Mamiya 7 VS 24MP Digital?

[timlayton]

<p>Susan, the other thing I would mention is that maybe consider keeping and using both systems. Digital has no room in my fine art black and white print work, but I use a Canon S95 for personal snapshots, family vacations, etc and I absolutely love it. I think the point is that it is easy to get caught up in the technology and equipment and we lose sight of our art. When I see a print that moves me I could care less of how it was captured or what process was used to make it. It either "works" in my mind or it doesn't. Of course there are always limitations in any tool that we select but I am hopeful that modern day photographers stay close to the art of photography and not worry so much about the tools and process to create it so much. With that being said we all have our biases, just like a painter prefers a certain type of brush, paints and canvas over another. Good luck in your journey and let us know what you end up deciding.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

 

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Regardless of the proposed solution, it would be great to try it out before making the investment. </p>

<p>The effect of lines per mm increase always seems to show up when looking at the finished image. I have a Canon Rebel T2i which suits my family and amateur needs very well. I was attracted to it by one print in Pop Photography showing a cityscape. The printed image looked great. The T2i has 18MP res which will (in my experience) create a 51MB file. This is way over what is required for the size images I make but I can crop and not lose apparent resolution. <br>

You could try out any of the major DSLR camera brands that have capability of large file output using their pro level lenses to see if satisfactory images could be achieved.<br>

Good luck!<br>

Randyc</p>

[leo_papandreou1]

You can stitch film too.

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualcrank/4928910144/" title="20100826-ACROS-001-6 by manual crank, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4135/4928910144_d50d0cbab1_z.jpg" width="640" height="104" alt="20100826-ACROS-001-6" /></a>

<p>

100%

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualcrank/4928987874/" title="100%crop by manual crank, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4928987874_5f7af046e1_o.jpg" width="500" height="500" alt="100%crop" /></a>

<p>

You can do anything with a scan that you can do with a digital file, obviously. Stitching is pretty lame though. I usually do when I've run out of ideas for the rest of the roll.

[fredscal]

<p>Susan,</p>

<p>I've hesitated for years before going digital because i liked my pictures looking like film. Finally, after much research, i've made a choice i'm very happy with. It's a full-frame (FX) Nikon DSLR.</p>

<p>In my experience (for one part) and opinion (for the other), Nikon FX DSLRs, or upper-end Leicas, yield a digital noise that is close to film grain in texture.</p>

<p>I've made some tests prints from the same subject shot with both the Canon 5D mark II (24MPix) and the Nikon D700 (12MPix) in A4 size (where the difference in resolution doesn't matter), and the difference was striking: while the Canon image clearly looked digital, the Nikon one looked amazingly film-like. <strong>I've printed a series of black and white shots taken with the D700, and people thought it was film ! </strong>According to full size sample pics found on the net, the D3, D3s and D3x (24MPix) yield the same film-like texture.</p>

<p><strong>The thing is, shoot RAW </strong>(or TIF, if you must), <strong>because noise reduction and JPG's minute alterations degrade the fine grainy noise into ugly digital clogs. </strong>In your workflow, use a bit of chromatic noise reduction (because chroma noise is cloggy anyway) and no luminance noise reduction. <strong>If you MUST shoot JPG, disable in-camera sharpening !</strong></p>

<p>Now I enjoy the quality of film with the flexibility and resolution of digital. The only thing is: if you blow up film really too large, you get huge grains, while if you blow up a digital picture too large, you get huge pixels, which is less appealing. But with an adequate rip (and a good print artist) you can push the media quite far yet.</p>

<p>(Note to Canon lovers: admittedly, i've only tried the 5D2 for a couple of days and obviously haven't learnt to push it to its best.)</p>

<p>And now a bit of a general remark :<br>

Keep in mind than megapixel resolution expresses surface, not edge length. So, doubling resoltution only changes max. print size by factor 1.41x. Increase in resolution less than 2x is negligible.</p>

<p> </p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>I think the thing to remember is that the difference between the two systems isn't all about resolution. I am coming up against the same choice but from the opposite angle. I shoot digital (Canon 5DmkII which isn't that far off from what the 24mp the Nikon offers). But realise that I don't like the prints beyond 24x36. This isn't because of a lack of resolution, its more that over that size the print stops looking like a photograph and starts looking more just like a big image. There is a kind of flatness in the image produced by DSLRs ( and this was true of my Nikons also) that you constantly have to deal with even with smaller prints. People try to overcome this look by whacking up the contrast and saturation with often ugly results.<br>

I certainly wouldn't sell your Mamyia but would go with both systems if you can, they both have their strong and weak points and it seems the way to go. I certainly wouldn't sell your Mamyia , (though if you do thats just the camera I'm now looking for!).<br>

Regards AG</p>

[susan_henderson1]

<p>@Tim Layton<br>

Keeping the Mamiya just for B&W does have a certain appeal, though I'm still up a creek as to what to do for a scanner. An analog darkroom isn't very appealing to me either. I mean, attempting to master Photoshop OR scanning OR an analog darkroom is hard enough without combining them. Part of me wishing darkroom printing was still viable with slides. I think I would be more apt to try it. But HAVING to go digital with e6 complicates it, and using a darkroom for B&W and something else for color seems like way too much of a hassle.</p>

<p>@Lee<br>

The Kind of stitching I had in mind isn't about making panoramic images, but basically finding a way to increase the resolution in a "normal" shot, which should just be a matter of, say, doubling the focal length for a 2-piece stitch or tripling for 3, etc.</p>

<p>@Fred Scalliet<br>

Thanks for the advice. I've always shot RAW with digital. What do you mean by: "Keep in mind than megapixel resolution expresses surface, not edge length. So, doubling resoltution only changes max. print size by factor 1.41x. Increase in resolution less than 2x is negligible."? At least, I'm not sure what you're referring to.</p>

<p>@Andrew Gardiner<br>

That "ugly digital" look is certainly part of my concern as well. I guess that's something I'll simply have to test myself. But, like I said, I really am between a rock and hard place here because any choice involving my Mamiya involves me figuring out how to scan them.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Susan, if you're just doing landscapes or other large things that don't move then pano stitching is the best way to go (and by pano stitching I mean just making high resolution regular ratio prints, not 360 degree ones).<br>

As long as you have the patience to spend 30-60 minutes on one shot you can make prints as large as you want to and still put a lupe on them to see more detail. I've made a few myself over the last year. Here's one of Portland, OR made from 48 shots that's approx 2'x12' with plenty of fine detail:<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/129382638/original">http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/129382638/original</a><br>

and many more here:<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/panos">http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/panos</a><br>

These are far higher in resolution than any dslr or MF digital back, for that matter, and cost far less--any good point and shoot or cheapy dslr will work.</p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>Susan, if you want to see what Nikon 9000 scans from Pentax 67 or Pentax 645 look like uncropped, send me a message.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Stuart, how big is that Sinar sensor? That's impressive that a 'mere' 22Mpx can trump a 6x4.5 negative.</p>

<p>Mauro, be careful - some of us might avail you of your scanning services! :-P</p>

<p>Big prints: depends on the subject matter but I love drama and I love to be overwhelmed.</p>

<p>Ugly digital: maybe it's due to crappy lenses and photographers not thinking about lens choice? It seems that most people choose compromised lenses and even then don't think about how to use them. That 18Mpx APS-C camera is great but why bother if your lenses are sub-par? If you're on an overseas trip, for example, and photography is not your priority, you might be using a compact or a superzoom on a DSLR. If so, you won't be getting the best images you can.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Mike, very nice job.</p>

<p>Still, stitching is not only time consuming but leaves artifacts or sections of inconsistency when there is complicated detail. It can all be fixed by cloning different areas of the image but it is very difficult and not flawless. That is a part of the reason why people shoot MF with film instead of just stitching 35mm.</p>

<p>If you look for example at the stars (very pretty by the way and nice small aperture control) the rays do not align where they are stitched.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Karim, that is no problem.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Stitching is not a reliable way to increase resolution. It only works on static scenes, doesn't work very well without a tripod, "decisive moments" are impossible, and you can't actually compose the shot in the finder. It's tempting to talk about it, if all you want to talk about is huge numbers of pixels, but it's quite limiting in real use.</p>

[eoinmurphy]

<p>For a 50" print you might consider 8x10" film instead of 6x7. Or one of those Leica S2s.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Stitching is a very reliable way of making prints well beyond the capability of single medium format film images. It doesn't matter if you scan smaller film or use a smaller digital camera. It takes a technique and skill level, and you need to plan your image, much like medium and large format. Lets face it with the cost of film in money and time it is not like they are built for "decisive moments" either. Nobody can seriously claim to be making sharp prints from any method without using a tripod, so that is moot too.</p>

<p>But, as opposed to many posters in this thread, with the notable exception of Stuart Richardson who obviously uses both effectively, I have no hangups with digital use at all.</p>

<p>Mauro's scan comes out at 24mp, my camera native outputs at 21mp. My 21mp camera out prints the wet prints I get professionally printed from my Mamiya 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x7 at both 20"x30" and 24"x36". Depending on subject the 6x9 still holds its own until I stitch the digital.</p>

<p>Here is a stitched 135 format digital image, it is a native 7501x5626, or 42mp. This will easily give a very high quality 50" print. It has zero parallax and the stitching is entirely automatic. The image and following crop have had zero manipulation done in post other than the automatic stitch, no sharpening etc.</p><div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p>And here is the crop, with unsharpened cobwebs.</p><div></div>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>It seems that I have an answer to my question about the Sinar back which Stuart used:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>There are obviously some issues with stitching when things are moving around. But there are ways around this, too. You can get creative with where your images will overlap, for instance. Multiple frames before moving the camera. Also you can figure out ways to pre-visualize, just use a zoom to figure out what you want, then all you need to do is make sure you get enough coverage from the same location. I find the actual process of stitching pretty simple, with free software called hugin, as long as you're using a correctly set up pano head and a lens with simple, easy to correct distortion. </p>

<p>I don't really stitch much these days, but I agree that stitching is also viable for film. I was in monument valley earlier this year. Unfortunately my fixed 80mm lens on my TLR wasn't wide enough for one shot I wanted. So I took two shots and stitched.</p>

<p>Personally I find the experience of shooting digital compared to film totally different. I prefer film. I enjoy it more. If you have no real preference then I would just go with the DSLR. </p><div></div>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Hi Karim, <br>

The Sinar back was a 54LV, which is 48x36mm, so a 1.1 crop. It had impressive resolution, but to be fair, I sold it because I usually shot film at the same time, and almost universally preferred the look of the film shots, even after a lot of work on the digital files! As I said, resolution isn't everything....also the film shots from 6x7 seemed to look better at very large sizes (1x1.2m etc). I now use a Leica M9, and while it does not have quite as high resolution, I like the color and handling vastly better -- it is the first digital camera I could envision replacing color film for me...but personally I don't have any incentive to get rid of film. I love the look, I have the cameras, and I process, scan and print everything myself, so it is not a burden to shoot film.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Rob, that is a fantastic picture.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, the truck is actually a 97 megapixel scan from TMAX 400. The Smugmug picture viewer seems to top out in its capacity to show it all.</p>

<p>Here is a 100% crop of the 97 megapixel scan. Even you, a very accomplished stitcher, won't want to deal with the complexity of producing this with stitching. This picture sold on a 24x24 print embosed on a 32 x 32 frame.</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here is how it was presented:</p><div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p>That makes more sense, but you have to admit at 100% that crop is pretty horrible. That 400 really breaks down much faster than the 100. Having now seen your presentation of the print I am surprised at how hard you crop, coming from a slide background, cropping, other than for format considerations, never made any sense to me.</p>

<p>It just illustrates a different approach, neither being right or wrong. From my full 135 format digital single frames I don't have any problems printing very nicely to 20"x30". But I would never dream of cropping my print from 30% (a rough guess) of the capture. That means, if your scan is 100% the film area, your 24x24 print is from a film area not hugely bigger than a native 135 format film image anyway. Why shoot with a 6x7 to get the quality of a 135!</p>

<p>I am not a very accomplished stitcher, I use the technique when I want, or need to, my example was a new to me lens test to ascertain fov, it isn't even focused optimally, my main reason for stitching is fov, not image quality. However it is very rare that I envision a print over 24x36, but on those occasions I have a choice of approaches, stitch the digital I have with me, plan to return with my personal 6x9 film camera, rent a bigger film or digital camera etc. These are all just techniques to get the quality each individual wants for the print size they are thinking of. There are many ways to use the equipment we have, the flexibility now goes far beyond the days of wet prints.</p>

<p>My main point for the thread was, if Susan wants to make 30" to 40" prints she can comfortable do that with 135 format single digital captures, well I do it regularly. If she wants to make the occasional 50" print there are techniques that enable her to use a 135 format camera (film or digital) to get those too. With regards learning several disciplines, I am a reasonable wet printer and an average photoshop user but I drew the line at learning scanning, there are professionals out there that can do a far better job, with far better equipment, than we can hope to achieve and own. I read an article by a very highly regarded printer recently, in it he pointed out that basically every five years he has to rescan all his best film images to keep up with the current best practices and resolution capabilities. Yes you have the capture and can rescan it, but really, who wants to.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Here is a 100% crop of the 97 megapixel scan. Even you, a very accomplished stitcher, won't want to deal with the complexity of producing this with stitching.</em></p>

<p>To match or exceed 6x7 requires a 1x3 frame DSLR stitch with the camera orientation opposite the desired photograph orientation, the easiest stitch to do. For a still subject like the truck it's pretty much a matter of shooting and letting your stitching software put it together. At closer ranges you might need a pano head.</p>

<p>Stitching has its pros and cons but it is certainly a useful method for producing larger prints of the types of subject matter people like to print to very large sizes.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, there is no grain on the print using TMAX 400 (You may print yourself to check), if looking at the screen you prefer it smooth, you can remove grain with the click of a button; or sharpen for print equally easy (other than that, it looks great even at 100% from 97MP).</p><p><br></p><p>For a square print like this, 35mm only offers 1/5th of the area of MF. Cropping both for the same subject leaves you still with 1/5th of the detail. You would need at least 6-9 shots with 35mm to at least try to match it considering minimal overlapping requirements.</p><p><br></p><p>Even if you never cropped, you are also incorrect with your calculation of the cropped rectangular area. The crop was a 42mm x 42mm crop of the film. This is over three (3) times the area of 24mm x 24mm assuming no waste. These are silly points since you can make this calculation yourself. Four to six (4-6) 35mm shots would be required for this with even zero cropping!</p><p><br></p><p>35mm (film or digital) is not ideal for 30x40 prints to my standard. If a single 35mm shot is regularly good for you to make 30x40 prints, that's ok. It is not for me. This is obviously subjective to the application, personal threshold and the level of quality desired.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I'm not sure it is good advice for the OP to leave her with the idea that 35mm is a feasible solution for 30x40.</p>

<p>Stitching can help with some scenarios but it is limited in its applications and convenience. </p>