Mamiya TLR lens quality v.s. modern Nikon SLR

[john_w]

I'm sure this topic has almost been beaten to death but I am still

without an answer.

I'm an amateur photographer

(www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Meadows/8847/blackwhite.html)and presently

shoot with Nikon SLR's: FE-2, and 801s with the following lens

selection:

Nikkor 55mm f2.8 Nicro, Nikkor 28-70mmAF, Nikkor 70-300mmAF, and a

Nikkor 20mmAF

I am presently seeking a MF camera that will best suit my needs. I

shoot primarily landscape, and some portrature (mostly at weddings)

but 80% of my work is landscape. I want a strong MF camera with good

optics, meaning if I shoot a scene with my 55mm Micro and the same

scene with my 'XYZ' MF camera (all things being equal- tripod, film,

processing)I want to see see the difference in say a 11x14

enlargement. I have been looking at a few camera's:

C220

C330

Pentax 67

Pentax 645

Mamiya 645 (older version)

I'm partial to the TLR because of thier 'manual back to the basics'

handling. I am just questioning their lens quality, specifically the

Black newer style 80mm, the 55mm and the 105mm. I have heard

everything from they are poor quality (flair and poor contract and

colour reproduction), to amazing lenses (sharp, punchy, and very

contrasty). I have looked at the C220 and the C330 and they are both

in great condition. I'd appreciate and advice that can be provided.

 

Thanks in advance.

John

[ken schwarz]

A Pentax 67 system will give you much better landscape detail and smoothness than the 35mm system lenses you mention for 11x14 enlargements. However, you will need a sturdy tripod and several heavy lenses to get the range of perspectives you enjoy today. If you want to save weight in the body, lenses and requisite tripod, I'd go for an MF rangefinder. The drawbacks are limited or no lens changing capability, no long telephoto, no closeup/macro, and hassle predicting results with polarizer and graduated filters. The last point is probably the most important for landscape. The TLR has pretty much all the same drawbacks, but it still weighs in like an SLR. Used TLRs can be a bargain, but so can a used Mamiya 6.

[andrew l. booth]

Your macro criteria eliminates a lot of possibilities. I wouldn't want to do macro with a TLR or rangefinder. MF macro can be difficult (as DOF is even worse than 35mm) - and each system has a range of accessories to accomplish macro photography. Personally I think the bellows focussing of the Mamiya RB and RZ are a gift when it comes to macro - used with the standard lens the RZ is about 1:2, and with the #2 tube (82mm I think) it's about 1.5:1. RB/RZ is also great for portraits and landscape (although a tad heavy).

 

If you eliminate the macro criteria you open the field up again. If you're not printing past 11x14 you may want to stick with 645 over 6x7 - this will bring you weight benefits. I'd want to consider the Bronica ETRSi if I were you - for outside portraits the leaf shutters would be useful, and it's a solid system. Otherwise the Mamiya 645 is great for wide inexpensive lenses.

 

One important lesson is that a single MF camera will probably not be as flexable as a 35mm. If you concentrate on a few applications (just landscape/portrait) you may find a better match to your needs.

 

If you haven't used MF before you'll find the results from a C220 or C330 will easly surpass your Nikon. I'd concentrate on usability and handling over the last ounce of optical performance.

[ken_munn]

John,

 

For most landscape photography its useful to have a square or landscape format negative, not a portrait format one. Beware, some 645's will force you to work 'sideways' for landscapes.

 

On the question of lens quality, bear in mind that you are working with a neg that is something like 4x bigger than 35mm. If you are looking at doing same size blow-ups from 35mm or MF negs, then effectively an MF lens only needs to be a half as good (square root of four) as a 35mm one for equivalence. Given that your Nikon lens are pretty much state of the art, they will be better than something on an older MF camera, but (unless you pick a real dog) they won't be anything like twice as good.

 

At 11x14 you will see a difference in MF prints, not so much in grain which is the usual expectation, but in areas like sharper edges, and a greater range of tones, with a smoother transition between them.

 

On the question of landscapes, my main MF camera is a Rollei TLR. With a fixed 75mm lens it means more walking and thinking to find a meaningful viewpoint compared with my EOS system where I can pick almost any focal length between 20mm and 400mm. Although I shoot fewer landscapes with the Rollei than the Canon, a far greater proportion of MF shots turn out to be keepers.

 

Using an older camera like this, there's also a somewhat intangible benefit of keeping you in touch with photographic essentials, not leaving it to matrix metering and autofocus and motorwind and program modes. Also, I find it much easier to 'see' the end result on the ground glass screen of a waist level finder than through a prism.

 

Another advantage of a camera like a TLR is that it is relatively light. This means the decision doesn't have to be MF or 35mm. Leave behind one Nikon body and you can carry both formats at no weight gain.

 

Why not borrow or rent an MF outfit, and use it for a day or two to see what you think?

 

FWIW, Ken

[ken_dunn]

John- I have a Mamiya 330 and a 645 so here is my 2 cents. Unlike what someone said above, I bought my tlr to shoot macro. It is about the best setup I have seen for that. You have to have a paramender to correct the distance between the viewing lens and the taking, but there are a couple of real advantages, the first being no mirror to lock up and no focal plane shutter to shake. With the bellows focusing you can go down to 1:1 to infinity with a 65mm lens. That is a nice range. It has a scale to show you the exposure factor also (at least on the 330) It is really neat. The lenses are good. I think people worry way too much about lens quality. Most any lens made in the past 20 years is going to be very good. I use my 645 mostly for landscapes because of the ease of using a polarizer (I almost always use a polarizer). I also backpack with it because the TLR is bulky. If you buy the older version of the 645 avoid the "J" model because it offers no mirror lock up. I have a 35mm, 55mm,80mm, 150mm, 300mm, and 500mm for my 645 and a 65mm and 105mm for TLR. I think all the lenses are good and you would be hard pressed to tell any difference. I have noticed on Ebay that the tlr don't fetch much, it may be a place for a bargin. Also, some of the dealers in Shutterbug often put the older 645's on sale. If I only could have one camera it would be the 645 with the 55mm. That might be a good place to start. I have 11x14's enlarged from a 35mm neg that are close in sharpness to the 645 when using Velvia, but when you go bigger than that or use B & W, the 645 wins hands down. Good luck in your quest and if youi have a specific question, please drop me a line.

[gene_crumpler6]

Let me take a shot at this. Side by side, shooting with a 55mm f2.8 micro nikkor on tech pan film and shooting with a 105mm mamiya tlr lens on tech pan, the tlr lens will give a better 16 x20 print, but not by a whole lot. A 55mm f4 new version pentax 67 lens will leave both in the dust. Lens hoods all around!

 

Be careful buying used mamiya TLR equipment, I've run into focus alignment problems with a couple of lenses. I've also lost two shutters(one chrome and one black)in the last year that were economically unrepairable. My$0.02

[patrick_drennon]

If you want to see a BIG difference @ 11X14 for landscapes and macro buy the P67. It's a match needle manual camera (no loss in asthetic) IF you attach the metered finder. Only drawback for your set of considerations may be weight, outside of that it'll beat anything else you've listed fairly easily.

[daniel_hutch]

I have hte 220 and 330 with two old lenses, a 80 and a 180. They ar33 sharp from corner to corner and in black and white thay are contrasty. But in color, a scene can loose its umph. The newer 55mm coated lense is better. The others just have a single coat I believe and are prone to ghosting and flare in the sun directly at low light. I just brought a rz system. I'll let you know the difference if in a few days. I have however, got spactacular color images from it during a wedding and the portraits are very pleaing, even with the 30 year old lense which is corner to corner sharp. But I believe the saturation is not as good as that iwth 35 mm iu nder a multitudeo of conditions. I also think that the newer 335mm lenses have better tonal range despite the size advantage of the tlr. I guess the new coatings have something to do with this.

[thomas_park]

Hi John,

 

Just a few comments to add - I bought a C330 a little while back and have been very pleased with the optics. One thing to keep in mind is that all of these cameras are going to be reasonably old and have seen varying amounts of wear (as well as varying levels of care). I suspect that the people who have had bad experiences with their Mamiya TLR's may have neglected to have a fungus-y lens cleaned (which would certianly destroy the image quality.) You can find some amazing deals on these cameras, but some of them have had a very hard life due to use by journalists, pros, or simple neglect.

 

That said, the TLR is a camera that you need to do a lot of playing with. It has several cons. What you see on the focusing screen isn't necessarily what you get on film; you need to adjust the exposure according to how far the lens is extended from the film surface; there's the problem of parallax, especially in close-up shots; the thing weighs about 4 pounds; you get some very strange effects if you tilt the camera on it's horizontal axis... The list goes on.

 

However, this camera also has it's pros. There are no batteries. Picking up this camera has made me think a lot more about my photography, and consequently appreciate the flexibility of my 35 when I use it. At the price, the Mamiya TLR's can be a great learning tool and a great introduction to MF. Changing lenses on this particular camera is fairly easy. It's a 6 x 6 format, which some people like quite a bit for landscape and portrait work.

 

Personally? I like my C330 a lot. It cost less than any of my Canon gear (lenses or body), and hey, it just looks neat ;)

 

thomas