Mamiya 6 vs. Leica M6-----not the same old question.

[ryan w. radtke]

I had to sell my mamiya 6 set with all three lenses about a year ago and I miss it. Im thinking about

picking one up again, however, Im also thinking I might like to try a leica on for size. I will most likely

purchase an M6 TTL if I chose the leica route. With the release of the M8, I am leaning towards the leica,

as it would allow me to upgrade to digital in the future without having to purchase a whole new set of

lenses. I think I might like to switch over to digital eventually, however, I do not like shooting with SLR's

of any format. Furthermore, with the quality of prints I have seen from the r2400, I finally see an

alternitive to a wet darkroom. I have been shooting in medium format for about 5 years now, and am a

little apprehensive about picking up a 35mm camera. This camera will be used mostly for traveling, as

that was the only time my mamiya left its case--2 or 3 times a year--but I might use a leica more often

because of the size and cheap film. For my other work (mostly portraits) I use a mamiya c220. I enjoy the

square format, and I like the tonal range and sharpness of medium format. I like to print 8x8s and

12x12s, and hardly ever print any other sizes. I would print 8x10's from the leica, but would want the

ability to print up to 11x14 with good tonal quality and with reasonable sharpness (grain dosnt bother me

so much as tonal quality). Will I be dissapointed with an 11x14 print from a leica M6 (most likely with

voigtlander lenses, 35 ultron and 75mm). Thanks for your help...

[Jochen_S]

The best way to get the answer would be to dig out a neg of your favourite film crop some 24x36mm area from it and print at least a small sheet as a teststripe. Place it on anything 11x24 and judge it. The CV lenses might be a bit better than your Mamiya stuff but this method should give you a general idea of what you'll get.

 

The discussion of Leica vs MF is old. My personal opinion is just: I still remember why I purchased my TLRs and Delta 3200 looks definitely much better burned in my Pentacon. Slower film makes the advantage less obvious but well, get a roll of Delta 100 and find out what is possible.

[nee_sung]

The range finder of the Leica is much better than the Mamiya. I have used/owned M2/M3/M4/M6/M7 and I have the Mamiya 7II, which I assume have the same range finder as the 6.

 

I cannott comment on the quality of 11X14 from Leica since I don't have the lenses you mentioned.

[christian hilmersen www.]

I have a Hasselblad 501 and a Leica m6. With the same iso film the a shot taken with the hassy has more tonality. But, I tend to shoot with slower film (astia 100 og delta 100) with the leica. With the scanners I have, I find that 100 asa and leica is a very good combination. 400 film is good to, but you will get a 35mm look.... What I find is that it has taken me some time to get good prints, but now I am quite consistent: good exposure, good scanning, good ps-work and good printing is the key - all of these require training. I choose the hasselblad when:

- I want to controll a narrow DOF (a SLR issue - I guess)

- when I want a square format

- when I want the hassy out of focus look

 

I choose the leica for:

- mobility

- simplicity

- when I do not want a narrow DOF

- in difficult light conditions.

 

Lenses: I have Konica Lenses. I prefer these to the Hassy lens. These lenses have 10 aperture blades (the hassy has 5 I think). The result is that the OOF areas become smooth and natural looking. With the hassy I get pentagons.

 

Notice:

Sharpness is not an issue. If anyting, the leica/konica/100 iso b/wfilm/nikon scanner and vuescan combination is sharper than the hassy and flatbedscanner combination. The 35mm negatives also seems sharper. (I hardly ever use tripods or flashes...)

 

Tonality is different. Sometimes I prefer the 35 tonality, sometimes the 6x6.

 

Hope this helps.

[derek_stanton2]

I found the viewfinder of the Mamiya 6MF to be better than my M7.

 

If you shoot Tri-X/HP5, with an ASPH Leica lens, you won't miss much versus the Mamiya. If

you shoot fine-grained film, though, i'm sure the reduced enlargements will favor the 6x6

format. I haven't compaired Voigtlander lenses, though - only the 35 Summicron-ASPH.

[jose_angel]

I`m user of both systems. My opinion differs a bit, but I usually shot 400 ASA b&w film (and some unsuccesful Velvias). I like very much both systems. The difference between formats are really huge IMO (Mamiya`s prints are -really much- sharper). I accept Mamiya`s enlargements up to 11x11" aprox. (I have used APX 400 with Rodinal for years). I use Leica just for travel and family shots, with the idea of being enlargered to 8x10" (I`m using now TX and straigh D76).

 

Leicas are a pleasure to use, it`s worth a try if you can afford it (Leica lenses are really expensive). I find Leica`s size perfect but only with the smaller lenses. If you are looking for the highest tonal range and sharpness, 35mm is for sure the wrong way. I love my M6+35`cron asph (I would like the `cron a bit smaller, like the CV 35 Pankake II). If I want to enlarge I take my Mamiya 6 or a Linhof 4x5.

 

11x14" prints from a 35mm film? It`s matter of taste. It is not for me (until now...)

[jose_angel]

I must say that I`m refering to sharp looking prints, not laboratory scientifically tested resolution. I printed (standarized) Mamiya 6 negatives for displays or exhibitions at 11x11" aprox.

 

I find the M6TTL viewfinder at the same level of the Mamiya 6, but I prefer the Leica.

 

I use 400 ASA film for hand held shooting, I never use a tripod on trips. I`m thinking to check results at 800 ASA. Time ago I used some slower film with acutol, very sharp but prefer the fast film looking and speed.

[ronald_moravec1]

The bigger the neg, the better the tones and smaller the grain in any print past say 4 x neg size.

 

I will add a print to my Picasa Web album and also a cropped version of the same up loaded to the same size. This file is downloadable using the download key on the left side. The cropped version will allow you to see a psuedo larger print.

 

Don`t bother looking at the full web albumn as I`m using it mostly for family pics and file back up right now.

 

If you go to the Leica forum, perhaps some one will make a few frames on the tail of a roll with those lenses and send them to you. I have only Leica lenses.

[jay_clawson]

I have done a lot of printing from medium format, using both a Hasselbald and Mamiya 6. In the past I usually made 16x20 prints. I observed that the Mamiya 6 lenses were as sharp as the Zeiss lenses. Several years ago I did a comparison of Hasselblad versus M6 with Leica lenses in equivalent focal lengths, using Konica Impressa, a very fine grain color neg film. I made hand held photos of the same subject, and made 16x20 prints for comparison. In this size print the sharpness was slightly better for the larger negative. The larger negative also resulted in a slightly smoother image - although grain was not visible in this test due to the Konica ISO 50 film, not even in photos with a uniform blue sky in the background.

 

My evaluation resulted in the decision to go with Hasselblad for larger images as a supplement to the 4x5 I was also using at the time for landscape work. I found that medium format did not compare to 4x5, but was slightly better than 35mm for large prints.

 

In your case I think 8x8 and 12x12 prints would be hard to distinguish when comparing Leica or Mamiya cameras. I understand that the modern VC lenses are possibly better than the older generation Leica lenses I was using at the time, so that is also in your favor. I also found that it takes a larger print to clearly see a difference unless you view smaller prints, such as 12x12, with a magnifier - at normal viewing distances I can't see a difference.

 

Digital imaging should be an important factor in your decision. I have done careful comparisons of 35mm and medium format enlarged prints(from the darkroom) to the current 8 and 12 megapixel digital prints made on Epson 8-color pro printers (up to 16x24 in size). I think the digital prints are much sharper than those from 35mm negatives, and the 12 megapixel images are approaching medium format film quality in any reasonable print size. So with this added factor, and your move to digital in the future, I think an M8 should give you results that easily rival your medium format experience.

[ronald_moravec1]

Three pics are in the albumn. The trees ate a Cannon A610 p&s at full res and file size 1500x 2000 cropped to 8x12.

 

The bridge was scanned at 2700 pixels/300 dpi to make 8x10 prints. Leica 111C Summitar F 5.6 Fuji Reala.

 

Lastly is the cropped version.

 

Unfortunately I have no scans at 5400 pixels. Should this be of help, I could make one.

 

opening the pic will get data as stored and you can download using the button.

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/R.Moravec/2006117Ryan

 

copy/paste link.

[christian hilmersen www.]

I notice that I am the only one that does not find MF sharper than 35mm negs..... IMHO it is wrong to compare using the same film. I have to use two stops faster film with MF in order to handhold (and to get the same DOF). MF lenses are slow (the Mamiya 6 lenses are f4 aren't they?).

Regarding print size from 35mm. 20x30cm is absolutely no problem if developed correctly. With fuji or ilford films 30x45cm is usually not a problem (the negative has to be perfect) - anyway the scanner is the limiting factor (Nikon 4000 dpi multipass using vuescan). I must also say that I did not use to like tri-x, but really like it now souped in tetanol ultrafin plus (i.e. t-max style developer). It scans nicely, but will show some nice-looking grain. As mentioned tonality is what you really will loose.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I own a MF rangefinder (Bronica RF645) and I sold a 35mm rangefinder (Contax IIIa). I love the results that I get from larger negatives. But the MF lenses are pretty slow - most around f/4.0. So I'm buying another Contax for low light shooting as I can use much slower film with a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar.

 

Short answer - I find uses for both 35mm and MF rangefinders.

 

Then there's my Crown Graphic . . .

[William D. Lester]

Until I purchased a Leica M6 with a new 50mm f2.8 Elmar this past spring, I hadn't used 35mm in 20 years. I've been using a Technika 4x5 where I feel like carrying it and Hasselblads for travelling. A trip last March caused me to re think the whole process because it seemed that the camera was always in the way and I wasn't enjoying carrying it.

 

Carrying the Leica is the most liberating thing I've done in a long time. It is very comfortable to carry and I can hand hold it most of the time where I was no longer able to hand hold the Hasselblad. I'm in my late 50's and I guess my hands just aren't as steady as they once were. It is extremely quiet as well.

 

My biggest concern was if I was going to be able to live with such small negatives. I'd always believed that a 35mm negative was good for about a 5x7 print. I have to say that using a film like Delta 100 and Xtol is giving me a result that I feel is satisfactory enough to go to a pleasing 8x10. I'm growing more confident that I'll be able to take the Leica with me in my travels and that it will be a perfect compromise between portability and pleasing results.

 

I suspect I'll still use the 4x5 where there's not too much carrying involved. Printing from large negatives is pretty hard to beat. I'll probably use the Hasselblads a lot less.

[al_kaplan1]

I think a lot has to do with how it affects your style of shooting,your unique way of seeing, much more so than the "signature" of the optics or how big you enlarge the negatives. I have no problem getting 11x14 prints from 35mm that make me happy. I'm mostly using Leica glass, but that's of several generations, not the latest, and my 21mm Super Angulon is a Schneider design. I prefer my 85/2 LTM Nikor over my 90/2.8 "long" Elmarit. Whether or not going digital is an upgrade or a step sideways is another question.

[35mmdelux]

The prints from MF will always have more detail. The Leica is a different form of shooting, discreet, fast, lowlight availability. A camera that can be taken everywhere without much ado.

 

The Ultron is a f/1.7 lens, where your MY lenses are f/4.0 or f/3.5. Thus you would be able to work better at the edge of light w/ the Leica setup.

 

I have a Mamiya C330f which I bring out occasionally w/ its tripod and take my time about shooting. For everyday life I don't have such spare time and that is when the Leica really works for me.

[pablito_pistola]

I own and use both Leica and Mamiya 6. I think of the Mamiya as a big Leica, a "Leica on

steroids" so to speak. The optics of both systems are excellent, with the Leica I have Leica,

Konica and CV lenses and all produce great results. As far as I'm concerned, all this has to

do with your approach to your work. I never compare the sharpness of one lens to another

or anything like that because I don't have time. The pictures I take are all that matter to

me, and these cameras (and others) give me what I want. I don't dislike grain and have

standardized on Tri-X as the only film I use in any format. My 20x24's look great, whether

they are 35mm or Square format 6x6. As far as I'm concerned, the main reason for using

the Mamiya 6 is that a 35mm neg cropped to a square just results in a really tiny neg. Also

to compose square photos, it's much easier to have a square viewfinder (I print everything

full frame). And the Mamiya 6

feels natural to a Leica user. So, really, what it comes down to for me is square vs. 2:3

aspect ratio. Modern photo equipment is so uniformly good - I just use the equipment that

fits the way I work.

[ryan w. radtke]

****UPDATE****

 

Thank you all for your responses.

 

I would like to ask you a few more questions and explain my style of photography a little

more. I LOVED my Mamiya 6. It represents my workflow. I like working with 12 frames

instead of 24, so I can switch film when I need to and not waste too many frames. I dont

care about the slow lenses, as I can use higher speed films to compensate. I dont care

about the size of the camera, I find the Mamiya to be the perfect size. I would not buy a

Mamiya 7 because it is too big. I like a fast camera, that I can hand hold, that will

produce negitives that will print up to 12x12/11x14 with good tonality and good

contrast/sharpness.

 

If the M8 had not just been released, I would NEVER have thought about buying a leica at

all. My only gripe with the Mamiya 6, or any film camera for that matter, is my style of

travel. I usually travel for a month, I carry 2 small bags, I utilize motorcycles and cars and

small boats as often as possible. I hardly ever fly once I reach the country Im going to, nor

do I take trains or tourist busses. Its very difficult to drag along 200 rolls of MF film. I

have done it no problem, my last trip was a month and a half in Vietnam, most of which I

spent on the back of a motorcycle, and I also hired a boat for a couple of days to go down

the mekong river.

 

My style of shooting at home is quite different, and I dont think I will ever depart from MF.

I enjoy my c220, have owned a hassie but didnt like it as much, and I hardly ever use a

rangefinder camera when Im not traveling. If I were to choose between a 35mm

rangefinder or a Mamiya 6, I would go with the Mamiya 6 any day of the week.

 

However, the M8 opens up a whole new door for me. I do not like shooting with SLRs, so I

never even considered going digital until the M8 was announced. Eventually, I would like

to switch over to the M8, but I dont have $4700 right now. But I also miss having a

rangefinder for travel, my c220 is a POOR travel companion, and my large format setup is

not even an option. My question is, being used to a medium format, will I be disappointed

if I purchase an M6 until I can afford the M8. My reasoning is, at least I will be able to

transfer the lenses on to my next camera. I dont believe that Mamiya will ever release a

digital version of their 6 or 7ii cameras. So if I bought another Mamiy 6, I would have to

sell it all again when I have saved up enough for the M8.

 

Here is one of my favorite pictures I took with the Mamiya 6, I have it printed at 12x12

and it looks GREAT!

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/3459340">

 

How much of a difference would I notice if this had been taken on a M6? What about the

M8. Someone mentioned that the 12Mp cameras that are coming out compair to MF, I

have only had experience with a 6mp point and shoot, so I am in the dark when it comes

to what kind of results I would actually be able to get with the M8. Should I abandon the

idea of going digitial at all? Perhaps Im asking to much of a smaller format or of the

currrent digital technology?

[john_elder1]

I shoot a Leica M using Hp5+. I also shoot Rolleiflex TLR also with Hp5+. With a properly exposed, properly developed 35mm negative you can easily print a full frame 8in x 12in image on 11x 14 paper that knocks your socks off. All my exhibition 35mm prints are currently printed this size on Forte Polygrade V Fiber. I also print with diffusion(cold light). Further, I have printed 35 negs 12in x 18in full frame that also look great;but you need a very good neg.

[christian hilmersen www.]

The quallity you will get from an M8 will not be as good as from an M6 with good 100 iso b/w film. With faster films or color the table turns. So if the the quality from an M6 isn't good enough, forget about the M8. The tonal range in a digital is less than in b/w film. I do not have an M8. I base my statement upon a resolution and tonal range test of Canon 1DsMkII vs a Canon 1 film camera with fuji 100 asa b/w film(astia?) scanned with a minolta scanner that I read in a magazine. (I must also mention that the magazine concluded that the 1ds was superior anyway (i.e. they prefered the look of digital). This photo is with out a doubt something you can be very, very proud of and it suits the square format perfectly. There is also nothing that has nicer tonality than the agfa 100 asa film in mf. With this film your results will not be as good with a M6 - it is nice but grainy: you need the extra size. I have not used 25 asa films with the leica (something like gigabit films or rollei..), so I am not sure the extra speed you get from the lenses/larger DOF can help you achieve similar results with the m6. Regarding the size of the digital equipment, you must remember that you will have to bring a charger and an external disk-drive and a waterproof case to put everything (at least the disk-drive).

[jay_clawson]

I have read and followed comparisons in magazines and the web regarding 35mm film versus digital. The general conclusion is that DSLRs with large sensors out resolve 35mm film starting around 6 to 8 megapixels. This doesn't hold with point and shoot cameras because of the small sensor size. Digital is more critical of over exposure, so the contrast range is an issue. I tend to underexpose and watch for clipping. The shadows can be effectively recovered in Photoshop.

 

I have made hundreds of prints 11x14 and larger from 35mm negatives in the darkroom, and equivalent prints from 6 to 12 megapixel Canon DSLRs. Digital is generally superior in many aspects if properly done. Admittedly, though, a darkroom print still has a quality that is different. That is really the issue. In digital the look is different, but it's still a fine art print to my eye. Framed under glass and hung on a wall, you can't tell how an image was taken.

[jtdnyc]

<Framed under glass and hung on a wall, you can't tell how an image was taken.>

 

Maybe you can't tell how it was TAKEN, but I think I can often see how it was PRINTED.

 

In b&w, even the best inkjet prints do not yet have the rich, silvery look of the best darkroom prints. At least not to my eye. Framing the picture under glass and viewing it from a distance do help to lessen the differences but do not eliminate them.

 

In terms of image capture, the range of brightness values recorded by digital doesn't seem to equal a well-handled b&w film. Through necessity or convention -- I'm not sure which -- digital images posted on pnet often seem to be biased in favor of the shadows and thus have an unnatural, almost gloomy look.

 

Digital is convenient, and digital editing is doubtless a powerful tool; but for b&w, I don't think an all-digital workflow lives up to the hype.

 

Chemical capture, digital scanning and editing, leading to optical prints on traditional media -- that's the workflow that probably offers the most in terms of creative possibilities and expressive results.

[stevierose]

I have used both camera systems. I think if you love the Mamiya 6 as much as you say you

should go out and buy another Mamiya 6 system. It has been out of production for quite

awhile and I think it has already absorbed most of the depreciation it is going to due to the

emergence of digitial photography. What that means is that you can buy a Mamiya 6 system

now, use it for as long as it pleases you, and if the Leica Digital M (or any other digital

rangefinder that comes along in the future) gets to the point that you can afford it and it

fulfills your needs then sell the Mamiya 6 system and buy the new system. I think you would

lose very little financially doing this so long as you buy the Mamiya in good shape and take

good care of it. I have done this sort of thing for years with high quality used equipment.

[stephen_w.]

I will NEVER travel with a 6X6 of any type again, having lugged a 501C/M (and a Gitzo!!! Nearly sunk the bamboo raft) on a Thai trek, got rid of that kit, and bought a SWC w/its magnificent lens. However, I VERY much prefer handheld photography. Enlarged to 24X36 (free, due to winning a travel photo contest within our company), my pre-lux 50 compared quite favorably to my SWC shot that lost. I sold the SWC. Now, my travel bag is quite small (Domke FX-5B).

[geoffrey goldberg]

I love this thread - it seems that all the issues I've struggled with are all here in a nutshell.

I love shooting medium format, but also like to process my own work, and print it

digitally. I was struggling with a big scanner backlog, and wanted to go better digital, but

without spening the massive $$$ for medium format digital. Having tried lesser cameras

(Canon 20d), the Leica DMR seemed to give the best quality for a high but not MFdigital

price.

 

The DMR is great for lenses and image quality. I have been up to 16x20 prints with it, and

it exceeds whatever I could have ever gotten from the 35 mm negative. No doubt about it.

And once they solve some early issues with the M8, I fully believe it will to. The quality of

the camera and sensor, lenses and software are amazing. To get portability with MF

quality - what a treat.

 

What is not so nice (to me) is the loss of the medium format process: can we get the

square negative back? And the use of the shooting off the glass - that is a special aspect

that makes one reflect a bit more about the shot, and to my mind, makes better shots.

 

The Mamiya 6 is a great camera, but rangefinder viewers just don't seem convincing to

these 50+ yr old eyes. Rather, give me glass any day to compose off of. Now if you can

make it small, light, etc. even better.

 

Geoff

[christian hilmersen www.]

"I have read and followed comparisons in magazines and the web regarding 35mm film versus digital. The general conclusion is that DSLRs with large sensors out resolve 35mm film starting around 6 to 8 megapixels. This doesn't hold with point and shoot cameras because of the small sensor size. Digital is more critical of over exposure, so the contrast range is an issue. I tend to underexpose and watch for clipping. The shadows can be effectively recovered in Photoshop. "

 

So have I. I will just remark that I was only taking about the best b/w films e.g. delta 100 souped in a t-max developer and scanned on a good scanner. If you really believe that the resolution is as good with a 6mp camera I am really really surprised. That you and others prefer the completely noise freee images from a digital camera is a different issue.... For some pictures I acutally prefer my 5mp Olympus to the Leica - but the resolution is not even close. The 1ds MKII pictures that I have printed didn't really blow me away either - and I am taking about b/w picutres that requires a lot of detail/resolution....