Mamiya 7 VS 24MP Digital?

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Here is a comparison using the Pentax 120mm macro on a 645D and 645N (9000 scan). The test completely removes the lens as a variable (assuming correct focus, which is not a given) and in my eye the 645D is clearly better. <br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/search/label/1%29645D%20crop%20%202%29%20full%20image%203%29%20645N%20crop" target="_blank">http://tsjanik.blogspot.com/search/label/1%29645D%20crop%20%202%29%20full%20image%203%29%20645N%20crop</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMHO there is almost no difference - well, almost no difference! Which goes to show just how good a 6x4.5 frame is. It takes 40Mpx to match it (depending on the film). And, dare I say, Portra 400 @ 1600 would probably be better than a 645D @ 1600. Not that I actually know, but those MF sensors are not usually known for low-light performance. Either way I'd like to see a comparison.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Huang,</p>

<p>You find my stitch to be remarkable, but it is very easy. I used a Canon 1Ds MkIII and a 17mm TS-E. The lens shifts 12mm in any direction, do that in both directions and you have 24mm, 24mm is the short side of a 135 frame, to double your sensor area set up your image on the tripod, shift up 12mm, take one shot, shift down 12mm (24mm from where you are) and take a second shot, zero the shift and take a third shot, this gives you a third frame that is a 100% overlap onto the other two, that is how I did the image earlier in the thread. If you want to be super pedantic, though I have found it to be unnecessary, you can move the camera on a 24mm rail and leave the lens in the same position for the shifting, that is, you shift the body behind the lens rather than shifting the lens in front of the body, this removes even the smallest theoretical parallax issues.</p>

<p>Now most Canon shift lenses shift 12mm in any direction. This gives you a remarkable configuration of effective format sizes and resolutions. You can get an effective 36mmx48mm 42mp sensor, you can get a 24mmx50mm 36mp sensor, a 36mm x 36mm sensor, etc etc. All with zero tripod movement, heck I have done 24x50mm sensor two shot stitches handheld on a rolling yacht and software has done a superb job of aligning the images.</p>

<p>If you want to invest in one, and for me it was a good investment, a Canon 5D MkII has the same sensor and can be had for under $2,500 new, secondhand a good bit less, the new MkII shift lenses are in the region of $2,000, though again secondhand will give you a good saving. Is this good value? Well if you compare the prices to used film gear alone not really, but if you factor in film costs including the scanning then for many it works out way cheaper to get a digital. How does the value compare to medium format digital? Welll my system is way cheaper than even secondhand MF digital backs. My way has limitations, but they are not as limiting as most think, especially those who have not actually tried them.</p>

<p>Is the way I sometimes use my camera and lenses the answer for everybody? Absolutely not, but it is worth looking into if you are chasing big prints. I went this route because I wanted one camera body that could effectively do all the various shooting that I do, from very low resolution very fast turn around newspaper images, to high energy fast action sports, to environmental portraits, to large, high quality, scenic and macro prints.</p>

<p>I attach another uncropped stitch that I did without moving the camera, it is a two shot 36mp image with an effective sensor size of 24mmx50mm, on this occasion I did it to get the fov to include the entire island, this gave me an effective 11mm lens on a 135 format camera, so 118° horizontal view. It will print effortlessly with high quality to 24"x 50".</p><div></div>

[susan_henderson1]

<p>I know this thread has really shifted in terms of topic, but what would be preferable between a scanner and darkroom for B&W MF film?</p>

[timlayton]

Get ready for a lot of replies and the short answer is it all depends on what you prefer and what variables are involved.

 

For example, I specialize in b/w fine art prints. My archival work is all created in the darkroom on silver gelatin fiber

from my MF or LF negatives. I custom mount all my work as well giving me total control over my final product from

capture to print.

 

For my lower cost or non-archival prints I scan my MF or LF and print on a LF Epson inkjet in advanced b/w mode. I

use a variety of fine art paper depending on what I am trying to achieve.

 

I prefer the look of my silver gelatin prints or even my AZO (silver chloride) contact prints over the inkjet version.

 

Just do what makes you happy and enjoy it.

 

 

Tim

[scott_ferris]

<p>Susan,</p>

<p>Both are big investments in time and skill sets not even thinking about money and space, the results from both can be argued about by the likes of us posters all the time we have an internet connection:-).</p>

<p>The truth is if you are going to do big prints seriously and you want to do the entire process yourself then most would agree scan and digital print is the way to go. I didn't, I felt scanning was a waste of time and have only had film images wet printed (though the labs could well be scanning), but large wet printing is very involved and skillful and I didn't do them myself. 50" digital prints from scans are effortless by comparison. </p>

<p>Between the two I'd go scan. If I were starting out fresh I would beg borrow or steal a suitable digital camera.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>In my opinion, the b&w darkroom is the better way to go up about 20x24", or perhaps 30x40". Bigger than that and you cannot really get sheets anymore, and you need a special enlarger that can project the image horizontally, you need to process the print in troughs of chemicals and roll it rather than just use trays, the volumes of chemicals required go way up...basically, 20x24 in trays is easy and looks spectacular from 6x7. For larger prints, digital's convenience becomes an overwhelming advantage. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Darkroom, IF you have access to a good enlarger and lens and prefer to spend your time on that sort of thing. Scanner, IF you have access to a good scanner and prefer to spend your time on <em>that</em> sort of thing.</p>

<p>And nobody responded to my actual criticisms of stitching as one's primary method of getting large numbers of pixels, which are that you can't use it on anything that moves (which is why you always see stitches of landscapes but not sports, people in general or street) and you can't compose a shot in the finder. When it comes to landscapes I'm as stitch-happy as the next guy but that's about the limit of it. Architecture too, in limited circumstances, but to increase field of view.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>I didn't think you were serious, did you see my last stitch, it has people and waves in it, the stitch is perfect. Would I recommend stitching as the most practical way to shoot for large prints <strong>regularly</strong>? No. But Susan said <em>"say 30" to 40", and <strong>occasional</strong> 50" at the largest"</em> I find with good technique 36" prints are easily achieved with one 135 format digital frame, if I was shooting one of my "<em>occasional 50</em>"" prints I'd stitch.</p>

<p>Anybody recommending Susan to commit to a darkroom workflow to print her own 30"-50" prints really is doing her a disservice. Either they have never tried to actually wet process 50" prints, or they have been doing it so long they have forgotten how much skill and equipment it takes. Besides, the use of optical enlargements much over 30" has been shown to have so many issues with enlarger lenses it really isn't the way to go anymore.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Can't believe I've been following this thread from the beginning, but must say it's interesting. Susan, I can't say that I'm in the same barge as you, but I've been looking closely if I can do quality B&W with my D700....and I came to conclusion that I'll either have to get RB67 or 4x5 to get there. I just got a chance to get the RB67+3 lenses for incredibly reasonable price, though I'm still second guessing the obvious quality of 4x5. I feel that I have v. little to lose w/67....and I intend to do high quality scans of the choice shots. Sure it's possible to crank 30x50 B&W print from digital, but the last two years of tweaking thought me that I'll never get the IQ that I desire within such enlargement. Like many here, and for whatever it's worth, I've done my share of nega processing and wet printing....and have no desire to go back to chemicals. Perhaps I should try doing B&W stitching ?</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Leszek,</p>

<p>There is a huge difference between a 12mp camera and a 24mp camera. Susan specified a 24mp camera.</p>

[huang_shao_hui]

<p>I have a few points to make before trying to provide my pov to Susan on her needs<br>

@Scott Ferris,<br>

While I think your landscape stitch is very good, I don't think you beach shot is of an equal high standard. When you rebuke Andy's point by pointing there's people and waves in it, I thought I could have myself appearing in both sides of the photo for the kind of stitch job :) Furthermore, this sort of stitch job is really limiting as you can't even have fast moving cloud taking up prominent frame space, at least without heavily editing the result. I know very well because I made this mistake in believing stitching is a poor man's medium format back, a solution for wide angle, high resolution and a bit of medium format perspective (isn't it nice to think that 2 x your 1DsIII frame is equal to a Hassy H3D39 36mm x 48mm sensor?) This couldn't be farther from the truth. On top of that Andy made a very valid point about the inability to use stitching to shoot 'anything that moves'. Your people in the above example is considered static! <br>

On your reply to my query, I was a bit disappointed to find that your landscape shot (being very good) was created by the 17mm superwide. I thought it was a very well planned stitch done with at most a 28mm. As you've mentioned, the right way to do it is to fix the lens but move the camera to create the perfect stitch. In your example the only plus side that I can see is in increasing the pixel count from 21 to 42, with not much increase in FOV. With a 17 mm superwide all you need might be 5 steps backwards rather than go through all the hassle. Under the circumstances I can settle with 21 MP... Furthermore, your example of using SHIFTING on a rolling yacht is really puzzling, if not an over exaggeration to show that shifting does indeed work. Why on earth do you want to shift the lens rather than move the camera considering you're not even on a tripod (means accuracy in framing is so much a secondary factor)?</p>

<p>The last point that I want to bring up is, from the various threads it showed your tendency on mixing facts (objective) with your personal opinion (subjective) and package it as another fact. Just look at your statement for the above beach shot.<br>

<em>It will print effortlessly with high quality to 24"x 50"</em><br>

Mind you, you can print it effortlessly to whatever dimension, key point here is <strong>high quality according to your standard only. </strong>I certainly don't consider, or don't even want to print as big with only approx. 3700 pixel (1DsIII short end) to 24" (155 real px per inch ?!). That is no where near <strong>'high quality', to me</strong>. I know it's not high quality for me, but I'd not want to force it to everyone.</p>

<p>What'd be a true disservice to Susan is if she choose the stitching path and be limited in especially time and responsiveness towards a photographic opportunity. Furthermore, I think along the thread Susan did mention about her concern with the 'digital' look, which will not get away if she're to take the digital approach.</p>

<p>@Susan<br>

Sorry for the above, but I can assure you that I'm really tired, out of steam and won't repeat it again. It's just a habit to debunk some of the pseudo science always show up in cyberspace. <br>

My opinion on your situation is that, you should keep the Mamiya 7. Since you can't cash in much with it, why not keep it as an option, at least for B+W work Then, invest the time and effort in darkroom work. I always find scanning very taxing and if I've enough $$$ I'd buy a minilab to do colour print up to 12x18! While plenty of people look down on minilab prints ( I think it's more towards the operator than the equipment), I can consistently get very good result from the pro shop at my place. Sad fact is that the very rich old man discard the machine due to lack of business and he now runs a durst laser printer for big prints :( For B+W, if you want 24x30 or smaller I'd think that the Mamiya 7 + wet print is hard to beat. As for colour, buy any digicam that suits you, although I still shoot plenty of colour 135, positive and negative. If you want 50" enlargement you do not have much option but send it out for scanning, B+W or otherwise. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Huang,</p>

<p>Thank you for your thoughtful input. Please understand, I use both a 24mp digital camera and an interchangeable backed Mamiya with 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5 and polaroid backs. I do not advocate one camera system over the other, I just try to point out what is possible with either, I get particularly annoyed when people say, you have to do this, or this medium can't do that.</p>

<p><em>While I think your landscape stitch is very good, I don't think you beach shot is of an equal high standard.</em><br>

My first posted stitch was done as a lens test, the second was merely used as an illustration of a 24mmx50mm sensor, the side benefit, and the reason I did it, was to get a 118° fov, it was not posted as an example of fine art, and neither are of print quality.<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em> When you rebuke Andy's point by pointing there's people and waves in it, I thought I could have myself appearing in both sides of the photo for the kind of stitch job :)</em><br>

No, I stopped doing that in school year images :-). But that has been used as a technique long before digital.<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em> Furthermore, this sort of stitch job is really limiting as you can't even have fast moving cloud taking up prominent frame space, at least without heavily editing the result. I know very well because I made this mistake in believing stitching is a poor man's medium format back, a solution for wide angle, high resolution and a bit of medium format perspective (isn't it nice to think that 2 x your 1DsIII frame is equal to a Hassy H3D39 36mm x 48mm sensor?) This couldn't be farther from the truth. On top of that Andy made a very valid point about the inability to use stitching to shoot 'anything that moves'. Your people in the above example is considered static! </em><br>

I always said there were limitations to stitching, I don't do it very often, my point was, as Susan was only talking about occasional 50" prints, even though we don't know her actual subject matter, that stitching a smaller camera might be a possibility, not that it was the answer to all situations. Software has moved so fast in this area too, clouds, unless they are hurricane speeds, are no issue at all, have you seen the CS5 demo images of crashing waves?</p>

<p><em>On your reply to my query, I was a bit disappointed to find that your landscape shot (being very good) was created by the 17mm superwide. I thought it was a very well planned stitch done with at most a 28mm. As you've mentioned, the right way to do it is to fix the lens but move the camera to create the perfect stitch. In your example the only plus side that I can see is in increasing the pixel count from 21 to 42, with not much increase in FOV. With a 17 mm superwide all you need might be 5 steps backwards rather than go through all the hassle.</em><br>

Well if I had taken 5 steps backwards I would have fallen into the water off the dock! But its relevance to the thread was the fact that it is 42mp, if Susan had chosen this style of image to print to 50" then she would have the data to do it.<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em> Under the circumstances I can settle with 21 MP...</em><br>

Again, it was just a lens test and illustration of a 36mmx48mm 42mp sensor, for cheap.<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em> Furthermore, your example of using SHIFTING on a rolling yacht is really puzzling, if not an over exaggeration to show that shifting does indeed work. Why on earth do you want to shift the lens rather than move the camera considering you're not even on a tripod (means accuracy in framing is so much a secondary factor)? </em><br>

A valid point. There was no real reason to do it other than to see if it could be done, I haven't found a use for it. Yet. But again, my point was how far stitching software has moved on. I do find hand held shift and tilt works surprisingly well, but so far have only used it seriously for single captures.<br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em>The last point that I want to bring up is, from the various threads it showed your tendency on mixing facts (objective) with your personal opinion (subjective) and package it as another fact.</em><br>

Well we can all only offer our opinion. I only say what can be done when I have personal experience of it though, as opposed to many posters.<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em> Just look at your statement for the above beach shot.</em><br /><em> It will print effortlessly with high quality to 24"x 50"</em><br /><em> Mind you, you can print it effortlessly to whatever dimension, key point here is <strong>high quality according to your standard only. </strong>I certainly don't consider, or don't even want to print as big with only approx. 3700 pixel (1DsIII short end) to 24" (155 real px per inch ?!). That is no where near <strong>'high quality', to me</strong>. I know it's not high quality for me, but I'd not want to force it to everyone.</em><br>

Ah the old "my standards" chestnut. Well again, that is a valid point, that is why I normally suggest to people to test. It is very easy to enlarge a 135 format film image to mimic a crop of a larger film and print size, the same can be done with digital via an abundant supply of RAW files freely available on the web. Having said that, I am very far from alone in considering the current 21mp cameras of being able to print 24"x36" prints to a high quality, the numbers game is one that has been fought over time and again, I am not interested in rehashing it, but I was once told my 1D, a 4.2mp camera, couldn't print any larger than a 4x6, I even had a magazine editor refuse to look at my images because the file sizes were too small, I went home, resized waited one month, told her I had a new camera that had the required file size, she was very happy and ran several full page images. Unless you have actually done it, don't say it can't be done. I, and many many others, have done big prints from 135 digital images, I have no hesitation in saying it is worth looking at.<em><br /></em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em>What'd be a true disservice to Susan is if she choose the stitching path and be limited in especially time and responsiveness towards a photographic opportunity.</em><br>

Again, if stitching won't work, then it won't work, but as we don't know what might work for Susan it seems worthwhile to say "this might".<em> </em></p>

<p><em> Furthermore, I think along the thread Susan did mention about her concern with the 'digital' look, which will not get away if she're to take the digital approach.</em><br>

That is another complete red herring, and one film fanatics love to tout, but the truth is, if a particular film look is important to you, for way less than $100 I can get a guy to match any film emulsion to an incredibly accurate level, alternatively, do it yourself. Out of digital camera images are RAW images, they are like looking at negatives, it is the foundation with which to make your print, not the actual print, too many people look at the file as a finishing point, not a starting point. <em> </em></p>

<p>Ultimately, the best advice for Susan is to send off to a pro lab tests, print a film image from the Mamiya and a downloaded RAW file from the internet. Compare the two at the print sizes she is interested in and make her own quality assessments from there. Easy, personal and cheaper than making the wrong decision.</p>

 

[warren_williams]

<p>Susan<br>

You've received a lot of good advice, but I thought I would add my two cents. First, if your subject and shooting style will accommodate it, you should try large format (4x5). Scans on any moderate priced scanner will look good up to 13x17 and you can tell which shots deserve to be professionally scanned for larger prints. I think you will be very surprised at the quality and a good LF setup with 1 lens can be had for under $1000. <br>

Another thing worth trying is the Gigapan system - a device which automates panning a camera for stitching - quite amazing. Models are available for digital p&s cameras and DSLR's.<br>

I think the variety of responses points to my perception about the state of the art - affordable digital capture is hard for high quality 16x20 and above but scanning MF with enough quality for 16x20 is also horribly expensive as well. The next generation DSLR will probably convincingly overtake MF film in image quality. MF film will continue to be used because people enjoy this approach to the photographic process, not to get ultimate quality. There is a lot to be said for finding equipment and a process which appeals to you. Ansel Adams owned a Contax and a Hasselblad as well as several view cameras. I think any large format, medium format or 24 MP approach will take you where you want to go but the experience of using them will be very different. Only you can decide which is best for your style.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Susan, I've tried to read all the excellent posts here only to see if a certain recommendation was made ... which it may have, but admittedly my eyes glazed over 1/2 way through ... LOL!</p>

<p>Firstly, I'd recommend joining the GetDpi forum run by Jack Flesher and Guy Mancuso ... it is the most informative digital forum for people looking to do exactly what you want to do. Not taking anything away from this forum at all ... just another very good source for highly experienced shooters in a forum populated with advance enthusiasts, semi-professional and fully professional shooters who print large. Just ask your question there:</p>

<p>www.getdpi.com</p>

<p>I would NOT rule out going Medium Format Digital ... you do NOT have to invest in the latest greatest to realize the benefits of larger sensor digital capture. Many digital backs that are 1, 2, or even 3 generations away from the current digital backs are far more reasonable in price than most people imagine. These backs work on almost every MF SLR camera ever made, and many of those MF cameras are very reasonable in price. The bonus is that they also can shoot film. In past, I would shoot a digital capture and swap backs to shoot a B&W of the same scene. Even a sub $5,000. 22 meg DB will cream the top DSLRs available today for what you want to do. Size still matters whether film or digital.</p>

<p>I have used almost everything out there ... including a Mamiya 7, Hasselblad V, Mamiya645/Mamiya RZ Pro-II, Contax 645, Hasselblad H (my current MFD kit).</p>

<p>I also have used every Canon digital camera up through the 1DsMK-III, and most of the Nikons, up to the D3X ... plus a current Sony A900 and all the Zeiss optics.</p>

<p>I have THE top of the line Imacon/Hasselbald "virtual drum" scanner sitting on the desk behind me, the fastest high-end desktop scanner made ... now dormant for well over a year ... and an Epson V750 I used to use for contact sheets. I also have a complete darkroom with the best equipment money can buy ... also dormant for quite awhile.</p>

<p>I do professional work that is either printed quite large or cropped severely by art directors pulling features out of a master shot. The work ranges from scenics with architectural components, to people (especially environmental portraits involving landscape settings), to editorial, to highly detailed commercial product work. I also do my own personal work with either a Leica M9 or a Medium Format digital rig. The 35mm DSLR is used only for the weddings I do each year. As good as it is, I wouldn't even think of using the A900 for any of my professional assignments. </p>

<p>I love film, but moved on and with the help of some very good advice on GetDpi (among others), have no regrets at all in switching to MFD ... so I just offer that it should be on the consideration list.</p>

<p>Marc</p>

<p> </p>