turgut_tarhan

I'm waiting for a camera that can yield images close to Mamiya 7. Neither the D2X/D200, nor the 5D will likely, instead bringing something "acceptable" when the advantages of digital is taken into account.

 

FF DSLR will likely mature at about 25mp. Then, any expected improvements will be in the area of camera size, price, speed, DR, and color reproduction. In a matter of years, we may see a 22mp FF in a 350D (Rebel XT) sized body, and priced around $1500.

 

Before this happens, today's any camera will be obsolete within two years. Though there isn't any upgrade path with the awaited D200, I may prefer a temporary investment in this camera + DX 18-70mm (for the sake of digital), if it's sold much cheaper than the 5D, that will soon be followed possibly by a 16mp 5D mkII or a 3D, and a 22mp 1Ds mkIII or whatsoever (1Ds & 1D merged). $3000+ is still too expensive for a camera which will depreciate by half in a matter of months; but the 24-105mm is a good investment. BTW, the only obstacle in front of FF digital is soft corners at wider than 24mm. A new, corrected 16-24mm f/4, projecting a larger image circle will definitely overcome this problem.

 

I believe sooner or later Nikon will adapt in FF, yet keeping the DX format.

<p><a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com"

target="_blank">www.turguttarhan.com</a></p><div></div>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/page11.asp" target="_blank">Here</a>

are sample photos provided by DPReview. Most are photographed with this new lens.</p>

D2X, or its long-awaited tweener D200 may be fine cameras with less corner softness and with better color reproduction; but only FOR TODAY, or within two years. What about its future & upgrade path? Today's 12.4mp or tomorrow's stretched 14mp will likely be the limit of the DX sensor size, due to noise issue. That's more than enough for many applications; but to fulfill the higher resolution demand of landscape photography, FF is more promising. There's more room for reasonably up to about 25mp, before it becomes lens limited. Looking at DPReview's samples, I didn't see any disturbing corner softness from the 5D cw 24-105mm. So, corrected new super wides may follow. Well, a super mp Mamiya 7D might be the holy grail along with all its huge image circle & corner-to-corner sharp optics, if ever happens.

<p> <a href="http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm" target="_blank">This

page</a> may help. There's an update regarding to MTF of the new lens.</p>

<p>Are there any side-by-side 5D vs 1DsII bench tests performed? I

wish to think of the new camera as a relatively compact & affordable

1DsII with equivalent image quality, and wonder if it's true.<br>

<br>

Simple maths will say no; how can 12.8 be as good as 16.7? Yet, it

may be possible with more efficient sensor construction and with the

help of processor algorithm tweaks. The fact with Nikon D2X is one

example. By these serious comparisons (<a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html"

target="_blank">link1</a>,

<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient-

menuext&hl=en&u=http%3A//www.caborian.com/index.php%3Foption%

3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D196" target="_blank">link2</a>),

I'm quite convinced that it can yield 12.4 mp images

equivalent to 16.7mp, at low ISO. Like cars; is it credible to draw

conclusion based on purely the engine

size.<br>

<br>

Anyway, I upsized the <a

href="http://web1.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/downloads/macro.jpg"> macro

image

out of 5D</a> from Canon's web to the <a

href="http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dsm2/downloads/accessories.jpg"

target="_blank"> 1DsII macro</a> from the same

source (their landscape sample is pathetic). At 100% magnification,

they both have similar

look & similar detail; but it may be asked whether the latter has

more potential for further upsizing. I followed the same routine with

the images from Dpreview

(<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/page11.asp"

target="_blank">link1</a>,

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/page5.asp"

target="_blank">link2</a>)

among which contain comparable textures (e.g: the bridges; BTW, the

new 24-105mm

L IS lens performs well throughout the frame, except for little CA at

wider end,

while no samples are given for its longer end). Certainly it's not

fair to compare different scenes, photographed under different light

and with different optics. At the end, I'm

confused whether they come equal or 1Ds maintains a notable

advantage; and

waiting for a test that 5D is compared by the latter, locking all

other parameters.</p>

" >>It's suffering from edge & corner resolution,<<

and, what does the CAMERA have to do with that? And, did you look a t JPGs to *judge* your film cameras?

 

Amazing... "

 

 

Sorry, I didn't directly mention the camera, but the image was suffering edge & corner resolution. We all know every part of sensors are equal (at least theoretically). The result is the combination of imager & optics.

 

Unfortunately yes. My impatience... I experienced that a high quality jpg is close to tif, and here compared with jpg scans from the Mamiya. Any raw file download wouldn't be practical. I presumed that Canon would have put samples among the best possible with this camera & L lenses at best apertures. Only if they wish to improve their sales. That must be a kind of advertisement. Anyway, I doubt the result will be as good as 1Ds mkII (despite of recent advance), and the Nikon D2x (proven to be equivalent to 1Ds mkII). Happy to see if I'm wrong! To me, they are the benchmarks for min. image quality acceptable to switch from Mamiya 7.

 

Canon! Give me that camera and the new zoom for three months, and I will return you with great autumn photos for your landscape samples, as far as it allows. Good deal?

The resolution properties for a devoted landscape photographer can be demanding. There must be a certain overall MTF response to obtain good microdetail at low contrast areas, which is a must for landscapes. Therefore, LF has been the natural way for serious work, also taking its lens & film plane movements into consideration. Yet in other applications, grainless & plastic textures with high acutance is more welcome despite of the available pixel count. It may be harder to fulfill the needs in landscape photography than other styles, probably due to a different approach in the context of sensor & lens design.

 

Now, come on Canon! Put your best foot forward, and place a couple of decent landscapes made by this gem with best primes & the novel zoom, but not a snapshot like that, if you're into marketing a +$3K equipment.

 

And I wish Michael Reichmann will make a field test, and a comparison page for the EOS 5D cw 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens, ASAP.

<p>Yesterday, I was excited with the news that 5D became true, but my

first impression with the

<a target="_blank"

href="http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/eos5d_sample-e.html"> sample

images</a> provided by Canon, is disappointing. The landscape

photographed with 17-40mm L @ f/8 is simply useless. It's suffering

from edge & corner resolution, and there is no pleasing texture

of trees, grass, wood or the rocks, compared to anything from the

50mm with Mamiya 7.

Frankly, even crop its film twice by half, and the scan from that

piece will still be better. Canon's other samples also show mediocre

performance.

To my limited first impression, it may be relatively affordable &

lightweight, yet is not the "dream camera" (pls. refer to

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DHCv"

target="_blank">this

Photo.net forum</a>) I've been expecting in accordance to recent

innovations with imaging

technology. Not a 1Ds mkII equivalent in image quality, but more a FF

brother of 20D with little improved, (even inferior at WA) output.

Not likely the alternative to trade my Mamiya 7 system for. But no

doubt, it will yield better images if Canon, or Zeiss primes are

used. I'm wondering how the new 24-105mm L IS will perform on this

camera, and waiting for side-by-side comparisons vs 1Ds mkII, 20D

& Nikon D2X. And, where is the

rumored D200?</p><p><a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com"

target="_blank">Turgut Tarhan</a></p>

Resolution achieved from a Mamiya 7 outperforms any other MF camera. No doubt. It's like having the resoluton of 4x5 inch squeezed in roll film, thanks to the lenses' high spatial frequency. A 35mm film section out of the 6x7 frame is equivalent to Canon, Nikon or Minolta prime quality, even close to Leica. So it's like a mosaic of 4 Leica size frames. It would give an incredible result with a 36x48mm digital back. But for a price of a 4x4 vehicle! Or, there may be a Mamiya 7D in the future. But when?

 

So, for a practical reasons I'll likely be trading my superb Mamiya 7 plus 3 lenses for a Canon 5D, if real and sold about $3000. If the rumored 24-105mm L IS comes true and sells under $1000, this will be my first choice lens. 5D must yield around standard MF quality, like a Pentax 67, or at least a good 4.5x6. I can compromise about 25%-30% linear resolution loss, for the sake of easier & cheaper workflow, which means no films, no labs, no scanning, no waiting. The more, I will recall the ability of closeups and the allround ease of SLR; will spend my energy for pure photography rather than worrying for the accuracy of frames, distance, metering & filters (all rangefinder issues), very shallow DOF & changing film per 10 frames (MF issues).

<p>According to these serious bench tests (<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html" target="_blank">link1</a>,

<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient-menuext&hl=en&u=http%3A//www.caborian.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D196" target="_blank">link2</a>) the image quality of Nikon D2x is amazing, and it's only from 12.4mp 1.5X factor tiny DX imager. It is

close to 6x7 Velvia/Provia quality, or equivalent of 16.7mp Canon 1Ds mkII in terms of resolution and noise up to ISO 200-400. Though exposure latitude is better with Canon, corner resolution is ahead with Nikon due to its cropping factor (except for one case with a WA Zeiss optic on 1Ds vs a DX zoom). Color palette are different, and does not really imply any strength over

another.</p>

<p>If the same image quality standard is available from the DX format, what advantage is left out from the FF? The infamous wideangle (partially solved) and DOF (only 1 f-stop) issues. Whether they are advantages or disadvantages depend on applications. With the same image standards achieved, it won?t make much sense whether it's FF or something else. Now, after the D2X miracle, corner to corner resolution and noise characteristics are more important measures than the absolute size of the sensor. I hope Canon 5D will come true with an image quality both comparable with 1Ds mkII & D2X. I'm at equal distance to both brands, but lower price tag and a compact body is more compelling to me. And I wish Nikon will soon introduce

an affordable tweener of D2X, rumored as D200. I can trade my Mamiya 7 system for such anything (hard decision if both available); otherwise wait until made.</p>

<p>By D2x, it's shown that practical resolution limit of quality 35mm lenses is more then today's 16.7 mp, but

rather about 25-30 mp, to the point where more will not add any significant improvement. Since MF lenses are inferior to 35mm lenses regarding to their spatial frequency, and with the manufacturing issues of larger sensors; it's not an easy

challenge.</p>

<p>Some fiction, but I think the 1.5X factor does not come by coincidence. Nikon may be planning of an ultimate twin DX sensor camera, otherwise not possible by means of a larger single sensor; but with a 24x32mm coverage close to FF, that may yield a high acuity resolution of 24mp equivalent to higher mp FF or MF digital or LF film scan. Wall-size murals with incredible detail. End of story! </p>

<p>Tiled multiple sensors are likely the direction of future digital cameras. More resolution, less noise and less production cost, except for the extra circuit to seamlessly combine images.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com" target="_blank">Turgut Tarhan</a></p>

<p>What I think is all these cameras are in different leagues, and the introduction of 5D will unlikely effect the

sales of other Canon products. Owners of 1D MkII won't find 5D a step forward, Having already invested in EFs lenses, most 20D owners possibly will not justify upgrading

since its resolution practically exceeds 35mm film results. And, there will always be a limited group of photographers who can afford the top series pro cameras, like 1Ds MkII or its successors and even digital MF like Mamiya ZD. So, for whom is the 5D?<br>

<br>

It is for the semi-pros and enthusiastic amateurs who seek high image quality

(not necessarily extra features), but cannot afford/justify upper models. Apart from price, weight & size is another consideration. Canon Eos 1D series bodies, and Nikon D2X are quite heavy and bulky,

comparable to a Pentax 67. This may not be so important for a relatively short session, where the user has a transport to the scene (sports, events, wedding, etc). While it becomes an issue

when comes to traveling and hiking. Who wants to walk all the day with a brick on his/her

neck, if a smaller body can yield similar results. (eg. 350D vs 20D)<br>

<br>

This may be the first digital camera to be owned for many photographers who still use film, especially medium format. I'm one example. Except borrowing for test purposes, I never had

any digital; but rather waited for something much better then 35mm equivalent, close to 67 resolution.

20D (or 350D) have been so so OK, but I prefer waiting, instead of making a

temporary investment which can't be considered a bargain. Plus, FF gives larger viewfinder & eases wide angle use (arguably).<br>

<br>

Mamiya 7 is special among MF cameras thanks to its modern rangefinder lens design, yielding close to 4x5 quality squeezed in 6x7 frame. But, because of its operational difficulties, and for the sake of the versatility of dSLR,

I may compromise to some extent.<br>

<br>

I can't afford a Canon 1ds mkII, say even become possible by winning lottery, or

given free, it's too big & heavy for my style. 20D size is ok. Same with Nikon D2x. I'm at equal distance to both makers, since I don't own any lenses from these brands. Having read the comparisons regarding these two cameras, I found it very surprising to see practically equivalent results at least with low ISO settings. It's very interesting to see how a 12.4 mp 1.5x cropped sensor camera from a partial image out of the same lens can achieve

a similar result from 16.7 mp FF. No test gimmicks, for real: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html">link1</a>,

<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient-menuext&hl=en&u=http%3A//www.caborian.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D196" target="_blank">link2</a>.

Both websites end up with the same conclusion. Only at higher ISO, 1Ds mkII attains advantage. Plus, I found the colors right out of Nikon d2x more pleasing, compared to Canon's less saturated & cooler palette (but more natural & it could be modified though) <br>

<br>

I wouldn't prefer a D2x, because it's still expensive and bulky, yet there is not an allround lens offered like Canon do. Aside from 3 primes

I may have for serious landscape work; I'd like take the advantage of a versatile lens like 28-135mm IS on a relatively compact FF body, for travel or journalism (at least in its categories I'm involved).

5D is the camera tailored for landscape, serious travel, architecture, studio

& photojournalism (except for extreme actions).</p>

<p>Let's wait and see if the rumor comes true. Let's see if its resolution can

compete with that of D2x. If 12 mp on a smaller sensor can achieve this, one

would expect from Canon to improve it sensor design to comply with the recent

innovations. And time will show whether subframe cameras and lenses can survive in

long term.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com" target="_blank">Turgut Tarhan</a></p>

<p> </p>

Thank you for all the input. For sure, I didn't have any intention to buy from this place which looked too good, but just wondered how. Scam or something else. Rather, I'm waiting my dream to come true: Canon EOS 5D ! 12.8 mp + FF + DIGIC II translates into image quality. This camera should yield sharp & noiseless images that no other subframe camera has ever achieved. Please look at comparisons on the web; there is much more than 11 vs 8mp when 1Ds mkI compared to 20D, or 16.7 vs 12.4 mp when 1Ds mkII compared to Nikon D2X. A body similar to 20D will be compact & sturdy enough to hike with, a serious camera for travel, landscape, architecture, studio and photojournalism. The most important point is its relatively affordable price, that will fill a niche.

If it's certainly scam, then Amazon must be warned about. I also wondered if a slightly defective batch was marketed, that failed to pass QC. There have always been rumors about industrial products. Who knows whether companies are that strict to demolish all such substandard cameras, for the sake of their reputation.

<p>I've found <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-

/B00064O8Z8/sr=1-6/qid=1124022864/ref=sr_1_6/102-6104032-7709738?%

5Fencoding=UTF8&me=A1DB1ZZDDA8TN9&v=glance"

target="_blank">this

poster</a>, referring to <b>new</b> 1Ds Mark II for <b> $2450</b> via

Amazon.

The seller company is <b>GigaBargain</b>, and has a quite positive

feedback. And,

on the right bottom corner of the photo, it clearly reads <b>80%

off</b>, which

reduces the chance of a mistake. How can it be explained?</p>

<p>I've recently purchased an HP 1220C printer, which appeared to be

the only affordable option for formats larger than the standard

A4. <br>

I have some large files from MF drum scans even possible to print at

A3 size under 600 dpi resolution, which are 9600x7700 px. My tests

showed excellent detailed results. The results are slightly better

when Photoret is turned off when the file's resolution is high like

600dpi; otherwise Photoret is better. The colors are vibrant

preserving shadow and highlight detail. <br>

<br>

The question is the colors not matching with my screen, and there's

quite a lot of magenta hue, if not corrected. I use Photoshop 7.0,

and the only impractical solution that helps is to make color balance

& brightness/contrast adjustment prior printing. The correct

amounts slightly vary for each different image, and the procedure of

printing many smaller scaled tests by trial & error method is

very tiresome, as well as paper and ink consuming. <br>

<br>

At HP's print dialog box, color saturation of each 3 color cannot be

adjusted separately, while it's made possible with Epson's. Instead,

HP delivers a rough color tone slider, which is almost useless. Only

if this feature was made available, it would solve the problem to

great extent. Why doesn't HP provide this? Can't they see such an

important missing point, while their competitor has solved?

It has poor features compared to the print quality. Is there any

other generic compatible driver providing a different interface?

 <br>

<br>

Now, I'm pulling my hair, and came to the point of returning this

product only because of this idiot & incompetent print dialog.

Otherwise, it gives perfect results, but after 4-5 test prints.

Maybe, for whatever price, I should have bought the Epson

1290S. <br>

<br>

I wish to calibrate the printer once until changing the cartridge,

but not each time adjusting the image for the printer. Loading the

specific color profile didn't help. Even if did, I suspect the result

will change with a new cartridge. What can I do? Is there any

practical solution, rather than giving up with this product?<br>

</p>

<img src="http://s12.sitemeter.com/meter.asp?site=s12Turgutxxx"

border=0 width="0" height="0">

I've recently purchased an HP 1220C printer, which appeared to be the

only affordable option for formats larger than the standard A4.

 

I have some large files from MF drum scans even possible to print at

A3 size under 600 dpi resolution, which are 9600x7700 px. My tests

showed excellent detailed results. The results are slightly better

when Photoret is turned off when the file's resolution is high like

600dpi; otherwise Photoret is better. The colors are vibrant

preserving shadow and highlight detail.

 

The question is the colors not matching with my screen, and there's

quite a lot of magenta hue, if not corrected. I use Photoshop 7.0,

and the only impractical solution that helps is to make color balance

& brightness/contrast adjustment prior printing. The correct amounts

slightly vary for each different image, and the procedure of printing

many smaller scaled tests by trial & error method is very tiresome,

as well as paper and ink consuming.

 

At HP's print dialog box, color saturation of each 3 color cannot be

adjusted separately, while it's made possible with Epson's. Instead,

HP delivers a rough color tone slider, which is almost useless. Only

if this feature was made available, it would solve the problem to

great extent. Why doesn't HP provide this? Can't they see such an

important missing point, while their competitor has solved? Is there

any other generic compatible driver providing a different interface?

 

I'm pulling my hair, and came to the point of returning this product

only because of this idiot & incompetent print dialog. Otherwise, it

gives perfect results, but after 4-5 test prints. Maybe, for whatever

price, I should have bought the Epson 1290S.

 

I wish to calibrate the printer once until changing the cartridge,

but not each time adjusting the image for the printer. Loading the

specific color profile didn't help. Even if did, I suspect the result

will change with a new cartridge. What can I do? Is there any

practical solution, rather than giving up with this product?

<p>The image coverage of Canon 100mm lens with would be about the same with Pentax 67 200mm lens at longer edge, and the other would be very similar when cropped to 3/2 aspect ratio of Leica format.<br>

<br>

Both actual data are too much to be downloaded on internet. For convenience, you may take 1/10 (1/100 as the area considered) of both images. Canon 1Ds MkI yields 4082x2718 pixels, and 4000dpi scan must have resulted in about 4000dpi x ~2.75 inch = ~11000 pixels at longer edge. 1/10 of Canon's image (408x272) will easily fit on any computer screen. The second image may be ppi reduced (resampled on PS) to appear at the same size to

compare. To be realistic, nothing else (sharpening, noise reduction, etc.) must

be applied rather than a basic bicubic resampling.</p>

<p>Since, some information will be lost at downsampling, which is against Pentax 67, you

may prefer the way round, and enlarge Canon's image section; so that both images

will be 1100x733px. Yet, PS upsampling is tricky; instead of doing in one step, it

will be better to manage in 3-4 steps for a ratio more than 2x, to minimize any

unwanted patterns. If you find the figure 1100x733 too large, an option is to use the 2000dpi scan, yielding half the size.<br>

<br>

If not satisfied with any of the two techniques, you may simply provide the original images. For comparison, choosing a detailed section is essential, preferably about the central

area. Similar to the comparison with Pentax 67 that you meant, there is another

example here: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml">www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml</a></p>

<p>Could you upload your both images? Thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would not make this switch. IMHO, it wouldn't worth for the weight difference. Why not? Nothing compares with the characteristics of a Zeiss lens, especially at landscapes. I'm a landscape photographer, by last year making the switch to MF buying the Mamiya 7 cw 50mm + 80mm + 210mm, after having tested other brands including Hasselblads. The main reason I didn't buy the Hassy was it's extreme price even used. Zeiss lenses are sharp, having a certain MTF with perfect smooth color rendition, and with good shadow detail. It has an aesthetic soul. While Mamiya 7 lenses may even appear sharper at certain contrasty scenes, it lacks some of the properties of Zeiss lenses. Shadow details are easier to get lost, very fine details may be "rounded" if the subject has subtle hues, due to its MTF response, as a design preference in the direction of contrastiness vs extreme sharpness. <br>

<br>

As an example, if a scenery consisting of detailed bare branches over cloudless sky is photographed both with Hasselblad and Mamiya 7 using same focal length lenses; the Mamiya 7 chrome may likely emphasize medium sized branches better, but with a sudden drop in detail going to smaller ones, while the Hasselblad chrome may still hold some clue of very small branches. While different at the texture, also color rendition is different especially noticeable at blue palette, and if enough care is not shown, it has a general tendency to produce chromes with a harsh look. Imprecise framing, focusing, out-of-focus rendition (bokeh) properties, inability to closeup, difficulties in filter usage, corner light falloff at wide apertures, worse the lens is wider, are the other main downsides that the purchaser should be aware of.<br>

<br>

If not wrong, a Hassy 503 + 80mm CFE with one film magazine, without any prism, but a tiny handmeter should not weigh much, eg. around 1.6 kg, compared to the weight of Mamiya 7 + 80mm, which is circa 1.2 kg. Similar logic should apply for volume comparison. Mamiya 7 has an advantage of larger chrome size, especially when Hasselblad's is cropped to rectangle, or A16 magazine is used. It's easier to handhold. Film changing is a breeze (compared to other MF). But, is it really worth the switch?<br>

<br>

The best thing is to hire, or lend if possible, before making the final decision. I've never fell in love with my Mamiya, even cursed at some cases, yet managed to create many extraordinary photos. I'll likely switch to full frame DSLR when prices drop. A 65mm + 150mm is a reasonable combination for Mamiya 7, but it may not be easy to find a set without the 80mm. Even only 80mm may serve well for many cases, since being somewhat wider than a normal lens.<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com" target="_blank">www.turguttarhan.com</a></p>

I've been using the 50mm lens for 6 months, being the latest and very probably the last lens in my lineup, together with 80 & 210mm. One of the reasons deciding on the 50mm instead of 43mm for the wide end, was to use it without the external finder. The other main reason was the better characteristics in light fall-off at corners. If not wide open, light fall-off is not easily noticeable. IMHO, if possible, a 65mm + 150mm seems to be the most sensible combination suiting for bulk of applications. Maybe less versatile than e.g. 43mm + 80mm + 150mm, but needs less investment, and it's easier to carry, change, and compose.

 

Yet, when comes to framing with the built-in viewfinder, it has been a disappointment. At min. focusing distance, the total visible area outside the 65mm frame may be fine, when I stick my eye to the rubber frame; but no way good at longer distance and esp. at infinty. The image of lens is larger. One has to either move to 4 sides, calculating the additional portion, in fractions of the frame. Oh, no, thanks! Photographing, or maths problem solving? Furthermore, the right lower corner is obstructed by the lens; I had to move, have a look there and return. Being fed up, I'm now using the external viewfinder. Yes, not so handy, but at least the max. view outside the frame is quite accurate at infinity, and the actual lower subframe is for min. distance. The total coverage is clearly seen at a glance, and the bubble-level is a bonus, that helps at horizontal landscapes. As a note, my lens performs best at f/8 & f/11 in terms of sharpness.

 

Anyway, I'm a serious landscape photographer, and the proportions are very important to me. Mamiya 7 is very difficult to master in this area, but the lenses are sharper than Pentax 67. It's a difficult compromise. After a year, now I'm accustomed to judge the differences between the frame and the actual image, for my 3 lenses. All have a different story. For 80mm's actual frame at infinity, I prefer to wind the curtain, twist the lens little bit to let it switch the 65mm frame which is very close to the actual image(1.25 x 65/80), and than back to original position before exposure. And for the 210mm, I asked the service to make a small addition to show the 150mm frame with the correct parallax set to infinity, instead of the previous pointless 65mm frame. Again the 150mm frame is a good guide, slightly wider than the actual at infinity. Still for any lens, framing accuracy is not fully relyable, but is an approximation; the center of the viewfinder does not exactly match the actual image, though carefully aligned for all parameters.

 

For purposes other than distant subjects like landscapes, cityscapes, architecture, etc, which calls for careful composition; but for types of photography that closer focusing are mostly used, like casual subjects, street photography, reportage, etc, where also speed & ease matters, the internal viewfinder may be worth using with the 50mm lens.

Thank you for the answers. Maybe I need to make direct comparison of two cameras in terms of color rendition, like performed <a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/comparatif-mamiya-hasselblad.html" target="_blank">here.</a> Everything, as the film, object, expusure, processing and scanning factors should be fixed, except for the test variable. I have a few pairs of films showing same scenery, exposed almost at the same time, on same type of film with same or equivalent setting. On light box, some show considerable difference. Yet, the possibility resulting from different emulsions (120 vs 135mm), and any processing differencies due to film size cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I need to use two 35mm films from the same batch, with the help of an adapter. My Minolta MD prime lenses have given the best in every basic aspect, produced pleasing colors even in difficult conditions. Sharpness, shadow details and bokeh properties are almost at the its format's limits. Since working in affiliation with a magzine, I had the chance to compare many results from other brands. Only a Leica at its best apertures can be noticeably better. But, I always wanted a MF camera with the same resolution of a good 35mm prime lens. It means, a cut section would look alike, and if it's a 6x7, then 4.5 times information would be captured. Among the cameras I've tested Mamiya 7 lenses were the only ones coming close to his level. My 210mm is slightly sharper than 80mm. Interestingly, a chrome 80mm Hasselblad Zeiss was the sharpest MF lens I saw, even better than the new CF. I realize Mamiya 7 is sharp as reasonably possible in 6x7, but sharpness is not everything, especially when comes to landscapes. There seems to be something going wrong with Velvia; colors are inconsistent, and under certain conditions, light falloff on corners can be noticeabe too, even with 80mm when fully open. These problems are usually accentuated at scanning. Anyway, I'm trying to get the best from this camera.

Here are the photos mentioned: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=395031">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=395031</a>

I have a Mamiya 7 with 80mm & 210mm, and the 50mm will hopefully

arrive at the end of this month. With this setup for landscapes, I've

photographed over 100 rolls of various color slides.

 

I can conclude that, these lenses are very sharp, but they induce a

noticeable color palette on transparencies, which has been unfamiliar

to me. Good or bad, it's a matter of debate, but sometimes I have to

spend long time on PS to correct the undesirable color cast

characterized by unnatural cobalt blue skies or water hues, lime

greens becoming pale and bright yellows becoming muddy. IMO, warming

filters become more necessary than other cameras. Or, yellows must be

enhanced on PS, as a remedy. Everything is likely exasperated with

Velvia 100F, but Velvia 50 and Ektachrome VS standing in the middle,

and Provia 100F possibly to be the best fit for these lenses by

compensating the cast in some way.

 

Yet, I couldn't make certain whether it's a simple color shift in one

direction, namely like a blue-violet, or rather a complex scheme.

Below are two extreme examples among my photos, Velvia 50 & 100F used

respectively, scanned by Frontier and uncorrected, while these

unusual colors have not been apparent with other scans from other

cameras. Neither with Minolta Rokkor lenses I have been using, or the

Zeiss lenses I tested, as they gave more pleasing colors.

 

I'd be glad if anyone has noticed similar attributes with Mamiya 7.

Can it be it due to the glass or coatings? Is it common with other

Mamiya models, like RB/RZ or 645? Any suggestions?

What is exactly seen on the internal viewfinder, when 50mm lens is

mounted on Mamiya 7 camera? The 65mm frameline(like without any

lens), no frameline or something else? If any frame is displayed,

does it move for parallax compensation due to focusing distance, or

does it remain fixed? If fixed, at what distance does the center of

frame match to the actual on the film? At infinity or closer?

The page has moved to <a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com/pentax67/test.htm" target="_blank">www.turguttarhan.com/pentax67/test.htm</a>