Second sharpest after Mamiya 7?

[Hassasin]

Sometimes sharpness is defined by the subject. Some subjects I shoot are not very sharp. They claim they are, but pictures prove otherwise.

 

[Slixtiesix]

One should not forget that sharpness is also affected by the design of the film transport system. Systems that have the film run around bends and rollers (like most MF TLRs and SLRs with interchangeable backs) are more prone to unsharpness if the film sits in the camera for a longer time. You can only avoid this effect by shooting the entire film straight away in a single session. There was an article in the Zeiss Lens News many years ago on that topic. Camera systems that run the film without bends (like most MF rangefinders and SLRs like the Pentacon Six or Pentax 6x7) are clearly in the advantage here.
Hasselblads and Rolleis are still among the sharpest I guess (especially Rollei 3,5 Planar and Xenotar models) but that very part of the film that sat bend around the roller for hours will not give the ultimate sharpness anymore the lenses are capable of.

 

[John Earley]

One should not forget that sharpness is also affected by the design of the film transport system. Systems that have the film run around bends and rollers (like most MF TLRs and SLRs with interchangeable backs) are more prone to unsharpness if the film sits in the camera for a longer time. You can only avoid this effect by shooting the entire film straight away in a single session. There was an article in the Zeiss Lens News many years ago on that topic. Camera systems that run the film without bends (like most MF rangefinders and SLRs like the Pentacon Six or Pentax 6x7) are clearly in the advantage here.
Hasselblads and Rolleis are still among the sharpest I guess (especially Rollei 3,5 Planar and Xenotar models) but that very part of the film that sat bend around the roller for hours will not give the ultimate sharpness anymore the lenses are capable of.

Unless it is sheet film it will always have bends of some degree. Or am I wrong on my assumption.

 

[Algo después]

What's the quality differences between Mamiya M7 and Mamiya RB67 lenses, if any?

same page here. To what extent am I not thinking more about the "camera" as an object (with its own aura and its qualities as a luxury object) than about the results of its perhaps microscopically different lenses. Many times I would like to justify the purchase of a mamiya 7ii but if what I need I can achieve with the lenses of the rb67 I know that it is the devil of the G.A.S. giving me "bad" advice.

 

[Hassasin]

There is no sharpest outside of strictly controlled laboratory tests.

If anyone wants to do nano close ups, by all means, get that sharpest one, then find film to match its resolving ability, process it without dropping a single grain from the negative and enjoy the results.

The regular mortals, amateur or professional, can do with any other known brand, that has not been dropped, mangled, or otherwise abused.

 

[Algo después]

There is no sharpest outside of strictly controlled laboratory tests.

If anyone wants to do nano close ups, by all means, get that sharpest one, then find film to match its resolving ability, process it without dropping a single grain from the negative and enjoy the results.

The regular mortals, amateur or professional, can do with any other known brand, that has not been dropped, mangled, or otherwise abused.

...if my subject is sharper than my idea, I would probably be in a dead end where I can only defend my photos just because it was a Leica photo and so on...

It happens.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Unless it is sheet film it will always have bends of some degree. Or am I wrong on my assumption.

Yes but there is a difference between having the entire film rolled around a spool and having some parts straight with a sharp turn in between. Zeiss did research on that and came to the conclusion that for maximum sharpness, if the film sat in the camera for longer time, one should just skip the frame (usually the next one after the film advance) that had been sat around the roller. Anyway, it never occurred to me that I had any issues whatsoever with this using MF TLRs or SLRs. As the entire discussion, this is something rather academic Zeiss only was able to identify after shooting on Tech Pan/Copex Rapid or something and using a very strong magnification. It may be an issue if a) all other steps in the chain like camera shake, enlarger alignment etc. are perfect and b) one uses very fine grained film and makes very big enlargements or high resolution scans.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Unless it is sheet film it will always have bends of some degree. Or am I wrong on my assumption.

Sheet film was/is not always as flat as you hope it to be, Schneider had the answer (as always):

 

[Axelwik]

The best lenses from Zeiss, Leitz, Mamiya, Rollei, etc. are so close that in practical terms they're equally sharp, and variations are more due to the photographer.

Instead of fretting about "sharpness" go outside and take some pictures - be a photographer instead of a gearhead.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

The best lenses from Zeiss, Leitz, Mamiya, Rollei, etc. are so close that in practical terms they're equally sharp, and variations are more due to the photographer.

Instead of fretting about "sharpness" go outside and take some pictures - be a photographer instead of a gearhead.

"truer words were never spoken"...

 

[BMbikerider]

Mamiya 6 is as sharp as Mamiya 7. Also Bronica RF645 in my opinion is just as sharp as both of them. I was actually just staring at negatives from all three systems last evening under a loop. Can’t tell a difference.

Sharpness is really only relative The Mamiya 6 will almost certainly be enlarged to either portrait or landscape format with the square negative being cropped. The Mamiya 7 if enlarged to make a print of the same proportions and size will have the be enlarged to a lesser degree than the Mamiya 6 so in theory the sharpness of the Mamiya 6 will already be at a disadvantage. To make the maths easier, if the end print was to be 20x24, the negative from the Mamiya 6 would have to be enlarged x11 times whereas the 6x7 negative would be enlarged by around 8 times (give or take)

In practical terms there will be so little between them it can be largely ignored.

However comparing them with the likes of a Rollie TLR with a Planar lens I would opt for the Planar every time.

But throw into the mix the sharpness can be compromised if a tripod was used or not and then the quality of the enlarging lens.

There again this is really a pointless argument.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Phippe Georges - Sinar came out with their own precision sheet film holders. I've made my own precision 8x10 holders - both vacuum and adhesive styles. They make a difference. But most shooters would rather spend another thousand dollars for a very slightly superior lens, and get no improvement at all, rather than deal with the more serious issues first.

Or I see people spending ridiculous amounts of money on this or that camera and lens, and then bringing along a flimsy tripod, or not using a glass negative carrier in the enlarger, or a not knowing how to align an enlarger properly. Just wasted money. A chain is only as good as its weakest link.

 

[GregY]

Sharpness is really only relative The Mamiya 6 will almost certainly be enlarged to either portrait or landscape format with the square negative being cropped. The Mamiya 7 if enlarged to make a print of the same proportions and size will have the be enlarged to a lesser degree than the Mamiya 6 so in theory the sharpness of the Mamiya 6 will already be at a disadvantage. To make the maths easier, if the end print was to be 20x24, the negative from the Mamiya 6 would have to be enlarged x11 times whereas the 6x7 negative would be enlarged by around 8 times (give or take)

In practical terms there will be so little between them it can be largely ignored.

However comparing them with the likes of a Rollie TLR with a Planar lens I would opt for the Planar every time.

But throw into the mix the sharpness can be compromised if a tripod was used or not and then the quality of the enlarging lens.

There again this is really a pointless argument.

There still exist photographers who print 6x6cm negatives square..... (eg. from Mamiya 6/ 50mm lens)... If one accepts the premise that the larger negative is better....then the Fuji GW690 lll would be my weapon of (rollfilm) choice . Personally i've preferred it to the Mamiya 7.

 

[DREW WILEY]

And then there are 6x9 rangefinders which take images on the same 120 film.

 

[GregY]

And then there are 6x9 rangefinders which take images on the same 120 film.

Fuji GSW690lll Tri-X, Print on Foma Variant lll FB

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Phippe Georges - Sinar came out with their own precision sheet film holders. I've made my own precision 8x10 holders - both vacuum and adhesive styles. They make a difference. But most shooters would rather spend another thousand dollars for a very slightly superior lens, and get no improvement at all, rather than deal with the more serious issues first.

Or I see people spending ridiculous amounts of money on this or that camera and lens, and then bringing along a flimsy tripod, or not using a glass negative carrier in the enlarger, or a not knowing how to align an enlarger properly. Just wasted money. A chain is only as good as its weakest link.

This is absolutely correct, devices like Schneider's HI-END is somewhat overkill, for more 'common' use although, I would fully understand it for laboratory applications...

And yes, investing in a good focussing loupe, a decent matte glass, perhaps a finer lens and a sturdy tripod would be wiser; even simply adjusting and calibrating the focussing component of the camera/lens, might even be better and certainly cheaper than that HI-END thing...

To my more simple-hearted opinion, well looking after and understanding the camera system can improve surprisingly more than you might suspect, and by this I don't only think about (carefully-) cleaning the lens and reading the manual (the latter should not be ignored).

Doing (and falling on your face) is good schooling for better (sharper?) photography...

 

[BMbikerider]

The best lenses from Zeiss, Leitz, Mamiya, Rollei, etc. are so close that in practical terms they're equally sharp, and variations are more due to the photographer.

Instead of fretting about "sharpness" go outside and take some pictures - be a photographer instead of a gearhead.

Quite - well said!

I think I may well have been around and involved in photography longer than a good number of other contributors and over the years have lived. (Now well over half a century) I have formed my own personal opinion that the more and better equipment a person accumulates the less photography they do. It is as if getting the next and best bit of kit from the manufacturers is a bit like trophy hunting and taking another prize.

Yes I have had some good equipment in my past, but never ever have I been happier photographing with the simpler items have I owned. Whatever it was, it was nearly always mechanical and easy to operate, not needing a degree in computer science to use. I do not need advanced electronics, I use my skill and knowledge to do what I think will make a good picture.
Where a picture was concerned if I saw something, recorded it and eventually progressed in the dark room to become as close as possible to what I envisaged in the 1st instance.

 

[Neil Grant]

Also...I read somewhere that MF lenses have generally less resolving power than 135 lenses - is it also the case for large format

 

[Neil Grant]

Also...I read somewhere that MF lenses have generally less resolving power than 135 lenses - is it also the case for large format lenses?

Yes, LF less than MF less than 135. Aberrations in a lens increase with focal length. LF lenses are generally designed for an excess of coverage with an even distribution of performance across the lenses entire field. On the 'plus' side for LF, the lenses can be designed with good symmetry and this helps in aberration control. No need for retrofocus optics.

 

[warden]

Fuji GSW690lll Tri-X, Print on Foma Variant lll FB View attachment 335856

Well seen. What a great photograph.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

But throw into the mix the sharpness can be compromised if a tripod was used or not and then the quality of the enlarging lens.

There again this is really a pointless argument.

BM is right, this is pointless.

A tripod is the most important device to improve "sharpness." Internet fantasyland is full of clowns who claim to have "tested" lenses, and then you see they hand-held their camera. Duuh....

 

[GregY]

but the beauty of large negatives, regardless of lens aberrations, is their ability to show a wider range of tonality....to me that is far more important that any degree of clinical sharpness.

 

[GregY]

Well seen. What a great photograph.

Thank you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The point, Neil, is that the sheer increase in film surface progressing upward from 35mm to 645 to 6X6cm to 6x9, and then way up into 4x5, 5x7, and 8X10 inch film, overwhelmingly surpasses the relatively minor differences in lens resolution as focal length increases relative to perspective angle. And some large format lenses are extremely well corrected. I knew a telephoto specialist who used a 360 Apo Nikkor process lens
on a big Toyo 8x10 camera with a Nikon 35mm film camera at the film plane position, because it gave sharper and better corrected images than any dedicated Nikon 35mm tele. He would know; he was once a Nikon as well as Celestron telescope dealer. I own a set of Apo Nikkor barrel process lenses too, and can attest to that fact. Those things were designed for extremely precise apo correction necessary to the printing industry, having higher standards than ordinary photographic applications.

But for those addicted to calculations : 35mm film is 86 sq cm; 4X5 is 1250 sq cm. Now let's imagine one has a rather poor 4x5 lens with only half the resolution of the 35mm equivalent they're comparing it too. Even that would still be 7 times as much detail capacity as the smaller camera. Godzilla stomps Bambi every time. I'm multi-format myself, all the way from 35mm, through 6X7 and 6x9, and up into 4x5 and 8x10 film, so know darn well what's involved. And I don't personally own a large format lens in any focal length with aberrations. They're all extremely well corrected.

I could cite similar instances. For example, my Nikkor M and Fuji A large format lenses usable on 4X5 or even 8X10 film in most instances, when used for a 6X9 roll film back, equal or even exceed the performance of my dedicated MF lenses, which are darn good themselves. There's a lot of mythology out there, along with a number of really poorly done DIY lens tests which don't even factor pertinent variables. Then you've got those folks who want to compare the sharpness of a large format lens made with a horse foot rasp in 1877 to the latest 35mm lens they paid $4000 for the previous week, which they don't really need anyway, because they either skimp on the price of a decent enlarger lens, or just post web images. It gets downright silly at times.

Yeah, a good tripod is important too, but not if you stick some wobbly head on it, like the tiny stem of a deficient ball head - what I call a "bobble-head". Something is only as good as its weakest link.

 

[Axelwik]

Quite - well said!

I think I may well have been around and involved in photography longer than a good number of other contributors and over the years have lived. (Now well over half a century) I have formed my own personal opinion that the more and better equipment a person accumulates the less photography they do. It is as if getting the next and best bit of kit from the manufacturers is a bit like trophy hunting and taking another prize.

Yes I have had some good equipment in my past, but never ever have I been happier photographing with the simpler items have I owned. Whatever it was, it was nearly always mechanical and easy to operate, not needing a degree in computer science to use. I do not need advanced electronics, I use my skill and knowledge to do what I think will make a good picture.
Where a picture was concerned if I saw something, recorded it and eventually progressed in the dark room to become as close as possible to what I envisaged in the 1st instance.

Agree. Part of the "programming" of being a good consumer - always the next best thing - bigger, better, faster, and more "stuff" vs. substance. Consumerism keeps growing the economy and does sometimes lead to innovation, but most of the time isn't as good for the consumer himself/herself. (Not to mention the effect on the environment from consumer goods being constantly replaced by the "latest and greatest.") Of course there's not too much wrong with buying, trying out, and selling used camera equipment to figure things out.

I'm with you in keeping it simple. Once we figure out what works for us that's where it should end if we're to be photographers (instead of collectors).