2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

[Curt]

The Mamiya can be a wonderful camera under certain conditions, where portability is important. Image quality depends on perfect rangefinder calibration: when calibration drifts, we don't find out until the film is processed and inspected. Getting it properly calibrated can be a problem. This is not an issue with a view camera.

If you plan to scan your film, even a fairly modest flatbed scanner will be usable with 4x5 or larger, while roll film requires a fine scanner to get the detail. Because medium format scanners can be hard to find - and expensive - that needs to be considered, unless money is not a consideration.

A good as Mamiya 7 lenses are, they don't focus very close. For portraits or close work, a view camera of any size will be much appreciated: precise composition with no limitation on subject distance.

With a view camera we can mount lenses of almost any focal length and design. Want to try a portrait lens from the 1800's ? no problem. Want to try an enlarger lens, reversed ? no problem. Want to use a special macro lens ? no problem. Want a really long lens for distance shooting ? no problem.

If you plan to use a 6x9 view camera, get a magnifying back or some strong reading glasses, and consider a model with geared movements: minute adjustments can be required.

With a 4x5 or larger camera, you can use a roll film adapter whenever you like - even carry several, one for b&w, one for color etc. You can shoot 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17 and you can also shoot sheet film.

Well Ken answers nearly all the issues I was going to add. My Fujifilm camera doesn't focus close up, that's a problem for me. In Italy I wanted to take detail shots but couldn't get close enough. Any enlarged details would be small prints of cropped negatives. If my Busch 23 with the International back I put on wasn't twice the size I'd take it. The Fujifilm fits in my shoulder bag and even the lens hood stays on with the cap fitting inside. It's hard to beat an all automatic film drive, advance, and rewind on a 120 camera. It can take 220, too bad it's history.

[richardman]

...
I was shooting a friend's artwork at a gallery for him, and my Mamiya 7II with 80mm *easily* outdid my Technika V with a 240mm convertible Symmar shooting the same film (Efke 25). I was sure that the 4x5 would outdo it just on film area alone even though the 240 is only decently sharp, but no cigar.

That said, I was scanning the Mamiya 6x7 film with a Nikon 9000, and the 4x5 film with an Epson V700 with Betterscanning holder. So, sharp was paired with sharp, and not-so-sharp with not-as-sharp. To go up from there would have been cost-prohibitive in a big way.
...

Whoa! I own an LS-9000 for XPan, 35mm, Mamiya 7II Hassy SWC scanning, and a V700 with Betterscanning holder for 617. You cannot say anything about the originating source image quality by comparing output from different scanners. The LS-9000 is so vastly superior (despite what Epson likes you to believe) that this is just not a fair comparison.

[rdenney]

Whoa! I own an LS-9000 for XPan, 35mm, Mamiya 7II Hassy SWC scanning, and a V700 with Betterscanning holder for 617. You cannot say anything about the originating source image quality by comparing output from different scanners. The LS-9000 is so vastly superior (despite what Epson likes you to believe) that this is just not a fair comparison.

I routinely scan 6x7 on a Nikon 8000 and 4x5 on an Epson V750. I get similar results in digital dimensions. But if I end up with a photo worth taking to its (expensive) ultimate quality, the drum-scanned 4x5 will show more potential (in some ways) than the drum-scanned 6x7. The lens resolution may be better enough on the Mamiya to close that gap, but there are other things than lens resolution that give larger formats their qualities, though one might have to scan much more expensively or print optically to explore them.

The 4x5 view camera also provides a level of image management and control that the roll-film camera does not, unless it's a roll-film view camera with movements.

One person showed a very high-end Arca-Swiss view camera for doing roll film. Cameras in that class have the geared precision to do roll film sizes and maintain those image-management controls. The thing to remember is that the amount of tilt and swing movements needed for any given effect scales with focal length, which scales with format size, to make the same image. That requires smaller movements and finer adjustments to achieve the same effects, which imposes more demands on the precision and handling of the camera. And given that the enlargement ratios will be greater, a more powerful loupe might be a good idea, too.

Those Mamiya lenses absolutely depend on the accuracy of that rangefinder, which, as has been said, can only be evaluated after the fact (at least, by the photographer).

Absent all those considerations, I get 16x20 prints from my best Pentax 67 lenses scanned in the Nikon that are on a par with 16x20 prints from Epson-scanned 4x5. That print size and those methods do not test the differences, especially if I'm adept at removing lateral color using the Photoshop lens correction tool. But in my case I cannot set aside all those other considerations.

Rick "resolution brings people to the large-format party, but they stay for other reasons" Denney

[Noah A]

Scanning issues aside, the Mamiya 7 lenses are very sharp and I've made huge prints from that system with good results. I made some 32x40in. prints that a few experienced LF photographers thought were from 4x5. I'd say the only reason to go to a 2x3 view camera would be if you need camera movements or if you prefer the slower method of working with a view camera. If you do need movements, then you need them and any slight difference in image quality becomes somewhat inconsequential. Modern glass like the Grandagon-N and Apo-Grandagon lenses will probably give you results very close to what you can get with the Mamiya.

Going all the way to 4x5 makes more sense to me than messing with a 2x3 view camera, but then the film and processing costs could go up substantially, and, yes, scanning is an issue. At normal print sizes of, say, up to 20x24in., you'll be hard-pressed to see a sharpness difference between Mamiya 7 and 4x5, if you used good technique with both. However, there will be differences in terms of grain, tonality and the overall look of the print.

I have a drum scanner and am only just starting to experiment with my new Epson V750, mostly for proofs or small portfolio prints. It's not nearly as good of a scanner as the Nikon LS9000, but by careful scanning you can get very good results that look great at 20x24.

If you compare a drum-scanned 4x5 neg with a drum-scanned 6x7 neg, there's simply no comparison.

[David Higgs]

@richard

you can scan 617 on the Nikon, I do on mine, and the result is better than the Epson - its a massive file at 4000dpi
you need to scan 3 6x9s and photomerge them, a bit of a faff, but if you are making a big print, worth it

[richardman]

@richard

you can scan 617 on the Nikon, I do on mine, and the result is better than the Epson - its a massive file at 4000dpi
you need to scan 3 6x9s and photomerge them, a bit of a faff, but if you are making a big print, worth it

Hi David, yes I have scanned 617 with the LS-9000. With the FS-86R glass carrier I have, I have to scan 3 times instead of just two using the 6x9 mask. There's just not enough overlap for Photoshop to auto-stitch them. However, the images are way better. It doesn't show too much even up to 17x22 print, but you can see it easily.

The V700 is really convenient - I can use the whole bed to do contact sheet. What I *might* do, is to purchase a used Imacon, and sell the LS-9000 since the Imacon can scan 617 natively. Only thing is that I do not want to sell the LS-9000 first.

[urs0polar]

"I was shooting a friend's artwork at a gallery for him, and my Mamiya 7II with 80mm *easily* outdid my Technika V with a 240mm convertible Symmar shooting the same film (Efke 25). I was sure that the 4x5 would outdo it just on film area alone even though the 240 is only decently sharp, but no cigar."

And what is the surprise from this conclusion? Use an old lens that is not optimized for copy work and a Coke bottle can out perform it.

So if I used a coke bottle instead of the older Symmar, I would have got better resolution?

I'm an amateur and thought my experience might be useful to another amateur who I suspected was trying to gain more resolution. Unless he's drum scanning or has an Imacon, he's probably going to buy a V700/V750 like the rest of us and find that the 7 is still very good and he hasn't gained anything really in terms of resolution without expensive drum scans after he's perfected his technique (which is more difficult than a RF adjustment).

My point was that to scan the 4x5 to the level of the 9000 could become cost prohibitive, so it's better to find other things to like about 4x5 IMO. And yes of course it's 2 different scanners, but its also my real world situation (I have a feeling I'm not the only one...)

[richardman]

Except that your statement includes: "I was shooting a friend's artwork at a gallery for him, and my Mamiya 7II with 80mm *easily* outdid my Technika V with a 240mm convertible Symmar shooting the same film (Efke 25). I was sure that the 4x5 would outdo it just on film area alone even though the 240 is only decently sharp, but no cigar."

It only easily "outdid it" because of the scanner difference. Sure you mentioned that later, but you left that summary there by itself. So one camera did not outdo another, it's one scanner outdoing the other.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

Drew,

You may have the wrong idea about me because I sure don't believe in limiting myself to a single camera. At this point in time I am still using film in 35mm, 120/220 and 5X7, and I have several digital cameras, including one FF DSLR converted to IR and another for visual light. If I decided to do some shooting around here I might choose any of these cameras to throw in the car.
......
Sandy

Professor,

don't you shoot 7x17" and 12x20" anymore?

Hélcio

[sanking]

Professor,

don't you shoot 7x17" and 12x20" anymore?

Hélcio

Hi Hélcio,

Several years ago I began having pain in the shoulders that made it painful to work with the heavy ULF cameras so I quit using them temporarily, hoping that the problem would respond to medication. Unfortunately the pain got worse and eventually rotary cuff surgery was necessary to repair both the right and left shoulders. I am much better now, about 1.5 years after the last surgery and lots of therapy, but earlier this year decided I would not take any more chances with the shoulders and sold off most of the rest of my ULF film and equipment.

But in truth, the 5X7" has always been my favorite format, and I still have a beautiful little 5X7 Nagaoka that is very easy for me to use.

Sandy