m_dawg

<p>Well, to be fair I spoke at length with an engineer who used to work at one of the largest film companies and who knows quite a lot about optical design. He said three things that surprised me:</p>

<p>The less coverage, the sharper the lens, in general. Zeiss lenses really are that much better (purely from an engineering standpoint) than the competition (the competition in this case being Schneider and Mamiya, mostly; we were talking LF and MF). These differences won't show up on film 98% of the time so don't worry and this is even if you use perfect technique.</p>

<p>So just because some Hasselblad lenses are better than most 135 lenses doesn't mean 135 lenses aren't sharper in theory. Zeiss advertises their 21mm biogon, I think, as their sharpest wide angle lens in terms of lppmm. But in terms of lpph, their MF lenses are likely as good or better... So of course it depends how you measure.</p>

<p>Just for kicks I compared a good plasmat (180mm sironar-s) with a bad EF-S zoom (55-250mm IS, which is actually not so bad) on my t2i. I shot both around f9, which should be their sharpest aperture in the center, and then sharpened and adjusted contrast as I would normally. The result is...they're both fine, but the EF-S zoom is just slightly better. The contrast on the plasmat is terrible partially because I built an adapter out of PVC pipe (inside painted black, but still), partially because the coverage is 40 times the zoom's and that's a lot of stray light, but the zoom is also a little sharper.</p>

<p>Still, no one expects a plasmat to deliver stunning performance, so I can hardly complain.</p>

<p>Sounds like you know what you like and have found it, then.</p>

<p>View cameras aren't that hard to use (harder than SLRs, imo, but not terribly), they just take a long time to set up and then often you'll find the shot isn't worth it or the light has passed and it's easy to forget a step. The dark cloth is a pain. I'll sometimes insert the dark slide the wrong way and lose a shot, and thus $5, or screw up setting the shutter or calculate focus wrong or something. Loading film is a pain. It's not too bad, just a lot of steps. I do think the quality is even better than digital, though, but that's just my opinion. The main advantage is the lenses don't have any distortion or chromatic aberration (though they're also not very sharp) and you have a lot of leeway with perspective correction and adjusting the plane of focus.</p>

<p>I guess my only advice then would be to try slide film. You'll get better negative density and more immediate feedback on how accurate your exposures are. But if you're using a ttl meter instead of a spot meter the extra latitude of negative film will allow for any mistakes the matrix meter might make. In which case, it sounds like you know what you like and just stick with it. Maybe get a better scanner but that's it.</p>

<p>Personally, I found 135 was too grainy, 6x7 didn't have the lens movements I wanted, and 4x5 had it all but was expensive. Digital is so easy to fix in post and grain free that I'm using it a lot now, too, but I have to approach it differently from 4x5. But that's just my experience.</p>

<p>Thomas puts this really well. The issue with learning on an automatic 135 camera and negative film is that the camera does half the work for you and the lab does the other half. It's not a film vs. digital thing but rather it's that you lack the kind of feedback you need to learn technically. All you're challenging is your ability to compose (which is, admittedly, far more important than anything else). Furthermore, the only advantage of 135 for landscapes is that SLRs are handholdable and so you get a nice finder and don't need a dark cloth or waist level or rangefinder or whatever and you don't have to set up a tripod. The thing is, digital cameras are even more easily handheld for far superior image quality (full frame is somewhere between 6x7 and 4x5 most agree), so the draw of 135 film is waning.</p>

<p>If you plan to use a tripod and want to shoot film, it's 4x5's game.</p>

<p>We don't know how far advanced technically you are, but the RB67 and a spot meter coupled with slide film is a great way to learn how to expose properly and you'll have the benefit of vastly superior image quality. But for serious landscape photography, skip medium format and go for a view camera. View cameras are cheap. On the other hand, if you like what you're getting in technical terms (tonality, contrast, exposure, sharpness, etc.) focus exclusively on composition and stick with what you like. I'll admit I rarely use my view camera because it's so slow to set up.</p>

<p>As for a flash, that would be nice, but no one uses them for landscapes, really.</p>

<p>Given what was written earlier about velvia I think I can get away with saying it's not color accurate. But yes, other films are rather inaccurate, too. In many cases, it's an advantage, less clinical.</p>

<p>I'm not going to argue about velvia's aesthetic merits because it's as love-it-or-hate-it as hdr is, but if you're expecting to get a full five stops of dynamic range out of it that's your own fault.</p>

<p>Highlights blow out at +1.5 stops. Shadows start to block up about a stop under. If you get a good scan or use contrast masks you can do a stop better than that shadow-wise, though. If you have more contrast than that, use filtration or wait until the light changes.</p>

<p>I also like how it looks so of course I'll defend it. If you shoot it, you know what you're getting into. I won't pretend it's color accurate, though. It's bad by film standards and any film is bad by digital standards.</p>

<p>To be fair, there's a pretty good reason why everyone's shooting digital now. Cameras are small, easy to operate, sharp, and much cleaner than film and with lots of latitude. Full frame is often compared with 6x7 and large format (some say it's as good as 8x10; I think not), crop sensors with at least 645. It's worth at least trying a digital slr. I used to get hung up on the chromatic aberration and distortion you get with zooms, but these are easy to mitigate if you shoot raw. And perspective correction can be done easily at the cost of losing a bit of resolution.</p>

<p>But if you like negative film (and, to be perfectly honest, the nicest print I've ever seen was taken on 400ISO negative film), that sounds like a decent set up. I just find even APS-C digital nicer and more flexible than even my Nikon 9000 scans of 135 velvia. I seriously prefer the color of the film but like the dynamic range and flexibility of digital. And I can hand hold in most light with digital, see what I get immediately, and shoot tons of stuff, which is the real attraction.</p>

<p>If you want the absolute best image quality for landscapes for not too much money, get a monorail and some caltar ii-n or schneider symmar lenses and shoot on velvia 50. But the cost of film is astronomical, $6-$10 per color shot and most people bracket. If you're happy with your set up, and it sounds like you are except that you need grad filters, just spend the money on film and keep shooting. But the more gear you use and the more you shoot the better you'll know what you want. After trying everything (except a MFDB, can't afford it), I have finally settled on medium format for portraits, 4x5 for landscapes, and a rebel t2i and kit lens and plastic 50mm for what I actually use 99% of the time!</p>

<p>I have a picture of a 35mm f1.4 nikkor, 65mm f4 rz67 lens (which I now regret selling), and 135mm sironar-s all side-by-side....</p>

<p>One of these lenses is huge, one is tiny. Large format does not mean large lenses, and lf lenses don't perform that well, either. They do have other advantages, however.</p>

<p>So I think the switch up from 135 to 6x7 is pretty much a 4x improvement assuming you're using the best lenses, all of which are sharper than most film. The step up from MF to LF is simply a matter of tonality. Maybe this is where the "myth" was started, that larger formats are not sharper. All my mamiya lenses were at least comperable to my nikkor primes and better in many ways.</p>

<p>Yes, a tripod is way, way more important than a cable release (although a cable release is $10 so you have no excuse). With MF I find I need a lot more light than with 135 so my shutter speeds are in the "absolutely need a tripod" range unless I'm shooting at noon.</p>

<p>The real deal for the money (if you shoot low volume) is a monorail and caltar ii-n lenses. But large format is expensive when it comes to film and processing. If you like shooting film, MF can't be beat.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the 5D isn't too expensive!</p>

<p>I think you should be okay with most print film. I only really get a tint with velvia 100.</p>

<p>There are some places that scan slides with the Nikon 9000 or the like for very cheap. It might be worth sending your best shots there or renting an imacon or something. I wouldn't buy a Nikon scanner at current prices, although I've used the 9000 and think it's fantastic.</p>

<p>Hate to say it, but my recommendation would be a used digital SLR. Flat bed scans of 35mm just won't enlarge very well. </p>

<p>Also, if you're using velvia 100 (not so much 50) I'd recommend against the hi tech filters. They are great for the money but have a magenta tint on velvia 100 (which has a magenta tint in general; my theory: too sensitive to IR).</p>

<p>Otherwise, everything seems nice. I quite liked the 35mm focal length when I shot 135 so that's something I would add, personally, but is entirely a matter of taste.</p>

<p>How can you tell if your lenses are out-resolving your scanner or film if your sharpness is always limited by the scanner and film? The Mamiya rz lenses are quite good, though. But the 110mm never seemed that sharp to me.</p>

<p>And while medium format lenses are ridiculously expensive, I have the feeling that large format lenses are cheap to manufacture, just low-volume. Seems a lot easier making a 150g plasmat that's moderately sharp by f22 than a big fast 50mm prime, but I do not know about these things.</p>

<p>Your results make sense. The f3.5 Rolleis seem to manage just over 60lp/mm at most by f11. The best 35mm primes could probably hit twice that or more at their ideal f-stops (the Master Primes are reputed to approach 200-400lp/mm projecting charts), not that it would register on any film.</p>

<p>Also, remember you might even get some shake at 1/125sec shutter speeds, and you'll almost certainly lose sharpness below that. Just be glad you have such awesome lenses on 135, but my guess is there are some medium format lenses (not many) that can compete with them, even on a per mm^2 basis, and 6x6 will still win for tonality (unless you bring digital into the equation).</p>

<p>All things equal the 135 lens should be sharper per mm (and large format lenses are usually sharpest at their shortest focal length for a given design) but I don't think the difference should be that dramatic.</p>

<p>I compared some scans from my Nikon F with those from my rz67. Per mm, the nikkors were generally sharper than the Mamiya lenses, but it turned out the majority of this had to do with shutter slap (not an issue with the rollei), errors focusing, the required twice-as-high shutter speed for equivalent fov, etc. All that dealt with, the Mamiya did well, especially with the 65mm lens, which is legitimately sharp. This is comparing scans from the nikon 9000 scanner. If you want great sharpness, upgrade to a Mamiya 7 (based on the link I'm about to post, it's the sharpest system) and use better technique.</p>

<p>Here's an interesting chart:<br>

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html</p>

<p>If you are upset by how soft 120 film is, don't go near LF! That said, LF is sharper than 135 over an equivalent fov. As for digital, who knows? I used to think it revealed lens flaws way better than film (as it should; digital is sharper) but then my rebel xt was more demanding than my rebel t2i, which gives great results wide open on cheap old nikkors. Who knows why?</p>

<p>What kind of "vintage" look are you going for? 1970s art house movies or Super 8? They look extremely different.</p>

<p>One thing to consider if you're looking for a Super 8 look is that the depth of field was generally pretty wide. Most zooms were about f2 wide open, which gives depth of field equivalent to about f8 on an APS-C camera, maybe? I'm guessing. You'll need a really bad lens to fringe excessively at f8. Maybe better to shoot on a 24p camcorder or point and shoot.</p>

<p>Also, a lot of the "look" can be baked in in grading. High contrast, extreme saturation, tons of grain, etc. I find that my lenses with bad CA (Canon 18-55mm IS, for instance) look WAY worse (in your case, probably in a good way) once saturation is increased so test the effect out before committing to how you'll shoot.</p>

<p>Unless you're printing wall-size or want a particular look, the 5DII should be good enough to rival anything. My advice: get good lenses (t/s for landscape; fast primes or L zooms for portraiture) and maybe a tripod if you need one. The 5DII is awfully close to 6x7 film, probably close enough to old medium format digital systems, and certainly much more flexible (most MFDBs aren't great over 400ISO from what I understand and fast IS zooms and the like don't exist for them).</p>

<p>If you must go medium format, save up for a Pentax 645D and a few good lenses. Never used it, but the sample images are very impressive, easily rivaling large format film scans, and the camera's interface looks less hacked together than most MFDBs. An apparent steal at $10k.</p>

<p>As others have mentioned, the difference between 135 and 6x7 is enormous. But then again digital is also much better than 135, so it's not saying too much.</p>

<p>The Pentax was popular, to some extent, because it was the "budget" 6x7 camera, offering good performance for less money, not because it's inherently better than the other options. I like the Mamiya cameras simply because of the rotating backs. The Hasselblad is, of course, my favorite form-factor-wise. All should be great.</p>

<p>Just be sure to use a cable release. Makes a big difference.</p>

<p>I can't imagine using tilt without live view, but that's admittedly because I haven't tried it. Even on a view camera it's hard without a loupe, though, and I have 20/15 vision. Either get a used 5D to complement the lens or buy a field camera (or try to get a deal on an old Hartblei super rotator for the Nikon). A field camera and a couple lenses is cheaper than the equivalent digital kit by far and not much heavier for potentially slightly better image quality.</p>

<p>I've seen plenty of 12 megapixel images (from the 5D) blown up to huge sizes (four by five feet almost) satisfactorily. Assuming normal viewing distances, you can print as large as you want.</p>

<p>If you're obsessed with everything looking perfect (I kind of am), 8''x10'' is about as big as you're likely to get without seeing some very minor degradation in quality.</p>

<p>I like the rz a lot. Fairly intuitive, well-built, and the additional lenses (110mm f2.8; 50mm uld) are very nice. Shutters seem very accurate, but I figure with a good CLA your shutters should be accurate, too. I wish I had a Hasselblad or Rollei, though.</p>

<p>You're kidding yourself if you're judging the quality of a scanner based on 500X800 pixel images. That's 0.4 megapixels. No matter how good those 0.4 megapixels look (and they look "okay" in that they could be large format, could be a decades-old point and shoot at that resolution) they aren't proving anything. That's a 1x2 inch print at 400dpi! Then again, if 500x800 pixels is enough for your images then don't second-guess your scanner: it's certainly good enough.</p>

<p>One thing people forget is that most "pros" shooting medium format were printing optically, too. Even good cibachromes look way, way softer (though also more saturated) than digital prints do. So a digital print from a full frame dSLR is almost certainly as good as (and significantly more flexible than) a cibachrome print from roll film. If a medium format cibachrome is your definition of "good enough," then digital is way cheaper, way easier to control, and probably visually even better... A drum scan or Nikon scan of 6x7 might be slightly better in some ways than a full frame dSLR (it might not be) but it's more expensive and turnaround is slower. Full frame digital looks pretty great.</p>

<p>As for the Sony whitepaper, I haven't read it, but a good measure of sharpness is the Heybacher Integral, the area under the mtf curve. Digital is sharper until extinction, but film resolves finer details (not really: 25mp digital beats velvia in all respects, but for large format and medium format film has the edge due to sensor size), thus digital seems sharper than its extinction limits indicate.</p>

<p>From what I've seen, color 6x7 scanned on a Nikon 9000 is similar in terms of absolute print quality to full frame digital, but once you get up close the digital lacks detail (it also lacks grain, though, and is to that extent better for wall-sized enlargements).</p>

<p>You can download a sample image taken from a 5DII or D3x and print it to see if you think it's good enough. My guess is it will be.</p>

I like how the looks associated with 4x5 is no grain and terrible sharpness, mostly because it's kind of true half the time.

I'm not sure a Horseman or Linhof would be that much better. Apparently the older Linhof field cameras are bad with ultra-

wide lenses and the new ones are thousands used and require expensive helical mounts. There are lots of 120 roll film

cameras with built in ultra-wides (Horseman, Linhof, Cambo, Veriwide, etc.); some have movements and some don't. Never

used any of them, but that's another option I've seen pop up on eBay pretty constantly. I have to assume they're rangefinder-based so I have no idea how that would work with movements, though apparently it does.<br><br>

 

If you ask your question here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/ you will probably find out way more than you

ever wanted to know about the subject. Worth a try.<br><br>

 

I think Fuji makes a medium format (6x8?) camera with movements that's highly regarded and within your budget. The Toyo

is pretty nice (my only complaints are that the front rise is a little limited and you can't fold the lens into the body), I just

wouldn't choose it if my only lens were 47mm. Others may disagree, though.

This is a tough question.<br><br>

 

 

In terms of coverage, the 47mm xl (which is expensive) should give you tons and the 47mm super angulon (which isn't as

expensive) should be more than sufficient for 6x7, too.<br><br>

 

 

However...<br><br>

 

 

The bellows on the 45a compress to just under 70mm. So you need a 25mm recessed lensboard (now apparently

discontinued and scarce) to use a 47mm lens. Toyo's website now lists a 58mm lens as the widest you can use,

presumably with the normal 12mm recessed board. But with the 25mm recessed lensboard...theoretically you could use

47mm lens and be okay.<br><br>

 

 

Normally (in 4x5), when using a lens that wide, you need to drop the camera bed so the rails don't show up in frame. This

prohibits the use of front rise as the lens needs to rise completely to compensate for the downward-sloping bed. Maybe you

won't need to drop the bed in 6x7--but my guess is that movements will still be scrunched a bit and movement restricted by

the compressed bellows either way.<br><br>

 

 

So it might work, but getting the movements you want probably won't be much fun at that focal length and the bellows will be very compressed at infinity. If you're buying the camera primarily to shoot ultra-wide 6x7 architecture my guess is it won't be the wonderful

experience you're hoping for, but in theory this should work if you can find a 25mm recessed lensboard. I don't know, as I

haven't tried it. Also be aware that view camera lenses are softer than medium format lenses. The center is the

sharpest part so it might not be a big difference.

<p>Noah, how do you find the difference in sharpness between the Mamiya 7 and the Arca with a sironar-s lens? I shoot 6x7 (rz67) and 4x5 (rodenstock lenses) and have found the large format lenses to be softer than the sharpest 6x7 lenses. The Mamiya 7 lenses are alleged to be the sharpest available for the format. 4x5 should have better tonality and less grain (and, importantly, lens movements), but do you find it offers any noticeable resolution advantage?</p>

<p>Nice scans, btw. Makes me regret missing out on a 4990 this week--even though the drum scan is clearly better.</p>