Mamiya 6, yes, but your other camera ?

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by mrisney

Way out in left field, but I have read that the 75mm Rokkor 3.5 on the Autocord does 125 LPM.
I have never done imaging with a Minolta Autocord, but at it's purported price point I am tempted to play.

I understand the inherit advantage that TLR's and rangefinder have over SLR's so I think I am ahead of the game, if I stay with mirrorless for film.

I have been experimenting with a 55mm f/4.5 Sironar Rodenstock Digital, on a Horseman 612SW. My inclinations and observations so far are -
that medium format glass out resolves LF glass, which even though the Horseman SW612 does 120 roll (easier on the wallet- in terms of scanning),
The Sironar Rodenstock lens is really LF glass on 120 1:2 (6x12) roll film. I went one step further and sought out the digital version, but me thinks its really just a rebrand, no new tech.
There were discussions, that contemporary MF digital sensors have such high resolution capabaility that the lenses are holding them back.
But whatever, LF glass is not as sharp as MF glass, it's great if your are doing wet enlargements or print size in excess of 24" maybe.

The Horseman 612SW is cool BTW (dig the 612 pano format), and with the the new Plustek 120 scanner coming out, I may hold onto it. But so far the Mamiya 6 still outclasses it.

You are getting $10.50 120 processing and scans on a Noritsu and are concerned about resolving power, then there's an issue and a whole other thread therein.

Pixel peeping scans cannot solve that problem nor the debate between film vs. digital. Your process is hybrid sounding like the crux of your dilemma.

The optical and focus capacities of the scanner create whole new level of interpolation. The only way to really compare is to wet print the Mam6 stuff and compare it to your scans. Then increase your scan quality via an Imacon or drum and re-compare. Then check it all out against digital for the shots you want. Now add up the costs.

Part of your self-created dilemma is economic: film is struggling to stay viable, affordable, and selective, so quoting a price is a value statement (will Portra even be around?). So is the time invested in any process only to have the rug pulled out. The durability of your Mam6 is also a big if (can anyone service them anymore?).

It sounds like you want a higher return on investment based on absolute sharpness vs. time of effort and value of equipment. That's an equation only you can answer.

[mrisney]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

You are getting $10.50 120 processing and scans on a Noritsu and are concerned about resolving power, then there's an issue and a whole other thread therein.

Pixel peeping scans cannot solve that problem nor the debate between film vs. digital. Your process is hybrid sounding like the crux of your dilemma.

The optical and focus capacities of the scanner create whole new level of interpolation. The only way to really compare is to wet print the Mam6 stuff and compare it to your scans. Then increase your scan quality via an Imacon or drum and re-compare. Then check it all out against digital for the shots you want. Now add up the costs.

Part of your self-created dilemma is economic: film is struggling to stay viable, affordable, and selective, so quoting a price is a value statement (will Portra even be around?). So is the time invested in any process only to have the rug pulled out. The durability of your Mam6 is also a big if (can anyone service them anymore?).

It sounds like you want a higher return on investment based on absolute sharpness vs. time of effort and value of equipment. That's an equation only you can answer.

There is a convenience factor to the whole dilemma.
Yes, If I was a resolution fanatic, I bet I could source out some obscure built-for-Government-spec-Kodak lens on some weird DIY rangefinder that would be about as practical as lugging a coffee table around to take a picture. And it would probably not open up wider than f8.

Convenience wise, the Mamiya is wayyyyy ahead of a Hassleblad/RZ67/folding 120/ LF field view thing, ( BTW- I have considered the Plaubel Makina) .

Ughhh, those things are bulky, if I pull a camera like that out in a crowd, small children start to cry, and people dart for cover. Not what I have in mind. The Mamiya 6 is perfect in that regard, I can carry that in a Timbuk2 messenger bag, pull it out while being relatively discreet, and not draw too much attention to myself.

The same cannot be said for a TLR. Admittedly I get self conscious, when I have to anchor myself, and peer down the chimney of a TLR. I look like a camera nerd. People stare at me and my steampunk contraption, so much for inconspicuous shooting. sigh.

I got jazzed by micro 43 at first, I was like, cool a small camera that looks like an amateur thing, but deceptively can take good pics with legacy Leica glass. Sadly the sensor is so small, and legacy lenses tend to not get as good a results as the lenses engineered with fault calibration correction built into the firmware (20mm Panasonic 1.7 is a great lens BTW).

So back to square one, I am seeking out a camera that doesn't announce itself, that doesn't scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!!!! AND MY HIGH END TOY",
that is small enough that people don't glance over with stitched eyebrows, curious as to what exactly I think I am doing. Yet knock my socks off when I review it in LightRoom. The Mamiya 6 is such a camera.

[thegman]

Sounds to me like you want to stick with the Mamiya 6. Don't worry too much about future servicing, worry about it when/if it happens.

Originally Posted by mrisney

There is a convenience factor to the whole dilemma.
Yes, If I was a resolution fanatic, I bet I could source out some obscure built-for-Government-spec-Kodak lens on some weird DIY rangefinder contraption that would be about as practical as lugging a coffee table around to take a picture. And it would probably not open up wider than f8.

Convenience wise, the Mamiya is wayyyyy ahead of a Hassleblad/RZ67/folding 120/ LF field view thing, ( BTW- I have considered the Plaubel Makina) .

Ughhh, those things are bulky, if I pull a camera like that out in a crowd, small children start to cry, and people dart for cover. Not what I have in mind. The Mamiya 6 is perfect in that regard, I can carry that in a Timbuk2 messenger bag, pull it out while being relatively discreet, and not draw too much attention to myself.

The same cannot be said for a TLR. Admittedly I get self conscious, when I have to anchor myself, and peer down the chimney of a TLR. I look like a camera nerd. People stare at me and my steampunk contraption, so much for inconspicuous shooting. sigh.

I got jazzed by micro 43 at first, I was like, cool a small camera that looks like an amateur thing, but deceptively can take good pics with legacy Leica glass. Sadly the sensor is so small, and legacy lenses tend to not get as good a results as the lenses engineered with fault calibration correction built into the firmware (20mm Panasonic 1.7 is a great lens BTW).

So back to square one, I am seeking out a camera that doesn't announce itself, that doesn't scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!!!! AND MY HIGH END TOY",
that is small enough that people don't look over to me, and see what I am playing with. Yet knock my socks off when I review it in LightRoom. The Mamiya 6 is such a camera.

[brian steinberger]

Originally Posted by mrisney

So back to square one, I am seeking out a camera that doesn't announce itself, that is small enough that people don't look over to me, and see what I am playing with. Yet knock my socks off when I review it in LightRoom. The Mamiya 6 is such a camera.

So it sounds to me you've found your camera. Now spend the money to get another body. Then send both bodies and all lenses to someone that can adjust both RF's and lenses to match on both bodies and also CLA the bodies and you're good to go! This is what I have done and I couldn't be happier. As long as you keep then CLA'd every few years and treat them well you'll be fine.

I agree with the other poster about buying an enlarger and forgetting about scanning. That's what I do but I'm shooting black and white. I have given up on color film. For color film scanning is the only way to go anymore and that gets very expensive very quick (I know, I know, there still are optical color printers but let's be honest, we're not sure how much longer those supplies will be available). I love film, but only black and white film anymore, and that all get printed optically and the results are amazing!

BTW... digital has not surpassed MF film, quite possibly 35mm though, especially with the new Nikon D800 cranking files out at 18x24 at 300dpi. The best I used to do with 35mm slides on a Coolscan 4000dpi scanner was 12x18 at 300dpi. So I say yes digital has surpassed 35mm, but certainly not the Mamiya 6.

Just keep shooting! If it ain't broke and you're happy with the results don't fix it!

[semilog]

^--- Brian's post summarizes all the best advice within this thread.

[Moriturii]

Sell your 5D MK III (how much is it, $3000?), buy enlarger (people GIVE them away), paper, rolls of film, and chemicals for next year to come (if not next FEW years).

Dont forget, medium format costs the same as 35mm. It's just that you take 12 high quality photos instead of 36 fine quality pictures. Film, chemicals etc cost all the same between medium format and 35mm.

[mrisney]

Originally Posted by Moriturii

Sell your 5D MK III (how much is it, $3000?), buy enlarger (people GIVE them away), paper, rolls of film, and chemicals for next year to come (if not next FEW years).

Dont forget, medium format costs the same as 35mm. It's just that you take 12 high quality photos instead of 36 fine quality pictures. Film, chemicals etc cost all the same between medium format and 35mm.

Hah, sez you, who is actively trying to sell his film gear on the DPI forums
I thought long and hard about medium format digital, BTW. Too spendy at this time for me, and to do it right means tethered and tripod'ed. Meh.
Phase One, outside of the studio - I don't think it's quite portable enough for me at this point.
But the quest for MF film quality in digital probably won't be accessible unless I jump up to the level of a Phase One.

I had hoped that maybe a few Pentx 645 D'ers or Nikon D800E owners would chime in, but this is a rangefinder forum, so I can't expect that. If there are any other systems I am not aware of, that owners who have had a Mamiya 6 or 7 , have migrated to, I would be really interested to hear about that.

[Moriturii]

Originally Posted by mrisney

Hah, sez you, who is actively trying to sell his film gear on the DPI forums. Hah, I thought long and hard about medium format digital, BTW. Too spendy at this point for me, and to do it right means tethered and tripod'ed. Meh. not portable enough for me at this point. But point taken.

I only sell what I no longer need :-) You shouldn't compare my situation with yours. I will never stop shooting film, and I own no digital cameras (except a Fuji X10 that I bought for mom).

If you enjoy your Mamiya though, stick with it! You know you are going to LOVE it.

Good luck!

[Aristophanes]

Sounds like what you really want is the good old days where you had a relationship with a local pro lab who dip and dunk processed, then contact sheet or even machine proofed, and from there you picked the keepers for a quick optical enlargement, or a far more thorough "master printer" effort with their lock expert who did nothing but.

Now you are shooting film still, but for reasons of economy you're forced hybrid at a very low price ($10.50/roll including scans), so there's you're proofing. But from there it's all tricky. To get that master print there is no local optical outsource, it's DIY, and colour is a huge learning curve to get even close to, say, come close to what Egglestoneish appearance. So it's off to scanning land la la la la la la la.....choices, gad, the choices and tradeoffs.

And with that lesser clarity, you're sort of blaming your camera. It's a hybrid compromise.

Maybe rent a Pentax 645D for a week. I think for a crossover comparison you want an opinion probably best found at Luminous Landscape.

[mrisney]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Sounds like what you really want is the good old days where you had a relationship with a local pro lab who dip and dunk processed, then contact sheet or even machine proofed, and from there you picked the keepers for a quick optical enlargement, or a far more thorough "master printer" effort with their lock expert who did nothing but.

Now you are shooting film still, but for reasons of economy you're forced hybrid at a very low price ($10.50/roll including scans), so there's you're proofing. But from there it's all tricky. To get that master print there is no local optical outsource, it's DIY, and colour is a huge learning curve to get even close to, say, come close to what Egglestoneish appearance. So it's off to scanning land la la la la la la la.....choices, gad, the choices and tradeoffs.

And with that lesser clarity, you're sort of blaming your camera. It's a hybrid compromise.

Maybe rent a Pentax 645D for a week. I think for a crossover comparison you want an opinion probably best found at Luminous Landscape.

You have pretty much assessed my situation. MF analog and scanning is still affordable, in this day and age - if you factor in the post processing in digital format, so yes on all accounts.

If I have an image on my CD of 12 .tiff files that stands out, than yes, I can wet enlarge or drum/Imacon it - but that can be $50 for a
drum scan, so I have to think real hard if the image is all that, and frankly most are not. Maybe I should check out the D800E as well. The Canon 5D MKIII is OK, I actually think it surpasses my Contax G and Carl Zeiss. but as mentioned before CCD scanned 120 film is still on another level from what I am seeing from FF Digital, and definitely 35mm film scans.

I actually am debating about unloading my Contax G outfit. In the back of my mind, I know there is a demand for black body G2's and with the cost of L lenses, and ZE Zeiss lenses, maybe I cash out on that great Contax G outfit. FF digital has caught up, but those Contax G Zeiss lenses are so amazing ... oh I should stop there, that's another thread.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by mrisney

You have pretty much assessed my situation. MF analog and scanning is still affordable, in this day and age - if you add in the post processing in digital format, so yes on all accounts.

at $50 apiece one D800 body (without lenses) buys you 60 drum scans. And it sounds as though you have spent a lot more on gear than that. 60 drum scans is enough for a rather big exhibition.

[BardParker]

May I suggest that before you buy or sell anything, get a copy of the book, Letting Go of the Camera, by Brooks Jensen. It is a short book by the publisher of Lens Work. I found it very helpful to my situation. It was about $10 used on Amazon.

You have some wonderful camera systems. Keep the Mamiya 6.

Best regards,

Kent

[gavinlg]

Personally I think your mamiya 6 work is well worth the extra effort. Dump the digital crap if it's not working or needed and buy another mamiya 6, or a scanner to scan with - plustek 120 is out soon and there's always the v700.

I'm considering getting a mamiya 7 for myself - photographs like yours are what pushes me over the edge.

[thegman]

I use the V700 with BetterScanning holders, I think if you're not happy with those type of results, then you standards would likely only be met with Drum scan or digital medium format. The resolution you get out is amazing.

[Saul]

Originally Posted by mrisney

My cost for a 120 film processed and scanned to non compressed file format (.TIFF) is $10.50

Please tell me where you are sending your film to get these scans.

[mrisney]

Originally Posted by Saul

Please tell me where you are sending your film to get these scans.

Citizen Photo in Portland, Oregon

Rangefinders are the ideal form factor for my type of shooting. Smaller than SLR's, less cumbersome than a modular system like a M645 or a Hassleblad CM. BTW, I feel like I have owned or used over weekends, for the past 4 years, the entire spectrum of medium format manufactured film cameras (whew I am tired just thinking about it),
before arriving at the Mamiya 6. Quiet, and without a reflex mirror, it's possible to shoot hand held down at 1/15 - if you hold your breath, and hold steady. Plus it has leaf lenses, and the Mamiya 6 and 7 lenses are just spectacular.

But this is rangefinderforum, so I am preaching to the choir.

Medium format film still has some unique advantages over digital, at the moment. Unless you vault up to much more expensive digital systems like the Hassleblad HD4 or a Phase One back, and are prepared to suffer significant depreciation in value. It seems a stretch to get the quality of imagery that you can get with 120 film with it's digital counterpart - also there is
a vast market of professional grade medium format film cameras that are available today, as working professionals have dumped this gear and gone digital completely. People like myself are able to acquire some of the finest lenses and engineering of analog equipment, for a fraction of a price that it was originally sold for 15-25 years ago.
So for now, I am riding that curve. But things will change, and my question is for anyone who is shooting in this hybrid manner, whats your intuition or your even vague road map forward?

I am happy to continue with film, but somewhere in my mind, all good things must come to an end. And when I inevitably drop my Mamiya 6, or Kodak decides they no longer want to support the 120 film market, or cannot survive Chapter 11 (The recent announcement that the cinema industry will cease celluloid distribution of releases
- switching to digital completely in 2013 does not bode well for Kodak).
What then ? This is the dilemma that a film shooter, in general, deals with I suppose.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by mrisney

Way out in left field, but I have read that the 75mm Rokkor 3.5 on the Autocord does 125 LPM.

That's it ??
This is what Mark Hansen said about a Super Ricohflex that I sent to him for service:

"All came out well, so I collimated the lenses and found the taking lens to be an excellent performer with 328 line pairs per millimeter at 3.5!"



In all seriousness, I think you should take more pictures.
Gears matters only to a certain point. If I tried 14 different cameras and can't be happy with the results, I'd be looking somewhere else for the problem. But of course, I'm speaking for myself.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by mrisney

What then ? This is the dilemma that a film shooter, in general, deals with I suppose.

No dilemma, keep using film.
If enough of us do it, film will continue to be produced.
Simple, really.

[david rowland]

I have a 2 mamiya 6 bodies and the 3 lenses one of the things I like about the system is that I pretty much own every thing in the system apart from the close up adapter (of limited interest). I shoot b&w in one body and Ektar 100 or reala in the other. I get the film dev and scanned for about £6 a roll which gives me small but good lab scans. I bought a drum scanner off ebay for £88.
the negs I like I scan high res, up to 400mb the camera outfit fits into a small shoulder bag that I am quite happy to carry all day.
i'm a pro photographer and have a phase one P45+, nikon dslr , large format hasselblad medium format film etc.

Image quality wise the mamiya is as good if not better than the blad although it doesn't focus as close. certainly it more portable than large format and faster to use. If I buy a mamiya 7 I'd have more lenses and more back problems. I make 2ft square print from it and the quality is great. unless you need wider than 50mm longer than 150mm then stick with it buy a load of film and find a great project to shoot , we all waste good shooting time chasing kit reading new instructions books ,testing lenses and generally going in circles rather than pushing the button. I can't be bettered relax and enjoy it.
Dave

[2WK]

Sell the 5d3, and the xpro systems and get a Pentax 645D?

[StoneNYC]

Originally Posted by mrisney

Way out in left field, but I have read that the 75mm Rokkor 3.5 on the Autocord does 125 LPM.
I have never done imaging with a Minolta Autocord, but at it's purported price point I am tempted to play.

I understand the inherit advantage that TLR's and rangefinder have over SLR's so I think I am ahead of the game, if I stay with mirrorless for film.

I have been experimenting with a 55mm f/4.5 Sironar Rodenstock Digital, on a Horseman 612SW. My inclinations and observations so far are -
that medium format glass out resolves LF glass, which even though the Horseman SW612 does 120 roll (easier on the wallet- in terms of scanning),
The Sironar Rodenstock lens is really LF glass on 120 1:2 (6x12) roll film. I went one step further and sought out the digital version, but me thinks its really just a rebrand, no new tech.
There were discussions, that contemporary MF digital sensors have such high resolution capabaility that the lenses are holding them back.
But whatever, LF glass is not as sharp as MF glass, it's great if your are doing wet enlargements or print size in excess of 24" maybe.

The Horseman 612SW is cool BTW (dig the 612 pano format), and with the the new Plustek 120 scanner coming out, I may hold onto it. But so far the Mamiya 6 still outclasses it.

Everyone talks about the plustek but I'm disappointed in it, not in quality but in system availability, it won't accept 35mm pano images because the software can't interpret anything other than the standard framing. it won't accept 70mm film, it won't do anything above 120, it's very limited, and for $2,000 the kinds of photographers that would use it often have multi system formats and don't want to own separate scanners for each film type.

Only taking 35mm and 120 is just ridiculous. Fail!

I talked to the guy designing it that's where this info comes from.

On the other hand I agree some glass is limiting the pixels of the digital MF, but they also have a lot of room to expand (ie true 6x7 not 645) so it's really about them not wanting to go "full frame" so to speak.

"...that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" ~Dennis Miller

~Stone~ The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[StoneNYC]

Originally Posted by 2WK

Sell the 5d3, and the xpro systems and get a Pentax 645D?

If he likes Mamiya why wouldn't he go to the Mamiya 456 digitals or "phaseONE" which is the same company.

~Stone~ The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[steveniphoto]

Originally Posted by semilog

So what's the issue?

Keep the em-six. Use it. If you have money to burn buy a backup body. And for those images that are genuinely important, get wet-mount drum scans. Seriously, if you can't get the results that you think you require with that setup you need to be shooting large format, or medium format digital, or stitching.

But from what I can see, you're not even maximizing what you can get out of the em-six -- at least, if Noritsu scans are your benchmark. Sure, drum scans are expensive, but so is going through 14 camera systems in 4 years.

One 5DIII body buys a lot of drum scans.

If you've "gone through 14 different camera systems, digital and film" in 4 years, and you're still not happy with your results, I would, with the utmost respect, suggest that finding the right gear is not what's holding back your photography.

+1 this statement.

[dtcls100]

Originally Posted by brian steinberger

BTW... digital has not surpassed MF film, quite possibly 35mm though, especially with the new Nikon D800 cranking files out at 18x24 at 300dpi. The best I used to do with 35mm slides on a Coolscan 4000dpi scanner was 12x18 at 300dpi. So I say yes digital has surpassed 35mm, but certainly not the Mamiya 6.

Actually, if you look at Part 1 of the film versus digital comparison test on the Zacuto website -- which is an extremely well done, comprehensive and professional test involving real industry experts in both film and digital -- digital cameras like the Canon 5D Mk II couldn't match even half frame 35mm film (i.e., movie film stock) in terms of fine detail, color accuracy, exposure latitude, highlight rendition, and tonal gradation -- although digital performed better in very low light. In this test, the results were blown up enormously and shown in an IMAX movie screen and viewed by industry experts. No other film versus digital comparison comes close. Digital looks great on its own, but film still looks better in comparison. The Part 1 video is about half an hour, but is well worthwhile viewing.
It bears emphasis that many film versus digital comparisons that find digital to be superior rely on the bogus comparison of a film scan versus digital, conveniently ignoring that a film scan loses much of the resolution and detail found in the original negative or original slide. A fairer comparison would be an optical print from film versus a digital print. Here, a well done optical print would likely be superior. It bears noting that most prints of film images are now digital scans of the film, which eliminates much of the resolution and subtlety of the original film image.
The widely held notion that digital is superior is largely premised on two things -- digital's lack of grain and digital's emphasis on artificially sharpening the edge details of objects, which gives the "impression" of greater sharpness. However, digital still often doesn't yield the same fine, low contrast detail as film and therefore can appear somewhat less natural and less pleasing.

[StoneNYC]

Originally Posted by dtcls100

Actually, if you look at Part 1 of the film versus digital comparison test on the Zacuto website -- which is an extremely well done, comprehensive and professional test involving real industry experts in both film and digital -- digital cameras like the Canon 5D Mk II couldn't match even half frame 35mm film (i.e., movie film stock) in terms of fine detail, color accuracy, exposure latitude, highlight rendition, and tonal gradation -- although digital performed better in very low light. In this test, the results were blown up enormously and shown in an IMAX movie screen and viewed by industry experts. No other film versus digital comparison comes close. Digital looks great on its own, but film still looks better in comparison. The Part 1 video is about half an hour, but is well worthwhile viewing.
It bears emphasis that many film versus digital comparisons that find digital to be superior rely on the bogus comparison of a film scan versus digital, conveniently ignoring that a film scan loses much of the resolution and detail found in the original negative or original slide. A fairer comparison would be an optical print from film versus a digital print. Here, a well done optical print would likely be superior. It bears noting that most prints of film images are now digital scans of the film, which eliminates much of the resolution and subtlety of the original film image.
The widely held notion that digital is superior is largely premised on two things -- digital's lack of grain and digital's emphasis on artificially sharpening the edge details of objects, which gives the "impression" of greater sharpness. However, digital still often doesn't yield the same fine, low contrast detail as film and therefore can appear somewhat less natural and less pleasing.

I have to say these film vs digital discussions are always annoying, most people don't have drum scan access, and no lab uses an enlarger anymore, so for REALISTIC purposes, digital is better than film on 35mm even if its "technically" better, you can't see that in a grainy print...

Ultimately the customer doesn't care about the fact the film strip is better, they aren't buying a film strip, they are buying a print, and for most anyone, a print off a 5D Mark II/III will be sharper than a print by a lab because the lab will scan too, usually at 2000x2000 or up to 4000x4000 but 22mp is higher at 300dpi digitally, I've looked at my prints from both, and even taken shots of the same thing, and it's obvious how much better the 5D version is. But the Mamiya 7 prints are certainly better.

Normal people don't believe in statistics they believe what they see

~Stone~ The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner