Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mamiya 7ii + Scanner v Canon 5D  (Read 26683 times)
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2012, 09:59:04 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.
So, those who know, don't shift the whole available extent! With the TSE 1 I didn't use the red zone much for that reason.  For the 17 and 24 TSE2, even full shift does not produce major issues - detectable, possibly; big problem, not.  All lenses show some imperfections away from the optical axis and the further you go, the worse it gets Smiley even in lenses available on 617 or 8x10 format.  Light falloff is manageable in both cases in post, whether digital or analog.  But you are right, each person will usually choose the right combination for their individual needs, once they know what those are and what's available to meet them within their budget Cheesy.   Once you factor in the differences in capability between digital sensors and analogue sensors, your main point that  "the bigger the capture area the better" still holds Smiley
Logged
Codger
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2012, 01:36:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Horses for courses.  Most of us fantasize about owning ONE camera to do everything -- one which is inexpensive, light, compact, intuitive to use, and all the lenses are pro-grade and fast.  I haven't found it yet.  If you specialize in one or two types of work you can meet your needs pretty easily, but the range of work some of us aspire to do results in wrestling with work-arounds or concessions to producing less than fine work if we're limited to just one platform.  I've used Pentax 67 gear for more than a dozen years.  I love the look of my huge prints and suspect they'll only come from the eight to ten high-quality drum scans (400 MB) I average getting per year.  I wish I could say I NEEDED 30 or 50 scans, but the fact is, I'm making big prints to sell and I don't shoot 30+ great shots in a year.  A hundred pretty good shots?  Sure, but those aren't really flawless, and end up diluting the public's impressions that, "Gee, EVERYthing you do is so GREAT!"  I suggest, if you're being lured by better image quality in very large prints, that you cautiously wade into a 6x7 film platform.  Don't figure on stitching a bunch of little digital files together and telling yourself it's equivalent to good medium format output because in nine out of ten cases, it won't be.  When gallery visitors ask why I don't use some modern Canikon with lots of megapixels I tell them those cameras are very attractive, for a variety of reasons.  They're sort of the sports cars of cameradom: stylish, quick, maneuverable and fun to drive.  However, if I'm going to be "moving" a lot of earth (landscapes), a dump truck makes more sense for what I do.  It has a bigger payload and takes fewer trips to get the job done.  For a few years I've watched the developments in digital systems and I know the big sensors from Hassy and Phase can yield impressive results in single shot work . . . but at a very high price, comparatively speaking.  The Leica S2 is an appealing 'tweener, but the cost is not reasonable for me.  So, I'll stick with MF film (Provia) for my work, pack my handy 8MP cellphone with me, and keep life simple for another year/Photokina or two and see what happens.
Logged
southtexasshooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2012, 11:26:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Codger, nicely put!  Julius Shulman was the most famous architectural photographer of our time and he was known as "one-shot Shulman" for that same reason.  Julius believed that a great photographer knows how to read light properly and takes the equipment that is most suitable for the situation.  In his case, he predominantly shot 4x5 field cameras for over 77 years.  His signed books are now selling for $$$.  One comparison I see some trying to make here is that if you have a full-frame DSLR and a Tilt Shift lens then you are at 4x5 size and quality.  That's simply not true for what should be obvious reasons!  A full-frame sensor (roughly 24x36mm = 86.4CM) a tilt-shift lens allows you to double that area or as AJ put it you're not really supposed to go maximum shift for distortion and light fall-off reasons so let's say for arguments sake x 1.8 which gives you an area equivalent to 155.52 centimeters of view area.  The larger the image plane the greater surface area to capture more detail.  More MP doesn't always mean "better quality", if that were true Nikon's D3200 would be significantly better than the Canon 5D MK II, but it's not!  Packing more megapixels into a smaller sensor invariably ends in more detail yes yet the noise is more difficult to control as is the sharpness, due to the smaller size of the image plane.

Regarding the 4x5 view camera which is 96mm x 120mm that is approximately 13 times larger than a FF digital sensor which equates to 11,520 CM vs the 155.52 CM you get from shifting a $2000 lens on a Canon or Nikon.  Were you to then take your 'correctly' shot 4x5 image and put that on a drum scanner and scan at 3000 DPI or higher, you will see why people like Mr. Shulman have many books and accolades after his name while countless thousands of digital shooters do not!  The same holds true for your Mamiya 7ii scans, if they are scanned correctly on a drum scanner (and please don't say EPSON 700 or 750 again, that's comparing a Yugo to a Saturn 5 rocket again... aaahhhh), the drum scanner will bring out more detail, better sharpness and more contrast.  Then take your digitized film image and put that in Photoshop and do a final rendered comparison of that vs. a digital negative or finalized RAW file.  The digital negative of course would have to be up-resd and cropped substantially to match the size of a 6x7, 6x9 or 4x5 image and that would be where the argument ends.  I've seen many taking cheap, low resolution scans of a 6x7 slide and then comparing that to a DNG or RAW file.  That's like me running against you in a race, where my windshield is clean and your's is full of mud.  Don't lie!  THAT was what Ansel meant.  If you simply tell the truth and scan MF or LF film at it's proper resolution (meaning the very best and truest resolution) the detail will astonish you.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2012, 11:53:06 AM »
ReplyReply

The Mamiya 6 is one of my favorite cameras. Fun to shoot and amazing images. A little over a year ago, I left film because very impractical for me and I moved over to the dark side.

I replaced my film cameras with a Pentax 645D. It is really an amazing camera. I have done a ton of work with it. I have a fine set of lenses, which were readily available and reasonable. The camera is a pleasure to use--big bright viewfinder and lots of ways to customize and control the camera, good ISO performance, and unlimited exposure length. The double tripod socket is really nice to have. The files are really nice, not only in terms of resolution, but also color. And it is 4:3. Having the ability to stitch meant I did not have to carry separate normal and panoramic film cameras.

This summer I had a book of 87 photographs taken with the camera published.

Perhaps a 645D would be a better move from a 5D than a Mamiya 7.
Logged
southtexasshooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2012, 11:58:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd love to hear more about your experiences with the Pentax 645D.  It looks like an amazing camera, it's just so new not many people have feedback on it yet.  How much was that one $10,000?  I may see if I can rent that at Samy's in LA when I'm out in California next month.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2012, 12:48:36 PM »
ReplyReply

There is quite a lot on the 645D now. You can do some searching with Google. You can also check the Pentax Forums and GetDPI. There are also posts on opinions about the Pentax lenses on the 645D.

It is sort of hard to know where to start. In some regards, the camera just works. It is comfortable to hold and shoot and there are no quirks.

I have a 35mm and 120mm Macro manual focus lenses and 55mm and 300mm AF lenses. The 9-point AF is very good and you can fine turn individual lenses in the menus--this is not a normal feature in MFD. I find MF is easy because of the viewfinder size. I changed the original screen with a gridded screen, which I find very nice for panos. There is also an electronic level where a horizon indicator in the the viewfinder as well as the level display on the monitor.

I also have an IR remote used for bulb exposures and a right-angle finder for when the camera is in awkward position.

The biggest complaint is the write times. Coming from film, it is a whole bunch faster than Polaroids. It is a bit of a pain, but you work around it--I usually take a frame for exposure and then just shoot--I do a lot of handholding (the mirror is really well dampened). When you do a 6-frame pano, it takes a while to get a preview--smaller DSLRs will be faster.

I am mostly using this in the field and have been impressed with the results even when in really contrasty scenes. I really the color of the Pentax. I believe Image Resource has a review and was also impressed by the accuracy of the Pentax colors. I have also used the camera in the studio for portraits and it worked well.

If you are doing long exposure, Pentax will start a dark frame after 30 seconds and you cannot turn off. I think I have found a work around and one that might get better results--the 645D can do multiple exposures, not the combining trick in playback, but actual multiple exposure that shot and combined in camera and in RAW. I should be able to do a 4.5 minute exposure with this feature. Still, I have made five-minute exposures very easily and I know of other going far longer.

I also like how you can setup the SD cards as a RAID array where one card is a mirror copy of the other. If one card is corrupt, the other card will have the data.

Battery life is great. I have spent 6 hours in -10C weather and one battery was all I needed and was not exhausted. The LCD display was sluggish, but the camera just kept going. In normal temps, a battery goes for a very long time. I do have a spare.

But I certainly recommend taking it for a test drive. It is worth considering, even if you don't end up with one. It is a fine camera, but one among many.

BTW, I was shooting a Phase One P25+ in the studio on a Linhof previously. When I was looking for another MFD camera for the field, I was first considering a Phase camera. I stumble across the Pentax when I was doing my research. I am really glad I went with the Pentax over a similarly priced Phase system just in terms of usability and functionality. And weatherproofing was just the icing on the cake. However, YMMV on that.

Yes, a body is $10k and I spent another $3K or so on lenses and accessories.
Logged
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2012, 01:40:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Codger, nicely put!  Julius Shulman was the most famous architectural photographer of our time and he was known as "one-shot Shulman" for that same reason.  Julius believed that a great photographer knows how to read light properly and takes the equipment that is most suitable for the situation.  In his case, he predominantly shot 4x5 field cameras for over 77 years.  His signed books are now selling for $$$.  One comparison I see some trying to make here is that if you have a full-frame DSLR and a Tilt Shift lens then you are at 4x5 size and quality.  That's simply not true for what should be obvious reasons!  A full-frame sensor (roughly 24x36mm = 86.4CM) a tilt-shift lens allows you to double that area or as AJ put it you're not really supposed to go maximum shift for distortion and light fall-off reasons so let's say for arguments sake x 1.8 which gives you an area equivalent to 155.52 centimeters of view area.  The larger the image plane the greater surface area to capture more detail.  More MP doesn't always mean "better quality", if that were true Nikon's D3200 would be significantly better than the Canon 5D MK II, but it's not!  Packing more megapixels into a smaller sensor invariably ends in more detail yes yet the noise is more difficult to control as is the sharpness, due to the smaller size of the image plane.

Regarding the 4x5 view camera which is 96mm x 120mm that is approximately 13 times larger than a FF digital sensor which equates to 11,520 CM vs the 155.52 CM you get from shifting a $2000 lens on a Canon or Nikon.  Were you to then take your 'correctly' shot 4x5 image and put that on a drum scanner and scan at 3000 DPI or higher, you will see why people like Mr. Shulman have many books and accolades after his name while countless thousands of digital shooters do not!  The same holds true for your Mamiya 7ii scans, if they are scanned correctly on a drum scanner (and please don't say EPSON 700 or 750 again, that's comparing a Yugo to a Saturn 5 rocket again... aaahhhh), the drum scanner will bring out more detail, better sharpness and more contrast.  Then take your digitized film image and put that in Photoshop and do a final rendered comparison of that vs. a digital negative or finalized RAW file.  The digital negative of course would have to be up-resd and cropped substantially to match the size of a 6x7, 6x9 or 4x5 image and that would be where the argument ends.  I've seen many taking cheap, low resolution scans of a 6x7 slide and then comparing that to a DNG or RAW file.  That's like me running against you in a race, where my windshield is clean and your's is full of mud.  Don't lie!  THAT was what Ansel meant.  If you simply tell the truth and scan MF or LF film at it's proper resolution (meaning the very best and truest resolution) the detail will astonish you.


I do believe they call this "preaching to choir"!!!
Logged
southtexasshooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2012, 02:34:59 PM »
ReplyReply

What preaching?  The guy was asking if scanned film was better than a DSLR.  Clearly he doesn't understand the difference as many people that comment on these forums don't.
Logged
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2012, 07:20:09 PM »
ReplyReply

What preaching?  The guy was asking if scanned film was better than a DSLR.  Clearly he doesn't understand the difference as many people that comment on these forums don't.

The point is that such a comparison means many different things to different people.  It was pointed out early in the thread that up to a certain print size, they can produce comparable results (some scanned film and some DSLR - not, as you seem to be implying is being asserted that DSLRs always equal all scanned film ? Cheesy )

Quote
*IF* you want to make very large detailed prints
..... is one scenario, then there are no (commercially available) digital sensors that approach a good drumscan of a much larger piece of good film (e.g. an 8x10 sheet of Velvia or ProviaF).  I don't think anyone here disputes that.  That was the context of  the "preaching to the choir" comment.    Conversely, a recent high MP MF sensor will fare much better than a drumscan of a small piece of good film - modern digital MF is now better than 35mm scanned.  Those might be considered the extremes in the world of film to digital comparison - at least in terms of people agreeing with them - it's the areas in between that are murky Cheesy :-  Every other comparison needs very detailed description of the situation goals compromises print sizes portability cost etc against which to interpret any conclusions based on them.

Quote
I've seen many taking cheap, low resolution scans of a 6x7 slide and then comparing that to a DNG or RAW file.  That's like me running against you in a race, where my windshield is clean and your's is full of mud.  Don't lie!  THAT was what Ansel meant.  If you simply tell the truth and scan MF or LF film at it's proper resolution (meaning the very best and truest resolution) the detail will astonish you.
  The bold there is fire and brimstone kind of talk which brought the "preaching" word to my mind.  I would be surprised if someone said "scanned 6x7 is always worse than XYZ"  They probably did the test to find out how the two compared*.  Up to a certain print size or with an affordable scanning solution for the person doing the comparison, they can come to conclusions for their own situation - they're not lying, they are presenting their assessment for their needs.  You're right - I've been astonished at some scans of my 4x5 Provia trannies - I've also recently been astonished at the detail in a 9 image x 16MP handheld stitch (of a fairly stationary scene with good light) from a Summilux f/1.4 (on a MFT I had in my pocket no less!) printed at 24x30 Cheesy


*Now, if they rigged  Cry the comparison to make a point or to mislead someone for fame or monetary gain, then yes, by all means, to the fire and brimstone with them Cheesy
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad