How sharp can you get?

[mealers]

Ive come from using MF (a Hassy) to 5x4 and I really enjoy LF, BUT something has happened which has totally blown me away....
I just did my first print exchange on APUG, the print that arrived through my front door was shot using a Mamiya 7 and I just cant believe how sharp it is, I mean it really is sharp, sharper than my Hasselblad and dare I say it but it is sharper than my 5x4!

So this got me thinking...Just what am I doing wrong? Is it my technique, my equipment, my darkroom practice?
I use modern multi coated lenses and although I have not got years of LF experience I'm pretty happy with using my camera and my darkroom practice is improving all the time.

So is the Mamiya sharper than 5x4? Are the lenses really that good?
Or should I be looking at myself to somehow improve my prints to the sharpness of the Mamiyas?


BTW, I'm not about to go out and get a Mamiya 7, I'm hooked on LF!!


Mike

[Ash]

It depends on the lens and the film I think. It also depends how steady the camera is, and whether there's tripod or flash use.

I've been blown away by the quality from a Hasselblad SWC at f/22, but then again I've shot 5x4 in the studio at f/5,6 with flash at 1/60 and I can see hairs on the skin of a fully body shot.

[Juergen Sattler]

The Mamiya 6 & 7 are known to have some of the best lenses in the industry - esp. when it comes to sharpness.

[Walter Calahan]

Mamiya 7II system is wonderful. Lenses are amazing.

But to compare 6x7 roll film to 4x5 is like comparing two different fruits. They both taste good, and are good for you, but the are different.

Sharpness isn't everything. I do not use the Mamiya when I need to use my 4x5 or 8x10. Each is a unique tool.

[Ken Lee]

Because the perception of sharpness depends on many factors - including the subject and lighting - when making a comparison, it's best to compare apples to apples. If you are making darkroom prints, then you need to remove all the variables except the camera and lens. This means: the same subject, shot with both cameras at the same time, with the same film, same film developer, same enlarger, same enlarging lens, same paper, etc.

There have been many respectable contributions on this forum which show that with top glass and film, 6x7 can sometimes exceed 4x5, due to simple arithmetic. However, once you introduce cropping, things get a bit more... dicey. A 6x9 rangefinder camera like the Fujinon, even with its lesser quality lens, can probably outperform a Mamiya 7, when X% less enlargement is required to make a shot whose format is 2:3.

If you've ever used a Mamiya 7, you know it's not always a good substitute for a View Camera. You need to keep the rangefinder calibrated by Mamiya, especially when using the longer lenses. To get adequate depth of field, you may need to stop down past the optimum f/stop of the lens. The Mamiya 7 portrait-length lens, superb as it is, focuses to a reasonable, but limited distance. It's too far to get a face shot, unless you crop. Did someone say "cropping" ?

Similarly, you can't make really close images, even with the normal lens, because it's a rangefinder camera after all, and it wasn't designed for that. It's really intended for hand-held use. Which is ironic, because without a tripod, you can't get the best performance out of the lenses, except when you're shooting at high shutter speeds, or with a flash. Unlike with an SLR or view camera, you can't actually see the depth of field, only estimate it on the barrel of the lens.

So within it's intended sphere of usefulness, it's simply the best there is. Outside of that, less so.

[BarryS]

I found something similar in a print exchange before I got into large format. My Fuji GSW690II print was sharper than many of the large format prints I received. I think part of it was the small size of the prints because LF really shines at large sizes where the tonality of MF negs starts to break down. I decided to get into LF when I started making 20x24 prints from my Fuji and Hasselblads and I saw they didn't hold up very well. I love LF when I need the movements, or to contact print, or to blow up really big.

[Ron Marshall]

With some films, some of the Mamiya 7 lenses will put about twice the resolution on film as some LF lenses. Then there are other confounding variables such as poor technique and diffraction etc.

No doubt many MF lenses are capable of higher resolutions than many LF lenses, but MF is not LF. With most MF cameras no movements are possible. Greater enlargement makes film grain an issue with MF, and tonality is not as smooth. I use both a Mamiya 7 and LF, neither is a complete substitute for the other.

[domenico Foschi]

I don't think that choosing 4x5 over MF for sharpness is the best criteria.
The choice of 4x5 over MF should be dictated by a need of better tonalities.

[Nathan Potter]

Mentioned often on this forum is the DOF issue. Normal 4X5 lenses have shallower DOF than normal 6X7 lenses. Simple telephoto effect. Critical focusing of 4X5 can be difficult on a ground glass but is necessary for really sharp images. Add some swing and tilt to the equation and it's even more difficult to asses critical focus at the periphery of the image. Now include the dismaying fact that the lens standard is poorly connected to the film standard through a flimsy bellows and possibly a shaky rail and you have the ingredients for a blurry image. Add wind and tripod vibration to the whole and one may have additional undesirable vibrational modes.

Bottom line - really pay close attention to focus and stability when shooting 4X5 if you want critically sharp images. That's why I gravitated to a Technikardan with a double tripod setup when high sharpness is required.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[CG]

Critical focusing and management of camera movement make a big difference when you're trying to get the most out of big cameras. My eyes aren't what they used to be so I use a magnifier for good focus with LF.

C

[Turner Reich]

Take a second look at all of your own photographs, is there one that's significantly sharper than the the others?

[mealers]

Take a second look at all of your own photographs, is there one that's significantly sharper than the the others?
My prints all look the same when it comes to sharpness. But a friend has been making a few enlargements in my darkroom and his 6x6 negs from a Bronica SQA still look sharper than my 4x5?

I have taken on board all the replies to this thread but somethings not right here. I'm going to do some tests tomorrow and I'II report back.

[eddie]

i use a RB67 and the photos are very sharp and nice. at times i think they are sharper than my LF stuff. but after really trying i was able to get very sharp images with LF too. one of my sharpest lenses that i use most often is my caltar 375mm. i have an 8x10 transparentcy that blew my mind the other day!

also as noted above once i start to make any kind of enlargements the field changes. i sold a print that the customer wanted 24x30 (scanned and wet printed from a machine) from my mamiya. it was shot on 400 neg film IMO the enlargement was too much for the combo. i have yet to try one that big from my LF stuff. i will soon though.

one more thing. was the mamiya 7 scanned and sharpened in PS maybe? or some other technique used?

eddie

[Frank Petronio]

I can make a 6mp digital camera file look sharper than anything at a 6x9 inch print size.

It looks like mush when enlarged 30x40.

Same thing for any smaller versus larger film. Your 35mm film Nikon or Canon lenses are far sharper than your Schneiders and Rodenstocks if you only use a 24x36mm portion of your large format film.

Where you get diminishing returns is in low light, handheld shots. You simply can not make the same shot using your 4x5 versus your ISO 25,000 Nikon D3 or even Tri-X in a Leica. In that case, the smaller format will ALWAYS be sharper, even without cropping.

[Nathan Potter]

Mike, there is always the possibility that your film plane is not quite in the exact plane of the ground glass. This could be worth checking out carefully. I'd photograph a resolution target and check the quality of the image on film.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[paulr]

Summary: the reason you got so many answers is is that there are so many ways to make a less than sharp negative.

LF gives you more ways to make a sharp one; it also gives you more ways to make a blurry one.

There are a lot of variables, and it can be hard to know if you're seeing the best that your equipment is capable of (and if you're not, why not).

[Jon Warwick]

I have used a Mamiya 7 + 80mm lens for many years.

Hand-held, I can consistently get sharper images with the Mamiya 7 than I can with my Hasselblad .... this probably owes to the lack of mirror vibration, the lack of mirror black-out when the shutter opens, better hand-held ergonomics, more ideal lens construction for rangefinder cameras that yields higher resolution, etc.

This was a primary reason for me buying a Mamiya 7 in the first place, despite already having a Hasselblad. When using a tripod, however, and using the mirror-up facility on the Hasselblad, the differential is much more narrow, in my experience.

Now ..... for LF! I've very recently just started using 5x4, with a Super Symmar 110 XL that has a reputation for being one of the sharpest LF lenses around. I was disappointed by the first print that I got back .... it certainly lacked the same sharpness at 20"x16" than I was used to from the Mamiya 7.

This seems to have been more of a printing issue in the traditional darkroom, or perhaps poor technique on my side, however. The next 2 prints (sized to 24"x20" off the 5x4 nergative) were highly sharp .... by my eye, the "sharpness" was very comparable to what I would expect at that size from the Mamiya 7.

The key difference, however, was the utter smoothness of the print from LF .... there would have been a clearer grain structure at that size off the Mamiya 7's negative. The grain from MF can oddly can add to apparent sharpness, but the prints from the 5x4 are just super-super-smooth at that size (essentially grainless).

I've recently seen drum-scanned & Lightjet-produced prints to 50"x40" at an exhibition that I believe were taken with a Mamiya 7. You know what, the detail in the prints still looked very "sharp", albeit the grain at that size was very noticeable close up.

The bottom line is that I haven't found the Mamiya 7 to be hugely sharper than the 5x4 camera & lens that I'm using for prints up to 24"x20". But I acknowledge that the Mamiya 7's lenses are probably more contrasty, and I think seeing grain structure from the smaller negative can also add to apparent sharpness at times, at least for smaller prints.

Is it harder to get an ultra-sharp image from LF?? Yes, I think it certainly is. In the same way as sharpness from my hand-held Hasselblad disappointed me when compared to what I could consistently get from my Leica rangefinder, which meant I had to work harder to improve my technique with the Hasselblad (ie, bolt it to a tripod, use mirror lock-up), so too do I think that one's LF technique needs to be even better than when using a medium format camera. The longer shutter speeds, wind hitting the bellows, etc ... none of these help. But with flawless technique, and ideal conditions, I think one should get magnificent sharpness from LF that would start to really shine through over MF when you get very big prints done (so 30 inches plus).

[Bruce Watson]

The key difference, however, was the utter smoothness of the print from LF .... there would have been a clearer grain structure at that size off the Mamiya 7's negative. The grain from MF can oddly can add to apparent sharpness, but the prints from the 5x4 are just super-super-smooth at that size (essentially grainless).

This is the point I was going to raise, but you've already done such a good job that all I need do is reiterate and reinforce it.

The smoothness is one of the big draws of LF for me. The smallest print size I really like is 50x40cm, and that's were a 5x4 inch film really starts to shine. Big smooth and sharp prints... who could want anything more? ;)

[Ken Lee]

Keep in mind that 4x5 is at the bottom-end of the Large Format tool set.

With 5x7 and larger, you can often use the same lenses as you use for 4x5 - or lenses of the same quality. With even less enlargement, things can get so smooth, it's... brutal.

[mealers]

Mike, there is always the possibility that your film plane is not quite in the exact plane of the ground glass. This could be worth checking out carefully. I'd photograph a resolution target and check the quality of the image on film.

Nate I'm beginning to think this maybe the problem. I did pick up quite a few DDS's of ebay a while ago, a mixture of Toyo, Fidelity Astra and Fidelity Elite's.
I've just read through this old thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=35538 and I'II try the test with the ruler tomorrow.

One other thing, I have just the standard ground glass that came with my Shen Hao when I bought it new. It does seem a little grainy and is quite tricky when it comes to critical focusing, would it be worth investing in a new ground glass?

[Nathan Potter]

Mike, maybe. But don't jump to conclusions. Paul stated it nicely above - there's a lot of variables that affect image resolution in LF photography. Think of it as a photographic system not working for you but against you. Multiple variables may be involved in image degradation so you may need to go through at least all mentioned in this thread and eliminate them one by one to maximize your image quality.

I don't know the details of the screen you use but I tend to like a fairly finely ground one that may not be the brightest but has a bit better resolution of the image for a 5X loupe. Also doing that resolution test is a good idea if you really suspect your not capturing the plane of best focus with your film holders.

BTW someone mentioned above, or rather posed the question, "are all your photos of equally poor image quality". You might try to quantify this in order to unravel this detective story so to speak.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Drew Wiley]

If you're technique is tuned in, there should be a dramatic improvement in quality
as you go up from 35mm to 120 film, from 120 to 4x5, and from 4x5 to 8x10. I can
shoot an 8x10 negative at f/64, which is hardly ideal for optimum lens performance,
and then even print it at f/64 with one of my less than best enlarger lenses, and it
will be a far more detailed image than any of my medium format prints in analogous
size. But you're only as good as your weakest link, whether on the camera or in the
darkroom. Filmholders or negative carriers which don't hold the film truly flat can
spoil just about everything. One nice thing about the larger formats is that you don't
generally worried about negative grain, and can opt for films with the best tonal range, edge acutance, etc. And a dust speck which resembles the Goodyear Blimp in medium format will be barely noticeable in 8x10. Size matters.

[Turner Reich]

I took my Shen Hao apart tonight and measured the thickness of the gg and the thickness of the wood that creates the standoff for the format, in this case being 4x5.

The thickness of the ground glass was all over the place, I'm going to put in the Satin Snow that I bought as an extra when I got the camera.

The thickness of the wood or the depth of the ground glass is also all over the place. It varies from .194.5 to .199. I measured it over and over, zeroing the Mitutoyo micrometer each time. If memory serves me the depth should be .197.

In this camera the ground glass is supported only on the long ends. Surprise surprise. Don't believe me, take out the ground glass and look. When the thin non-flat gg is placed on an end supported narrow support of wood and the the loupe is pressed on the glass for viewing it will flex. If the gg flexes will you get an accurate focus? If the gg is not in an accurate plane at the correct distance that correlates to the film holder depth will you get correctly focused images?

I had only used this camera once and the negatives were thin so I put them in a folder and hadn't looked at them until tonight. They are all out of focus, I use 5x7 and 8x10 all of the time and there is no problem with the other equipment and the holders I have used in a field camera that I built many years ago. I have also used them in a Toyo G and Calumet 400 4x5 so the holders are fine.

I will either have to make a new ground glass support or shim until the cows come home.

So the original post of "How sharp can you get?" is aptly appropriate for me.

Thanks for the post.

[Drew Wiley]

To measure the actual film plane, I took a bar of Starrett precision-ground flat stock,
drilled a hole in the middle, and attached a depth micrometer. My Sinar gear was right
on, as one would expect from a company like this. But my Ebony - which is perhaps the most carefully made wooden camera line - needed a little bit of correction due to
tiny air bubbles caught in the varnish where the filmholder seats. As for plastic "groundglass" of any type, I simply don't believe in it - nearly every type of plastic will bow toward the warm side. Many plastics are also dimensionally affected by humidity. I've personally standardized on Satin Snow groundglass. As for another
culprit, filmholders, for critical work (thinner films or shots intended for big enlargements), I use "precision" filmholders analgous to the Sinar ones. (Won't say how
I make them for personal use or Sinar might get pissed off). But larger films like 8X10
will bow in a holder and this will often noticeably affect the center to edge focus.
I also made my own Quickload/Readyload holder, starting with a 545 carcase, since
the factory-made ones I tested were simply miserable for edge flatness. In large format work it helps to have a few shop skills, or know someone who does!

[Dan Fromm]

[QUOTE=Turner Reich;405657]I took my Shen Hao apart tonight and measured the thickness of the gg and the thickness of the wood that creates the standoff for the format, in this case being 4x5.

The thickness of the ground glass was all over the place, I'm going to put in the Satin Snow that I bought as an extra when I got the camera. <large snip>/QUOTE]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything else horrible, but what does the GG's thickness have to do with anything? I ask because I've been taught that the ground side of the GG faces the lens, not the film, and that the GG is supported on its front. When this is the case, it seems to me that all variations in thickness across the GG/lack of parallelism do is affect, and only slightly, how well focusing aid can be in focus on the image on the front of the GG.

I understand that the GG has to be in register with the film plane, so please don't tell me about that. That has nothing to do with the GG's thickness or parallelism.

What am I missing this time?

Cheers,

Dan

[Drew Wiley]

Film does not automatically set on the same plane as the groundglass, even if they appear parallel. Wood can not only wear but warp. It's quite an art to make a wooden
camera back. You need material known for not only its machinability but its dimensional
stability. The best camera makers use pattern grade mahogany seasoned for at least
twenty years. My Phillips camera uses cherrywood impregnated with epoxy resin. I have no idea of the quality standards of a Shen Hao. With even the best wood cameras, however, I always double check focus not only at center, but at all the edges. If detents are present for zero settings, double check them too.

[Nathan Potter]

Second Dan Fromm, what are we missing here?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Ive come from using MF (a Hassy) to 5x4 and I really enjoy LF, BUT something has happened which has totally blown me away....
I just did my first print exchange on APUG, the print that arrived through my front door was shot using a Mamiya 7 and I just cant believe how sharp it is, I mean it really is sharp, sharper than my Hasselblad and dare I say it but it is sharper than my 5x4!

So this got me thinking...Just what am I doing wrong? Is it my technique, my equipment, my darkroom practice?I use modern multi coated lenses and although I have not got years of LF experience I'm pretty happy with using my camera and my darkroom practice is improving all the time.

So is the Mamiya sharper than 5x4? Are the lenses really that good?
Or should I be looking at myself to somehow improve my prints to the sharpness of the Mamiyas?


BTW, I'm not about to go out and get a Mamiya 7, I'm hooked on LF!!


Mike
I have a Mamiya 7 II with only an 80mm lens and it is indeed very sharp, also the Camera`s lightmeter is very good for most outdoor subjects although it doesn`t have TTL metering.
I have two LF Camera`s, an MPP Mk-8 4x5 and a Sinar Norma which allows me to use 4x5 and 8x10 inch film sheets. The Norma has base tilts but not centre tilts, so a bit more fiddly to use when tilts are required, but it still works out fine and is well built.
I was getting some problems with over all sharpness when first using these Camera`s, but it was down to user error on my part.

Keith.

[Neal Shields]

Unless I missed it, I don't think anybody has mentioned flair. Large format lenses put a lot more unused light into the camera. This (unless masked out) reduces contrast. A medium format camera has the lens sized exactly for that format and doesn't need extra image circle. While medium format lenes are usually better than large format lenses in terms of lp/mm the charts I have seen wouldn't explain a percievable difference in the final print, in most cases.

[Nathan Potter]

Since I'm about to leave on a photo trip this discussion got me to thinking about the accuracy of my GG and Quickload and Readyload holders for capturing the plane of best focus. I've not checked this for a while and immediately noticed that the fresnel on the Linhof had become loose on one end - although the GG was pretty much in place. Below are the measurements from the Linhof focusing back and the quick and ready loads that I measured.

Linhof back, 4 corners: .194, .194, .192, .192 inch.
Readyload holder, 4 corners: .193, .192, .188, .189 inch.
Quickload holder, 4 corners: .193, .192, .193, .192 inch.

Measured using a dial vernier caliper from the contact flat to the film pressure plate after cleaning. Some debris had crept into the Readyload between the pressure plate and its forward stop, depressing the plate by about 0.015 inch. Check your pressure plates on these type holders to make sure they are firmly contacted to the backstop on the holder. Spring tension can be inadequate for a variety of other reasons too which means your film surface may not sit as far forward as is needed. This part of LF is really high tech stuff if you want optimum sharpness.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[john borrelli]

A lot of excellent points have already been made.

When comparing the sharpness of different prints of different scenes taken with different cameras, it can be difficult to assess the causes of those differences.

I often see differences in sharpness in my slides, using the same LF equipment, based on the nature of the subject and the nature of the light illuminating that subject.

Man made subjects tend to look sharper than a natural subject like a tree.

Subjects illuminated by the end-of-the-day diffused sun light tend to look less contrasty than a subject illuminated by a more direct, side lighting.

[NonFiction]

Second Dan Fromm, what are we missing here?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

If I'm reading it right, the point is that if the GG is of irregular thickness, and you're focusing on a part of it that (because of this) is in a different plane than where your film rests, you will have out of focus pictures.

[CG]

Accurate film plane can be tested for. Shoot a picture of a ruler placed on a plane not quite parallel to the camera so that the 1 inch mark is maybe 1/2 inch closer to the lens and the 12 inch mark is a 1/2 inch further. The test becomes very sensitive to slight error in film plane if the ruler is very close to - but not exactly - parallel with the film plane. If the two ends of a one foot ruler differ in closeness to the lens by only one inch, then each one eighth inch mark will be approximately one hundredth of an inch more or less distant from the lens. You'll see any error worth seeing.

Make sure the 6 inch mark is in the center of the ground glass. Use a normal to longish lens. Get in fairly close to the subject to further lessen depth of field so that poor focus is easy to see. Use a wide open aperture so you have shallow depth of field and so there are no issues of focus shift.

Focus critically with a magnifier on the 6 inch mark. Make sure you give the camera plenty of time to become very still before you trip the shutter. Make sure you do not accidentally press your hand as you hold the magnifier into the ground glass so that you do not push the camera slightly out of alignment.

If the neg shows you are sharp on the six inch mark, your film plane is workably close to where it should be, and your sharpness issue may be camera movement. Heavy view cameras vibrate for quite a while after the camera is touched or moved.

If the sharpest part is not on the six inch mark, then the ground glass is probably not in the film plane.

Best,

C

[Brian Stein]

If I'm reading it right, the point is that if the GG is of irregular thickness, and you're focusing on a part of it that (because of this) is in a different plane than where your film rests, you will have out of focus pictures.

Maybe.

Sheet glass is mostly made by the float glass method which produces a pretty uniform sheet.Folks who have made their own gg will note that there are ripples in it that become evident early on in the grinding process. After making ground (dunno about acid-etched) glass thus one side will be damn-near perfectly flat while the other will still be rippled. I dont know the depth of rippling but my guess is that unless you grind both surfaces and then polish one back to clarity all gg is going to have some variation in thickness.

Back to the issue at hand: as the ground surface is extremely flat if well made, and as that is the focussing surface, as long as it is mounted onto the same plane as your film I dont see how the ripple on the rear side of the glass (or other modest causes of variation in thickness) has much bearing

[sanking]

I had not noticed this thread before, and perhaps everything has already been said, but even so I have a couple of comments.

First, there is no question but that the Mamiya 7 is a fabulous camera with a family of lenses that give very high resolution and high contrast. I have used several different MF systems in the past and none of them compare to the quality of Mamiya 7. In fact, I am positive that in many situations, with appropriate choice of film and the camera on a tripod, the 6X7 cm Mamiya 7 negative can equal, or even beat, a 4X5 negative. A MF rangefinder camera is clearly not as versatile as an SLR or view camera, but it can do some things extremely well.

However, in addition to all of the good points already noted, there is another factor that may be in play here, especially since the OP mentioned enlarging, which makes me assume he was thinking about B&W film. The factor not mentioned is the importance of adjacency effects in the appearance of sharpness. If you use the same film in MF and LF, and develop the same way, for the same time, you should get a negative with the same average gradient, and adjacency effect lines of the same width. However, in order to make a large print the adjacency effect lines of the MF negative will have to be magnified more, which often results in greater apparent sharpness. I have found that it is not at all unusual for my MF prints to look sharper, but LF prints have smoother, creamier tonal values, and that is because the adjacency effect lines are not so exaggerated on the LF print.

BTW, this specific characteristic of adjacency effects will probably not hold with scanning unless one scans with a very high resolution scanner. Most consumer flatbeds are not capable of resolution of the order to discriminate the relatively thin adjacency effect lines.

Sandy King

[Joe O'Hara]

Accurate film plane can be tested for. Shoot a picture of a ruler placed on a plane not quite parallel to the camera [snip]

C

CG,

An excellent suggestion. I plan to try this setup with my gear soon. I'm not troubled by a perception of low sharpness, but who knows, maybe it's not as good as it could be. Many questions can be resolved by a careful test.

--JOH

[Koge]

Mike,

About 30 years ago I shot Plus X in a Mamiya C330. The exposures were remarkably sharp but the negs were fairly thin. Today I shoot 8x10, 4x5 and Hasselblad and I don't know why the Blad shots from today are less sharp then my C330 shots from years past. Maybe its that big 'ol mirror as opposed to s leaf shutter. Of course my 8x10 contacts are as sharp as can be! :)

J Koger

[jeroldharter]

Why not ask the person who sent you the Mamiya print to print one of your negatives that you think is exemplary for sharpness, or see if he/she will send you a sharp Mamiya negative to print for yourself?

[mdd99]

To me, the Mamiya is is the best alternative to LF. It's hand holdable and sharp.

[dh003i]

With some films, some of the Mamiya 7 lenses will put about twice the resolution on film as some LF lenses. Then there are other confounding variables such as poor technique and diffraction etc.

No doubt many MF lenses are capable of higher resolutions than many LF lenses, but MF is not LF. With most MF cameras no movements are possible. Greater enlargement makes film grain an issue with MF, and tonality is not as smooth. I use both a Mamiya 7 and LF, neither is a complete substitute for the other.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what people mean by "resolution on film". In terms of sharpness per a given area of film, I think that's an uncontroversial statement. But when you're talking about making prints the same size -- particularly large prints -- it seems to me that the sharpest LF lenses will out-resolve the sharpest MF lenses; even though the lens itself is "less sharp"; simply because the film is so much larger.

What is important isn't the sharpness of the lens, but of the entire system: how much detail it resolves. 8x10 lenses are probably less sharp than 4x5 lenses, but it doesn't matter, because the film has 4 times the area.

Plus, it seems to me that whichever system can produce a larger final print, is the sharper system.

From looking at resolution tests, it seems like the highest-resolving MF system is the Mamiya 7 with an 80/4 lens. Yet, this is an $2k system, from what I see on eBay. Substantially more expensive than a similar LF setup.

[Bill_1856]

What the heck does it matter? Large Format Photography is a state of mind, not a resolution test -- just enjoy doing it.

[Jon Warwick]

I used a Mamiya 7 + 80mm for many years ........ it is very sharp, no doubt. An outstanding camera for that format.

Then I started using 5x4 (Ebony + Super Symmar 110XL). I got enlargements made by a pro lab to 24"x20" from the large format, and started to get used to that "look".

The other week, I looked back at some of the photos (also 24"x20") that I'd taken with the Mamiya 7. Those photos, which I once thought were super-sharp and grain-free, suddenly looked a little disappointing ...... much more grainy and slightly less sharp than I remembered.

For me, it was suddenly clear that large format has raised the bar substantially in terms of image quality. I was surprised that my response was so marked, but that's the way it was. One day, I hope to return and take those same landscape scenes with the 5x4.

[sanking]

I have been using both MF and LF for many years. There is no question but that all other things being equal a good 4X5" negative from a quality camera and lens combination will give a better print at 20X24" size than a good 6X7cm negative from Mamiya 7.

However, by using a film of slower ASA with MF than LF you can even things up a lot. My experience is that using Tmax-100 or Fuji Acros with Mamiya 7 6X7 cm format it is possible to equal image quality with a 4X5" negative made on a higher speed film in a print size of 20X24". This assumes that you use the Mamiya 7 on a tripod, as you would the 4X5", and that you use an optimum aperture for resolution.

Scanning and printing digitally would level the playing field even more.

Sandy King


I used a Mamiya 7 + 80mm for many years ........ it is very sharp, no doubt. An outstanding camera for that format.

Then I started using 5x4 (Ebony + Super Symmar 110XL). I got enlargements made by a pro lab to 24"x20" from the large format, and started to get used to that "look".

The other week, I looked back at some of the photos (also 24"x20") that I'd taken with the Mamiya 7. Those photos, which I once thought were super-sharp and grain-free, suddenly looked a little disappointing ...... much more grainy and slightly less sharp than I remembered.

For me, it was suddenly clear that large format has raised the bar substantially in terms of image quality. I was surprised that my response was so marked, but that's the way it was. One day, I hope to return and take those same landscape scenes with the 5x4.

[sanking]

It should be noted that the final resolution in a print is determined by the resolution in the negative and the degree of mangificati0n (not by the overall image area). A 6X7cm (2.75 X 2.25") negative that has resolution equal to 80 l/mm should produce a sharper print than a 4X5" negative that has resolution equal to 40 l/mm.

Sandy King






I'm not sure I'm understanding what people mean by "resolution on film". In terms of sharpness per a given area of film, I think that's an uncontroversial statement. But when you're talking about making prints the same size -- particularly large prints -- it seems to me that the sharpest LF lenses will out-resolve the sharpest MF lenses; even though the lens itself is "less sharp"; simply because the film is so much larger.

[Ben Syverson]

I love my Mamiya 7, but its sharpness is overkill on color negative film, which is what I shoot. I've seen people quote the resolution of the 80mm as high as 120 lp/mm, but color negative film tops out at 60 or 70 lp/mm...

On the other end of the spectrum, some LF lenses (especially older ones) only reach 30 lp/mm... or lower... And the resolution just goes down from there as you stop down the aperture and introduce diffraction.

In other words, I don't think it's shocking at all that a well-produced Mamiya 7 print would beat a 4x5 print in sharpness. In fact, I would expect the 7 to win most of the time. But a people have said, they're sort of apples and oranges, and the 7 won't match the 4x5's tonality/grain structure...

[sanking]

I agree with most of what you write, but in fact I am convinced that negatives from Mamiya 7 can match 4X5 in terms of tonal values and grain, *if circumstances allow you to use a slower speed, finer grain film.* I can definitely see this in my own work.

Sandy King





I love my Mamiya 7, but its sharpness is overkill on color negative film, which is what I shoot. I've seen people quote the resolution of the 80mm as high as 120 lp/mm, but color negative film tops out at 60 or 70 lp/mm...

On the other end of the spectrum, some LF lenses (especially older ones) only reach 30 lp/mm... or lower... And the resolution just goes down from there as you stop down the aperture and introduce diffraction.

In other words, I don't think it's shocking at all that a well-produced Mamiya 7 print would beat a 4x5 print in sharpness. In fact, I would expect the 7 to win most of the time. But a people have said, they're sort of apples and oranges, and the 7 won't match the 4x5's tonality/grain structure...

[walter23]

I have been using both MF and LF for many years. There is no question but that all other things being equal a good 4X5" negative from a quality camera and lens combination will give a better print at 20X24" size than a good 6X7cm negative from Mamiya 7.

However, by using a film of slower ASA with MF than LF you can even things up a lot. My experience is that using Tmax-100 or Fuji Acros with Mamiya 7 6X7 cm format it is possible to equal image quality with a 4X5" negative made on a higher speed film in a print size of 20X24". This assumes that you use the Mamiya 7 on a tripod, as you would the 4X5", and that you use an optimum aperture for resolution.


Wouldn't most people tend to end up using higher speed films in a handheld medium format rangefinder compared with a bulky LF camera that typically sits on a tripod? Just being pedantic here ;)

I know I tend to use HP5+ or TMY400 in my super ikonta, whereas most of my 4x5 is ISO100 FP4+, Delta, or APX100.

[sanking]

Perhaps, but whenever feasible I always shoot with the Mamiya 7 on a tripod, and with a slow speed fine grain film like Fuji Acros or Tmax-100.

For shooting with the Mamiya 7 handheld one would probably use a higher speed film. But I use the camera whenever possible on a tripod in situations where the camera is a faster alternative to 4X5 or 5X7 format.

Sandy King



Wouldn't most people tend to end up using higher speed films in a handheld medium format rangefinder compared with a bulky LF camera that typically sits on a tripod? Just being pedantic here ;)

I know I tend to use HP5+ or TMY400 in my super ikonta, whereas most of my 4x5 is ISO100 FP4+, Delta, or APX100.

[Ken Lee]

Wouldn't most people tend to end up using higher speed films in a handheld medium format rangefinder ?

If some of us are going to carry a tripod anyhow, we'd rather do it right, as it were, and use the biggest camera we can.

We're also going to appreciate having View Camera movements and all the other compelling attributes, like the use of sheet film, which lets you perform development by inspection.

Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for some of us. There are a lot of photographs out there these days. I'd rather make one really good one than... vice versa.

[mandoman7]

"If some of us are going to carry a tripod anyhow, we'd rather do it right, as it were, and use the biggest camera we can...There are a lot of photographs out there these days. I'd rather make one really good one than... vice versa.[/QUOTE]

Ken's point is similar to my thinking. Once I'm to the point of using a tripod and taking notes on a shot, it seems less sensible to use smaller formats. I used to wonder about the guys who'd go to all this trouble with tech pan and using tripods with costly 35mm outfits, just to get the look of another format that might be easier to master than they realize.
Also if you're talking about investing in one system and whether or not it will suffice, that's a different question than what might be the best system for a given project. I like having a 6x6 system available for the quality it provides when mobility is important. If I had to make a living with one system, that would be it, and that's what I did in the 80's/90's. But now I wouldn't be comfortable having that as the best than I can do for a project.
Particularly when you can get a sinar F for $300 on ebay these days...!

[sanking]

I don't really believe there is right or wrong way to make good photographs. People have been doing it for more than 1.5 centuries with all types of hand held and tripod based cameras, from Minox to 35mm to 8X10 mammoth format. Size does not determine image quality, that is a factor of seeing, exposing and printing technique.

Most of my work since the late 1970s has been with view camera, but the use of a view camera is impractical or impossible in many circumstances. I am more than happy to work out of my car around home or on trips in the US with a 7X17 or 20X24 camera, but there is no way that I would consider trying to take this equipment abroad any longer. I in fact did make several extended trips to Spain with 7X17 and 12X20 cameras and am very happy with the negatives I made at the time. However, even my light weight 5X7 Nagaoka outfit, when combined with three or four lenses, ten or so holders, changing tent, a couple of hundred sheets of film and other necessary items takes up more than three or four times the weight and space of my Mamiya 7 kit. Believe me, on a trip of a month or more abroad, changing destinations frequently, the difference in weight and volume can be a real deal breaker for view camera at age 64..

It is not my intention to tell you what kind of equipment you should use for your work. I am merely stating what for me is a fact, and that is that with good technique and appropriate choice of film I have been able to equal 4X5 print quality with Mamiya 7 6X7 cm format. I scan with a high end scanner and print small, usually no larger than 18X24", so that should not be surprising, should it?

And since I nearly always use wide angle lenses with this camera there is for all practical purposes no need for movements, and moderate perspective control I can do in Photoshop. Finally, since I am making negatives to scan rather than print directly, I simply expose for the shadows and develop to a low CI. If there is any down side to this over BTZS or Zone controls I have not seen it as it is possible to make dramatic corrections in Photoshop.

Clearly this is not the way I would expose and develop when working with a ULF camera. But it works fine for MF when scanning, and all of life is about making compromises between our most idealistic inspirations and our most practical necessities.

And one more point (wow, this got very long fast!). Working with a MF camera like Mamiya 7 on a tripod is much faster than working with a view camera. In travel photography the difference in time is often crucial.

Sandy King






Wouldn't most people tend to end up using higher speed films in a handheld medium format rangefinder ?

If some of us are going to carry a tripod anyhow, we'd rather do it right, as it were, and use the biggest camera we can.

We're also going to appreciate having View Camera movements and all the other compelling attributes, like the use of sheet film, which lets you perform development by inspection.

Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for some of us. There are a lot of photographs out there these days. I'd rather make one really good one than... vice versa.

[Robert Fisher]

Sandy, perhaps I am "all thumbs" when I have used my LF cameras, BUT I do not have a single print from the LF cameras that I have owned hanging in my home. However I must have twenty 24x36 Light Jet prints from my GW and GSW 690 series III cameras in my home. All were drum scanned. I always use a heavy tripod, a B2 head, cable release, hyperfocal and bracket a roll of 120 Velvia/Astia. Normally I shoot a roll each in both the GW and GSW of different emulsions. BUT I am perfectly happy with 24x36 prints. These prints at this size with this technique with these cameras with my vision are superior to any LF print I have at this size.

[sanking]

Robert,

Fuji 690 cameras are definitely on a par with Mamiya 7. I have owned both the GW and GSW versions, and still have the GW690III. Put it on a tripod with a slow speed film and you will make great negatives. But you already know that, right?

Sandy











Sandy, perhaps I am "all thumbs" when I have used my LF cameras, BUT I do not have a single print from the LF cameras that I have owned hanging in my home. However I must have twenty 24x36 Light Jet prints from my GW and GSW 690 series III cameras in my home. All were drum scanned. I always use a heavy tripod, a B2 head, cable release, hyperfocal and bracket a roll of 120 Velvia/Astia. Normally I shoot a roll each in both the GW and GSW of different emulsions. BUT I am perfectly happy with 24x36 prints. These prints at this size with this technique with these cameras with my vision are superior to any LF print I have at this size.

[Robert Fisher]

Sandy, do you know of a 6x9 or 6x12 setup that would exceed the IQ of the Fuji's?

Do you think one of the new high dollar lens mounted on a Fotoman would produce a discernible higher res on a 24x36 or tad larger print?

[sanking]

No, I don't know of any other 6X9 camera that will beat the Fujis in IQ. You see, one of the main determinants here is film flatness, and Fuji cameras do that quite well. Plus, the fixed lens provides the ultimate in accuracy.

For 6X12, the Fotoman seems from what I have read a good choice, but I don't have any actual experience with this camera.

Sandy King



Sandy, do you know of a 6x9 or 6x12 setup that would exceed the IQ of the Fuji's?

Do you think one of the new high dollar lens mounted on a Fotoman would produce a discernible higher res on a 24x36 or tad larger print?

[Ken Lee]

I wish I could delete my previous posting.

What Sandy has said, is right on, as always.

[sanking]

Ken,

I have seen your work in several editions of View Camera and many times of this forum. It is wonderful and makes me envious of your eye and technique.

No problem with your earlier post, in fact it made me address some of the issues in a way that perhaps I had earlier avoided. And I most admit that in some ways I feel a bit guilty in promoting MF when for so long I have been a proponent of LF and ULF work. I just hope that folks like you don't see me as some kind of traitor to the cause! For what it is worth, I am still exposing and developing a lot of LF and ULF negatives here in South Carolina. I am really still with you in many ways.

Sandy King





I wish I could delete my previous posting.

What Sandy has said, is right on, as always.

[Joe Forks]

And I most admit that in some ways I feel a bit guilty in promoting MF when for so long I have been a proponent of LF and ULF work. I just hope that folks like you don't see me as some kind of traitor to the cause!

Sandy King

Not at all, don't feel guilty. You're just driving home the fact you need the right tool for job. I am a fan of all formats for that reason, and it provides my justification for having all these cameras of varying formats :)

I'm certain my life would be easier with a single camera and a few lenses, but it's not always about easy for me. That's why I'll be looking to add a Banquet camera for contact / PT/PD printing in the future.

Best
Joe

[dh003i]

It should be noted that the final resolution in a print is determined by the resolution in the negative and the degree of mangificati0n (not by the overall image area). A 6X7cm (2.75 X 2.25") negative that has resolution equal to 80 l/mm should produce a sharper print than a 4X5" negative that has resolution equal to 40 l/mm.

Sandy King

Although this is a really old thread, I was thinking about this recently. The sharpest MF lens, a 80mm Mamiya 7, has a resolution across frame of 103 lines/mm on Tmax at f/5.6. The sharpest LF, the 90/8 Nikkor, has a resolution across frame of 71 lines/mm on Tmax at f/11. (from C. Perez' data).

4x5 really has a usable area of 3.75x4.75, so an effective diagonal of 154mm. 6x7cm has a diagonal of 92mm. That's a 1.67x crop factor. So, f/11 on 4x5 is equivalent in DOF to f/6.5 on 6x7cm. Hence, we're comparing lenses at about the same DOF (if anything, this comparison benefit MF, as LF @ f/11 has slightly more DOF).

Let's assume that we print at 10 lines/mm to make the math for enlargment simple (254 dpi). At 71 lines/mm, a 4x5 with a 90/4.5 Nikkor at f/11 can produce a 7.1x enlargment, so a print of 26.6 x 33.7 inches (assuming the 3.75 x 4.75 in usable area). At 103 lines/mm, the Mamiya 7 with it's 80/4 lens at f/5.6 can produce a 10.3x enlargment. That's a 60 x 70 cm or 23.6 x 27.6 print. The LF print is slightly bigger with the same final print-resolution. A shortcut to this conclusion would be to divide the MF resolution by the crop-factor to arrive at 103 lines/mm on 6x7 being equivalent to 62 lines/mm on 4x5 in terms of total resolution.

A brief summary for comparison would be that for a 6x7 lens to produce a sharper image than a 4x5 lens, it needs to have > 1.67x as much resolving power as the equivalent LF lens (where equivalent 4x5 LF lens is obtained by multiplying the MF lenses' focal length and f-number by 1.67).

One other thing worth noting is that the Mamiya 7 + 80/4 lens is a very expensive combination; an eBay search shows the cheapest combo for those two at $1350 including shipping. I paid $590 for my Linhof Kardan Supercolor, and it came with a 150/5.6 symmar convertible lens; $460 for my Nikkor 90/4.5. $1050 total. But I was patient and looked around for a few weeks, so that was a steal.

But the Mamiya 7's 80/4 and a few others in MF are exceptions. There are many MF lenses where the resolution numbers are matched by LF lenses. C. Perez concludes that at similar cost of ownership, LF and MF systems produce the same resolution to film. In the case of the Mamiya 80/4, it produces better resolution to film than the best LF lens, but still doesn't match the total resolution on film-area.

[BetterSense]

Wouldn't most people tend to end up using higher speed films in a handheld medium format rangefinder compared with a bulky LF camera that typically sits on a tripod? Just being pedantic here

Maybe most people, but I do the opposite. Since I like to handhold everything, larger formats get fast film and smaller ones get slower film since they are faster. I need the faster film in the MF camera to have similar speed and DOF out of my folding 6x6 camera (even moreso due to guess focusing). The result is I often get better TMX negatives out of my 35mm camera than pushed TriX negatives out of MF. The bigger negatives sure are nicer to work with, though.

This strategy falls apart with 4x5 because, paradoxically to me, nobody even makes fast 4x5 film, even though it's slower than smaller formats. I wish I could get Delta 3200 in sheets but if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

[sanking]

But the Mamiya 7's 80/4 and a few others in MF are exceptions. There are many MF lenses where the resolution numbers are matched by LF lenses. C. Perez concludes that at similar cost of ownership, LF and MF systems produce the same resolution to film. In the case of the Mamiya 80/4, it produces better resolution to film than the best LF lens, but still doesn't match the total resolution on film-area.

I can only really speak personaly to a comparison of Mamiya 7II and 80mm lens with a high quality lens on a quality 4X5 system. The comparison film was Portra 160, and the MF and LF film was drum scanned.

In terms of absolute image quality the 4X5" negative did beat the 6X7 cm negative, but only by a tad. In a print I don't think you would see any difference at all in sharpness until going beyond 30X35" in size, but you might see a bit more grain in the print from the MF negative, but not necessarily as use of noise reduction software might neutralize grain.

This comparison was made same film for both formats. Bear in mind that for the same DOF you can use a slower speed film with finer grain and greater sharpness with MF than with 4X5, or you can use an aperture of about 1.5 stops greater, with less diffraction.

Either way, for maximum image quality individual technique is probably more important than the format. Grain, for example, will depend highly on how you print, scan, what scanner, technique used, fluid mounted or not, etc.

Sandy King

[dh003i]

I can only really speak personaly to a comparison of Mamiya 7II and 80mm lens with a high quality lens on a quality 4X5 system. The comparison film was Portra 160, and the MF and LF film was drum scanned.

In terms of absolute image quality the 4X5" negative did beat the 6X7 cm negative, but only by a tad. In a print I don't think you would see any difference at all in sharpness until going beyond 30X35" in size, but you might see a bit more grain in the print from the MF negative, but not necessarily as use of noise reduction software might neutralize grain.

Yea, but software can do that for 4x5" too. But then, the comparison point goes up, so maybe you won't notice it until an even larger size. So of course you have a good point.


This comparison was made same film for both formats. Bear in mind that for the same DOF you can use a slower speed film with finer grain and greater sharpness with MF than with 4X5, or you can use an aperture of about 1.5 stops greater, with less diffraction.

Yea, but if you look at the comparison I did, I was comparing lenses at equivalent DOF (although different angle of view, as I wanted to compare the sharpest lenses I saw on C. Perez' site). Although in general, your statement will hold. So I think that is accounting for that issue.

I think that broadly, theoretically, when accounting for image-area, diffraction limits at f-stops, equivalent focal lengths, and DOF, all systems should theoretically produce the same final resolution for an equivalent image. It's only in the empirical world where that ceases to be; in LF's favor because it's much easier to reach diffraction-limits at higher f-stops for equivalent DOF; although in smaller formats favor because it's easier to design high-quality small lenses.


Either way, for maximum image quality individual technique is probably more important than the format. Grain, for example, will depend highly on how you print, scan, what scanner, technique used, fluid mounted or not, etc. There are no free passes to image quality paradise.

Sandy King

Oh yea, for sure.

But me, I kind of love the idea of being able to use the tilts to get all of what I want in focus.

IF I were to get a medium format, I think I'd use an adapter for a 4x5 back; although then I suppose I'd lose the resolution-to-film advantages of the best MF lenses, as they aren't to be mounted in copal shutters. That is, the modern MF lenses can't be put in shutters, unless I'm mistaken.

If there were a modern tack-sharp MF lens that could be put in a shutter, it'd make an interesting proposition for using on a 4x5 (IF it had enough coverage to use tilts on the 6x7 format).

The GW690III seems like a nice system for it's tilts, although the only lens where it was tested showed it being about equal to the better LF lenses.

PS: One interesting thing is Cramer's article comparing the P45 Phase One Back to a 4x5 with Fuji Velvia film, and it seems like the P45 is just about as sharp. That's impressive for sure; but the P45 is $30+k. So for 30 times the cost, and many decades later, digital has finally caught up with 4x5 film. Kind of funny how for cost-equivalence per quality, the digital formats are still way behind film for what would be most people's uses.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Chris Perez and Kerry Thalmann did yeomans's work with their resolution tests; however, if you look at the footnotes they also did these over a period of time with several different cameras (some of which they admit had film flatness issues).

Has anyone tested and posted comparisons between the best of the film-era lenses, and the new class of small circle digital lenses? These are supposedly (at least anecdotally) among the best resolving LF/MF lenses available ever made and would seem suited to MF film as well, where ultimate resolution is the prime consideration.

[sanking]

IF I were to get a medium format, I think I'd use an adapter for a 4x5 back; although then I suppose I'd lose the resolution-to-film advantages of the best MF lenses, as they aren't to be mounted in copal shutters. That is, the modern MF lenses can't be put in shutters, unless I'm mistaken.



I believe that some of the reason, in addition to the quality of the optics, for the very high performance of the Mamiya 7II system is due to the precision of the film plane to lens and to the operation of the pressure plate in holding the film flat and at the right plane. Perhaps some of the modern roll film holders offer this precision but my experience with older roll film adaptors for LF is that they did not.

Sandy King

[Robert Fisher]

Sandy & others, do you know of a database that might have MTF charts on Fuji GX680 lenses? Thanks

[Robert Hughes]

To me, the Mamiya is is the best alternative to LF. It's hand holdable and sharp.
But aren't these two characteristics mutually exclusive? My Busch Pressman is hand holdable and sharp, too - just not at the same time.

I've just gone out to the Mamiya7.com fan site to look at some MF photos, and they do look nice and very sharp - but oh, so grainy! I don't see that in 4x5.

But reading about the relative advantages of smaller formats gives me a new appreciation for the tiny formats, like Super 8. It's almost amazing that you can get discernible images at that size - of course it helps that you have a bunch of them in sequence to fill in the blanks from all that grain noise.

[sanking]

But aren't these two characteristics mutually exclusive? My Busch Pressman is hand holdable and sharp, too - just not at the same time.

I've just gone out to the Mamiya7.com fan site to look at some MF photos, and they do look nice and very sharp - but oh, so grainy! I don't see that in 4x5.

Many of those photos were probably made hand held with high speed film. Many people appear to use Mamiya 7 that way.

I work with Mamiya 7 pretty much the same way I work with LF. I put the camera on a tripod, compose the scene and then set the shutter speed in accord with optimum aperture for the scene. If grain is a consideration, as it often is for me because I want the same smooth tonal values in MF that I see in LF, I use a slow, fine grain film. My experience is that a 6X7 cm negative with either Fuji Acros or Tmax 100, scanned with fluid mount, can be enlarged to about 30X35" with excellent sharpness and no apparent grain.

As was mentioned earlier, for the same DOF and shutter speed you have the option of using a film about two stops slower with MF than with LF. This pretty much equalizes grain and gives about the same smooth tonal values with both formats for a given print size.

Sandy King

[dh003i]

I believe that some of the reason, in addition to the quality of the optics, for the very high performance of the Mamiya 7II system is due to the precision of the film plane to lens and to the operation of the pressure plate in holding the film flat and at the right plane. Perhaps some of the modern roll film holders offer this precision but my experience with older roll film adaptors for LF is that they did not.

Sandy King

Oh yea, I guess that would be a bigger problem with roll film, while it isn't really as much of an issue with sheet film. But isn't there sheet film available for MF cameras?

[Ben Syverson]

Oh yea, I guess that would be a bigger problem with roll film, while it isn't really as much of an issue with sheet film.
Actually, lots of people claim to have issues with film flatness when using standard LF film holders. The theory is that while rollfilm can be stretched and pressed onto the film aperture, sheet film can "rattle around" within the guide rails.

I've never had problems with film flatness, but I shoot color film, so what do I know? I'd probably never see the difference.

[Doug Dolde]

The biggest problem with the Mamiya 7 especially if you are shooting color transparency film is the inability to accurately place a grad filter. Unless your image has no sky in it this will be a major downside. But I agree with the sharpness of M7 lenses...amazing !

[dh003i]

Actually, lots of people claim to have issues with film flatness when using standard LF film holders. The theory is that while rollfilm can be stretched and pressed onto the film aperture, sheet film can "rattle around" within the guide rails.

I've never had problems with film flatness, but I shoot color film, so what do I know? I'd probably never see the difference.

I think that's a lot of nit-picking. For things where you'd want everything in focus, the lowest you'd go is f/11 while using tilts. That's still around being equivalent to f/3 for a 35mm camera. Not microscopic DOF.

From what I've read, that's more of a problem on some of the poorly made film-holders, and more-so for 8x10 where pointing down. I've held junk-film in the holder upside down and I see no noticeable bow in the film. When focusing my 90/4.5 even wide-open, I don't see real noticeable changes in DOF if I move the rail less than a mm.

I think this would matter most if you're doing very narrow DOF work with lenses wide-open, like my 135/3.5, which would be like using a 38/1 on 35mm. I'll have to see if I notice anything there with problems with DOF when doing very shallow DOF work. But even so, probably the much greater factor is going to be subject movement if it's a person.

Btw, when stopping down, beyond f/22, I think film-flatness hardly means anything at all. My first piece of film, I jammed in the same way the dark-slides go (I didn't realize it had to go the other way, behind the rails). So it was jammed in there, completely misaligned, not anywhere near standards. At with my 203/7.7 at f/45, I still got a very tack sharp exposure. That's a huge screw-up (on my part) beyond any kind of film-flatness issues you're going to see, but it still turned out ok for a large f-stop.

[sanking]

I think that's a lot of nit-picking. For things where you'd want everything in focus, the lowest you'd go is f/11 while using tilts. That's still around being equivalent to f/3 for a 35mm camera. Not microscopic DOF.



With small sheet film (4X5 and 5X7) I don't believe that the film moving around in the guides will cause a loss of resolution, so long as it does not sag. Large sheet film will definitely sag if the camera is pointed down.

The bigger issue for resolution is that the T-dimension of film holders varies quite a bit, even with ANSI made holders. This probably will not make a difference at f/22 with 4X5 fillm, but it can definitely make a difference in testing film for resolution at f/5.6 or f/8.


Sandy

[Ben Syverson]

My biggest problem with the M7 is focusing accuracy at close (portrait) ranges. Sometimes it's dead on, other times, it's not. Given what the lenses are capable of, I don't think any rangefinder on earth could match them.

Also, having been spoiled by LF, the lack of movements would keep me from doing critical work with it.

[dh003i]

With small sheet film (4X5 and 5X7) I don't believe that the film moving around in the guides will cause a loss of resolution, so long as it does not sag. Large sheet film will definitely sag if the camera is pointed down.

The bigger issue for resolution is that the T-dimension of film holders varies quite a bit, even with ANSI made holders. This probably will not make a difference at f/22 with 4X5 fillm, but it can definitely make a difference in testing film for resolution at f/5.6 or f/8.

Sandy

I've read that the old Riteway holders with the metal light-guards are some of the best at compliance with standards and keeping the film in place. I also read that some of the older wooden ones are a class above other film holders, partly because they can be disassembled and completely cleaned; although I don't know about wood.

[tom north]

I gave up my 4 x 5 to use a Mamyia 7. I found using a tripod when shooting 1/30-1/60 sec makes a big difference in sharpness. The range finder couple does require adjustment, especially if the equipment gets banged around a lot. The repair people I have talked with mentioned that this is not unusual with several rangefinder cameras. I also found that after I shot several rolls of test film I could get very accurate with the focus and require almost no cropping. I still shoot 8x10 and 5x7, however I just returned from Europe after shooting with medium format for the first time and it was a pleasureable experience.

Tom