Mamiya 7 VS 24MP Digital?

[dan_south]

<p>Point 1: David Henderson is an extremely credible fellow. I trust his judgment completely.</p>

<p>Point 2: Scanning is expensive if you have pro labs do it and tedious if you do it yourself.</p>

<p>Point 3: Digital capture provides some advantages that you might want to consider.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Virtually limitless exposures through which you can later sort for the best shots</li>

<li>More latitude than positive film</li>

<li>Modern lenses with useful features such as image stabilization</li>

<li>Better performance at high ISO values than any film of any size</li>

<li>Faster lenses (small format digital only)</li>

<li>In the field composition, focus, and exposure verification</li>

<li>Unmatched ability for handheld shots</li>

<li>X-rays and temperature changes won't harm digital data</li>

<li>Immediate usability of images</li>

</ul>

<p>Even if you use film for your most critical shots, it would be handy to take a lightweight, high resolution digital camera (e.g. Canon 7D or 5D mark II, Sony A850) along for the ride. Each camera (film and digital) will offer something that the other cannot, so you end up with the best of both worlds.</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Medium format also is unbeatable for the price.</p>

<p>Mamiya 7II sells new on ebay between 1100-1200. Mamiya 80mm for the Mamiya II only adds 800. Price/quality for new equipment is unbeatable.</p>

<p>If you are willing to buy used equipment and carry a whole lot more with you, the RZ67II +110mm can be had used for 800. This is one -if not the most- customizable system ever made and a pleasure to use.<br>

I own both and a full set of lenses and they both get used about equal.</p>

<p>Scanners are more of a difficult thing. If a Coolscan 9000 were still sold new for $2,000 you would be all set but that is not the case and a suitable replacement is still not in the horizon (if ever).</p>

<p>If I were you, I'd still get a new Mamiya 7II. The pictures you take can always be sent out for scanning. I doubt you will print for you more than a dozen or two a year. It'd be no trouble for me to scan them for you.</p>

<p>What film would you use?</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Hi Susan, it's late here, but I just had some random thoughts. Have you worked with a Creo? I was using an Eversmart Supreme today. It is a superb scanner. It is also absolutely gigantic. It is roughly the size of an outdoor barbeque. I scanned a 4x5 transparency at 4000dpi, 16bit with MaxDR. It took over an hour to do the one scan. A full resolution scan on my X5 takes 3 minutes (albeit at 2040dpi). I would think really long and hard before winding up with one...they are great scanners, but they are really more meant for labs and institutions than individuals, and more for 4x5 film and larger than for single 6x7 frames (though they will do them well!). You could probably fit 25 Minolta Scan-Multi-Pros or 10 Coolscan 9000's inside it. The learning curves on these scanners are not exactly easy either...I have been working in FlexColor with the Imacons and Hasselblads for about seven years now, and I am still learning things all the time. oXYgen is even more complicated since it was really designed for pre-press, not photographers. It is a bit more intuitive though.</p>

<p>There is definitely something to be said for farming out this work to someone who already has the equipment and experience built up. It may cost more in the long run, but it does free you up to take pictures rather than spend your time earning an unaccredited degree in scanner operation. The Imacon 343 or Precision scanners can usually be had for a few thousand dollars, and they will take Mamiya 7 files up to about 40x50" and look great doing it. They are not quite as nice as the Creo in terms of Dmax or top resolution, but they are much faster and you don't need to worry about dust as much (no top and bottom glass etc). They are also much smaller and currently supported by FlexColor with free updates (2.6.4 is the last oXYgen software, so you will need to stay with Snow Leopard or dedicate a workstation to run the scanner). </p>

<p>BUT, I would have to agree with several other people -- if you are not tied to film, and you plan to have a digital camera anyway, have a look at used digital backs, or even the Pentax 645D. There are several sub 10K now, and the 40mp in the Pentax will easily do 40x50 and look superb. And it will be your only real expense -- no scanner, no lab fees, no film cost etc. It might be cheaper for you in the long run. </p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Maybe rent a Mamiya, then have a couple of well exposed and sharp negatives scanned at a place that has known skil with lets say a Nikon 9000 and see if you can get a print as large as you would like. It's an expense, but then you'll know if you want to go that route. Try it with a Imacon. A lot will depend on your commitment to quality and your budget:)</p>

[timlayton]

<p>There are a lot of quality and lengthy comments and input. I have a couple comments that mirror many of the others in one form or another but also have some experience that you may be able to benefit from. In the end, it is your journey that only you can decide. <br>

I own a Mamiya 7 with the 43mm, 80mm, and 150mm lenses and an Epson V750 scanner. I also send out for super high res drum scans if needed. I find the V750 scanner when optimally calibrated meets my expectation the vast majority of the time no matter if I am scanning MF or LF film. <br>

I owned a Nikon D3X which is the flagship 24MP DLSR. <br>

After shooting both I sold the D3X.<br>

I personally don't enlarge many photos beyond 8x10 no matter the format. I shoot 4x5 LF along with other MF cameras (Hasselblad 503CW, RZ67 Pro II, Pentax 645, etc). Many of these prints are contact prints and only a few are enlarged. <br>

For my fine art prints I choose to print darkroom archival gelatin silver prints on fiber paper because I think they are the only prints that meet the expectation that I have in my minds eye. I've printed on the latest and greatest Epson LF printers with many different fine art papers with the source image coming from film and digital and the b/w darkroom prints win hands down. Are they are a pain in the butt to create at times, yes..., but the rewards are so sweet. I actually love the challenge and process. <br>

The last thing I would say about the Rangefinder vs a DSLR is that you are giving yourself the opportunity for a parallel workflow. Meaning you could shoot film and never touch a computer and print in the darkroom or you could scan in your negatives and print on an inkjet printer. You will find tons of people that do one or the other or even both. That decision is ultimately up to you and my best advice to is explore as much of it as your wallet will allow and your future direction should be clear.<br>

Best of luck.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p> </p>

[stannobles]

FWIW I have an epson 750 and while it is good, it is just a tad soft for my liking despite my best efforts. What it is good

for is culling images and getting the color correct. You should then have something to work from when you do get a drum

scan (the cost of which I think is trivial when your talking about prints at 50"). I think this is a personal prefence battle

between media. I personally prefer to have a cheap camera I can throw around (vs a 10k pentax) in the field and not have

to worry about all the tech gear and "review" done on the spot. Does anyone really enjoy all that time in front of the LCD

screen? Take the photo and move on. No laptop or batteries to lug around the jungle or through the surf. Guess it

depends on where you go. I love film and if someone stole my $250 bronica I would be more concerned about the

undeveloped film in the back than I would the equipment! I look at it this way: shooting film is expensive BUT digital

cameras depreciate quickly... So if that's they way you go you'll need to either accept the loss in value or upgrade every

year. Meh. Film is too much fun for me.

 

The best of luck!

[ty_mickan]

<p>Thinking of giving up film? Susan, I think that once you have the scanning sorted, you'll get the advantage of that huge dynamic range you just won't get with digital, and of course that distinctive film look (I'm not sure whether that does it for you or not). You'll have digital images, and still have negatives....in short, your images will be worth more. Of course, film will cost you more, but if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>When you say "it's been demonstrated that 35mm is competitive with 24mp," what are you referring to?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mauro Franic can comment on that. He's done basic testing that shows how close Velvia is to a high pixel density sensor. Also:</p>

<p>http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html</p>

<p>Interpret those results as you will. Then you can make a reasonable mental comparison between the Canon and 6x7 film.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Susan - what are you making big prints of? If you're shooting landscapes from a tripod you can easily stitch 3 x 24 MP shots to yield an image with IQ superior to 6x7 scans.</p>

<p>Along those lines I can't help but wonder what a 24 MP camera and a 1:1 macro lens could do with a 6x7 frame of film when stitching comes into play. I wouldn't be surprised if a 3 frame stitch of the film, which doesn't even exploit the full magnification of a macro lens, would out perform a flatbed and possibly reduce the number of outside scans you have to have made.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Karim -- those results are not necessarily what you always get. For example, here is a comparison of a Leica M9 to a Leica M7 with Kodachrome 64 scanned on an X5 at 8000dpi, both with the 75/2 APO Summicron. The Kodachrome is slightly overexposed, but the difference in detail is very clear...at least it is on my screen. Believe me, I am a HUGE film proponent, but for equal area, the resolution battle is over, at least for sensors without AA filters. I had the same results comparing a 22mp back to 645 Fuji Acros! The look still might be nicer, but there is little question in my mind, working with both everyday, that digital gives higher resolution and sharpness per unit area. <br /> <img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/kodachrome-vs-m9.jpg" alt="" /><br /> 22mp Sinar back compared to 645 Fuji Acros 100 developed in Xtol, scanned on an X5 at 3200dpi, both with a 150mm f/4 Tele-Xenar...100% crops<br /> Digital<br /> <img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/22mp-100crop.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Film<br /> <img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/fuji-acros-100crop.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> I will be the first to say that resolution is not everything, but if it is something you are concerned about, digital will take you a long way if you get a big sensor for it....</p>

<p>P.S. Photo.net is now shrinking the images to fit a certain width. If you open the images in a new tab, you can see them larger. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Karim, while I do enjoy the posts from the Brothers Wright, a shot of a face that is out of focus isn't really a resolution comparison. </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>This is a scan (mine) of TMAX 400 shot with my Mamiya 7 and scanned with the Coolscan.<br /> The focus is marked in red (TMAX 100 would be finer but this gives you an idea of what you can expect):</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Mamiya-7II-Pushed-TMAX-400/11732163_tSzxF#827984342_qPmbv-O-LB</p>

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

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>Fear not. There are new MF scanners on the way:</p>

<p><a href="https://reflecta.de/en/products/detail/~id.425/reflecta-MidformatScan-MF5000--from-june-2011-available.html">https://reflecta.de/en/products/detail/~id.425/reflecta-MidformatScan-MF5000--from-june-2011-available.html</a></p>

[osfania]

<p>Darkroom all the way.</p>

[mishka]

<p>Weird no one mentioned: scanning itself degrades images quite a bit! The images on film, from my experience, are always significantly better that whatever the (Nikon) scanner spits out. Obviously, digital technology always improves. And so will the quality of scans of the films shot today. But not the quality of digital files saved today.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I agree with the previous poster. If you're going to introduce a digital conversion into the workflow, then you're really better off starting with a digital sensor. There's less of a dust issue or scanner optics to consider, plus the scanning time and demands on computer hardware are not inconsiderable.</p>

<p>A 40" print from MF is a 16 diameter enlargement however you go about it. The demands on your technique and darkroom cleanliness are extreme at this magnification, plus the availability and cost of wet-process materials will increasingly become an issue over time. So if you really want to make life difficult for yourself and concentrate on equipment and technical aspects, rather than just getting on and taking pictures, then by all means go the film route.</p>

[timlayton]

<p>Some of the most famous prints in the world are very small whether they were contact or enlargements made in the darkroom. I have no idea why there is such a fascination with huge prints and how that correlates to quality or value. I am not against large prints by any means. If the image is best presented at 40", then great. We have to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of any serious photographer is to make a print, whether it is very small or extremely large. I shoot a lot of large format and the bulk of my prints are silver gelatin contact prints of the negative. That doesn't mean my approach is acceptable to any other photographer and I respect that. Some of the greatest photographers have been quoted as saying that the image determines the size of the print. Trying to produce or sell prints by the square yard is a silly notion. If we as photographers spent more time on visualization, composition and proper presentation of our photographs the rest of the photographic process just becomes a means to get there. Producing large prints just for the sake of it is an illogical goal in my humble opinion. </p>

<p> </p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Tim, I think one fundamental factor is that it is easier to convince people to pay big money for a big print. When you are already so established that your name alone convinces people to pay big prices, then printing small is fine! I don't agree with this, but it is a factor in the work of a lot of the people I print for. Clients will pay more for big than they will for small. It might be silly, but it is true. </p>

[joe_oliva]

<p><strong>24 MP Digital is the way to go! </strong></p>

<p>I own the Sony Alpha A900 plus all the Car Zeiss and Sony G glass. I also own a complete Pentax 67II system, and more than one Nikon 9000 ED film scanners. I routinely print 16x24 on an Epson 4880. I would have thought the Pentax/Nikon conbo would have lead to the best results, but in my experience, the Sony yields better results in 16x24. My guess is it has to do with the superior sharpness of the Sony glass. I never would have expected this, if I hadn't seen it myself.</p>

[joe_oliva]

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Joe, it's simply because 16x24 isn't a test for either system. Even the Sony is already at 252ppi at that size....not far from 300ppi. Now pump those prints up to 40" and the film begins to show more detail, albeit with grain. </p>

<p>The A900 is indeed a great camera. I did a test a while back where I compared the A900 to 4x5 film at 16x20. Scanned on an Epson V700, there really wasn't any difference. 16x20 just isn't that big a print to test this high rez gear. </p>

[susan_henderson1]

<p>I can't think everyone enough for the wealth of thoughtful and informative replies. I'm always of the mind that more information can never be a bad thing, and even though I'm still uncertain as to what to do, I feel like I've gotten closer to a decision. Right now, I'm actually leaning closer to just selling my Mamiya and going all digital. For whatever reason, I hadn't even thought about stitching, and that would be a great way to make big prints for certain images I felt warranted it. Granted, there's a bit more work involved, but certainly no more than learning how to properly scan film. Plus, I can always save up for a LF camera or MF digital. All that said, it still pains me when I think about selling the Mamiya. Whatever it's worth, it was my first "serious" camera and I guess I've become a bit attached to it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, as I cried as a kid when my mom threw my favorite drinking cup away! I guess I get attached to inanimate objects too easily.</p>

<p>To answer some select posts:</p>

<p>@ Mauro<br>

I'm certainly overwhelmed by the offers by many here to make scans for me, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a burden. If I do keep the M7, I shoot Velvia 50 and Astia for color, and usually either Ilford Pan F, Delta 100, or FP4 for B&W depending on my mood.</p>

<p>@Stuart Richardson<br>

I have not worked with a Creo, though I did work with a flatbed scanner at a local film shop that recently closed down, and it didn't seem to be TOO much trouble. Of course, mastering the technology is essential for getting maximum quality, and I'm equally not sure how much time I'd want to/be willing to devote to such an endeavor. Again, thanks for the very sensible advice. I mean, I'm certainly thinking "long and hard" about the Supreme, as the offer came up over two months ago and I still haven't pulled the trigger.</p>

<p>@Daniel Lee Taylor<br>

As I mentioned above, the stitching is an excellent idea, and something that I wondered why I didn't think about before.</p>

<p>@Tim Layton<br>

I mostly agree with you, and if you read my second reply to David Henderson I said exactly the same thing, that my desire for big prints is dependent on the image and which I think would work better in a large format. I think there's a certain power in seeing a big print. It's the reason why Kubrick filmed 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm instead of 35mm, because he wanted that level of detail to be apparent on a huge screen to create an immersive visual experience. I regularly look at and am awed by much smaller prints, say 11x14s and 16x20s, as presented in various photo/art books and galleries, but they never quite have the overwhelming power that prints/works >2x does when the work is of an equal quality. I rather think this large VS small "canvass" concept applies to all the arts, even non-visual ones. John Milton's Lycidas is a perfect "short" poem at 190-or-so lines, but it's hardly a match for the 10,000 line Paradise Lost. Some works just need that big canvass.</p>

[sfcole]

<p><<Some of the most famous prints in the world are very small whether they were contact or enlargements made in the darkroom. I have no idea why there is such a fascination with huge prints and how that correlates to quality or value. I am not against large prints by any means. If the image is best presented at 40", then great.>><br>

Finally, someone makes this point. What IS the fascination with biggie-size prints anyway? I see lots of exhibits in my area, like the local camera club taking over a coffee shop, and people seem to think that if you make a mega-size photo of peeling paint then it's somehow better. It's like people are falling over each other to see who make make the largest prints.</p>

[susan_henderson1]

<p>@Scott: [[[What IS the fascination with biggie-size prints anyway?]]]<br>

If you read my post above, the response to Tim Layton, I tried to answer this. I guess it's kinda like asking what's the difference between staring at a hole in the ground and visiting The Grand Canyon. Humans have been fascinated with "big" things since as far back as we know. It's a primitive thing that either triggers that part of your brain or it doesn't. It does for me.</p>

 

[StuartMoxham]

<p>After working making wide format prints for 6 years I still don't see the fascination with huge over enlarged images. Myself I like to make 8x8 inch and smaller prints from 2 1/4 square negs. I just never got any kind of urge to make huge prints for myself.</p>