nick_rigopoulos1

<p>I'm not quite sure how to pose this question. I'm wondering if the dynamic range, the latitude I suppose, is different between a good scan (say, for argument purposes, a good drum scan) and a wet print. For a basic example, an overexposed sky...am I going to have less ability to bring it down to acceptable levels with a scan than I am in the darkroom? I know technique in either situation plays a role, but try to remove that from the equation if possible. <br>

I am a bit confused because the film itself has a certain latitude range from light to dark. Velvia for example having a very limited DR, with say Fuji Acros 100 having a great deal more. Once you scan it though, I'm assuming the latitude of the film is no longer the only variable as it is with traditional processing, but rather the capability of the scanner to record and then reproduce that latitude digitally. Stop me if none of this makes any sense. It sounded like a decent question in my head! :p</p>

<p>Ok, now I'm really confused.</p>

<p>I set up a much more thorough testing environment on a variety of subjects, all in good lighting. All of my AF lenses, the 35 1.4, the 135 2.0, and the 50 1.4, each of them showed a certain degree of AF inconsistency. None matched the precision of live view zoom manual focus. <br>

Am I overreacting? I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that using the center AF point, AF performance should be consistent, repeatable, and damn near perfect in optimal conditions...am I wrong? Is this normal to have some degree of variability?<br>

If not, the only explanation (unless someone reeeaaally hates me and cursed all my lenses) would be a problem with the body. I unfortunately do not possess another Canon body.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>I think he means the 35 has greater DOF wide open than say the 135 has wide open, simply because it is a wider focal length.</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>I mentioned the camera in the title, it's a 5D mk II.</p>

<p>Well this is a new one. I bought a 35mm 1.4L a couple of days ago, and have been shooting anything and everything with it to get a feel for it. After getting a sneaking suspicion something wasn't quite 'right' with it, I set it up on a tripod and did an informal focus test. Focusing on the small text on a pill bottle from various distances, I've determined the autofocus is wildly inconsistent from wide open to at least f2.8. Any smaller and it seems like DoF makes up for it. <br>

In Single Shot focus mode, focus is 9/10 consistent, but still not quite as good as I can get manually focusing via live view zoom. (is this normal, btw?) In AI Servo mode, focus is off 7/10 shots wide open. In between shots I would focus away or on my hand to 'reset' the test. This was using no AF area point expansion, no micro adjustment, and just the center AF point.<br>

I did similar tests with my 135mm f/2L and 50mm 1.4 and found no problems. Unfortunately I do not have another Canon body to test with to see if it's actually a problem with the lens or the body/lens combo.<br>

Now, I've read many reports of examples of the 35mm 1.4L backfocusing or frontfocusing, but I've never heard of anything quite like this.</p>

<p>If anyone has any advice, it would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>-Nick</p>

<p>More is not always better. Give a man too many choices and he'll be less happy than if you just give him a few good ones. If you want to collect lenses just for collecting's sake, that's one thing. If you want to actually use the lenses, I'd try to get the fewest that will fit your particular style. I much prefer primes (can't completely explain why, although aside from quality there are 'intangibles') which you'd normally think would necessitate more lens changes than if I were using zooms.</p>

<p>However, I've been discovering lately that for what I like to shoot, landscapes, you just don't *need* a huge range of focal lengths. </p>

<p>Example: Mamiya 7II rangefinder, 50mm wide angle, 80mm standard, 150mm telephoto. That's it. 3 lengths that cover everything I could possibly do with his body. </p>

<p>Example 2: 5d mk II, 24mm TSE II, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2</p>

<p>If you buy and 'try' to use too many, you will end up feeling guilty and not using all of them often enough. If you have to try to come up with reasons to use a lens length, chances are you don't need it. </p>

<p>As far as missing a shot, I can't recall missing one because of a lens change.</p>

<p>I was at my local camera store yesterday and saw a Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f1.4 for $150. Had an EF mount adapter. It's not a 645 lens, it's for Contax 35mm. I'm only posting here because I can't find a whole lot of info about it, I can only find stuff on the 645 AF lens. </p>

<p>It's in good condition, mounts and works fine. I know the Contax 645 lenses have a good reputation so I am wondering about this one. Decent deal? Ripped off? Not any better than the canon 50 1.4?</p>

<p>Thanks for any info you guys can share.</p>

<p>~Nick</p>

<p>If you'd like to read more about minimalist landscape photography in general, not just black and white, I highly recommend checking out a European photog named Bruce Percy.</p>

<p>His website is www.brucepercy.co.uk<br>

Check out his e-book, "Simplifying Composition"<br>

I don't know if I would call him strictly minimalist, but his compositions are certainly straightforward, especially in that e-book.</p>

<p>There's a simple majesty to minimalist landscapes that is extremely difficult to pull off correctly, so I am always in awe of anyone who can properly execute good simple compositions. Percy shoots a lot of film, mostly with a Mamiya 7II 6x7cm rangefinder.</p>

<p>thinktank streetwalker<br /> canon 5d II, 24mm ts-e II, 50mm f/1.4, mamiya 7II w/ 80mm f/4 with ilford pan 50 for landscapes and tmax 400 for street. Definitely a bit limited on lenses. I'd like to add a 70-200 to my Canon kit, and the 43mm f/4.5 for the Mamiya.<br /> Also: Lee filter bracket, cut to work better with the rangefinder of the 7II, and three NDs, a .6 hard, .9 hard, and .9 soft. Hardly ever use the .6 by itself. Useless IMO.</p>

<p>oops, my apologies just noticed this was the nikon forum. I just clicked on this thread on from the front page 'active threads" line. oh well, I doubt you guys really care.</p>

<p>Dammit...I just came back here to say that I somehow missed the very first page of the instructions where it says...well, exactly what you just said.</p>

<p>Thank you though!</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>Bought the Mamiya 7II, from a member here in classifieds. </p>

<p>Camera looks to be in great condition. Having never used one of these before, I do have a question (and possible problem).</p>

<p>I haven't loaded film yet. Just messing around with it though, I couldn't get the shutter to fire. Dark slide is open, camera is on, batteries are good, lever cocked, etc. However, the red light in the viewfinder comes on when metering.</p>

<p>I searched for this and saw a thread with the same issue. One member suggested sliding the multi exposure meter to the left. Sure enough, I did that and it worked. </p>

<p>Reading through the manual, however, suggests that sliding the switch to the left is turning multiple exposures ON, not OFF. Basically with the camera set to the regular single exposure per frame, the red light comes on and the shutter won't trip. What gives?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Nick</p>

<p>Gary,</p>

<p>Yes the Mamiya has a built in meter. From reports, however, it's unreliable--NOT because of 'unreliable readings', but because the nature of the meter changes based on the lens you have mounted, from center weighted to spot, and Mamiya provides no literature on the subject.</p>

<p>Now, those aren't my own experiences, I have never even had the chance to hold a 7 in my hands. So I'm not taking that completely on faith, I'm going to test it out first before I go get a handheld meter.</p>

<p>What I am 100% sure about though, is the fact that my Lee graduated filter holder blocks the Mamiya's light meter, making it kind of inconvenient. Is it something I could work around--possibly. But this combined with the first reason is enough to make me at least question whether I can effectively use the 7's built in meter on a regular basis. We'll see.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the info guys.</p>

<p>I was actually aware (somewhat, anyway) that a meter gives you the exposure information you need to render what you're metering 18% gray. I know the basics of how a built in meter works, etc.</p>

<p>What I am not sure about, however, is how to use a meter (any type really) with any degree of consistency in high contrast situations, like sunsets. As some aptly pointed out, I am the cursed "DSLR generation", and being just a whippersnapper I have relied on one thing more than any other for correct exposure: the LCD image review. I use it for basic confirmation of correct exposure, I use it for correct nd grad placement, correct nd grad strength, etc.</p>

<p>I have been spoiled, in other words. I'm now on a mission to correct that and relearn how to do it the proper way. There's an element of necessity to this as well since the Mamiya 7's built-in meter is basically a spot meter, and certainly isn't a fancy matrix meter. </p>

<p>I am primarily doing landscape photography at the moment, it is what interests me the most. What type of meter would be most appropriate? A 1* spot? I've been reading up on the Zone system (the exposure side of it anyway, not the darkroom side), is knowledge and correct usage of the zone system essential for making the most out of a spot meter? </p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Nick</p>

<p>Gus:</p>

<p>You're right I am the DSLR generation, I'm only 23. I'm trying to get more into film though-- I just bought a second hand mamiya 7II as a jumping off point, so I figured I'd start my learnin' =)</p>

<p>I've read the general definitions, but can someone explain to me in clear terms the difference between a spot meter and an incident meter? The former measures reflected light in a very specific area, and you can measure that without having to actually place the meter there...and the incident meter is actually required to be at the spot you wish to meter?</p>

<p>This might sound odd, but let's say the subject you wish to meter (with an incident meter) is in an unaccessible location...? How would you go about working around that?</p>

<p>Matt:</p>

<p>I didn't think of that, that metering is dependent on focal length. It seems so obvious to me now why it wouldn't work!</p>

<p>Thanks guys.</p>

<p>I'm a little shakey on digital handheld light meters. From what I can see, the only choices are spot (in varying degrees), incident/reflected and flash. </p>

<p>Any DSLR worth the plastic it's made out of, however, has a full blown matrix metering system that's far more advanced. Why are there no handheld meters that work like that, that have a built in 'database' of sorts of possible exposure scenarios like a DSLR?</p>

<p>This might seem like a naive question, keep in mind I'm not entirely up to speed on handheld meters in general.</p>

<p>I ended up changing my mind again! This has been my biggest problem. Normally I'm a fairly confident/impulsive buyer when it comes to camera equipment. Not this time. I've been vacillating back and forth for months whether or not to buy this damn thing...that's why I finally broke down and posted this thread. </p>

<p>I'm about to paypal the seller, but STILL I am not 100% whether to buy it or not. I've got so many reasons why and why not floating around I can't keep track. </p>

<p>I'm picking up a mint condition body (black of course) and 80mm lens for $1600, so I won't be taking a hit if I decide I don't like it and resell, I'm assuming not anyway. I would never, ever buy a Mamiya in the USA new. The markup is just too obscene. </p>

<p>I ended up emailing Lee Frost yesterday evening, a British landscape photographer. He has used the 7 extensively for exactly what I want to do. Even though he transitioned his pro work last year to Canon DSLRs, he still talked up the 7 as a great camera. About the ND grad issue, he mentioned he was able to use even hard-line grads with great success simply by eyeballing it from the front--eg if the horizon is placed 1/3rd from the top, place the grad edge 1/3rd from the top of the lens element. I figure if it's good enough for him, it's certainly good enough for me at this point in my photography. His reason for leaving film? Like so many others I would imagine, it just got to expensive to shoot it professionally when faced with digital competitors. </p>

<p>Any last thoughts from anyone before I purchase it? Any additional accessories you'd get right off the bat?</p>

<p>Nick</p>

<p>Well, the sheer diversity of responses here exemplifies my dilemma. In more complex terms...I'm f'in stumped! </p>

<p>I have a romanticized vision of my would-be experience with the 7II, but over the past several days I've been trying to think about how I would deal with its limitations; for the type of photography I'm currently interested in, I just don't think it's a smart match. I use grads heavily, and I've been telling myself that I can get used to it, but in reality I think I'd end up going crazy if I shot chromes. If I end up getting more into street photography, I think the 7II will be the first camera I go for...right now however, I just don't think it's a smart match. It's sad because I really, really want to go ahead and buy it, I have a great deal lined up and everything, but the more rational, un-fun side of my brain is screaming no no no. </p>

<p>I think I'm going to wait for a little while longer before I make a decision and continue to build my Canon setup. When I pursued the whole 6x7 thought process to its logical conclusion, I have to factor in darkroom equipment and a dedicated film scanner like a coolscan 8 or 9k if I want to do it right and not be reliant on a lab...I just can't dedicate that kind of cash to it, yet. Ideally, I would end up with both the 7II and the RZ67, one for street photography and cityscapes, the other for a slower, more considered approach with landscapes. I just can't justify spending that much on what might end up being a niche of my hobby, taking away most of my 'fun' money from adding to my 5dII setup, which has the potential to open more doors for me in the future.</p>

<p> Any advice is most welcome. </p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Nick</p>

<p>Victor,<br>

I can definitely see hard line grads being a pain in the ass, but simple grads I can't see being a detraction after doing more reading here and on other sites. Sure, it's not like adjusting one using Live View, heh, but I think I could handle soft grads. <br>

I would imagine that grads become less necessary with color negative and b&w film anyway?</p>

<p>John,<br>

I'm not asking about image quality differences between the two, but operational and qualitative differences. They both spit out a 6x7.</p>

<p>Well, I've already got the 20+ meg DSLR. I'm not at all unsatisfied with its objective IQ. It's more of a 'feel' thing for me, the way the images look after being produced. To me, digital will never *replace* film, and I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who started WITH digital and am now trying out film more and more. (I'm hoping this is a trend for many, but I doubt it). Sure, full frame DSLRs are probably the better all around choice for pretty much anything these days in terms of performance versus cost versus versatility. My 5d II can do it all. What it can't do is reproduce the look of Ektar, Portra, TMAX 100, Velvia 50, etc. I'm after a certain look, not total quality. No film simulators or even manual tweaking in CS4 can give me those looks on a final print...not to mention a 6x7 slide.</p>

<p>To Ralph jensen:<br>

I actually have the 24mm TSE L II already, it was the lens I purchased when I picked up the 5dII. It is an incredible lens. A bit on the weighty side, but a good type of heft. <br>

I want to get into 6x7 film mainly for the "feel" of it. I have very little experience with film overall, in fact I've only been into photography *at all* for about two years. It's been a quick transition, I'll say that much. My only film experience really has been with a Nikon F100, that I used alongside a D90 last year, before I switched over to Canon. Sold off the F100, but I still have my Nikon FM2N, which I adore.<br>

Despite my short time using it, 6 months maybe, I began to prefer using film over the D90, and just became enamored with film in general. Loading it, smelling it, the feel of it. Looking at Velvia 50 slides on a lightbox. There's something about it which I cannot describe that draws me to it over digital. I'm not against digital, or anything of the kind...in fact I rather enjoy compositing HDRs in photomatix and spending hours putting the finishing touches on in PS. But I get an altogether different enjoyment when I'm using film. It feels more real, somehow. So do the results. I take my time more when shooting, and not just because of the cost per frame, but because I want to. I actually feel like I'm engaging in an art more than using a computer system to capture photons on a sensor. <br>

__________________________________________________________</p>

<p>Anyway, back to the 7II for a moment: this camera is indeed going to see lots of tripod usage, and I will be doing a lot of coastal photography (live in California). The whole tripod thing is one of the major arguments I have with myself in regards to the RZ67. If it's on a tripod, it doesn't matter all that much if it's bulky. <br>

So my next question then is, if I'm going to be using the 7II on a tripod a lot of the time (not *all* the time, but a lot), am I negating one of its main advantages? Is that then enough to warrant the RZ67?</p>

<p>My last question, if anyone is still monitoring this thread....</p>

<p>This is what has been bothering me the most...even though this is just 'for fun', is it even worth getting into 6x7 film when compared next to my 5d II? Are the results going to be similar enough to make the 6x7 superfluous?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses everyone.</p>

<p>To eric:</p>

<p>I don't see it as apples to oranges. I'm looking for the best 6x7 alternative to digital for landscape photography and black and white city shots. Yes one is huge, and one is relatively small. So what? I'm an able bodied 23 year old, I could hike with either. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't seriously think of weight and bulk as a consideration. It just doesn't break or make the deal, for me. I'm simply weighing the pros and cons of each but in the general context of is it first a good landscape camera. For many landscape shots, ND filters are important if not imperative. To me, it isn't silly at all to ask such a question and as you can see from the other responses, several other people use ND grads with it as well. Just because I would use ND grads doesn't all of a sudden mean that the M7II would be as cumbersome as a 4x5...</p>

<p>I apologize in advance for I know this topic has been posted on to death and back again. However, I have some questions I could not find the answers (to my satisfaction) after searching for a solid week or so.</p>

<p>I'm an amateur photographer, purely a hobby at this point, although it has pretty much consumed my life at the moment. I am currently using a 5d mk II and shoot mostly landscapes. I'd like to get a mf film camera to complement it and use it for black and white landscapes, abstract landscapes, cityscapes, etc. Possibly some B&W street photography now and again, but that wouldn't be a priority. </p>

<p>I'll skip all the introductory arguments for and against both the Mamiya 7 and the RZ67 and get right to my more specific questions:</p>

<p>1) I have read and understand that the 7 is unable to focus closer than about a meter. I am not interested in macro photography at this time, but what this does concern me about is near-far composition. Am I going to be unable to use this type of composition with this camera? Any landscape photographers that could comment on this issue and have used the 7 or another rangefinder for this purpose would be especially helpful.</p>

<p>2) Depth of field on a 6x7 is significantly less per-aperture number than the equivalent on 35mm. My question is, is diffraction also less of a problem at each aperture beyond where it sets in? For example, I've read that f/22 is kind of a no-no on a 35mm DSLR for landscapes if you're after the highest level of clarity; that anything beyond about f/16 shows a noticeable lack in 'sharpness'. On 6x7, does diffraction not set in until a higher # f stop or is diffraction the same across all formats? If it sets in at the #s on 6x7, I could see that being a major problem when trying to get good DoF for landscapes.</p>

<p>3) I've read that the 7 is severely crippled in metered manual mode due to not being able to adjust shutter speed finer than full stops. Do most of you guys keep it in aperture priority as a result?</p>

<p>4) The framing issue...just how bad is it? Is this something I can learn to adjust to and be 99% on target with my framing, or is this a deal breaker with this camera for some people?</p>

<p>5) Neutral density grads: This is probably my most worrisome concern. I have read some tricks on how to use them with a rangefinder, but having never done it, I can't speak to their effectiveness. Is there a sure shot method? Would it be wise to use soft-edge grads to lessen the problem, or can hard-edge grads be used with adequate preparation and skill? </p>

<p>I guess I really don't have any questions about the RZ67. I've been lusting after the Mamiya 7 for a good while now, and as you can probably tell, that's the one my heart is set on. I've been trying to convince myself NOT to get the 7 for all of the above reasons, but my mind keeps dwelling on and coming back to it every time I thought I had successfully pushed it aside. The RZ67 is my 'fallback' purchase I guess. It's by all regards a more capable landscape camera, has no close focusing issues (mmm bellows focusing) and can be used for many other things: macro, portraiture, pretty much anything save walk-around shooting. The 7 however, is a much more limited camera system. If I manage to talk myself *out* of the 7, I'll most likely end up with an RZ67 Pro II.</p>

<p>Thanks for any info you can share,</p>

<p>Nick</p>