dan_beaty

Jason,

While I agree mostly with the other responses concerning quality differences at various enlargement/viewing distances.

But there is a look to large format images that I can usually detect them on typical magazine cover size enlargements. I was interested in hearing from the the owner of both Hassleblad and Pentax 6x7 who could see the quality advantage of his 6x7 over the Hassleblad at 16x20" B&W enlargements.

I would really like to know of any first hand comparisons between 6x7 and 4x5" and at what enlargement the differences become significant.

Dan

Matt,

I have the PD Prism. The spot meter roughly covers the center circle on the focussing screen, which is a bit large. But mine is a bit off center.

To be certain, you can check the response of the meter in a dark room with a small light. It might be useful for your method if the shadows and highlights are large enough to fill the center spot of the meter.

Dan

Coming in a bit late on this thread, but wanted to mention one more point: Your 28mm Minolta wide angle is likely to be less sharp than your normal 50.

The SLR design requires some compromises for wide angle lenses in both formats. 45-55mm in 6x7 is not a fair comparison with the normal lens in 35mm for this reason

D.Beaty

At the present I am scanning with an Epson 2450, and printing on the 1270. My 645 Velvia slides look good to me at 11"x14" the largest I've made so far. My 6x7 slides should easily make 13"x19" which is the largest I can go now.

However, in the chemical darkroom, I have made 30"x40" enlargements from Ektar 25 film that are grain free. At this enlargement you can begin to see where your depth of field ends on close viewing, however.

A well focussed image taken on a tripod with 645 should easily make a sharp 16x20" print with 100ASA film, IMO.

Dan Beaty

Yuki,

My experience with Photoshop is recent, and not as thorough as with my color enlarger. Some things can be done more easily in Photoshop, others more easily in the darkroom.

The main reason I have not yet sold my darkroom is the ability to do 30" x 40" prints at a very reasonable cost, and of course 16" x 20" are very easy to do once exposure and color balance are achieved.

Setup time per session is definitely more in the darkroom, even to do one print. While the digital darkroom can be fired up in minutes, and reprints are a snap. However, I do believe that reprints in the darkroom are much more economical than inkjet prints, and more stable than most inkjet prints except for the 2200 from Epson.

Both systems can be challenging, frustrating and fun, IMO.

Dan

My experience is only with the original 50 for the RZ, and the RB 50, I think non C. The first RZ 50 I bought used was misaligned, so I returned it for the one I have now.

I have no complaints on the landscape photos I have from it, which are noticably better than the RB lens, even with the floating element. I would like to see the difference in the newer ULD lens. The improvements often are more noticable in the wider F stops.

Dan Beaty

D. Beaty

The leaf shutter lenses are for syncronizing the electronic flash at all shutter speeds. RB/RZ67, Hasselblad and Bronica systems feature shutters in most all their lenses.

M645's have a slow sync speed which limits outdoor fill flash options. So they have added 3 or more lenses with leaf shutters to expand the capabilities of these cameras.

Dan Beaty

www.livingtruth.com

Chris,

Thanks for sharing your first impressions and the samples. My question would be, have you tried 35mm scans? If so, how much enlargment can they take?

My Umax 4000u (1200x2400 dpi) with transparency adapter can yield decent 5x7's from 35mm through my Epson 1270 Photo printer, after some "unsharp masking" in Photoshop. I am wondering if the additional resolution you are getting would make it worth my while to switch to the Epson.

Dan Beaty

Rob,

I have been using the Beseler Dichro 67 with the larger single shaft for many years. I have Rodenstock 80mm and 50mm lenses. Have made color enlargments up to 30x40 by reversing the stage and projecting to the paper on the floor. I use 10" PVC sewer pipe with cut off 5 gallon plastic paint buckets as end caps for processing.

The results with both 35 and MF negs have been excellent. Of course, the 23C will do up to 6x9 format as well, and has finer adjustments.

Dan Beaty

In March I will be visiting India for 2 weeks. I want to shoot MF but

since time will be limited for shooting, I am taking my Mamiya 645

instead of the RZ. My standard film for outdoor photos has been Fuju

Velvia.

I have been considering using Kodak E100 VS to facilitate handheld

shooting. Has anyone had experience with this film or with the

shooting conditions in India that could help? I would like to bring

back some marketable images from this trip.

Any suggestions?

Dan Beaty

With all of the advantages of the bellows focussion on the RZ, I see

one drawback. The focussing scale on the side is a bit hard to read

with all of the lenses it covers.

Focussing for the hyperfocal distance is much easier with barrel

focussing IMO. There is a larger knob for the RB with the distances

marked on it, but the markings are for lenses that I do not use.

Has anyone found a method for more accurately setting the focus at

specific distances? I usually just look for an object that is at the

approximate distance that I need, and then focus on it.

Dan Beaty

Chris,

You wrote:

<<OK, I have found a buyer for my mint 501CM package, and I am going to get (probably) a Mamiya 645 Pro TL. The reason for this is that I dont care much for the square neg since I usually print in standard rectangle form. It is the same effective size.>>

One small warning that I thought to mention was that you will lose some of the negative when cropping down to 8x10. Unlike the 6x7, the frame on the 645 is slightly narrower in purportion to an 8x10 print.

The square neg would crop down to 44.8 by 56 mm, which is slightly larger than the 41.5 by 56 mm frame of the 645. The actual usable area to make an 8x10 or 16x20 is about 41.5 by 51.9 mm. I know this is small, but it is something that you might want to know.

Peter Free wrote:

<<I add the following to support what other contributors have said in hopes the detail may be relevant. Though Bronica is one system I haven't used, I have owned or used most of the competition over a period of years. With the exception of old non-C Mamiya RB lenses (which were disappointing), overall image quality between the brands is pretty much the same. >>

Peter, by your experience, are you taking the different format sizes into consideration, or are you saying that even these do not affect the final result that much?

In other words,if the lens quality as far as sharpness and clarity are equal, then the later Mamiya 67 and Bronica cameras would produce better enlargments than the Hasselblad.

As far as the difference in color renditions of the different lenses, could these be compensated somewhat by using different films?

Thanks to all for your comments on my question. They have been more helpful so far than the replies I have received on the Mamiya site, which have been zero to date.

This forum has been interesting and informative since I discovered it last week. I am looking forward to further correspondence along these lines.

D. Beaty

I have a Mamiya 645 with a 80/2.8 "C" lens, and a 150/4 "C." What

would I gain by upgrading to the newer "N" lenses? Also, has anyone

seen comparisons between the 45 "C" and the 45 "N?"

Dan Beaty