mamiya 7 vs 35mm

[abudhabiandy]

Hello from the sunny UAE,
Apart from the neg being bigger are there any other reasons to trade up to medium format? the reason I ask is that all my kit is 35mm inc enlarger so it'll take real cash to change format. I currently use a nikon FE, F80 and F5,and was thinking about a mamiya 7 as I quite liked it's portability and rangefinder looks. Any help gratfefully recieved. Andy.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Are you use to using a rangefinder style camera?

Lots of people wish to own or use a Leica rangefinder until they discover that the rangefinder doesn't work with their way of seeing.

All you need is an enlarger that handles 35mm and medium format, plus an 80mm enlarger lens. Shouldn't be too expensive on the used market, considering how much the Mamiya 7 system cost.

If you do add the Mamiya 7 system to your collection, get the 7 II model, not the original 7. I owned the original 7, and now have two 7 II bodies instead. The 7 II is much easier to focus for my eyes.

 

[RobC]

The benefits are primarily twofold. The negative size is bigger (approx 4 times the area) so making an enalrgement from a 35mm neg to 18x12 is approx 13 times enlargement whereas from a 6x7cm neg it is approx 6.5 times enlargement. That makes a big difference to print quality.
Also, because you have no slr mirror box, the lens design can protude further inside and closer to the film. This allows lenses to be designed closer to optimal lens theory resulting in sharper images with less distortion and other aberations. i.e. lens quality is better. Therefore there is better resolution not only from additional neg size but also from lens design.
Down side is many less lenses too choose from. In some situations framing can be difficult because of parralax, i.e. the viewfinder is looking from a slightly different viewpoint than the lens is. Only 10 shots per film ( 20 with 220 film).

For B+W you could get away with using developers that allow more film speed with 6x7 compared to 35mm film which would require more precise and controlled processing for a 18x12 print.

Ultimately it really depends on what you photograph and why. Is ultimate resolution in the neg that important to your images? And lastly, will you get on using that type of camera. You won't know unless you try.

 

[bdial]

For one thing you will get a new understanding of what "sharp" is. The lack of noise is nice, depending on the rangefinder, they are easier to focus in poor light.
As Pinholemaster points out, going to a Mamya 7 might be a costly way to get your feet wet in MF. The enlarger and a lens for it would likely be the least of your worries.
I've never used a Mamya 7 but I've seen some stunning prints from them that look more like they came from 4x5 negs than from a MF rollfilm camera.

 

[JBrunner]

The Mamiya 7 is a nice camera. Really nice. And really expensive.

A couple of thoughts.... before you get the 7, perhaps you might get a 35mm RF to see how you like RF style cameras. If the RF isn't for you, then a whole world of really afforable MF gear is open for consideration. OTO if you dig the small RF, you'll really dig the 7.

A larger neg just doesn't increase resolution and bring down apparent grain for a given enlargement, it also increases the amount of tonal range available for printing. If your darkroom skills are up to it, you will see an improvement in your prints beyond just resolution.

 

[23mjm]

Just another thought----when I made to move up to MF I got a Mamiya 645 1000s as my first MF camera. It being a SLR the operation was familiar and you can now pick up a 645e in eBay for $300-400 or so with a lens. It is a SLR and has a built in light meter. The lenses are very reasonably priced too.

 

[RobC]

A larger neg just doesn't increase resolution and bring down apparent grain for a given enlargement, it also increases the amount of tonal range available for printing.

Why?

 

[JBrunner]

Why?

A larger negative of the same image for the same sized print carries more information about a tonal transition in the same area. It is an effect of the increase in resolution, beyond sharpness and grain reduction. Kind of like being able to stick a ten step wedge, where before only a four step would fit.
If you tailor your process to take advantage of it, the resultant print can hold up to a bit more contrast without feeling hard, but rather a bit more "rich".

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

 

[keithwms]

I'll just offer my opinion that 35mm RFs and medium format RFs are completely different beasts. Yes they are both rangefinders, but that's just about where the similarities end. A typical 35mm RF takes much faster glass and is more compact. The mamiya RFs, even the collapsible 6, are a bit too big for your pocket.

The mamiya RFs are not particularly suited to portraiture or shallow DOF work in general. However, I think they are brilliantly suited to a documentary style of shooting and landscape. No, they won't fit in your pocket, but they do travel well. And they aren't something that you can whip out of your sleeve on a city street, but in terms of handling ergonomics, they do remind you more of a 35mm SLR than a MF SLR.

The mamiya RFs are also not particularly suited to low light situations- the fastest lenses are f/3.5 for the mamiya 6 and f/4 for the 7 series. So low light shooting is not a particular strength of the mamiya RFs. If mamiya made an f/2.8 RF lens that would be awesome, but alas, it isn't going to happen!

Now, as for printing, indeed there is huge difference between 6x6 / 6x7 and 35mm. Just for reference, I consider my very best 35mm negs to enlarge well to maybe 8x10 or maybe a bit further. In my opinion, the MF RF negs go at least 2-3x as far. For what it's worth, the MF slides/negs are also much easier to scan by flatbed.

I shoot LF as well, mostly 4x5 and more recently 5x7, and my honest assessment is that the mamiya chromes push 4x5. Go ahead... gasp, chuckle, whatever The reason I say this is that the mamiya RFs offer a really ideal compromise of larger capture size and superb optics. A properly exposed 6x6 chrome or fine-grained neg easily goes further than I care to enlarge.

Regarding b&w tonality, well, nothing beats a LF contact print. But you will be amazed at what MF can do in b&w. I've been doing most of my IR stuff on a mamiya 6 and there is just a hint of grain at normal enlargement. And for chromes, I think MF really pushes LF and the chromes are just packed with detail.

So... how does a mamiya 6/7/7ii compare to 35mm? Well they don't compare, really. They are very different in many ways. I'd just say that if you are looking more for a wide to normal landscape/scenic/documentary camera then the MF RFs are serious weapons.

 

[RobC]

A larger negative of the same image for the same sized print carries more information about a tonal transition in the same area. It is an effect of the increase in resolution, beyond sharpness and grain reduction. Kind of like being able to stick a ten step wedge, where before only a four step would fit.
If you tailor your process to take advantage of it, the resultant print can hold up to a bit more contrast without feeling hard, but rather a bit more "rich".

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

I would say that is a result of the reduced enlargement which is necessary.

 

[JBrunner]

I would say that is a result of the reduced enlargement which is necessary.

Yes.

 

[Nigel]

I added medium format just a few years ago. I already had (and continue to use) a couple of Nikon FEs. I went with a Pentax 67II, as it is very similar in layout; the primary difference being film size.

I guess you really need to think about why you might want medium format. It is much easier to carry around an FE for snap shots. However, when I am taking carefully thought out shots, I am much happier using the bigger camera and ending up with a bigger piece of film that I might eventually turn into something really big.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I shoot LF as well, mostly 4x5 and more recently 5x7, and my honest assessment is that the mamiya chromes push 4x5. Go ahead... gasp, chuckle, whatever The reason I say this is that the mamiya RFs offer a really ideal compromise of larger capture size and superb optics. A properly exposed 6x6 chrome or fine-grained neg easily goes further than I care to enlarge.

I was just reminded of this when I drum scanned some 6x7 Provia from the Mamiya 7 along with similar shots from the 4x5, also on Provia. I would say the 6x7 captured 90 percent of the detail that the 4x5 did. When I last printed these on Ilfochrome I thought my enlarger lens was shifting on the 4x5.

Compared to the best 35mm shots I have made on Provia there really is no comparison.

 

[abudhabiandy]

thanks guys

 

[keithwms]

Compared to the best 35mm shots I have made on Provia there really is no comparison.

Definitely true.

This may come across as a bit of a wank, but Andy, this is typical performance from the 6x6cm Mamiya 6 / 50mm lens using velvia, drumscanned (and not even at full resolution, only 36mp) and with no processing, no sharpening...

whole chrome:

Crop:

 

[Jordan.K]

Just go for it...... those Mamiya cameras are damn good....... the lenses are always sharp as hell and are comparable if not better than most other optics.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I would say that is a result of the reduced enlargement which is necessary.

I would say it is a result of both. If you contact print the 35mm and the MF the MF would have the better gradation because there is more information in the negative.

 

[copake_ham]

JB and rob champagne - you are on the same side of the point!

It's just that in his first post, JB said: "A larger neg just doesn't increase resolution and bring down apparent grain for a given enlargement, it also increases the amount of tonal range available for printing."

What he meant to say was: "A larger neg doesn't just increase resolution and bring down apparent grain for a given enlargement, it also increases the amount of tonal range available for printing."

His fingers weren't moving as fast as his thinking cap and so he switched the order of "just" and "doesn't" - and it changed the meaning of what he meant to say!

 

[domaz]

Hello from the sunny UAE,
Apart from the neg being bigger are there any other reasons to trade up to medium format? the reason I ask is that all my kit is 35mm inc enlarger so it'll take real cash to change format. I currently use a nikon FE, F80 and F5,and was thinking about a mamiya 7 as I quite liked it's portability and rangefinder looks. Any help gratfefully recieved. Andy.

As others have said the Mamiya 7 is really expensive, but it would be a great MF camera for portability. I use a Pentax 6x7 because it's comparatively cheap and has great, cheap, lenses. I think Medium Format/Large Format is the way to go these days. In my line of thinking Digital has surpassed 35mm, but it hasn't surpassed Medium or Large Format yet. So using MF Film you get better quality at a cheaper price than several thousand $$ digital backs.

 

[DaveOttawa]

Hello from the sunny UAE,
Apart from the neg being bigger are there any other reasons to trade up to medium format? the reason I ask is that all my kit is 35mm inc enlarger so it'll take real cash to change format. I currently use a nikon FE, F80 and F5,and was thinking about a mamiya 7 as I quite liked it's portability and rangefinder looks. Any help gratfefully recieved. Andy.

Like poster Keith Williams I use 35mm & MF RF's (Mamiya 6 and a CV R2): he's right, they are not really very similar, a lot of it is the focal length you need for a given angle of view. It's longer for MF and if I'm bothering with MF at all I really want sharpness so I find I'm always watching the shutter speed very carefully, with 35mm & a 35mm lens I don't so worry much.

 

[JBrunner]

I would say it is a result of both. If you contact print the 35mm and the MF the MF would have the better gradation because there is more information in the negative.

Yeah, but it's that much bigger too, Anyway, Rob know damn well what I'm talking about. I seen his pitchurs. (Looking forward to more.)

 

[copake_ham]

As others have said the Mamiya 7 is really expensive, but it would be a great MF camera for portability. I use a Pentax 6x7 because it's comparatively cheap and has great, cheap, lenses. I think Medium Format/Large Format is the way to go these days. In my line of thinking Digital has surpassed 35mm, but it hasn't surpassed Medium or Large Format yet. So using MF Film you get better quality at a cheaper price than several thousand $$ digital backs.

In my line of thinking - digital has not surpassed 35mm film - but marketing of digi SLRs certainly has!

If you think we're in some kind of technological "extinction" progression wherein digital imagings picks off formats one after another - then I think you are wrong in your premise.

It may well be that the film industry may fail to innovate such that it's "image product" falls behind the equivalent format of a digi alternative - but I've yet to be convinced that this has occurred. And if it does happen - it will be because of a failure of one method - not the success of an alternative.

In the (m/l) digi 35mm format, the actual image output remains far less satisfactory than what is achievable with high-quality pro (and even most consumer) films. Yes, of course, the digi format meets the needs of two main 35mm photography users: 1) instant-need pros such as PJ's, and 2) P&S snapshooters who just fire away.

I'll not deny that the 35mm format has lost these users, and the result is a vastly diminished demand for film in the 35mm format. But it's not because these users have adopted a superior form of image taking. It's simply that their real, or percieved, wants/needs prefers/requires quantity and ease over quality.

EDIT: Besides, since the emulsions are the same in all formats - how can size matter to quality vs. the digital equivalent?

 

[Shelly Grimson]

If you really are proficient in controlling for all variables and taking, developing and printing to high standards, 35 can give wonderful results. Granted, the size of enlargement can show grain but viewing distance in the real world is not from three inches away.
Just look at the great 35 mm photographers and weep! This is an artistic as well as a technical field. I assure you that most of the best loved photos ever taken- the iconic images of famous people and places were taken with the ubiquitous 35's. If you spend too much time worrying about negative size without fully exploiting the 'miniature' negative you will be missing the boat. For one, I feel that that format is more forgiving in many ways. More depth of field, easier to process and I think easier to get great prints up to 11x14. And, all the equipment needed can be aquired cheaper than the larger formats. Heck, you even get 36 shots on a roll! My two cents worth.
By the way I have 35's, rolleis, hasselblad and Deardorff 4x5-5x7. You can love all of them but you will probably take more pictures with the camera you take with you the most often.

 

[Woolliscroft]

One or two other points in favour of the Mamy 7 (I agree the Mk II version is better) spring from its leaf shutter. It is all but silent (when I first got mine I was sometimes unsure whether it had actually fired). It gives next to no shutter shock, so you can often hand hold at lower speeds and you can flash sync at any speed.

David

 

[PVia]

I'm asking myself the same questions. I'm looking for a camera I can have with me all the time, unobtrusive, quiet, no flash for interiors if needed, etc...

So it's between an older Leica M3 or M2, new Zeiss Ikon ZM or one of the Mamiyas, 6 or 7II. The 35mm wins the low-light contest for sure and are very discreet, but I just love that big neg on the MFs. I have an RZ Pro II and an Ebony 4x5, so I'm wondering if I need to round it out with the 35mm and just have some fun with the camera and printing 8x10s or smaller in the darkroom.

Any other thoughts? Thanks for letting me think out loud ;-)