2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

[ericpmoss]

Hi all,

Comparing my MF (Mamiya 7) landscape photos with 35mm film, the 6x7 just looks better -- color, aspect ratio, everything. I'd like to go a step further with LF, but wonder -- are the advantages more (or more often) from the size of the film, or from the movements?

Specifically, has anyone here tried a 2x3 view camera (not necessarily a technical camera)? Superficially it sounds like a great choice if I'm not making huge enlargements. Or is it just not enough of any one thing to be a step up from the Mamiya?

Opinions are very welcome, assuming anyone here has any. :) Thanks!

[neil poulsen]

I currently have an older 2x3 view camera, and I've photographed using medium format film on a 4x5. I've also photographed using an older Bronica.

I've never really compared, but it's my understanding that the Mamiya 7 lenses are just extremely sharp. Sharper than view camera lenses. At the same time, I haven't done huge enlargements. So, the 2x3 photographs taken with my view cameras were sufficiently sharp for my purposes. Keep in mind that there are some very sharp view camera lenses out there. Probably not as sharp as those of the Mamiya lens, but sharp.

There's also a world a difference between the two kinds of cameras and the types of photography for which each was designed. So, it seems to me that this may be a comparison between apples and oranges. That is, decide on the kind of photography in which you want to engage. Then, select the camera that best meets that need.

[Alan Gales]

From my understanding, Neil is right. Not only are the Mamiya's lenses sharper but the film is held flatter. I have never used a Mamiya 7 but I have read plenty of times that if you shoot it on a tripod then you can rival a 4x5 for sharpness.

The advantage to 4x5 that you are familiar with and everyone talks about is of course movements. Another advantage is the unbelievable amount of choices in lenses you have with 4x5.

If I were you I would keep the Mamiya 7 and add a 4x5 so you get the best of both worlds.

[Ken Lee]

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.

[GG12]

There are the technical issues addressed above, but also the process: the Mamiya 7 is a fine camera, but is a rangefinder and thus the whole process comes down to a viewfinder, and your "sense" of the picture. With LF, and working on the ground glass, you are working with the image as it will be taken. The engagement is quite different, and while slower, can be much more rewarding.
As pointed out, scans from 4x5 film can be quite amazing as well.

[Dan Fromm]

Eric, 2x3 isn't much larger than 6x7. The frame sizes are, respectively, 56 x 82 mm and 56 x 69 - 72 mm. In his book Field Photography, A. A. Blaker wrote something to the effect that going up in format isn't worth the trouble and expense unless the frame size is at least doubled in both dimensions. Bending that a little, 4x5 is approximately the next reasonable step up from 6x7.

I shoot 2x3 with 2x3 Graphics (press cameras) and a 2x3 Cambo (full fledged view camera). IMO, unless you need focal lengths that aren't available for your M7, as long as you're shooting landscapes you're better off where you are than where I am. You have better lenses, less weight, less bulk, ...

You asked whether LF's advantages come from movements or from film size. Movements help, aren't often that necessary when shooting landscapes, but what really helps is film size. If you're going to print enormous, well, you need to start from a large negative. But going from 6x7 to 2x3 is just a tiny increase in size, probably won't be worth doing.

[bigdog]

... going from 6x7 to 2x3 is just a tiny increase in size, probably won't be worth doing.

Also, the OP stated that he liked the aspect ratio of 6x7 better than 35mm. 2x3 (or 6x9) is the same aspect ratio as 35mm.

[neil poulsen]

Be aware that, if you use 2x3 sheet film in 2x3 holders, you will lose 0.25 inches of width, compare to roll film. Correspondingly, the aspect ratio will be worse than 35mm, since it won't be as wide. But, I don't know if it's even possible to order 2x3 sheet film these days.

[Gem Singer]

The advantage of a camera that uses sheet film is that each sheet of film can be developed individually.

With roll film, the entire roll needs to be processed at the same amount of development time.

No need to wait until the entire roll is exposed before processing.

[Peter York]

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.

To build on Ken's sage advice, know that movements with a 2x3 are more fiddly than with 4x5. You have a smaller ground-glass to compose and focus with, and your movements will be smaller, and thus require more precision. For these reasons, many opt for a 4x5 view camera over a 2x3.

[Drew Wiley]

The M7 is a rangefinder, so best suited for normal to wide angle lenses. Any precise view
camera will allow movements, which is a massive advantage in landscape work, including
the fact that you can use optimum f-stops. With any ordinary camera all you can do is
stop the lens way down for serious depth of field - in other words, with a long lens like
the 150 or 210 (?) on the M7 will be useful only at a fixed distance or infinity. You can't
focus the foreground at the same time. Sometimes I use 6x9 Horseman backs on my 4x5
view camera and the results for my kind of work are more precise than any conventional
MF camera, but I like to use longer lenses a lot. But mainly, I use 4x5 cameras for 4x5 film
per se, and that gives a dramatic enlargement advantage over roll film. But if you do choose a rollfilm back, it needs to be a precise one if you want to compete with M7 optics
or even surpass them. Not all filmholders are created equal. And you need to focus very carefully with a good magnifier. No big deal once you get used to it, but I think its easier
just to shift right into 4x5 photography and experiment with a roll film back later only if
you find some special need for one.

[Bob Salomon]

A modern 69 camera with modern optics, especially those developed recently for digital, will esily outperform a fixed lens folding camera like the 7. But will also easily outcost the 7 and definately not be pocketable.

So what are you looking for? Portability and ease of use or maximum image quality and control? If the first then your 7 is fine. If the latter then get out the tripod and your wallet because the 7 simply can't match up optically or photographically to the view camera and modern digital optics (which also happen to work marvelouslly with roll film although they may require an adapter plate for roll or sheet film use.

[Kuzano]

For my justifications... a 2X3 view or bellows style camera is the last stop on the way to 4X5 and does not offer much over regular range finder roll film camera's.

The only advantages are perspective control (I question the value of this on the small frame) and GG viewing with a loupe for critical focus.

If, you go there, why would you not want the flexibility to shoot 4x5, where the perspective controls would actually be more of an advantage, and a roll film back would allow you to shoot 120 at any frame size from 6X4.5 up to and including 6X12 (short panorama). Can't do the last on a dedicated 6X9 view camera.

Good choice would be a Tachihara or most wood folding field cameras and the bit heavier Toyo 45A or CF models. Lens choices abound in all sorts of price ranges.

As much as I have shot MF and LF over the last 20 years, I could just never get my mind around dedicated 2X3 view camera's and can't understand why people pay so much for them. I currently have a Fuji G690bl Rangefinder with the AE100 lens (metered) and a Super Graphic (stripped of the rangefinder, electronics and some movement mods, with a Dayi 6x12 multi format roll film back).

I used to shoot a lot of Mamiya Super 23 and Universal, but never got around to the later Mamiya MF 6 or 7. Mamiya Sekor lenses are tops, but so are so many other lenses in the LF inventory of used lenses. Most really good LF lenses are less money than one of the Mamiya Sekor lenses for the Mam7

[toyotadesigner]

I'm working with a Plaubel 69W Proshift (6x9 cm), the two Fuji 6x9 pro GW and GSW III (rangefinders), an Arca Swiss 4x5 and 6x9. Most used is the 6x9 (2x3") Arca with roll film backs, because I can pre-load the backs, have a high res dedicated film scanner for the format and can print them up to 3x2 meters (9x6 feet) for exhibitions, lobbies, etc.

If you don't need movements, you don't need a view camera. If you like to experiment, get an Arca 6x9 with a Horseman 6x7 roll film back (or just crop the 6x9).

In your position I wouldn't trade the Mamiya. The camera is so superior that you will regret it.

[cyrus]

Go with a folding 6x9.

As a Mamiya 7ii owner, I have to say that I've had some trouble with the winding mechanism breaking on me. Twice.
And it has other problems (can't focus close)
But it is darn convenient & doesn't require a tripod.

I don't see how a 2x3 would be very convenient to use. Certainly trying to compose with movements on such a tiny screen will be a PIA. If you're going to have to lug around a tripod/darkcloth anyway, miight as well make it a 4x5

[Kuzano]

I would like to add one small point to my post....

For me there is no room for anything smaller than 6X9, once I started shooting that (originally with Mamiya Super 23 and Universal). It's not a square or slightly smaller format issue. That's a particular strike against the Mamiya 7, although I think quite highly of Mamiya Sekor lens glass. So, on that point, I cannot relate to parts of the discussion about the Mamiya 7. It's simply not a workable format for me.

For me, the two roll film formats are 6X9 smallest and 6X12, largest. Otherwise 4X5 is the next logical choice.

It would be interesting to know how the OP's feeling about 6X7 might change about 6X7 once 6X9 is on the light table. I've NEVER shot square... don't like it. Don't know what my feeling about 6X7 might be, had I not discovered 6X9 relatively early.

My world is rectangular, and with my peripheral vision a square frame would be too confining. Furthermore, I don't shoot to crop, which was one of the all time excuses for square... lazy composition techniques at point of capture.

[sanking]

If you don't need movements, you don't need a view camera. If you like to experiment, get an Arca 6x9 with a Horseman 6x7 roll film back (or just crop the 6x9).

In your position I wouldn't trade the Mamiya. The camera is so superior that you will regret it.

I agree. Except for movements it will be close to impossible to get better results than you can get with the Mamiya 7 and its superb line optics, short of 4X5 format. And if you use wide angle lenses movements are not often needed in landscape work. DOF with the 43mm lens, for example, extends from about a meter to infinity at f/16.

There is no perfect "does everything" camera. But for portability and high quality images with B&W film, and wide angle shooting, the Mamiya 7 is awfully good. Don't replace it with something else until you are sure the "something else" is at least as good, however you define good.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Sandy - I just can't see how any one camera can do it all, even hypothetically limiting to
oneself with just roll film. I'd say, keep the M7 for what it does so well, but go ahead and
learn what a 4x5 is good for too. Maybe its just me, but I have no trouble shooting a Nikon
with Delta 3200 in it one day, and the 8x10 with Ektar in it the next. I find that switching
up the formula from time to time prevents my visualization from going stale. Then there are
those really rainy days when a hand camera under the raincoat is just plain fun, while drying out a bunch of LF gear afterwards certainly wouldn't be!

[jose angel]

Think that 6x7 and 2x3" are the same; 2x3" is just an "extended" 6x7 format... you`ll not notice even a small difference between them. Same with 6x6. At the opposite, you`ll probably need an outstandingly good camera to mach the results of you Mamiya 7.
If you want to notice an improvement, you`ll need to jump to the next step, it is 4x5" or larger. I shoot 6x6/6x7 (Mamiya 6 and RZ) and 4x5" with a view camera, exclusively b&w film. The availability of movements is great, but to be sincere, I don`t use them everytime, nor quite often.
As others say, I`d keep the 7 and start shooting LF.
Also, as much as I love large format, many many times I take the Mamiya 6 instead of the 4x5" because view cameras and sheet film are too much time consuming, that`s reality (I have a family). I prefer to shoot an smaller format instead of shooting nothing.
These days 35mm film format doesn`t appeal me at all. Sharpness start with medium format.

[Drew Wiley]

I find 6x9 enlargements perceptibly superior to 6x7 at the critical size I anticipate, namely
in a 16x20 print. Above that, it gets dicey to simulate the LF look from roll film, though I sometimes pull off a very crisp approx 16X24 print from uncropped 6x9. Now with
Efke 25 going away, it will be even harder. Pan F has limited tonality, and ACROS doesn't
have the same "wire sharpness", though it will probably be my pick. I also really like the
extended rectangle characteristic of 35mm, 6X9, and 5X7. I don't shoot 5x7, but would if
film had been more routinely available. For my personal needs in really big enlargements,
8x10 works better.

[sanking]

Sandy - I just can't see how any one camera can do it all, even hypothetically limiting to
oneself with just roll film. I'd say, keep the M7 for what it does so well, but go ahead and
learn what a 4x5 is good for too. Maybe its just me, but I have no trouble shooting a Nikon
with Delta 3200 in it one day, and the 8x10 with Ektar in it the next. I find that switching
up the formula from time to time prevents my visualization from going stale. Then there are
those really rainy days when a hand camera under the raincoat is just plain fun, while drying out a bunch of LF gear afterwards certainly wouldn't be!

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.

However, if you are traveling abroad it is necessary to carefully integrate the kind of equipment you take with the conditions of travel, and for my needs the Mamiya 7 with two or three lenses has worked well recently. I used to travel with a 5X7 outfit, next time I travel it may be all FF DSLR.

Sandy

[ericpmoss]

Hi all,
Lots of good info in the replies -- thanks! Digesting it, it sounds like I should...

1. Keep the Mamiya because most of my photos (which are 99% tripod-supported landscapes) are plenty good with it.
2. Get a 4x5 for cases where movements are indispensible, and for when I know there's going to be a shot that would be good with the Mamiya but epic with LF.
3. Eventually consider a 6x_ film/digital back for the LF *if* I find it easier to carry/deploy one camera and two kinds of film holders rather than two full camera sets.

Woohoo -- progress!

[urs0polar]

A modern 69 camera with modern optics, especially those developed recently for digital, will esily outperform a fixed lens folding camera like the 7. But will also easily outcost the 7 and definately not be pocketable.

So what are you looking for? Portability and ease of use or maximum image quality and control? If the first then your 7 is fine. If the latter then get out the tripod and your wallet because the 7 simply can't match up optically or photographically to the view camera and modern digital optics (which also happen to work marvelouslly with roll film although they may require an adapter plate for roll or sheet film use.

Just to clarify, the Mamiya 7 is not a "fixed lens folding camera". It's actually an interchangeable lens rangefinder. Otherwise Bob is right on.

However, while the modern digital lenses are sharper than the 7, a lot of things probably have to go right to use that sharpness to its full extent with sheet film.

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.

Even with my recently acquired 150 APO Symmar, I don't think that, with my scanning setup, things would be as sharp as the Mamiya/Nikon. So, while technically 6x9 and the new digital Symmar or whatever will be sharper, and maybe some APO on 4x5, you have to have the scanner to get it out of it. And even if you do, will it completely night-and-day trounce the Mamiya 7? I honestly don't know. It depends on how big you are actually going to print.

Now if you are shooting with a LF digital back and the latest digital lenses on a Technikardan or something, then that's probably the sharpest of all.

But, do you really need insanely sharp? I think a lot of people here (myself included, initially) get into LF solely with dreams of superior resolution, when in reality, that superior resolution is very difficult and fidgety to achieve in real life unless you have a very professional $etup.

As other posters said, the real reasons for choosing a view camera should be movements (near/far stuff in focus at the same time, or dof weirdness), versatility (macro, etc), individually processing sheets, rollfilm back, and so on.

[rdenney]

Comparing my MF (Mamiya 7) landscape photos with 35mm film, the 6x7 just looks better -- color, aspect ratio, everything. I'd like to go a step further with LF, but wonder -- are the advantages more (or more often) from the size of the film, or from the movements?

Yes.

Rick "and both contribute to 'look better' when used skillfully" Denney

[toyotadesigner]

I always read that a 6x9 view camera is hard to focus. Bullsh.. Considering the ground glass option - yes. But I've invested into a reflex viewfinder. The handling is considerably easier and faster than a dark cloth, and it doesn't have problems in wind, storm, no stray light, features an upright image and a crystal clear view even with wide angle lenses, etc. Equipped with the perfect correction lens for your eye sight this viewfinder is hard to beat during composing, yet small enough to fit into the bag or case. And yes, I am talking about the monocular viewfinder because it is even better suited for bad weather conditions than a binocular finder.

Sharpness: If you have a dedicated film scanner and use fine grain film, this isn't a problem. At least not for commercial work, maybe for fine art prints larger than 2x3 feet.

85329

[gary mulder]

I find 6x9 enlargements perceptibly superior to 6x7 at the critical size I anticipate, namely
in a 16x20 print.

Am I missing something here ?
If you print 6 x 7 to 16 x 20 you use 56 x 70 mm from negative. If you print 6 x 9 to 16 x 20 you use the same area.

[Darin Boville]

Hi all,
Lots of good info in the replies -- thanks! Digesting it, it sounds like I should...

1. Keep the Mamiya because most of my photos (which are 99% tripod-supported landscapes) are plenty good with it.
2. Get a 4x5 for cases where movements are indispensible, and for when I know there's going to be a shot that would be good with the Mamiya but epic with LF.
3. Eventually consider a 6x_ film/digital back for the LF *if* I find it easier to carry/deploy one camera and two kinds of film holders rather than two full camera sets.

Woohoo -- progress!

But consider: If you haven't used a 4x5 before you'll look at the camera and two or three lenses and imagine yourself carting those around and think, "That's not too bad." But then you add the film holders (ugh), the mandatory tripod, etc etc and you are in a very different world than a Mamiya 7. On top of that one of the posters here (sanking?), if I recall right, says that if you are scanning on a v700 you won't see much (any?) resolution gain in the real world from 6x7 to 4x5 due to the inferiority of 4x5 lenses, less precision, film flatness--all that adds up. Then the joy/hassle of developing the negs or the expense of sending them out...and an awful lot of people end up selling all their stuff not too many months after they get into 4x5. And you might not even use movements as much as you think.

So...buy a Sinar F series if you want a monorail or a Toyo 45 series if you want a field camera, try it out, shortcut the paralysis by analysis stage, and see what you think.

--Darin

[coisasdavida]

One other factor should be taken into account on this matter.
Mamiya 7II is an electronic camera that has been discontinued.
Parts were very rare for the 7 model, I guess soon the same will happen to 7II.
The lack of availability of small circuity boards to replace the ones dying on these cameras will be the biggest problem very soon, no matter how good they are visually.

On the other hand view cameras and view camera lenses are more easily fixed all around the world.

[jose angel]

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
I find 6x9 enlargements perceptibly superior to 6x7 at the critical size I anticipate, namely
in a 16x20 print.
Am I missing something here ?
If you print 6 x 7 to 16 x 20 you use 56 x 70 mm from negative. If you print 6 x 9 to 16 x 20 you use the same area.

Again, there is no practical difference between 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9... all are the "same" format (I use inverted commas for "same" because the aspect ratio is obviously different).

[Bob Salomon]

"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.

[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

[GG12]

Hve been fond of movements for a long time with 4x5 but never quite mastered the viewing process. Somehow just couldn't get it right. Recently got a Kapture Group sliding back for a MF digital back, and pleased. The ability to monitor exposure, color temp, Iso and composition relatively instantly is good fun - along with movements.

As to scanners, tried both an early Imacon 343 and the Epson 700 on 6x6 film and while the Imacon is better, it isn't really noticeable until > 12" prints. The Epson 700 makes a very nice 4x5 scan, surprisingly good. A drum scan of the 6x6 film is superb, and one option is to use an Epson to make "working" scans and then send out for drum on a few select ones. That said, must confess to little film work in the past year or two, although it has lovely character.

[Bernice Loui]

Watching this discussion has been an interesting experience in learning about hardware wars.

The Mamiya 7 is a very different camera than any view camera, they are both completely different tools intended for very different task, regardless of optics and such. This comparison is about as valid as comparing a lemon to a strawberry.

The Mamiya 7 is very much a larger version of the Leica M series of cameras with all their attributes and limitations, a view camera is and always be what it is regardless of the film size involved.

As for this competition of who has the better optics, it is just not that simple as LPM or "sharpness" or any of the usual foto fashion obsessions. Image quality in the final result is far more complex than just optics. There is lighting, recording medium, and much, much more that seriously affect the final results.

Rather than battle over what is this or that, why not simply go out and create great images?

Has the art of producing high quality prints from film in a traditional wet darkroom become completely lost to today's digital?

Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, 5" x 7" or 13cm x 18cm is the ideal format for many reasons. When one seriously considers that theoretical limits of camera optics, film performance, film plane flatness, camera size, enlargement factors, enlarger size, and a host of other factors 5" x 7" or 13cm x 18cm comes out as one of the best overall.

Settled on 5" x 7" or 13cm x 18cm over twenty years ago and it remains the ideal view camera ( Sinar) format for me.


Bernice



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

[toyotadesigner]

Mamiya 7II is an electronic camera that has been discontinued.

Huh? And what is this:

http://www.mamiya.de/neu_08/index.php?cat=c23_Mamiya-7-II.html&XTCsid=f29349506e7fb237daf1aacb3533eae1

At least in Europe it is still available.

http://www.mamiya.co.jp/home/camera/eng/worldwide/index.html

In Japan too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=mamiya+7+ii&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta

In the US too.

[Steve Goldstein]

Watching this discussion has been an interesting experience in learning about hardware wars.

The Mamiya 7 is a very different camera than any view camera, they are both completely different tools intended for very different task, regardless of optics and such. This comparison is about as valid as comparing a lemon to a strawberry.

<snippage>

Bernice

Agreed, and I have and use both M7 and 4x5.

The Mamiya's lack of close focusing has on occasion been an annoyance, but I live with it. The M7 gives me speed, convenience, and unobtrusiveness. It's the camera I usually take when I'm out with my wife hiking or touristing, where all three attributes contribute to marital harmony. When we went to Alaska earlier this year I had two M7 bodies, three lenses, filters, miscellaneous, and about 30 rolls of film in a small backpack. Ten of those rolls were 220, so it was film enough for 400 exposures.

The 4x5 is, well, a view camera, with all that entails. That's what I take when I'm going out on my own somewhere, with no concerns that the relatively slow method of working will inconvenience anyone else. I actually prefer it, even though it's more complex and entails a lot more film handling if I'm only carrying a few holders (and a changing tent and box of film).

Sure, I would prefer to use the 4x5 (or 5x7) all the time, but I'm not making a living from this so I don't always have a strong argument for the larger format. I balance the equipment against the situation and do what I can with what I've got.


(Bernice, again) Rather than battle over what is this or that, why not simply go out and create great images?

Amen.

I consider myself fortunate to be able to choose between these two excellent but very different equipment sets.

[David A. Goldfarb]

When we had a child, I wanted a camera smaller than 4x5" for travel and settled on a Linhof 2x3" Technika V, which I can use like a view camera on a tripod or handheld with rangefinder cammed lenses. I usually shoot rollfilm with it in 6x7 backs that have excellent film flatness, but I also have sheet film holders and Grafmatics for the advantages of individual development or a more panoramic format. It's a bigger, heavier camera than a Mamiya 7, and the separate rangefinder and viewfinder make things a bit more complicated, but you can learn to work with it, and the kit is half the size of my 4x5" Tech V kit, presuming the same number of filmholders, lenses, accessories, etc.

It's best if you can find a kit with three cammed lenses, since the camera is out of production, but you can still get lenses cammed for it, if you want the most modern lenses. The lenses I have cammed for the 2x3" Technika are a Rodenstock 55mm/4.5 Apo-Grandagon, Schneider 105mm/2.8 Xenotar, and 180mm/5.6 (Rodenstock) Caltar II-N.

[Henry Carter]

I would concur with David - the Linhof Technika Vb 6x9 is a wonderful rangefinder camera for hand-held use or traditional view camera use on a tripod (ground-glass focusing & movements), and it is ideal for travel photography. It now competes with my 4x5 Linhof Master Technika as my most used camera, and it is the camera I am most likely to take on a trip.

It is a scaled-down 2/3 version of arguably the most versatile 4x5 camera system - the Linhof Master Technika. The advantage of roll film over sheet film is that you need one roll-film back, can shoot lots of film fast without worrying about loading film holders, and never need a film tent.


the Mamiya 7II is probably more ideally suited for street shooting, but for me any camera that lacks front rise becomes less useful when travelling and taking pictures of buildings, statues, etc. Being able to compose on the ground-glass, use movements, and have 3 cammed (55, 100, 180mm) interchangeable lenses for even hand held photography makes it an ideal kit. It is much more compact than a similar 4x5 kit.

Though I love the quality, detail, and tonality of 4x5 negs, 6x9 negs are not bad at all, not bad at all... And there are shots you will never be able to take with a 4x5 camera.

[bob carnie]

Has the art of producing high quality prints from film in a traditional wet darkroom become completely lost to today's digital?

Bernice

As long as I can still operate all my bodily functions I will have a traditional wet darkroom... and a monster setup I must say by most standards.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

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

Oh! I hope that you continue shooting!
Almost everything I learned about printing kallitype I owe to your teachings on the net!