Mamiya 6, yes, but your other camera ?

[mrisney]

Well I did follow the advice - and bought a backup 6 body. I think I found a digital camera that compliments the Mamiya 6. Not the same dynamic range, but the colors, resolution, and overall IQ are close, ... real close.

And the thing is not going to cost me a fortune when digital obsolesence inevitably kicks in.

Sigma DP2M.

Stay tuned for images comparisons, oh and I did order Plustek 120 scanner as well. But the DP2 Merrill arrives Weds.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by mrisney

Well I did follow the advice - and bought a backup 6 body. I think I found a digital camera that compliments the Mamiya 6. Not the same dynamic range, but the colors, resolution, and overall IQ are close, ... real close.

And the thing is not going to cost me a fortune when digital obsolesence inevitably kicks in.

Sigma DP2M.

Stay tuned for images comparisons, oh and I did order Plustek 120 scanner as well. But the DP2 Merrill arrives Weds.

Have fun w/ Merrill. . The mamiya 6 both the modern and folder were one time on my radar until I bought the Fuji 670.

Gary

[mrisney]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

Have fun w/ Merrill. . The mamiya 6 both the modern and folder were one time on my radar until I bought the Fuji 670.

Gary

I had a Fuji GSW 690 II. Was not sharp enough for me.
Good post on Foveon vs Fujinon Texas Leica

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3260604


Mamiya Rangefinders - both the 6 and the 7 are still in a class above Fuji 120's IMO

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by mrisney

I had a Fuji GSW 690 II. Was not sharp enough for me.
Good post on Foveon vs Fujinon Texas Leica

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3260604


Mamiya Rangefinders - both the 6 and the 7 are still in a class above Fuji 120's IMO

Sorry I meant the Bessa iii also known as Fuji gf670.

Thanks for link


Gary

[StoneNYC]

Originally Posted by mrisney

Well I did follow the advice - and bought a backup 6 body. I think I found a digital camera that compliments the Mamiya 6. Not the same dynamic range, but the colors, resolution, and overall IQ are close, ... real close.

And the thing is not going to cost me a fortune when digital obsolesence inevitably kicks in.

Sigma DP2M.

Stay tuned for images comparisons, oh and I did order Plustek 120 scanner as well. But the DP2 Merrill arrives Weds.

Please let me know how the plustek performs, I just bought an epson v750 because I have the 35mm pano insert for my mamiya and the plustek can't scan them apparently. And I shoot 116/70mm which also doesn't scan. But I wonder just how different in quality they are. Thanks

[leicapixie]

Your usage of many different cameras and their systems over a weekend or slightly longer does not bring a familiarity, needed in a good relationship. Like an important thing in everyone's life, the first time is usually not that great!
Leica-M need about a year to feel part of one..
Shorter usage may show all the problems of un-familiarity of that system.
I know some good photographers who hate Leica. It's not their camera..
I've used LF, MF and 35mm plus now digital, till recently as a professional.
i found no bad cameras, most lenses esp. normals perfect in nearly every kind! i said earlier you are looking for a magic item..
In place of a monitor, go blow some money and make prints. On my monitor, my small P/S digital looks like anything scanned from my Nikons,Minoltas, Canons and Leica.. OK the Leica lenses seem to "see' more shades and variances of colors and the images look "fuller". My Rollei turns out a creamy look, that is hallmark of 120/MF.
Large format is not for me! It can yield stunning results, see Avedon's. "The West". i can use it..but happiness is not written on my forehead.
So again do yourself start having prints done. The scans good as they are need a print. i print or have prints made. It's another part of the Universe.

[mrisney]

Originally Posted by leicapixie

Your usage of many different cameras and their systems over a weekend or slightly longer does not bring a familiarity, needed in a good relationship. Like an important thing in everyone's life, the first time is usually not that great!
Leica-M need about a year to feel part of one..
Shorter usage may show all the problems of un-familiarity of that system.
I know some good photographers who hate Leica. It's not their camera..
I've used LF, MF and 35mm plus now digital, till recently as a professional.
i found no bad cameras, most lenses esp. normals perfect in nearly every kind! i said earlier you are looking for a magic item..
In place of a monitor, go blow some money and make prints. On my monitor, my small P/S digital looks like anything scanned from my Nikons,Minoltas, Canons and Leica.. OK the Leica lenses seem to "see' more shades and variances of colors and the images look "fuller". My Rollei turns out a creamy look, that is hallmark of 120/MF.
Large format is not for me! It can yield stunning results, see Avedon's. "The West". i can use it..but happiness is not written on my forehead.
So again do yourself start having prints done. The scans good as they are need a print. i print or have prints made. It's another part of the Universe.

Traditional wet darkroom print? The answer to that is No, because I no longer do them, and the reason is because current inkjet prints surpass chemical prints in every respect. No contest.

With my EIZO ColorEdge, negs, slides (particularly the ones with leaf lens, rangefinder Mamiya 6 ) scanned with something above Epson flatbeds look fantastic.

[dtcls100]

[quote=StoneNYC;2000983]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...

Believe it or not, there are still some folks who continue to print on their own, on old fashioned optical enlargers. For those folks the differences are not theoretical at all . . . .

[StoneNYC]

Yes but those people are few and far between and not all of us have the space for that kind of thing.

My point was that a lab can't print my image better on film because they scan too...

And clients want a faster turn around time than an enlarger affords, and they don't want a physical image anyway, they want a file emailed to them.

That was my point, for most photographers who are in it as a business, unless they are LONG established, a new photographer can't operate that way, they would actually lose money.

I guess I've sort of lost my point, except that for the MAJORITY of photography purposes a scanner comes into play at some point in the process if you are using film.

Vogue (even national geographic), vanity fair, any news paper, modeling, book publishing, weddings, corporate events, etc.

The only case I can think of would be massive 6 foot x 7 foot framed landscape images would sell at a price high enough to be worth using an enlarger and not many people are buying $30,000 prints...

I'm new here, so don't hate me, I'm also not trying to start a war about this. But I've literally taken the same shot with a digital, and a 35mm and a 6x7 and only the 6x7 was any kind of competition when it came to the sharpness and clarity. Scan was at 4,000x4,0000. Highest you can reasonably get, at $10 per IMAGE. A drum scan would have cost over $100.

So that's where I'm coming from.

Sure optically it may be better, but it's just not financially feasible and competitive to be optical for MOST photographers with a few exceptions of course.

~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

[mrisney]

This might just work ....