Mamiya 7 vs Pentax 67? and Medium format film quesiton.

[kevs]

Anyone tested these side by side A/B and have a verdict on lens quality / large print results?

Also; How would large prints  (40" long) from either of these compare to current digital 35mm DLRS for detail/ sharpness?

I'm not sure anybody can readily answer those questions but I'm sure some might know..?

Would be great if there was a website that actually tested camera systems and their lenses.. and charted/ rated how these older systems fared for image/ print  sharpness vs today's digital 35mm offerings.

[mbaginy]

The years I shot with a Pentax 67, I was only pleased with image sharpness with the camera mounted on a tripod.  That was no problems since I usually shot landscapes with that camera.  Far too many of my hand-held shots were unacceptable due to camera shake.  I routinely used my Leica M3 at 1/30 sec. without a problem, but the Pentax was a different story.  The wooden grip was very useful though for hand-holding (and carrying).  Make sure you get a Pentax 67 with mirror lockup!

The Mamiya may offer advantages shooting hand held due to the lack of mirror slap.  A former neighbor used the Mamiya 6 and it was superb.  The Mamiya 7 should be a great deal lighter than the Pentax.

From recalling his photos and mine from the Pentax, I'd say that both systems had excellent lenses.  Pentax had a nice 165mm lens with leaf shutter which is great for flash use.

[kevs]

Thanks Mike:

So lenses of Pentax are as good as the Mamiya?

I shoot usually handheld, but is I shoot strobe then that should take care of the shake? (I think the whole point of Pentax is to be handheld like a 35mm..?

I heard the Mamiya 6 for some reason does not take their super wide 43? pity

Leaf shutter vs ?

Mamiya is good deal more expensive right? Body and lenses

Can you speak to my others questions about print quality? and compared to 35 mm Digitals today?

[elliot_n]

How would large prints  (40" long) from either of these compare to current digital 35mm DLRS for detail/ sharpness?

They would be similar.

[mbaginy]

Print quality of 6x7 film vs. 35mm digital images is no simple topic to discuss.  Actually it's a mine field with countless variables.  This topic has been discussed in this forum a number of times and 20 people will have 30 different opinions, depending upon the variables.  This is a hot potato I wouldn't want to write about.  I know what's sufficient for my needs, but others will surely have differing opinion.  For me, scans with a flat bead Epson V850 are good enough for me to print to A2.  I also print my Canon 5D Mk III and Fujifilm APS size images that large.  Since I don't print on glossy papers, nobody has ever mentioned a quality difference.  Obviously I know how each image was taken and processed, so I'm not really an objective critic.

I never noticed a quality difference between my Pentax images and those from my neighbor with his Mamiya 6.  So I imagine that the lenses are of equally high quality.  There's more to a technically "good" image that just hardware - a sturdy stance or tripod is necessary, a proper shutter speed, proper focus, aperture, exposure, etc.  If I were to chose a system, I wouldn't worry about lens quality.  I'd care more about handling (weight), build-in lens shades, available lenses (wide angle, macro, ...) etc., but that's my personal view.

Leaf shutter vs. focal plane.  You can google the types for a better explanation than I can give.  Bottom line when shooting with flash: cameras (or lenses) with a leaf shutter can be used at any shutter speed, where cameras or that era had a flash sync speed of 1/30 or 1/60 as quickest shutter speed.

I don't know which focal length was the wides for the Mamiya 6 and 7.  I recall there being a "very wide" lens which used a viewfinder placed onto the hot shoe, but I don't remember details.  Lens requirements will dictate which system is right for you.  My wides lens was the excellent 45mm for the Pentax.

The Pentax looks and operates like an oversized Spotmatic or K1000, but I was never proficient hand holding it.  Yes, I guess some people were happy shooting hand held, I preferred mounting it on a tripod.  Today I regularly shoot my Fujifilm X100T hand held a 1/4 second with decent results - other people wouldn't consider a camera without image stabilizing.  Different strokes for different folks.  Sometimes it seems a miracle that people were able to take decent photos without today's bells & whistles!

Medium format film systems are still a considerable investment today.  Make sure you really want to travel that route before taking the step.  Finally, in my view, your decision should also be based on your usage and final output.  If you print "large", then  medium format may make sense, but what are you missing with your current digital gear?  I'm nostalgic, I admit, but I've learned to embrace digital cameras and no longer use my analog gear, which is simply too tedious (and costly).

[kevs]

Great post Mike, and thanks Elliot.

Here is my personal situation:

I also come from film (90's), now I'm digital 15 years or so...

I'm on the Canon mark 2, but will upgrade probably this year.

A couple of years ago, I bought a full 4x5 kit, 2 Sinars, lenses, etc, learned it all, and shot two fine art series with it (with digital 35mm as back up)
I finally decided it was a pita, and sold all the 4x5 and now will shoot, DIGITAL 35mm as the primary.

Why am I thinking of film? Maybe just because it would be "cool", do have a little bit of film shot for each new fine art series shoots. One roll is fine.

So I just bought a used Nikon F, also a Pentax Spotmatic (sentimental reasons..), and an old Canon 5, all used.. who know what I'll use and how often... Just sort of nostalgic and cool.shooting a bit of film now too again...

The 4x5 idea was actually for nostalgia, fine art prestige,  partly..but also considerably for the resolving power you might get if you decide to later print big.. 6' 7' on the side. But in reality  no one really care what you shoot on, and 35mm as both you and Elliot state can get A2 quite nicely now -- as good as film medium format right?.

Still looking at these old Mamiya 6, 7 (never owned or even shot with those), and Pentax 67 (cheaper and almost equal quality and have used in 90's once).

But still undecided. As you state, medium format film systems still cost a bit.. so may still just stick with the 35mm cameras for that tad of film . Now if you, Elliot or others, said, hold on.. I'm getting prints results that are double/ triple quality than my current Canon/ Nikon. Fuji 35mmcameras for big prints.. I'd probably be buying a used Mamiya 67 or Pentax 67,  but... it seems as you guys are saying it would just result in a bigger chrome or negative , but not really a better resolved/ sharper print than current 35mm Dlsrs.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I used a Pentax 67 for a few years before I went digital. Although it looked like an oversized SLR, it was a bear to hand hold, and I only got satisfactory shots with it on a tripod.

I next got a Mamiya 6, which was a delight to use handheld or on tripod. It was about the most fun film camera I ever used, and got really good results. The only problem I had with the 6 was the loss of the first three images on one roll because I forgot to remove the lens cap (ouch!!!,) since I had been using SLRs for so many years.

If I were going to use film now, I would go for a Mamiya 7 or 6.

[kevs]

Thanks Eric, good info. Well the 7 way better to me as you get 6x7, not 6x6 and it takes the 43 lens. I was never a square format guy.
That said, even with the Mamiya 7 film. Do you know how an image shot on it would compare in quality/ sharpness/ resolving power to print.. compare to the best modern digital 35mm cameras?

[Dan Wells]

Pentax 67 is a beautiful camera with great (and relatively cheap) lenses, but the mirror slap is too extreme to be practical handheld - use it on a tripod and (as a previous poster has said), get one with mirror lockup. I haven't used one myself, but I know a number of folks who used them for years.

Mamiya 6 and 7 are MUCH lighter, don't have the mirror slap issue. I've never shot with one, but they should be handholdable, at least in limited circumstances.

By the time you're at something as restricted as a Pentax 67, what about a Horseman or other 6x9 cm field camera? It's tripod only like the 67, but has extra film area and movements... I used a Horseman for a while years ago.

Epson V700 scans of 6x9 cm Velvia from a Horseman are about equivalent in resolution to 36mp digital, to my eye. Of course you get a good deal of extra dynamic range out of the digital. With a better scanner, the 6x9 might get to the level of the very best FF digital sensors (although the Epson is scanning grain at its highest resolution). There might be a few films that get higher resolution than that - the obvious one is Tech Pan (B+W), especially in a high resolution developer.

[kevs]

Dan, nice post again, thanks.

My main question now;  How are images shot on the Mayima 7 film medium format,  compare in quality/ sharpness/ resolving power to print.. to the best modern digital 35mm cameras?

[adriantyler]

Epson V700 scans of 6x9 cm Velvia from a Horseman are about equivalent in resolution to 36mp digital, to my eye. Of course you get a good deal of extra dynamic range out of the digital. With a better scanner, the 6x9 might get to the level of the very best FF digital sensors (although the Epson is scanning grain at its highest resolution). There might be a few films that get higher resolution than that - the obvious one is Tech Pan (B+W), especially in a high resolution developer.

[elliot_n]

If you want more sharpness than the best 35mm digital cameras you need to shoot 4x5 film (or ideally 8x10).

[mcbroomf]

It's not a direct comparison as the lenses will be different, but you can scan a 6x7 area from one of your 4x5 images and see how it does again whatever 35mm digital system you either have or are considering upgrading to.  You can download raw files from pretty much any camera on DPR

[gkroeger]

I would agree with Dan Wells' assessment. I have made A1 sized prints from drum-scanned 6x9 chromes (shot with a Horseman and Apo view camera lenses) and I would say they are quite similar to A1 sized images that I have made with a 42MP Sony A7R III and Zeiss Loxia lenses. The Mamiya 7 should be capable of similar results. I say quite similar because there are differences. The scanned film images may have slightly more fine detail, but it is less contrasty and more grainy, so the overall impression, even from close viewing distances, is similar. Scanned 4x5 images still hold a slight edge to the 42MP digital images in most cases, but not all.

[alan_b]

Since you mentioned the Mamiya 43mm, note that it uses an auxiliary viewfinder.  So, compose through one viewfinder, focus through another.  This was my breaking point - too often I would forget to focus! 

I switched to the Pentax w/ 45 & 105mm lenses.  The SLR experience was better for me, especially with wide lenses and no parallax issues.  I also got pretty used to pre-firing the mirror, then fire the shutter after a second or so.  If shooting people, you'll want to warn them about the double click beforehand.  Handheld photos were plenty sharp for me for 30" prints, but YMMV.  I didn't find the P67 too heavy, just somewhat bulky.  I sometimes swapped the prism for the WLF for a smaller package, but makes for awkward portrait shooting.

[kevs]

ALAN, interesting as most don't like the Pentax, (say not sharp) but I used once in 90's rented, handheld and was fine, not heavy for me;  but I did not do any print test on quality.  Still most heer are saying that either the Pentax or Mamiya 7 wont make huge prints that much nicer than todays good DLSRS, so I don't  think either are worth the money really, think about scans you have to make...

The 43 lens comment interesting. Ken Rockwell who writes and love Mamiya, mentioned also that the camera is poorly built, but it was all about great results. So between the poor build quality, and what you mentioned on eye piece, and the advancement of DLSRS, maybe even he is not using the Mamiya 7 anymore?

[Telecaster]

I got my Super Ikonta (6x4.5cm version) mainly for the pleasure of using it. That it operates so differently to most film cameras, not to mention electronic ones, is a big part of that pleasure.

Image quality with film is just different than with sensors. I note the discussion here is resolution oriented, whereas for me the inherent tonal scale of a b&w or even color negative is the thing. Grain texture is an important part too. These things give each film its character. If my aim was to maximize spatial res and dynamic range while minimizing grain/noise, I'd just stick with sensor-based cameras.

-Dave-

[Dan Wells]

It'll depend to some extent on the scanner, but with a good flatbed scanner, a Mamiya 7 should be able to come pretty close to a 36MP digital, especially if you crop the 36MP image to the Mamiya's aspect ratio, rather than crop the Mamiya to match the digital. I remember Horseman 6x9cm Velvia images on a good Epson scanner as being very comparable to 36MP D800e images. A drum scanner or an Imacon may pull some extra detail out of the film, and a flatbed below the best Epsons will get somewhat less. An old Super Coolscan 9000 may get some more detail, but at the cost of some color - I never got the Coolscans to give me the color I wanted... Tech Pan will give more resolution, and it may be grainless.

I don't think anything on 120 film will match the very best modern 35mm sensors - especially the Nikon variants that can drop the ISO down to 64. I have a Z7, which has become my primary landscape camera - and what's stunning about it is that it simply doesn't have any noise at low ISO. That's not true of any rollfilm I have ever used - it is true of 4x5! The big Nikon sensor at minimum ISO has the feel of sheet film (or MF digital) for that reason. Of course, you might want the grain of film for some types of images, and "fake grain" added to a digital image won't look as good.

There may be a few specialized medium format films like Tech Pan that have that grainless large format look (but, if that's what you're after, why not use a Z7, a D850 or MF digital)? KEH wants nearly $2000 for a Mamiya 7 II body (and it's in "bargain" condition). That becomes a brand-new Z7 or D850 after only 600 or so images (a roll of Velvia has gone up to nearly $10, and processing is $11). You could have a GFX 50R for the price of the Mamiya and 1200 images if you want a larger, squarer sensor. This is assuming you already own a good scanner that handles 120.

Shoot medium format film if you want something special and different about the film look, not to go chasing the image quality of the pixel monsters. They've left 120 behind at this point, and have their sights set on 4x5".

[kevs]

Nice post Dan. Yeah, I've read Rockwells old article about the Mamiya 7ii, "best camera system in the world", but you wonder if he even cares/ shoots with it anymore. I saw it on KEH a few weeks ago at EX +  at $2300.00; and almost drooled a bit at that, mint condition but yeah, I've come to your conclusion. BTW Velvia is actually at BH new $17 roll.

How does the Fujifilm GFX compare to the best 35 mm digital the Nikon 850? (the Nikon has the Sony sensor?)

Also how does the Nikon 850 compare to the Canon 5d4?

You know there are thousands of pros on the 5D4 and they seem very happy. Look reviews:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274705-REG/canon_eos_5d_mark_iv.html#customerReview

You don't see a lot of the pros complaining about the sensor, yet so many people say the Nikon is infinitely better, fill me in..

Do you really think their prints, large prints, don't look as good as large prints from the Nikon 850?

Good points: How can 35mm get even better? (closer to 4x5?), is there is room to grow imprive at that small size?  quality/ DR etc?

Oh.. on subject of film, yeah, so I'll shoot digital, and maybe shoot one roll of film tops per new fine art series subject just for posterity . Nothing else. Probably wont even scan anything soon.. Just to have.

Honestly, I also dont buy the film fanatics who say their old lenses and cameras give a great / unique look that cannot be achieved with digital filters. I used to shoot Polapan and do cross processing, and while Nik and Alien Skin have never matched what I got doing that really, their hundred of others takes on old films look pretty darn good to me... I couldn't tell on many an image with their filters in Photoshop the original was not film.. once they put their spin on it...

[adriantyler]

just to throw a spanner in the works, those fuji 6x9 fixed lens rangefinders are great, leaf shutters & excellent glass, if my memory serves there was a 45mm and a 90mm version, i had the 90 and loved it.