Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mamiya 7ii + Scanner v Canon 5D  (Read 28175 times)
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2007, 06:08:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So it seems the majority opinion is that scanning is a PITA.

*Sigh* - I know that is bound to be right, far more sensible just concentrating on the 5D.

I have decided to get a cheap scanner - the new Canon 8800F looks like it might be OK.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually it might be worthwhile waiting for Epson to update their 700 range with LED illumination, as is surely due soon.
Logged

brucepercy1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2007, 10:34:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi There,

All my images for the past six years were taken on a Mamiya 7II with the 80, 50 and 150 lenses, scanned on a Nikon 8000 Scanner.

I'm not an advocate of digital over film. They look and feel completely different.

I personally think the Mamiya 7 is one of the best cameras around. The lenses are superb and I've used it to so some portraiture too - something most people think is an unsuitable venture for such a camera. It's light, got the highest image quality ratio vs weight/compactness (no bigger than a 1DSm2).

Last year, I bought a 5D, feeling rather wary of embracing digital. But I've found (for my own personal work), that the Mamiya was staying in the bag. For me it was the following reasons:

1) Lack of close focussing
2) Lack of decent telephoto support
3) slow lenses

I love film. I really do, and I would encourage you to go the Mamiya 7 route if this is where your heart is leaning. You have to go with what you 'feel' is right for you.

In terms of Mamiya 7 vs 5D, it's like comparing apples to oranges. The mamiya will produce images with a look and feel you won't get from a digital camera. And likewise the other way round too.

If it's convenience you are after, then digital wins, but if you want very large images comparable to LF work, then the Mamiya is it. Optically, the lenses are superb. I just found that most of my work was publication based, and I wanted to simplify my system down to something more compact, with a greater range of lenses. It's taken me a year to get to the point where I'm getting the colours and tones I liked so much about my Mamiya.

So, basically, if you fancy the Mamiya, and you're not worried about the extra costs and time, then go for it. It's a superb machine.
Logged

--

Best Wishes,

Bruce Percy
http://www.brucepercy.com
nik
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2007, 01:06:57 PM »
ReplyReply

If you have the option of renting this camera, do it. If not, ask the store for a trial run. Shoot side by side with your 5D, get scans made (either rent an imacon or get 3 or 4 drum scan done) and then GET GOOD PRINTS MADE AND COMPARE. Put all digital files on 1 page and all the scanned images on another to save cost if neccessary, just get a decent size print done. Don't compare onscreen, you will not get the full experience of the differences between these 2 different camera systems as easily as from a good print.

This is what I did with my canon 30D and then sold it due to the results!

I mostly shoot medium format neg film (portra 160NC, Agfapan APX 100, fuji reala 100) and rent an imacon 848 scanner (they are common). Yes, removing spots and dust is a pain, but the results and speed of this scanner are very good. There is effective dust and scratch removal in the imacon software. Not as good as a wet mounted scan from a drum scanner but you've got a lot more to deal with in terms of the process if you go the drum route. I've been wrestling with getting a cheap drum scanner, I've yet to make a decision.
Getting a crap scanner for such a superb camera will only frustrate you and cripple the full potential of this great camera. I've got an epson 4990 for contact sheets only.

I'm guessing you're in the UK, if so, get to calumet, I used to use their imacon at their London Euston branch.

-Nik


Quote
I made the mistake at the weekend of wandering into Jacobs and having a look at the Mamiya 7ii.

It felt fantastic (quirky in a very appealing way) and I immediately fell in love with it. It felt great; light despite being large with a fantastic viewfinder - I found it much easier to use with my spectacles on that the Leica and better than the 5D. It fit my hands just great. I liked the way it looked too. And the shutter was so soft I could hardly hear it at all, much softer (if you can believe it) than the Leica. There was a real "ooh" factor. I didn't want to give it back to the shop assistant.

A few months ago I was all prepared to go for a Leica M8 and found that I just couldn't like it (despite admiring it very much), so ended up with the 5D instead.

I have found myself more and more using just the 50mm f1.4 with the 5D and sometimes switching to MF (but using the AF confirmation lights) as with wide apertures and off-centre composition I find the AF not as useful as it usually is.

The Mamiya is a fraction of the price of the Leica, the lenses are apparently fantastic, and image quality must surely be better (than the Leica) with the large 6x7 negative coupled with these great lenses. Now I am under no illusions about the build quality of the Mamiya v the Leica. I would expect a Leica M7 to last for a lifetime, and would not expect that of the Mamiya, but the thing is that it is very affordable. The 80mm "kit" lens with its field of view equivalent to 39mm on 35mm seems ideal, as I find the 50 a bit tight and 35 a smidgen wide. Of course I might be tempted to add a couple of extra lenses later, but don't anticipate really wanting one for a while.

But I do love digital and have no access to a darkroom. So I would be sending my film off for development and possibly a low-res scan at the same time. I could stretch to purchasing a Canon 8800 scanner which is very reasonably priced. I have no illusion that it would be as good as an Imacon or heaven forbid a drum scan. But do you think I would still be likely to get similar or possibly even higher quality than the 5D?

For my (everyday) needs the quality of the 5D is more than sufficient. And if I do need a really good print for a competition or special occasion I could always send in the neg for a high-res drum scan. My print volumes are low (I am just an amateur) so for prints larger than A4 I get them done at a shop rather than at home. I don't think that a medium-format digital back is likely to ever be in my future, nor a camera like the 1DsMkIII.

Of course I will be using it to complement my 5D, and so wouldn't need to use high ISO film unless I wanted to for effect.

As my photography has improved I find myself now taking fewer and better pictures, and the frame counter on the 5D is ticking over far more slowly than it used to for the first couple of years of DSLR use when I had the 20D.

I have this romantic notion that the Mamiya would quickly supplant the 5D + 50mm as my portrait/documentary setup.

I am not asking for anything so sensible as a solution to my muddle, but if you have any experiences to share I should love to read about them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
spotmeter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2007, 02:13:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Another solution to your dilemma is the Fuji 6X9 rangefinder. If you want lots of saturated color, light weight, and a very sharp lens, this could fit the bill.  It is the same aspect ratio as your Canon and you could do inexpensive scans on a desktop scanner and send the good ones out for a drum or Imacon scan.

There are two models, one with a normal lens and another with a wide angle. I prefer the normal.

I have this camera and have done some spectacular landscapes with it.  I mount it on a tripod and use a cable release. You need to add an empty filter ring to the front of the lens in order to easily screw in and out any filters.  It has a quirky retractable lens hood.

The Fuji lenses are terrific. I have their GX617, but that is much heavier.  The 6X9 you can sling over your shoulder and, with high speed film, use it for snaps in the city.
Logged

Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2007, 12:17:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all the replies.

Renting the camera for a weekend is probably a very good idea. I'm in London so it should be easy enough to manage. After putting through a few rolls I will have a much better idea whether it's just fanciful or whether I really will form a long-term relationship with it.

I will very likely purchase the new Canon 8800F LED scanner. Of course the quality will be lower, but I'm sure with the 6x7 neg it will be good enough for A4 or A3 prints and the potential is in the neg for a drum scan if I do take a shot that proves worthy of a competition or a some large prints.

The price of the Mamiya 7II with 80 f4 is only around 1150 pounds from Jacobs, and cheaper if I get it off ebay. That is near enough the same price as a 35mm or 50mm L for the 5D. Of course there are film costs, but I will only be using it for low-volume purposes, I will still have the 5D after all.

Also I suppose that if I did fall out-of-love with it, I will probably be able to recoup 50-75% of its value by selling it.  

One thing that seems clear is that the vast majority of those who have used the Mamiya don't have a bad word to say about it.
Logged

nik
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2007, 08:55:33 AM »
ReplyReply

You could also try the guys at teamwork ( I recall paul & steve) super nice guys, friendly and without any attitude. They rent gear as well as sell new/secondhand. I rented quite a bit from them last year, including the ZD. I think it's teamworkphoto-dot-com.

-N

Quote
Thanks for all the replies.

Renting the camera for a weekend is probably a very good idea. I'm in London so it should be easy enough to manage.

The price of the Mamiya 7II with 80 f4 is only around 1150 pounds from Jacobs, and cheaper if I get it off ebay.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142699\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Let Biogons be Biogons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2007, 07:14:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I have both the Mamiya 7II and 3 lenses as well as a Canon 5D, so I feel qualified to comment.

On subjects that are appropriate for the Mamiya 7II, it is far and away better than the 5D.  (that is, scanned at 4000 dpi, on a Nikon 8000 scanner -- a drum scan is better, but raises your costs significantly).  No contest.  Clearly, the 7II has limitations, and they have been pretty well covered in the above discussion.  The 5D is faster, has faster lenses, has low marginal costs, good high ISO quality, and is quicker to the final image.  

However, if what you are doing is about quality and not about speed, or specialty lenses, the Mamiya 7II is outstanding and is the hands down choice.  If you are taking your time, and don't need to rapid fire 100 images, use the Mamiya 7II. It great for landscape, cityscape & architecture (when you don't need shift/rise) and even street photography (with high speed B&W film).    It's fine for portraits, but won't give you a tight head and shoulders images.  But there is a lot of film real estate, so you can crop.  It's great for infrared film, too.

The only thing that will touch it is a good MF back.  I can churn through a lot of film processing before I get anywhere near the cost of a MF back.  The 7II is paid for. I have a fridge full of film, and I don't really use a lot of it.  For me, it's cheaper than buying a MF.

Velvia 50 is OK.  However, I have to say that I have had great results with Velvia 100F.  Astia 100F is excellent as well. (Provia 100F doesn't really do it for me).  The current Kodak films, E100G and E100GX are excellent as well and scan great (and have had great results in the past with E100SW as well).  With current generation 100 ISO slide film, it's hard to find grain even when scanned at 4000 dpi.   For faster film, Kodak 400UC (negative film) is really pretty good.  I've heard good things about the recent Fuji Provia 400X, but haven't tried it yet.  And you can still use B&W film for some of the texture and feel that digital can't match.  And I still have a stash of the discontinued Konica 750IR.

One of the less-oft mention downsides is that a scanned 6x7 slide at 4000 dpi produces a 500+MB file.  Even with 4GB of memory, a 64 bit OS, and dual core processor, working with the files in PS is slow.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2007, 11:35:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I expect that huge files will slow down the PS functions more than somewhat. But then again, if quality is really the way one wants to go, then there are few options that I can think of which can get around that. It must be better to have original information on a file than having to enlarge it via interpolation to reach the same mammoth print.

Of course, if huge prints are not really expected, then the need for large films or sensors is largely in the imagination, in which case, Id suggest opting for comfort and digital capture.

No point in making life more expensive or complicated than it need be!

Rob C
Logged

Let Biogons be Biogons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2007, 01:51:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I expect that huge files will slow down the PS functions more than somewhat. But then again, if quality is really the way one wants to go, then there are few options that I can think of which can get around that. It must be better to have original information on a file than having to enlarge it via interpolation to reach the same mammoth print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is indeed -- at least in my experience.

Quote
Of course, if huge prints are not really expected, then the need for large films or sensors is largely in the imagination, in which case, Id suggest opting for comfort and digital capture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just looked at a number of different prints in a B&W digital print exchange.  All the images were printed on 8.5x11 paper.  The sources used were both digital and scanned film.  The prints that really stood out from the others were those that started from a scan of a large piece of film.  It was an obvious and clear-cut superiority.  From what I have seen, it is NOT in the imagination.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2007, 01:51:51 PM by Let Biogons be Biogons » Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2007, 01:56:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A good 6x7 on Portra 160VC is going to give you image results the 5D couldn't even dream of.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Don't forget that it is not a difficult thing to stitch many successive shots of a scene using a DSLR.  Once you have, say, 6 shots occupying the original FOV of the scene, the 5D should be easily capable of out resolving 6 x 7 film.

I have seen a photo on the web which was a pastiche of 250 (!) shots from, I think, a DSLR.  That resulting file could be printed at 10 feet square if one wanted, and still be razor sharp.

Nowadays, there are inexpensive programs available so one does not even need to use a tripod to stitch photos together.

So, what is easier - buying, storing, using large film, sending it off for processing, printing, and possibly even scanning it, etc.

Or putting your camera on multishot, hitting the trigger, and taking multiple shots for about 1 second.  Selecting them in a stand-alone program, and sitting back as it makes a 100 MB image for you.  You could even upload it to Costco.com, have a 36" print mailed to your door for something like $10 or $20.  

Digital has its advantages, and not too many detriments, if one learns how to get around them.  Not too hard to equal the dynamic range of film - blend some exposures. You can even blend images with different focus points a/or apertures easily - see Sean McHughs amazing work along these lines ( [a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/compuminus/cambridge)]http://www.pbase.com/compuminus/cambridge)[/url]
Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2007, 02:19:19 PM »
ReplyReply

My chief concern is not about the maximum possible image quality of 5D v 6x7 as such.

My interest in the Mamiya was far more to do with the experience and fun of using a rangefinder as compared to an SLR, having it as an extra option for when the mood takes me rather than as a replacement for the 5D.

I like my 5D very much and plan on keeping it. :-)

The image quality question was really this: if I use a modest scanner (<500) will I be likely to get  similar quality to my 5D. It is perhaps the kind of question that has too many variables implied to get a sensible answer.

But as a working test I might get the scanner first and extrapolate from the quality I am able to extract from my 35mm negs.

At any rate the replies have been very helpful and interesting and I thank you all.
Logged

sevenjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #31 on: October 05, 2008, 05:25:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I just came across this thread.  I'm in a very similar situation, using a nikon D200 as my primary camera.  I dug out my rolleiflex 3.5 and shot some portra 400nc on it.  I never had a scanner for mf negs and so to test the workflow i scanned in half frames on my 35mm flatbed.  
    The images certainly have a look that i've never encountered with my D200 files.  Using square format and a seperate lightmeter, the whole shooting scenario is vastly different and for me seems to contribute to a more contemplative shooting style.  With that in mind I have decided to get a canon8800f scanner,  It's the cheapest option for mf scans.  Like the OP I don't really care if the quality with such a scanner is inferior to my D200, all I would like is to be able to produce 16" square prints that are of acceptable quality.  I'm sure the tedious workflow will kick in, but if the magic that's in the negs can survive a cheap scanner withoutt loosing too much the i'll be happy.     John
Logged
Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 06, 2008, 02:55:32 AM »
ReplyReply

As this thread has been resurrected I can give an update as to progress...

Had a good look through Salgado's Africa (which I received as a present) and realised that shooting 35mm is not really that much of a limitation.

Ruled out the M8 on grounds of its cost, the difficulty of using the viewfinder with spectacles, and the crop factor.

Ruled out the Mamiya 7II on the grounds that I would have to develop the film myself because there is no-where nearby in my part of London that I could find that would do it for me at a reasonable cost. Online services are expensive too in the UK; the market seems to be shrinking to high-quality and cost required by professionals. For hobbyists it's looking like it is back to DIY as far as film is concerned.

So I went for a new Zeiss Ikon + 50mm Planar f2 + Nikon Coolscan V.

Mostly shooting Ilford XP2 and Kodak BW400CN which I get processed and (low res) scanned near my house then use the Coolscan for the ones I want to work on.

With those films I reckon I'm getting roughly 6-8Mp of usable info, even though the files come in at 20Mp at 4000dpi. I hope to start developing my own BW soon though with some finer grained film.

I'm having fun with it and probably am using my ZI and 5D equally, though pretty much using the ZI exclusively for BW.  

I would love to see a digital FF Ikon and am hoping that the A900 sensor might make its way into one at some point. I would happily give up my 5D in such a scenario as the RF experience is everything I had hoped it would be and the viewfinder on the ZI is simply magnificent. I also enjoy having a camera that is much smaller and lighter than the 5D.

Although I lust after new equipment, as we all do, in moments of sanity (such as when looking at my credit card bill) I am reminded that my equipment is not currently a limiting factor in my photography.

My ZI will last me until a digital version comes along (if ever) and my 5D will last me until it breaks, at that point I shall get the latest "mark" of its line. That may be II but hopefully will be later, the arrival of the Mk II however has prompted me to start contributing a monthly amount into my photography fund again.
Logged

sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #33 on: October 06, 2008, 10:54:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: peripatetic
As this thread has been resurrected I can give an update as to progress...

Had a good look through Salgado's Africa (which I received as a present) and realised that shooting 35mm is not really that much of a limitation.

Ruled out the M8 on grounds of its cost, the difficulty of using the viewfinder with spectacles, and the crop factor.

Ruled out the Mamiya 7II on the grounds that I would have to develop the film myself because there is no-where nearby in my part of London that I could find that would do it for me at a reasonable cost. Online services are expensive too in the UK; the market seems to be shrinking to high-quality and cost required by professionals. For hobbyists it's looking like it is back to DIY as far as film is concerned.

So I went for a new Zeiss Ikon + 50mm Planar f2 + Nikon Coolscan V.

Mostly shooting Ilford XP2 and Kodak BW400CN which I get processed and (low res) scanned near my house then use the Coolscan for the ones I want to work on.

With those films I reckon I'm getting roughly 6-8Mp of usable info, even though the files come in at 20Mp at 4000dpi. I hope to start developing my own BW soon though with some finer grained film.

I'm having fun with it and probably am using my ZI and 5D equally, though pretty much using the ZI exclusively for BW.  

I would love to see a digital FF Ikon and am hoping that the A900 sensor might make its way into one at some point. I would happily give up my 5D in such a scenario as the RF experience is everything I had hoped it would be and the viewfinder on the ZI is simply magnificent. I also enjoy having a camera that is much smaller and lighter than the 5D.

Although I lust after new equipment, as we all do, in moments of sanity (such as when looking at my credit card bill) I am reminded that my equipment is not currently a limiting factor in my photography.

My ZI will last me until a digital version comes along (if ever) and my 5D will last me until it breaks, at that point I shall get the latest "mark" of its line. That may be II but hopefully will be later, the arrival of the Mk II however has prompted me to start contributing a monthly amount into my photography fund again.


I just saw this and thought I'd add in my own experience. Having had a 5D for a couple of yeasr and added a 1Ds3, which has to all intents and purposes replaced the 5D, I recently purchased a Zeiss Ikon and C Sonnar 50 1.5. I too shoot mostly Black and White - largely FP4 and HP5 to date - and scan in a Nikon 5000 with roll film adaptor (acquired second hand). This doesn't get near the absolute image quality of the digital kit, but is able to make nice small to medium prints and I thoroughly enjoy shooting with it.

Like you I couldn't get on with the M8 and my glasses, but the Ikon's vf is excellent. I hope that they do one day produce a 20+Mp digital version, but meanwhile I'm just enjoying using two of the best, albeit very different, cameras I've ever had the priviledge of owning.

The 5D and 70-300 DO is for sale as I don't use them much, but if no one buys them that's not too great a loss. The 1Ds3 may be changed for a later 1Ds..., but there's no rush and the Ikon is secure unless a digi version appears.

Mike
Logged
southtexasshooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2012, 11:43:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Ask a monkey how to fly to the moon and he'll jump up and down flailing about!  There are FEW circumstances where one could even begin to compare the Mamiya 7ii to a Canon 5D.  The Canon is great for weddings, general photography, it excels at indoor shots where light is evenly controlled however landscapes... NO!  Amateurs will tell you it dominates landscapes.  It does not!  I've owned the 5DII with a 24mm TSE II lens and 50mm 1.4 lens.  I've also owned a Hasselblad H2 with both film and P30 digital back and a Fuji GSW690III.  I'm now buying the Fuji GX617 for pano work in California.

If you are going to shoot weddings, portraits, models, runway, sports photography, photo journalism... buy a Canon or a Nikon.  If you need to shoot commercially for cars, modeling shoots that pay well, architecture, etc then get MF or bigger, preferably digital or digital back 30MP+.  If you want to shoot landscapes to show off to your Facebook friends... buy anything!  If you want to sell your prints (I'm talking 30x50 or 40x60 or larger... 16x20 is not a print people, that's a proof!), if you want to sell gallery work you better either have a high-end digital camera like the Pentax 645D, Hasselblad H series, Mamiya 645D or any number of Fuji, Mamiya or Hassy film cameras that can shoot 6x7 or larger sized positives or negatives; or go big like a Walker Titan 4x5 or 5x7 with a Schneider lens (Mike Walker makes great field cameras).

For the guy that thinks Velvia is the worst... tell that to Peter Lik!  He's only made a little over $60,000,000 selling prints from Velvia film, yeah that's Million with a capital M.  If Velvia sucks then the people forking over thousands for those prints can't tell the difference when standing in a gallery.

I sold my 5DII for several reasons.  1) I don't do weddings, sporting events, portraits, runway or photo journalism.  2) Compared to my H2 with a Phase One digital back the Canon was lighter.  That was the ONLY advantage it had over my Hasselblad.  THE ONLY ADVANTAGE.  And 3) the MF film I've shot on Velvia 50 and 100 and Kodak E100 BLOWS THE DOORS OFF MY CANON!  Like comparing a Yugo to a Saturn 5 rocket!

Digital has come a long way but I find it hypocritical that people put down film with so many famous pictures in the Library of Congress, the White House, most Casinos, high-end hotels, palaces, etc were all shot on film!  Ansel Adams, Elliot Porter, Julius Shulman, Peter Lik... these are people that have had their work reviewed and praised at the highest levels and all shot on MF or LF film.  Sure Lik is going digital but go to one of his galleries and ask them where their biggest sales come from... It's film... panoramic... and shot mostly using Velvia and a Linhof 617 camera!  His other digital works shot using a Mamiya 645D sell but not as well as his film work.

The thing I find so funny is when people try to compare 6x7 to 617 or 35mm to 4x5.  4x5 film, drum scanned at 3000 DPI is the equivalent of a 200 Megapixel image!  Let's see Nikon's 800E produce something with that level of detail... hmmm?  NO!  Not yet and not at the price that camera sells for.

Sure scans are expensive, because if you have a quality composition and know how to work the equipment, scans are worth it!  A $100 scan can make you thousands $$$$ if it's worthy composition and rendered correctly.  So... decide what it is you want the equipment for but please, don't compare apples to a fruit cake!
Logged
southtexasshooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2012, 11:55:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll say this one last thing: regarding the "stitching" digital shots, yes you can do that (most of us have) for some things... not all!  When looking at moving clouds, water, blowing trees, leaves, grass, etc. stitching is not as easy as you might think.  Secondly, the camera must be turned in a semi-circular fashion using a nodel-slide-shift adapter OR a Tilt-Shift lens, either of which still distorts the image and affects final quality.  When you bend images then attempt to flatten them later, that's where the details become complex.  Using a 617 film camera with a 90 or 105mm lens compensates for this and thus does in one shot what a 35mm camera would need 5-7 shots to accomplish.  That lag time between shots (changes in light, clouds, wind) coupled with the requirement of turning the camera distorts the image quality.

I've seen some cool stitched shots but not one I'd pay $$$$ for.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2012, 02:04:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been waiting for ages for Epson to!  Angry
Eduardo
Actually it might be worthwhile waiting for Epson to update their 700 range with LED illumination, as is surely due soon.
Logged
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2012, 04:13:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll say this one last thing: regarding the "stitching" digital shots, yes you can do that (most of us have) for some things... not all!  When looking at moving clouds, water, blowing trees, leaves, grass, etc. stitching is not as easy as you might think.  Secondly, the camera must be turned in a semi-circular fashion using a nodel-slide-shift adapter OR a Tilt-Shift lens, either of which still distorts the image and affects final quality.  When you bend images then attempt to flatten them later, that's where the details become complex.  Using a 617 film camera with a 90 or 105mm lens compensates for this and thus does in one shot what a 35mm camera would need 5-7 shots to accomplish.  That lag time between shots (changes in light, clouds, wind) coupled with the requirement of turning the camera distorts the image quality.

I've seen some cool stitched shots but not one I'd pay $$$$ for.

Swings and roundabouts, no? 

*IF* you want to make very large detailed prints (the scenario you seem focused on), you obviously need to acquire a lot of data. Getting it all in one exposure is ideal.  However, many of the 4x5 shots I took, I had to wait quite a long time for "just the right moment" (usually breezes) and sometimes it never came - golden light, deep DoF means stopping down means long exposure with good (i.e slow) film - moving leaves trees etc : just the same problem as stitching.  That would also apply to a 617 format.  Different sets of compromises involved but using the right tool for the job at hand is always the goal - as you said in the earlier post.  There are obviously times when stitching isn't going to work, too.  Just wanted to note that flat-stitching with TS lenses (like back-cross on a view camera) causes zero distortion and is used by many to increase "megapixels captured" to allow increase print size.
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 770


WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2012, 04:55:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I have scanned a lot of slides in the past ; 35mm 6x7 ( mamiya7) and 4x5inch.
What i liked best were the 4x5 scans because they had relatively less dust than the others.
Getting the colours right was one problem (even more with color negative) ; the dynamic range was limited.. but if all went well you had a good result after say 2 ( or more) hours of work on the dust and the color..
What i know is - you need a really good scanner to do slides ; a dedicated slide scanner and even one of the best to get all the information out of the slide. Working two hours on a bad scan is not very rewarding.
I am very glad i am past all this. I have now a d800E with some good lenses and the quality probably not as good as 4x5 in terms of resolution, but way better in terms of dynamic range, way better in getting the colors right.
I get this much cleaner digital image with zero effort and if i stitch two files i am at 4x5 resolution. And it costs me nothing and i can control my shots on the fly.

What is really too bad is that there is no solution to put a digital back on the mamiya7 because it is a great camera-lens system.
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
southtexasshooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2012, 08:48:56 PM »
ReplyReply

AJ: I've owned Tilt Shift lens and when shifted a maximum on the Canon TSE II there IS both distortion and light fall off.  The average person wouldn't notice but but it's there.  These lenses are great and I've used them to make some huge files.  Again, it all depends on what specifically he plans to focus on for composition.  For some people, a good DSLR and a TSE lens is the right combination.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad