Have "35mm" digitals; want to scan 6x7 for higher resolution

[marc_rochkind]

I have a few so-called 35-mm digitals (Leica M8, Nikon D200, Nikon D70 modified

for IR), but I want to try to make some higher resolution photos for big

enlargements.

 

My first choice is a 4x5 view camera with a digital back. However, so that my

kids can go to college, I'm thinking instead of a Pentax 6x7 and using a

scanning service or, maybe later, getting a good scanner of my own.

 

I can get a used (condition "E" from Adorama) 6x7 Pentax (not II) with MLU, a

TTL prism, and a 105mm lens for about $670.

 

What do you all think about investing $670 in this educational exercise? I am

expecting that with careful technique and a good scan I will get much better

results than I can even with the Leica. Are my expectations reasonable?

[bob_h]

Before making the investment, why not rent a medium format camera to see if it will give you the results that you are expecting?

[marc_rochkind]

Bob--

 

Rental sounds like it makes sense, but there's only one camera store in my town, their only medium format rental is a 645, and they want $100 a day or $400 a week.

 

For much less than $400, I could buy the Pentax, use it for a lot more than a week, and sell it on eBay if it didn't work out.

 

In other words, it's not the $670. It's whether I'm likely to get significantly better results than I do now with the Leica (1.33 crop factor).

[nealcurrie]

Your expectations are reasonable.

[andr3w]

6x7 with good technique and a good scan will smoke anything with less than 20mp in the

larger print sizes. I feel I can match 20mp with a 645 provia slide and a Nikon 8000.

 

Of course, 11x14 and 16x20's will look similar, but with 6x7 you can print very detailed

20"x30" prints.

[dave_redmann]

(1) I would shop used equipment at KEH.com, not Adorama. KEH's "bargain grade" will be quite satisfactory most of the time, and they are good about returns.<P>

 

(2) For a good 6x7 system at reasonable prices, I would look at a Mamiya RB-67. The Pentax's main advantage over the RB-67 would be hand-holdability, but if you are looking for high resolution, you need a steady tripod and a cable release anyway.<P>

 

(3) With drum scans or a Nikon 9000, you should certainly be able to beat the resolution of any of your digitals. A well-scanned 6x7 frame should yield <I>roughly</I> the equivalent of somewhere around 30 MP, and maybe even 50 MP (film resolution and Bayer-sensor resolution are really not directly comparable).<P>

 

If I were you--meaning I wanted high-resolution pictures of 16x20 inches or larger--I would go to KEH and order a Mamiya RB-67 Pro S or Pro SD, the 120 back, a prism finder, and an appropriate lens or two. The total price would be less than $400 with a basic 90mm f/3.8C lens (or a 127mm f/3.8C if you prefer).<P>

 

Just remember that drum scans are expensive. You will want to find a decent lab to do develop-and-print or develop-and-basic-scan your film, which will be cheap enough. Then only when you have a great image on film, you can spring for the drum scan.

[tim_drake]

Adorama would be a big no for me. They have 44 negative feed backs on Ebay for this year alone. KEH is very good. I have a Pentax 67II and could not imagine photography with out it but I would not rule out 4x5 and film. I started out with a Burke & James 4x5 and several lenses for a lot less than what you are looking at on the Pentax. When people look at 20x40 inch prints in my office and ask me what camera I used and I tell them a 1940s camera like the reporters had in King Kong, their jaws drop. Maybe a call to Jim at Midwest Photo for a good used 4x5 setup. Another 6x7 camera that I really like is the Rapid Omega 200.

[mike_walker11]

Marc,

Not sure if you have owned MF before or not, there are a few considerations really not related to the specific question.

Those considerations ie backs fatser lenses etc are beyond this scope.

To your question ---Do it, you can't go wrong. Later you will probably want interchangeable backs so you might look at the RB.

I am in the same boat you are in, I sold my P67 a few years ago very sorry I did.

[mike_earussi1]

The P67 is a great camera and far more portable than a RB/RZ, though not as flexible. Other cheaper options are, as Tim mentioned, a 4x5, a Koni-Omega, and also a 6x9 Graphic, any of which can give you equal to or better quality that the Pentax. But for hand holdability and ease of use, the Pentax is tops.

[WJT]

my son and forego those digital playthings. The P67 is a <i>great</i> system, it is what I use almost exclusively. That price is reasonable but I would coroborate the sentiments favoring KEH over Adorama. I have always had good results with KEH. <br><br>

If you were shooting studio work an RB would be a good choice, too. The advantages over the P67 are interchangeable backs and leaf shutters with higher flash sync. Since I shoot mostly landscapes I prefer the P67. For me, it is more portable and I also very much like the Pentax lenses. <br><br>

As far as scanners go the Nikon is a reasonable choice. I use a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and I am very happy with it. There are many variables that need to be considered for attaining a great photograph when shooting MF. I firmly believe, however, that a good scan is at the top of that list. Regards.

[wai_leong_lee]

Renting is so easy these days. Buy online or on eBay for $100. Sell online or eBay for $100 or $90 or whatever.

 

You can "rent" for a day or a year or 10 years. Guess why secondhand dealers aren't taking in stock these days?

[d_s31]

Unless you have a darkroom with those enlargement capabilities or a lab that can do it <i>from the negative</i>, I wonder if it is worth it. <p/>Let me explain. Every place that I've visited and asked about enlargements, they told me that anything 11"x14" and up is scanned and then printed on an ink jet. When I asked what they're using for a scanner, it's usually some flatbed Epson. By the way, they would charge $10+ for the "premium" scanning fee and then $++ for the printing. So an enlargement from a negative was a minimum of $30. What I'm saying is, you might be better off with your D200.<p/>Of course, that's just my experience in my area. Oh, I printed a 11"x14" from a 5mp (1.21 MB JPEG) P&S camera and it looks marvelous! <p/>My apologies for second guessing you and not really answering your question. I just wanted to point this out.

[tony_cunningham]

I'm not sure where you are, but if it helps I have my Pentax 6x7 stuff (and 6x9) scanned by <a href="http://www.dia-scan.nl/index_gb.html">Dia-scan</a>. They work internationally and do a good job. They are aware of the cleanliness requirements for stock, but if you wish you can keep costs down by doing the digital cleaning yourself.

[Ed_Ingold]

The negative on a 6x7 is five times the size of a 35mm negative. A Leica is a lot of things but it doesn't work miracles (despite claims to the contrary). Rest assured, you will get a lot more detail and tonality from medium format film. Whether it is the thinner base of MF film, different emulsion or finer grain, the effect on dynamic range is striking compared to 35mm. (You don't see this effect with reversal film).

 

This is all well and good in theory. But to actually achieve results good enough to suffer the expense of medium format (about 3x across the board compared to 35mm), you use a good tripod and good technique. You also have to take charge of the finishing process (other than developing). If you are not willing to carry and use a tripod, you can forget about consistent MF quality - stick with the more forgiving Leica.

 

To do justice in printing, you need a darkroom or a good scanner and digital printer. A custom print is very expensive, and a lab print next to worthless beyond scrapbook quality. A custom scan is also expensive, starting at about $15 per frame. Like printing labs, it is often difficult to find one to scan film to your satisfaction. If you shoot much, it is easy to justify a dedicated film scanner (e.g., Nikon LS-9000 at about $2K with a glass holder).

 

If you are satisfied with WEB or snapshot quality, you can forego the "lightroom" setup. IMO, there's no advantage over 35mm if you go this route. A good flatbed scanner, like an Epson V700/750, will give you about the same quality as 35mm on a Nikon film scanner. Again, why bother?

 

I've seen a lot of Pentax 67's in the field, especially for landscape photography. For my part, I really like interchangeable backs, because I can go out with two or three types of film and/or a digital back. The size of the camera doesn't matter so much if you use a suitable backpack (and hike to shoot, not to shoot while hiking). I assembled an Hasselblad kit, with a couple of bodies, 3-4 backs, 6 or 7 lenses and accessories (about 38 lb), that fits in a LowePro Photo Trekker. A Mamiya RZ would fit with one less back and maybe 4 lenses.

[d_s31]

The one thing I forgot to add is that with a 6x7 negative, you will have a very high resolution original. So, in the future as scanning technology gets better, you will still have that original with all of its detail and dynamic range. And if your area is like mine (Metro Atlanta), many of the locations you've shot in will be buried under some development sooner or later *sigh*.

[frankfitz]

I have used Medium format (Mamiya & Hasselblad) for a good few years and recently dipped my toe in the digital waters with a D200. Results are very good.

However, I did not use a tripod for D200 and I believe it shows in the results. Always use a tripod for medium format, believe me it is worth it and need not cost too much money. It is as good an investment as a Pentax which I belive are very good.

I still use medium format as the quality can only be beaten by large format. Large format, of course, needs a tripod also.

Good luck, I am sure you will love medium format.

[jeffpolaski]

My first MF scane was of a negative made with a Voigtlander 66 (Baby Bessa)folder. The image quality, even with the lesser Voigtar lens (this is a pocket camera, after all) blew 35mm negatives away. About $40 on eBay. Now I'm slowly moving my way up.

[marc_rochkind]

Thanks to everyone here, especially Dave. I thought about a Pentax and a Mamiya, and went with a Mamiya RB67 from KEH ($525 or so with 90mm lens, waistlevel finder, and 120 back, all "E" condition), chiefly because the camera is more flexible (e.g., removable back) and because it's still being sold.

 

The camera will always be on a heavy tripod, so portability wasn't an issue. Ability to hand-hold was irrelevant.

 

Now the question is whether to spring for a $2000 Nikon scanner with glass carrier. I'll use a local service for a while to see where things lead.

 

I'm thinking of shooting transparency film, but not mounting the images as slides, so I can preview the shots before getting the best ones scanned. (In other words, I'm still puzzling out a convenient workflow that also leads, eventually, to the quality I'm seeking.) After scanning, I plan to process with Lightroom and Photoshop, which are what I use now for my digital cameras.

 

Any ideas for a viewer that can take unmounted 6x7 strips? Maybe an old enlarger?

[dave_redmann]

<I>Unless you have a darkroom with those enlargement capabilities or a lab that can do it from the negative, I wonder if it is worth it. . . . Every place that I've visited. . . . they're using for a scanner, it's usually some flatbed Epson.</I><P>

 

Then you're going to the wrong places. There are plenty of pro labs that will drum-scan or scan with a Nikon 8000 or 9000 or similar-quality scanner. Also, unless your enlarger is very stable and very carefully aligned, you are using the finest enlarging lenses at their best apertures, you're using a good micro grain focuser, etc., your wet darkroom won't produce all the detail in the negative, either.<P>

 

<I>The one thing I forgot to add is that with a 6x7 negative, you will have a very high resolution original. So, in the future as scanning technology gets better, you will still have that original with all of its detail and dynamic range.</I><P>

 

No. The limiting factor with scans from the equipment I mentioned is <B>the film itself</B>. Go pull the data sheets from the film manufacturers' web sites. You will see that, e.g., Velvia 50 hits its 50% MTF response point at about 45 lp/mm, which requires a scan at about a true 2500 ppi to resolve. The better print films might go 70 lp/mm, which needs a scan of about 4000 ppi to resolve. I'm not saying that there's <I>no</I> detail above these limits. I am saying that if you have a good drum scan or Nikon 9000 scan, there is very little detail contained in the film that the scanner will not resolve. (Yes, I realize there are a few exceptions, like if you use T-Max 100 with the best lenses.)

[Landrum Kelly]

Check KEH, but the Adorama offer doesn't sound bad. You would not be laying out too much money, and, if you don't like the headaches, you can always put it up on eBay.

 

--Lannie

[robert lee]

"Now the question is whether to spring for a $2000 Nikon scanner with glass carrier."

 

It depends.

 

I use a $130 Epson 4490 with 6x7. The scanner will maybe 2000dpi on a good day. Keep in mind though, that this still means ~20MP of real, straightforward resolution. Awesome 8x10 prints; pretty darn good for some images even at 16x20. The scanner's crappy optics serves as a pretty good anti-aliasing filter too: no moire or "grain aliasing" :-)

 

No doubt at all, however, that the Nikon is the much superior machine. If you're a stickler for resolution or real Dmax, there's no debate that this is the scanner to get. Well, actually, this or spend another $10k for an Imacon and get marginally better performance.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You will see a huge difference when compared to 35mm. But don't scrimp on the scanner or you will lose most of the advantages of the larger negative.

 

I print B&W in a darkroom. And I tried my hand at color printing, too. But I've decided to scan my color work because digital color correction is much faster.

 

As for cameras - I prefer leaf shutter so that I can flash sync at all speeds. May, or may not, be a consideration for you.

[photo5]

Marc,

 

What kind of output are you looking at doing? What size, etc. I'm interested because in our

testing we've found that a 10mp camera can make exceptional 20x24" prints. I don't know if

even 6x7cm film can outresolve a good 10-12mp digital image. I know for sure any 35mm

film is already beat by digital as far as overall resolution goes.

 

Dave

[tony_cunningham]

I use a 14MP digital camera and a P67. In my opinion a good scan from a good P67 slide made on a top quality scanner provides a digital image that is an order of magnitude better than the digital equivalent. It is also an order of magnitude more expensive of course.

[joe90]

On workflow: Even the cheapest Epson flatbed 2490 ($100) can effectively do

5x5cm@20MP, at 2400dpi with a little messing about. This flatbed has a 35mm film

holder with it. I use the 35mm slide holder section. I place my 6x6 slide on the scanner,

lined up with tape on the scanner glass. Then I place a small sheet of glass on top, then

the empty film holder on top [The scanner software looks for the film holder cutouts

before it allows the scanner to start with the film back light]. The more expensive Epson's

take MF film directly, but a possible problem with the holders is that the film is not held as

flat, and may get scratched sliding in. This system works fine for my family snaps and also

more serious experiments with my 'new' $60 Isolette folder. Using past date Kodak

200ASA slide film, the results are very good!