MF, DOF, and Landscapes?

[lanierb]

Background: I started out in 35mm, then jumped straight to LF and was

very happy with that except that it is awfully cumbersome particularly

when hiking/backpacking. Last year I bought a Mamiya 7 to fill the

portability gap, primarily for landscape photography away from the

car. One reason for this choice was of course light weight but at the

time I was also interested in the great optics.

 

Since then I've found that with the 6x7 neg and with lens and film

parallel I almost always want to stop down to at least f/16 to get the

DOF that I need in a landscape. With the 80mm I frequently can't even

attain the DOF I desire at the lens' smallest aperture of f/22. Do

others experience this same DOF problem and if so how do you usually

solve it (crop foreground, let background be unsharp,...)? I'm left

wondering what the point is in having great optics if you're always

going to stop down so far that lens performance is highly diffraction

limited. And, I'm also thinking that MF is just not a very good

format for landscape photography since you really need movements even

for 6x7, in which case you may as well go to 4x5. What do others

think?

[howard_slavitt1]

It's for the problem you identified that I went with a Horseman 6 x 9 technical field. It's definitely portable enough to take backpacking. The camera weighs 4 lbs (or less). Optics are great (Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, etc.) DOF is not a problem (front/rear tilts). And it's compact. You can even store a lens within the camera body.

[mark_windom]

You are describing the very reason that I moved from MF (6X7) to LF. I was unable to achieve the look I wanted due to DOF limitations with MF.

 

Some of the things you might want to do to limit weight are: 1) use quickloads rather than packing around a bunch of film holders, and 2)hike with a carbon fiber tripod. Also, try to limit the number of lenses you take into the field. A good quality backpack such a LowePro can make a heavy load much more tolerable.

 

If you want to stay with MF you might want to consider a 645. A normal lens is a 75 which has an equivilant DOF to the 75 for the 67, thus you are gaining some increase in DOF capabilities.

[scott_eaton]

I think this is a question of composition. </p>

There's no doubt that a 4x5 seriously helps the DOF issue with the flexibility of tilts and swings, but consider the shot below would have been impossible with large format, and wouldn't be as breathtaking in a 20x24 if shot with 35mm.</p>

 

<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~wseaton/bigsurf.htm">surfing along the pier</a></p>

I shot this with a Mamiya RB with 90mm C lens, 400 speed film and 1/250 at f/11 exposure. I focused on the far end of the pier as a guess. In the finished 20x24 the bottom third of the pier closest to the camera is obviously outside of the DOF range, but the strength of the composition fills in the gaps. No doubt I could have hauled my 35mm SLR out of the bag and got a razor sharp image with my 50mm, but why bother?</P>

With MF I've learned to alter my compositions a little to adjust to the limited DOF that F/16 or F/22 can afford with 6x7.</p>

 

//scott

[stephen_poe1]

There seem to be all sorts of compromises you have to make. As much as I hate to say I think you have the wrong camera (because changing them is sort of expensive), your complaints are very specific to your projects and your needs; from what I know, I don't think the camera you have answers your needs that well.<p>

I don't know much of anything about the Mamiya 7; I use 6x6 camera for all sorts of things and find it very useful --- interchangeable backs, Polaroid, etc. I have rented a Hasselblad SWC and used it for architecture; have always thought that such a camera would be fantastic for landscape.<p>

Linhof and similar cameras have movements and are availible in 4x5 or MF sizes. They pack up small but are very expensive.<p>

Never used one but have been tempted by the old American made Graphic cameras and I think, (but am not sure) that they can be used with rollfilm if you have the appropriate film back. Anyone know? Like a poor person's Linhof. More info at www.graflex.org.<p>

There is also the old Mamiya Universal cameras. Some versions of Mamiya have front end movements. One could shoot roll film, have a small range of movements and it packs up very small. They don't seem to be too expensive either.<p>

I have heard good reviews of the Rollie SL66. It has front lens tilt so you could get the foreground to infinity sharp with your 80mm lens. You could also have more than 1 film back for different films (I like this option VERY much).<p>

Maybe before you buy anything new, you can rent or borrow? From the large numbers of postings about the Mamiya you have, it seems to be a very popular camera so if you decide to sell it you should have no problem getting a decent price.<p>

[lanierb]

Thanks for all the comments. Everyone seems to be reinforcing my view that there is just a big compromise to be made: Either take the MF and deal with DOF problems or take the 4x5 and a bigger backpack.

[ken_munn]

Lanier

 

If cost is not too much of a problem, could I suggest you look at both Alpa and Silvestri ranges. Both offer m/f models with moveable front panels. The Silvestri in particular is like a minature l/f camera, without the size/weight/stock & processing problems of l/f. In a rather perfunctory web search I couldn't find a Silvestri site, but

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/silvestri.htm

takes you to the UK's leading Silvestri dealer's site, where there is quite a lot of info.

 

You'll also be about the only kid on the block with one!

 

Ken/London

[alan_gibson]

Doubtless the Silvestri is a fine camera (I'ld love to have one), but it doesn't offer tilt, just shift (so the film stays parallel to the lens), so it doesn't solve Lanier's problem.

[_____]

www.silvestricamera.com

[ken_munn]

Alan wrote

 

>Doubtless the Silvestri is a fine camera (I'ld love to have one), but it doesn't offer tilt, just shift (so the film stays parallel to the lens), so it doesn't solve Lanier's problem.<

 

It must be 20 years since I worked with cameras with movements, but I'm sure I recall tilting the camera downwards a few degrees then using rise to put the horizon back where I wanted it, thereby enhancing foreground d-o-f. Or is my memory fading?

 

Ken

[alan_gibson]

True, tilting the camera downwards and rising the lens to compensate will have effect of tilting both the lens and film, keeping them parallel, and thus will increase the near depth of focus, by a factor of 1/cos(tilt-angle). This isn't a huge amount: a 45 degree tilt only gives an increased near-DoF of 41%, equivalent to closing the lens down one stop.

 

I was trying to say (badly) that you need to be able to tilt the lens and film with respect to each other in order to bring the ground-plane (for example) exactly into focus.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>"Either take the MF and deal with DOF problems or take the 4x5 and a bigger backpack.'</I></P> Actually I am carrying a pretty fair amount of LF gear in a standard Domke J shoulder bag these days. A pretty fair amount consists of: A Canham 45-DLC camera; a 65mm f/4.5, 90mm f/4.5(big); 150mm f/5.6; & 210mm f/5.6 lenses; a Horseman 6x9cm roll film back, a Polaroid 405 back (or a second Horseman 6x9cm back); darkcloth, a few filters; lens hoods; a focusing loupe; and a Minolta Spotmeter. Inside the bag the lenses, camera and spot meter are all in their own padded cases.</P> This bag, when loaded weighs about the same or less than the same bag when it carried an equivalent amount of Pentax 67 gear and for my way of shooting is more versatile. If I were using a medium size backpack I could add a Fuji QuickLoad holder and a box of film.</P> Stopping down LF lenses to f/22 or sometimes even f/32 does not get you into diffraction limited territory, and using a camera with full movements I can do the Schiempflug trick if need be to extend my depth of field from near to infinity at much wider apertures, even with long lenses.</P> Just my gasoline on the fire.

[alan_gibson]

I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the discussion, but the Silvestri web site does list a 'Swing and Tilt Flexi Bellow' (yes, one bellow, rather than many bellows), as an accccesory for the camera.

[julian oliver bell, photog]

I use a Century Graphic. See my email to "Which Medium Format Camera for Landscape? (Shun Cheung)" further on in this forum.

 

Julian.

[james_d._steele]

I use a Hassy 903SWC. And, as I recall, stopped down the DOF is about 22" to infinity. I do primarily landscape and routinely print to 20x24. I have never experienced a DOF problem with the Hassy unless I am trying to deal with a subject shere the entire image, front to back, is relatively close to the camera.

[davidgarth]

Medium format for landscapes involves a change in mind set compared to large format. When I was shooting LF, I almost always went for the largest "near-far" relationship I could. When I switched to Medium format (645, because of my own physical limitations) I tried at first to take the same type pictures. Most were miserable failures for all of the reasons you state. Gradually, my compositional style has changed. I use wide angle lenses more, and I find many beautiful pictures which have lots of "depth" yet have nothing closer than 15-20 feet from the camera, and I am able to shoot at f11. But it took time to learn to "see" differently.

 

David Garth

[gene_crumpler6]

I use the 55mm(f4) latest, on my p67 and between the shortened focal length and the fact that the lens performs as well at f22 as at f8, DOF has not been a problem. People keep complaining about lack of DOF with MF, but the 55, with its outstanding performance from F4 to F22, seems to solve it for me at least.

 

I print the negatives to 16x20 routinely. The 55 has the same angle of view as 28mm in 35mm, and that being my favorate lens, I naturally opted for that focal length.

 

I'm not familiar with the 7, so I don't know what focal lengths are available for the camera, but would a wide angle lens help the situation? LF obviously deals with this problem, but having used LF before, the p67 seemed the choice for a easy to handle field camera. Two years later, I'm quite happy with my choice.

[art_mielke]

I was reading Ansel Adams autobiograghy resently, and he quoted a letter he had got from Edward Weston in which said he had had his lenses modified to have 4 (?!) more stops. That would certinly help with the DOF problem. I have been intreaged by this idea, as I too have fould myself wanting more DOF with the 645 I got resently. Has anyone heard of this, or know what would be involved (like how Much?)

[Bill Bowes]

Hello everyone. Better late than never. I have noticed the following on both my 35mm (50 and 105 lenses) and on the mixed batch of YashicaMats and C-33's with the 80mm lenses. If you can focus on any point within your subject field with the center screen (without bellows extension on the C-33), f22 will produce almost dropdead sharpness with regard to depth of field (DOF). Am I wrong? Enjoy, Bill