. So I did sometimes get shots I could not have got with a slr. However its not all upside. Its rangefinder focus-which suits some people more than others, you can't see dof through the lens at all, and in essence you can't get a lens longer than 150mm. Further the M7ii meter covers the same area on the ground no matter what lens you have fitted. So with a very wide lens its virtually a spotmeter. But with the 150mm the meter is taking some of its reading from things outside the frame altogether. I used a handheld spotmeter with the Mamiya . So in some ways you get more flexibility, but in others you lose it, and for me at least it was the 6x6 slr bag I picked up most of the time . The point here is I knew why I needed it before I got it. </li>

<li>Interestingly looking at Russ Britt's suggestion that you should try conventional printing rather than digital- I started by having analogue prints made by top-end labs. Using enlargers I struggled with sharpness at much over 16" sq- though this was from slides. Adopting a scan and digital print regime fairly early, I found the quality, repeatability and ability to get the print that I envisaged to all be much better with scan and print, to the point that I was getting 36" sq prints that did not depend on viewing distance to look sharp. Admittedly I was getting drum scans but an Imacon witll get you most of the way there. Takes all sorts.</li>

<li>I cannot imagine what markets you would crack armed with a 22MP dslr as against 18MP. For most things either would do. For extremely large top quality prints neither will do - but you already have access to a fine system that would- Mamiya RZ . </li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>If galleries don't work out I'm more interested in doing portraits and studio work and trying to make money that way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For this type of work you are better off shooting with DSLR. Customers love instant feedback from digital. Having two camera bodies is a must for serious work in a way of back up and ability to use different lens without time consuming change. Personally, all my paying work is done digitally, I shoot film for myself and never made, nor attempted to make, a penny out of it. My investments go into DSLR system first.</p>

<p>Agree with both above. Most likely you need a different finder for the RZ (vs waist type) and you'd be good to go.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Personally I'm not comofrtable with the RZ due to its weight and the fact that it feels really bulky when I'm holding it. I have small arms and my hands get shakey when i use a camera handheld for long. The 503cw is not as heavy and allows me to take some photos without the use of tripod but its still not close to a camera i would carry around with myself everyday. I want to have a camera that i can carry around all day. The 7ii on the other hand is closer to a DSLR or even a 35mm that you can carry around. It doesn't look/feel bulky. I have the option to get a Mamiya 7ii or the Fuji GF670. Or i can just upgrade my digital camera but i really don't see what improvement i can get in my digital work (weddings,events and etc) by upgrading from a 7d to a 5d (other than the frame size) <br>

On the other hand I'm worried I will never make it to the galleries. I'm not sure if my work has the unique quality to make it to the galleries. (My professors think it does), But in the back of my head i'm worried about how i will actually make a living. I'm 24 years old and I think its time for me to find out what i want to do with my photography and the fact that i still don't know and can't figure out makes me worried about the future. Anyways this last paragraph has nothing to do with thread but i thought i should just mention it. </p>

<p>John: When I was 33, I started my business (non-photo). I was very afraid; I had a new born child having just married the year before and a regular job that I had to quit that was paying the bills. And I usually played it safe. But I just had to do it. The business lasted 20 years before it failed leaving me broke although it did pay the expenses over that time. Nothing spectacular. So after the business failed I got a job using the experience I gained in business to help secure that position. Today I'm just retired getting a pension and social security and my daughter's doing fine herself getting married last year. And I even saved up a small nest egg for retirement.</p>

<p>If I never tried it, I would be kicking myself today for not giving it a shot.</p>

<p>So, give it a shot. Just play it honest and straight and you'll be OK no matter what. I promise.</p>

<p>From what you've listed you already have plenty of cameras, you really don't need more, and a fancier body won't improve your photographic vision. Your only real justification for a FF body is if you really want to do wedding or other low light work that requires a very clean high iso.</p>

<p>As the others have pointed out, focusing on your photography is a far better way to build a career than worrying about minor improvements in equipment. Instead why not make up a portfolio of your best images and take it around to galleries now just to see what comments you get. This may give you some direction as to where to go.</p>

<p>But the main thing I've learned is that in order to produce unique photographs you must shoot what you have a passion for or your images are just going to look like everyone else's. If that's weddings, then shoot weddings, if street photography, then shoot that, if landscape then that, etc. Mine's flowers and macro with a little landscape thrown in for fun, and after 6 years of shooting around 100,000 shots (digital of course, if film I'd be broke) over that time I finally feel that my work is good enough to try selling it. Which is another point for digital, you can learn much faster given its low cost and instant feedback than you ever could using film alone.</p>

<p>And BTW, a modern 24mp sensor is so close to 6x7 film in resolution that it's difficult justifying shooting film just for the resolution alone. Here's a comparison I made between the Fuji 69 90mm vs. the Sigma SD1:<br>

Fuji: http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/145771283<br>

Sigma: http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/145771284<br>

Personally I prefer the Sigma because of less noise, though admittedly the resolution of the Fuji could be improved by drum scanning, but that's too expensive for me and I wanted a realistic test.<br>

Anyway, good luck. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I`d say for selling photos, you now need a good project&ideas, rather than another camera. Yes, the Mamiya 7 is different to the cameras you already have, but I believe this issue will not give any additional benefit to the creative possibilities of the C330, the RZ, the Hasselblad or even the 7D.</p>

<p>And I agree with Russ, the traditional printing is really interesting, but it`s also way more difficult and wearisome to learn and control.</p>

<p>To make money, I`d invest in digital. Some people work with film, but I find it not so practical. Do you really need more than 18Mp? Actually?</p>

<p>I`d work first on the ideas. One of my favorite photographers work (and also sell <em>a lot</em>) with a Nikon F3 and a 55 micro (traditional printing). Now she uses digital, but her style is exactly the same... maybe a bit more commercial (sadly).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.chemamadoz.com">Chema Madoz</a> is really creative, and have never worked with fancy cameras. I think most of the pics (of an impeccable quality) I know from him have been taken with a "basic" model of Hasselblad, more than enough for his endless ideas... it`s worth a look.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for the tips.<br>

Is it okay if i share my portfolio here just to get some opinions?<br>

I would say my style is landscape and vintage portraits on medium format. Some of my pictures have the pictorial feel to it almost like a painting. At least this is what i think my style is. </p>

 

<p>Sure post them.</p>

<p>Please ignore the fact that my name here is not the same on my website. This is because i first had an account under my name but couldn't get access to it so i had to create another account.<br>

www.viiphotography.com</p>

<p>You've already developed your own unique look, and from the style of your images unless you're wanting to print really large (greater then 16x20) I don't see you needing more resolution than your present 18mp 7D. And your portfolio seems to indicate a preference for environmental portraiture. You could possible make some money doing just that, with a little band and wedding photography thrown in.<br>

But if you are wanting to print larger then I'd recommend either the 36mp D800 or the new Sony A7r, as that kind of mp jump would be far more noticeable than just moving up to the 5DIII. </p>

 

<p>Mike thanks for the response<br>

None of the photos on my website are shot with the 7D. Almost everyone of those photos is shot with the Mamiya C330. I have made a 40x40 print with the Mamiya C330 scanned at 4000+ dpi using the Imacon scanners and it turned out great. Personally thats not the size i want to sell my work at. Probably 20x20 would be the size i want to go with. I was thinking of getting the 5D so i can do a bit of wedding if i don't make my other goals. On the other hand I want a medium format that i can take with me without the need of tripod. Something that allows me to do some documentary photography as well (planning on heading to middle east and africa this summer).<br>

I'm still not sure if i should just upgrade my digital or go with either one of these cameras. <br>

Mamiya 7ii, Mamiya 7, Plaubel Makina w67, and the Fuji GF670. <br>

I can even get a 5D body with any of the above cameras (used). I was looking to purchase the Mamiya 7ii brand new from B&H for 3400$ but there are some good condition Mamiyas on ebay for 1000-2000$. That allows me to get a 5D body and use the lenses i already have. <br>

The reason i want to upgrade my medium format is mostly the weight and portability. I'm not sure which of the above has the best lens but somehow i'm in love with the photos I'm seeing from the w67. I'm not sure if any of the camera above have options that makes them better than what i already have other than weight and size. I know you guys have more experience and can help me out. I have already got great tips from everyone. Just trying to make my mind. </p>

 

<p>Fair to say if you have gallery representation as a goal then its fair to think about what system will give you large prints. Yes, the work is more important obviously. However, if you cannot print large its going to be difficult to convince a gallery owner to look at work no matter how unique your vision is. Simply too much competition. <br>

If I were young and starting out like you are there is no doubt I would stick with Digital. Your ONLY option for good prints with any medium format camera is Drum Scanning or Nikon 9000/8000 or an Imacon. Flatbed scanners simply are only good proof prints and very small ones at that. NEVER present your work using a Flatbed if you are shooting medium format. No point. Regardless of all the people who post on here raving about how sharp their Epsons are. If u shoot a Mamiya 7, do not waste your time with cheap scanning.<br>

What about the d800e? this camera will crush 6x7 medium format with the proper glass. Bite the bullet now. The d800e should hold its value fairly well. U could sell it in a few years with little depreciation in my view. The market for the Mamiya 7 rangefinders has already softened considerably in the past year if ebay is any indication. </p>

 

<p>Nice work Amir. So much more interesting that all of the rather boring "velvia" look photography I see on photo.net.<br>

Nice use of the square format. </p>

<p>Why do you want 20x20 over 40x40? I agree with John Photos that bigger is better. </p>

<p>It's difficult for me to offer any more suggestions without first understanding what you see in film that you don't see in digital.</p>

<p>And as for MF film cameras, the Mamiya 7 has the reputation of having the highest resolution lenses ever made. But that said, each lens company has their own design philosophy which in turn causes their lens to render tones a little differently from the others. For instant both Leica and Zeiss produce excellent lenses but if you take the same shot with each they will look different.</p>

<p>Actually, my favorite MF camera/lens designed was Bronica. Their lenses produced an open airy 3D look more reminiscent of Schneider than Zeiss. In contrast both Fuji and Mamiya lenses produce a look that is basically non-descript, i.e. competent but ordinary. The same can be said of both Canon and Nikon, high quality but no distinguishing look to them (most Japanese glass in general). But a trained eye can easily pick out a Leica or Zeiss lens, especially when shooting slide film. But it really depends on the look you're wanting. And since you do seem to have the money to experiment you might pick up a cheap Bronica body (they come in all formats) as they're very cheap now, about 1/10 of new, and see if you like it. It will be very different from the Zeiss look from your Hasselblad.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Mike & John. @John, im glad you like my photos. The main reason i stick with MF is personal interest. I love shooting film, I love the fact that I don't know how my pictures look until i develop and scan it. I love the smell of dark room, i don't know its just i love shooting film. I also prefer square format over any other formats out there. I do have access to Imacon scanners in my school for next 3 years and I think this is a great chance for me to make some amazing prints for the galleries while i can. Then i will get to save up some money and get my own scanner. Another reason that i prefer film over digital is the print quality. I can't make a 40x40 print with my 7d or 5d unless i do stitching. There is also more tonal range with film compared to digital.<br>

I think a better question for me to ask you guys is this. <br>

What do these cameras have and offer (Mamiya 7ii, Mamiya 7, Plaubel Makina w67, and the Fuji GF670) that my current cameras (Mamiya RZ, Hasselblad 503cw, Mamiya C330) don't offer? Which camera has the sharpest lens? Which camera gives out the best negative if scanned with the same scanner? Which camera is better for close ups and close portraits? <br>

I think you guys are way more knowledgable about MF cameras and I think you could best answer the above. I was looking at the pictures taken by Plaubel Makina w67. Is this better than the cameras i already have quality wise? I was amazed by the pictures that were captured with that camera. It might be the film or the photographer but i was surprised that every single photo i saw from that camera had this amazing quality and sharpness to it. </p>

 

<p>I agree that if you are scanning the negatives and printing digitally you are not getting the whole beauty of film, just some of it. Wet printing from negatives is far superior but is time consuming and can be costly.</p>

<p>Forget megapixels, honestly. I have seen professional gallery prints 6 feet high that were made from a 10 megapixel 40D next to the same size prints made from a 22 megapixel 5D MkIII and the difference was miniscule. I usually have a good eye for that sort of thing but I couldn't tell the difference until I looked at the data. A full frame DSLR does give a cleaner look at higher ISOs though.</p>

<p>For me, the advantage of full frame is the shallower depth of field. For your portrait work I think you would find it a big benefit.</p>

<p>As for having a Mamiya 7ii or a 5D MkIII I think the DSLR makes much more sense from a practicality point of view and I honestly doubt it will make much difference to your large gallery prints compared to the Mamiya. But I know what you're saying about the love of using film and if that's a major part of it then the Mamiya it will have to be.</p>

 

<p>I've used the Makina 670 but not the W67, but agree that the Nikkor optic of the former is really excellent. Most of the optics of the Mamiya (original or II, it doesn't matter) are also excellent. That of my also former Fujifilm GW690III is a bit less so, but not a major concern for most prints (under 16 x 24). Important thing to remember I think is that sharpness is not the only parameter of lens performance (consider also contrast, microcontrast, rendition of fine details, susceptibility to flaring, etc.) and some qualities seem to escape measurement (like bokeh) and show up mainly in photos. Unless you push the print enlargements to the outer limits you may not see much difference in any of these optics, and in that case you are probably better to seek large format equipment, with the advantages and inconveniences of that medium. For street shooting that you seem to enjoy, the Makina (if itr is like my former 670) noisy and the mechanism a bit fragile, while the Mamiya I or II are user friendly. I prefer the smaller Mamiya 6 and its lenses. It is more compact and also very silent and quick.</p>

<p>To specifically answer some of your MF camera questions:</p>

<p>1. the Mamiya 7 (ii) has the sharpest, highest resolutions lenses even made for any MF camera (the C330 has the lowest quality lenses of the cameras you mention with about half the resolution of the Mamiya 7), but being a rangefinder it's poor for portrait work due to its inability to focus close coupled with parallex errors. You really need an SLR for good portrait work, though if money were no object and I loved the square format I'd choose the Tele-Rollei with the glass back and insert (which holds the film perfectly flat) for the ultimate in quality:<br>

(<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rollei-Tele-Rolleiflex-w-Sonnar-135mm-f-4-Tele-Rolleiflex-009166-/131057694322">http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rollei-Tele-Rolleiflex-w-Sonnar-135mm-f-4-Tele-Rolleiflex-009166-/131057694322</a>)</p>

<p>2. the best camera for studio work is the RZ, either for portrait, commercial, or macro due to its bellows, though to be honest many, if not most, MF camera portrait photographers at that time (mid 80s) preferred to use the Pentax 67 because it is easier to hand hold. </p>

<p>3. can't comment on the Plaubel because I haven't used it, nor have I used the Fuji GF670, but the Fuji 69 cameras have excellent lenses.</p>

<p>4. general comment: no rangefinder makes a good portrait camera because you just can't focus close enough for a tight headshot nor can you see exactly what you're getting because of parallax error. If I wanted to do the kind of shots in your portfolio and wanted a high quality camera lens in a compact light weight body I'd be shooting a Rollei F3 12/24 with the f2.8 lens and glass back. They come with both Schneider or Zeiss lenses, though which one is best is a matter of taste--both are good.</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROLLEI-ROLLEIFLEX-WHITEFACE-12-24-2-8F-CARL-ZEISS-PLANAR-TLR-CAMERA-CLEAN-/291036779470?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item43c324d3ce</p>

 

<p>Also wanted to comment on digital vs. darkroom printing:<br>

I had my own color darkroom for 10 years and the inkjet prints I'm making now are much better than anything I could ever hope to do in the darkroom. A lot of this is due to the inevitable fine detail loss of printing through an enlarger lens (which is why contact prints look so much better) whereas a good scan will preserve everything. Also the color accuracy and DR of color paper is poorer than inkjet. The only color darkroom process that looks better than digital is Cibachrome, which is no longer made. </p>

<p>Now the same cannot be said for B&W printing. A <em>good</em> darkroom print is still superior to inkjet, but you have to really be a good printer for that to happen, but it can take you many years to "develop" that level of skill. Now if you're wanting the ultimate in quality shoot 11x14 and contact print it, but that takes a lot of work and can be a bit expensive. :)</p>

<p>So I hope this helps some. Mike</p>

<p>I second what others say that you need to be thinking about photos, not cameras.<br /><br />As far as galleries, unless you are extraordinarily lucky, it will not work out, so you had better be thinking about other routes if you want to make a living from photography. Very, very few photographers make more than a part time income, if that, from gallery sales. Even Ansel Adams did commercial work and portraits to pay the bills. Of those who do manage to sell prints in galleries, I have seen everything from Ansel Adams prints where you can see the veins in an individual leaf on a tree halfway across a valley to out-of-focus, crooked, over or underexposed snapshots shot with a Holga. So the technical quality of your camera is irrelevant to selling prints in a gallery.<br /><br />If you are a college student and therefore have maybe the next 60 years ahead of you for a career in photography, concentrate on digital. Keep the film cameras you can, buy some more if you like, and use them for your personal projects to your heart's content. If you can sell the images you make with them so much the better. But most of the world of professional photography -- photography where you can count on a respectable annual income, pay the bills, support a family, etc. -- has already gone digital. During your lifetime -- which will extend long after many of us old film fans are long gone -- knowing film might be nice, but knowing digital will be required.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have seen everything from Ansel Adams prints where you can see the veins in an individual leaf on a tree halfway across a valley to out-of-focus, crooked, over or underexposed snapshots shot with a Holga. So the technical quality of your camera is irrelevant to selling prints in a gallery.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I entirely agree. The work of <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ray's+a+laugh&biw=2120&bih=1086&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=CEmzUqCZHa6w7Aamm4HgBQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ">Richard Billingham</a> is a prime example. He used a cheap 35mm compact with the cheapest film he could find. </p>