Is Mamiya 7II MF as good as 8X10?

sanking · Feb 20, 2008

Well, no, but . . .

I won't mention any names, but last week I was in a high end custom lab, in the company of one of the top printers in that lab. The printer, on seeing some 30X40" digital color prints, asked the maker, Are these from 8X10"?. The maker replied, No, Mamiya 7II.

The originals were Velvia transparencies, drum scanned.

I looked at the prints carefully, and had I not known they were from Mamiya 7II transparencies I would definitely have thought them to be from large format.

Sandy King

JBrunner · Feb 20, 2008

sanking said:
Well, no, but . . .

I won't mention any names, but last week I was in a high end custom lab, in the company of one of the top printers in that lab. The printer, on seeing some 30X40" digital color prints, asked the maker, Are these from 8X10"?. The maker replied, No, Mamiya 7II.

The originals were Velvia transparencies, drum scanned.

I looked at the prints carefully, and had I not known they were from Mamiya 7II transparencies I would definitely have thought them to be from large format.

Sandy King

Just an example of how well exposed film with a careful workflow can exceed expectations, even with a hybrid workflow. Imagine what an 8x10 could have delivered via the same skill set and process. Well, if the output medium could take advantage of all it could deliver, that is.

Dave Miller · Feb 20, 2008

The secret's the bit in the middle, guaranteed to trash quality surely.
Wrong forum isn't it? :confused: Or am I missing something?

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 20, 2008

The M7II is a great camera for anything you would want a handholdable rangefinder camera for, but how did it handle perspective corrections, control of the plane of focus, macro photography, and hundred-year-old lenses?

sanking · Feb 20, 2008

Dave Miller said:
The secret's the bit in the middle, guaranteed to trash quality surely.
Wrong forum isn't it? :confused: Or am I missing something?

The secret, if it can be called that, is in the ability of the Mamiya 7 lenses to record a prodigious amount of information. I do not consider it relevant whether that information is extracted via optical or scanning means. I personally believe that high end drum scanning is superior to optical for prints this size, but that is another issue for another forum.

My point was simply that the color prints in question were of such high quality that a professional printer (and one of the best around) looked at them and thought at first glance that they were from 8X10 format.

Sandy King

jd callow · Feb 20, 2008

David A. Goldfarb said:
The M7II is a great camera for anything you would want a handholdable rangefinder camera for, but how did it handle perspective corrections, control of the plane of focus, macro photography, and hundred-year-old lenses?

It is a wonderful tool (as seen in Sandy's example), but it is an orange to a view camera's apple.

There is a web page somewhere on the interenet where this guy measures the resolving qualities of many LF lenses. He goes on to compare the results to MF lenses and come to the conclusion that in all but one instance 4x5 will beat MF. The exception is the Mamiya 6. I suspect that if it is true that a mamiya 6 can out perform a 4x5 it is 'more' true for the mamiya 7.

Ian Grant · Feb 20, 2008

There are two separate issues, the first is the superb quality of the current Fuji & Kodak colour film emulsions even 35mm used well is capable of quite high enlargement compared to the first C41 and E6 emulsions. So a 35mm image printed at 12"x16" is still sharp and relatively grain free, a 6x7 image printed 30"x40" is not much more of an enlargement.

However the second issue is the method of printing, a digital print made using modern RIP software hardly loses anything at larger print sizes. I've had large A0 size prints (just over 30"x40") made for clients and been dumbfounded at the quality of the images. So I'm not at all surprised at the responses Sandy describes, he's starting with far higher quality film images than than the live rock concert shots I started with for my A0 posters.

Ian

walter23 · Feb 20, 2008

Dave Miller said:
The secret's the bit in the middle, guaranteed to trash quality surely.
Wrong forum isn't it? :confused: Or am I missing something?

No need to be so fundamentalist about it. If the output at 30x40" is tack sharp and beautiful, what does it matter if it was handled digitally?

I love apug and I love analogue photography, but there's no need to turn it into a fundamentalist religion and shut one's mind down.

JBrunner · Feb 20, 2008

walter23 said:
No need to be so fundamentalist about it. If the output at 30x40" is tack sharp and beautiful, what does it matter if it was handled digitally?

I love apug and I love analogue photography, but there's no need to turn it into a fundamentalist religion and shut one's mind down.

True, but no real need to discuss it here, either. I'm still wondering the point of this. There are about five million places on the internet to discuss digital, and basically one for analog.

walter23 · Feb 20, 2008

JBrunner said:
True, but no real need to discuss it here, either. I'm still wondering the point of this. There are about five million places on the internet to discuss digital, and basically one for analog.

Absolutely right, and good point. Consider my lips shut then

jd callow · Feb 20, 2008

The object of discussion is the (analog) camera's perfomance. The method used to mesaure the performance is not an issue here. If the camera was a DSLR or the subject was 30x40 digital prints it would be a different story.

JBrunner · Feb 20, 2008

Mamiya lenses, not workflow. Got it.

sanking · Feb 20, 2008

David A. Goldfarb said:
The M7II is a great camera for anything you would want a handholdable rangefinder camera for, but how did it handle perspective corrections, control of the plane of focus, macro photography, and hundred-year-old lenses?

And your point is?

The purpose of my message that started this thread was not to suggest that Mamiya 7II is the best camera in the world, or the only one that one might need. Clearly there are some things that a rangefinder camera can not do at all, and other things that it will not do as well as other types of cameras. That goes without saying, does it not?

I use a 5X7 or larger view camera for the great bulk of my own work when it is practical to use these formats. MF is used only for color, and for B&W where I find it impractical to use LF.

Sandy King

jimgalli · Feb 20, 2008

In the USA back when gas was cheap we had 300 hp V8's that could get the same thing done loafing that our European brethren were doing with 1200cc's strained beyond a practical limit. I'm a gear head and draw these rediculous parallels but the same is true of the loafing brute force of an 8X10 vss a Mamiya lens under perfect conditions resolving 90 lines. The Mamiya is maxed out at 11,000 rpm while the 8X10 is loafing along at 3500.

BTW I've had the same compliment from my old Mamiya Universal. I was asked if some 20X30's that were on display were from 8X10 format. Old 50 Velvia and a rock solid tripod. The Mamiya system is languishing in some dark corner of the garage these days and getting less valuable by the month it seems. Maybe it's time for Ebay?

JBrunner · Feb 20, 2008

jimgalli said:
In the USA back when gas was cheap we had 300 hp V8's that could get the same thing done loafing that our European brethren were doing with 1200cc's strained beyond a practical limit. I'm a gear head and draw these rediculous parallels but the same is true of the loafing brute force of an 8X10 vss a Mamiya lens under perfect conditions resolving 90 lines. The Mamiya is maxed out at 11,000 rpm while the 8X10 is loafing along at 3500.

BTW I've had the same compliment from my old Mamiya Universal. I was asked if some 20X30's that were on display were from 8X10 format. Old 50 Velvia and a rock solid tripod. The Mamiya system is languishing in some dark corner of the garage these days and getting less valuable by the month it seems. Maybe it's time for Ebay?

Very good point, and actually a terrific analogy, but it is interesting to note what is possible on a smaller format with the right tools and skills. I would be hard pressed to think of an output that is capable of displaying 8x10 resolution at like size (relative to best possible). Is there one?

sanking · Feb 20, 2008

JBrunner said:
Very good point, and actually a terrific analogy, but it is interesting to note what is possible on a smaller format with the right tools and skills. I would be hard pressed to think of an output that is capable of displaying 8x10 resolution at like size (relative to best possible). Is there one?

Contact print.

Sandy

JBrunner · Feb 20, 2008

sanking said:
Contact print.

Sandy

I was under the understanding, in a general sense, that silver gelatin paper had less capability for resolution than film.

mark · Feb 20, 2008

JBrunner said:
Very good point, and actually a terrific analogy, but it is interesting to note what is possible on a smaller format with the right tools and skills. I would be hard pressed to think of an output that is capable of displaying 8x10 resolution at like size (relative to best possible). Is there one?

Me thinks this is a 12 by enlargement. So, a comparable example would be 96x120 inches for the 8x10. I am tired so I might be wrong.

I think it is great that the Mamiya held up so well and this speaks volumes about the shooter, as much as the system. That big of an enlargement required no error in the taking. An 8x10 contact print would not be a comparable example. It would be if it was put next a contact from the 6x7.

Dave Wooten · Feb 20, 2008

I was amazed at the superb quality in some of Les Mclean's prints ( I have an original one in my private collection of APUG photographers). Les's print is from a 35 mm neg.
It behoves us to get the utmost of each format. All formats are capable of "unexplainable" beauty when we strive to master all aspects of the craft of creating a final image.

JBrunner · Feb 20, 2008

mark said:
Me thinks this is a 12 by enlargement. So, a comparable example would be 96x120 inches for the 8x10. I am tired so I might be wrong.

I think it is great that the Mamiya held up so well and this speaks volumes about the shooter, as much as the system. That big of an enlargement required no error in the taking. An 8x10 contact print would not be a comparable example. It would be if it was put next a contact from the 6x7.

Well, it would be really big, in any case. How about at the same 30x40? Thats a no brainer, but I don't think allot of that goes on. I think it might be fun to shoot some 8x10 Velvia. Can you get it in the US?

EDIT Yup, special order at B&H. $10 a sheet. Yikes! Still, really interesting. JD, can you make me a print from an 8x10 chrome?

mikebarger · Feb 20, 2008

BTW I've had the same compliment from my old Mamiya Universal. I was asked if some 20X30's that were on display were from 8X10 format. Old 50 Velvia and a rock solid tripod. The Mamiya system is languishing in some dark corner of the garage these days and getting less valuable by the month it seems. Maybe it's time for Ebay?

Jim, I'd guess the price of Universal's just went up about 30%

Mike

jd callow · Feb 20, 2008

JBrunner said:
Well, it would be really big, in any case. How about at the same 30x40? Thats a no brainer, but I don't think allot of that goes on. I think it might be fun to shoot some 8x10 Velvia. Can you get it in the US?

EDIT Yup, special order at B&H. $10 a sheet. Yikes! Still, really interesting. JD, can you make me a print from an 8x10 chrome?

I can't, but Bob Carnie can from a 10x10 enlarger onto 30x40 ciba/ilfochrome - He can also do a hybrid version.

mark · Feb 20, 2008

JBrunner said:
$10 a sheet. Yikes! Still, really interesting. JD, can you make me a print from an 8x10 chrome?

Sure would make you think twice about exposure, and bracketing would be painful.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 20, 2008

Cheaper than 8x10" Polaroid (well, not if you count E-6 processing, I guess).

sanking · Feb 20, 2008

JBrunner said:
I was under the understanding, in a general sense, that silver gelatin paper had less capability for resolution than film.

I could be mistaken but I was under the impression that the resolution of silver gelatin papers is on the order of 60+ lp/mm.

If that is correct, that should roughly match the best resolution on film of an 8X10 camera. In fact, a maximum of 40-50 lp/mm would probably be closer to the maximum resolution of most 8X10 negatives.

Sandy King

Is Mamiya 7II MF as good as 8X10?

sanking

JBrunner

Moderator

Dave Miller

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

sanking

jd callow

Moderator

Ian Grant

walter23

JBrunner

Moderator

walter23

jd callow

Moderator

JBrunner

Moderator

sanking

jimgalli

JBrunner

Moderator

sanking

JBrunner

Moderator

mark

Dave Wooten

JBrunner

Moderator

mikebarger

jd callow

Moderator

mark

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

sanking

Is Mamiya 7II MF as good as 8X10?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency