Jump to content

RZ 67 verses Super Graphic


werner1

Recommended Posts

For the last year or so I have been using a Mamiya RZ 67 and love

the increase in Quality over my 35mm to the point that my Dynax 7

seldom sees the light of day. Recently, I find myself yearning to

try my hand at Large format. I have been thinking about starting off

with a Graphlex Super Graphic or something similar to wet my feet.

My Question, given the age of the lenses compared to the modern

computer aided designs of the RZ67, how will image quality compare?

Does the increase in negatives from 6x7cm to 4x5 more than

compensate for the older lenses? Most of my intended use for the

Graphic would be for landscapes and I don't often exceed 16x20

enlargements. Is the move to a Graphic worthwhile or should I be

looking at something with a greater selection of lenses, i.e. a

field camera? I understand the Graphic will not have the range of

movements; my question is basically an image quality issue. Thanks

ahead of time for any responses.

 

Werner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

get the crown or speed graphic and put a high quality 135 that will fold up in the camera.. i use a rodenstock 135 sironar? s .. its awsome.. i shoot velvia readyloads, and veiw them in glasines on a light box, and when i get a good one i wont let anyone touch them... but then again im wierd on this i guess.. id love to get some printed but only the best of the best i cant trust to others, or the post office... but with a loop and a light box with 4x5 slide, and a minute of viewing im there at that place and time in my mind.. you can just melt into it.. cant explain it, but its better than any print (or smaller slide) ever hoped to be.. a slide has a depth of field on a lightbox, somehow, a print is never 3d to me, i just cant explain it.... dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Dave. Many modern lenses will fit on a Super Graphic. You're not restricted to using "original issue." Graphics' lenses are on boards, don't have a proprietary bayonet mount.

 

4x5 needs a bit more than half the resolution on film as nominal 6x7 to get equally sharp prints (and with better gradation of tones). For resolution available from MF and LF, including older, lenses, see, respectively, http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html and http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html .

 

Re "modern computer aided designs," wash your mind out with soap.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never used Mamiya equipment but there's no consistent, obvious difference in the technical quality of my 11x14 and smaller prints as between my Pentax 67 system and my 4x5 system (mostly modern, top-of-the-line lenses). With prints larger than 11x14 the 4x5 system has a noticeable advantage.

 

If you're expecting the same kind of qualitative difference beween your medium format system and 4x5 as you got when you moved from 35mm to medium format I think you're going to be disappointed. I believe that almost everyone who has moved from 35mm to 6x7 to 4x5 would agree that the differences between 35mm and 6x7 are much greater than the differences between 6x7 and 4x5, at least until you get up to prints in the 16x20 range. Of course there are advantages to large format other than just the technical quality of the prints - e.g. the movements available with large format and the ability to individually process each negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I just tested a 150mm Rodenstock Grandagon against a RB pro s and 90mm lens and while the 90mm lens has the zoom advantage the 4x5 beat it. That was scanning the 4x5 at 2000 dpi. Comparing it to a 6x7 4000 dpi scan resized to that 4x5 scan size.

 

All that said i would get the sharpest LF lens you can afford that will fit in your camera. Actually my 150mm lens has better edge sharpness than my RB 90mm lens. Of course you would want a 135mm lens.

 

Here are a couple of crops. Personally i think the big benifit is scanning at a lower rez eliminates most of the film grain.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/rb67_and_4x5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, ill have to agree that the 6x7,6x6 will do a great 11x14 or bigger.. but if you consistly shoot 6x7 youl get some great 11x14 or bigger shots.. if you take both cameras and shoot 4x5 when the shot warrants it, eventually youll get a great 30x40 where there are no pop cans in the foreground, exposure is right, backlight or highlights are great, no dust spots etc,,.. if you dont shoot them you wont get them... there is no comparison in the final product.. . 4x5 has 4-5 times the density. and costs a whole bunch more.. so there are its down sides.. the density advantage can also save a bad shot or when youve got some bad film.. i shot a 6x6 of my family on a nice occasion and it was old film or something.. it was kind of brown and not great quality.. i gave it to the local small proccesser and they made great 8x10's for me and the families involved.. the proscessor said if it was 35mm it would not have been a very good print. but the extra density made the shot for me.. dave..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, I didn?t realize that you could put other lenses on the Graphics. That answers the question about lense quality. I wasn?t really expecting the same leap from 6x7 to 4x5 as from 35 to 6x7, ( I couldn?t see how that was possible}. I guess I just wanted some assurance that it was possible to see a difference between the Graphic and the RZ. Bill, I?m curious, could the switch have had something to do with aging bodies and ones ability to carry heavy packs into the field? I don?t know enough about them or when in their careers they switched, but I do know that as we get older the weight of a pack can make the difference between being able to go out or stay home. Dan, thanks for the lense sites, now if I can just find that bar of Palmolive. Werner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both a RZ and 4x5 gear. With 11x14 inch enlargements, if I work carefully, its difficult to tell the difference between the formats. Under a 10x loupe the differences are more obvious, though not unpleasing.

 

Moving to 4x5 may be of benefit to you if images controls (rise/fall, tilt/swing) are important. But you might not know this until you've tried it.

 

Whatever you do, don't try making 8x10 or Ultra Large Format contact prints. You'll never go back to what instantly becomes submini-format cameras. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Werner, Ansel and Brett were probably the two best printers in the history of our medium, and I think that their switch to 6x6 cameras was just a realization that they could now get the quality which had previously required 4x5 or 8x10 negatives. However, one cannot help but believe that the strength and visual difficulties inherent with advancing age must have contributed something to their decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Werner, you didn't specify if you print in a darkroom or scan your negs/trans. If you scan, you have to have a much better scanner, like a dedicated film scanner for medium format, to really capture the resolution inherent in the medium format negs/trans. These scanners are expensive ($1000 plus). Shooting 4x5 though, you can get an excellent scan from numerous flatbed scanners like the Epson line which will allow you to make exhibition quality prints up to 11x14 or 16x20. My older Epson 2450 has a real "sweet spot" for 4x5 negs/trans, and I can get wonderful, sharp scans which make prints equal to my darkroom prints in resolution and tonality, maybe even better!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there's a distinction to be made between potential improvemnets, and practical improvements, regarding the switch from 6x7 to 4x5. In the case of image quality potential, mathematics don't lie, and 4x5 has a clear advantage, but in practice, the differences might have more to do with technique than mathematics. One of the biggest obstacles to moving up in format, is that the potential gains offered by the larger format can take more time and effort to realize than many are willing to commit. This is more true when moving from MF to LF than it is when moving from 35mm to MF. The LF workflow is radically different than the rollfilm workflow, and the oportunity for error is an order of magnitude greater. As we all know, it only takes one error in the sequence to ruin an image. If we're lucky, we produce a LF image early on that, if not perfect, at least hints at the potential of the format, and provides the inspiration and motivation necessary for us to commit to the format, despite the increased difficulty and expense that it represents. In the end, the superior format is the one with which we feel most comfortable, and confident. My own confidence is directly proportional to negative size, but I am still very comfortable with my RB67, and use it as often as any other format, and more than most. Good luck, Werner, enjoy yourself, and whatever format you choose.

 

Jay

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...