Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    75

    2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    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!

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,675

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    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.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Posts
    3,064

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    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.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    102

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    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.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    8,470

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    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.

  7. #7
    David Brown bigdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    368

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    ... 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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,675

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    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.

  9. #9
    Octogenarian
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Frisco, Texas
    Posts
    3,532

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    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.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    323

    Re: 2x3 view camera vs a Mamiya 7

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Lee View Post
    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.
    Peter Y.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •