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

[tcphoto1]

I never shot with a Mamiya 7 but I loved my RZProII, I’ve thought about putting together a small kit to shoot film. I owned the Pentax 67II with LS lenses and liked it also but the previous versions had issues with film winders. I started in MF with a Mamiya 645 Pro and the three LS lenses, loved it but moved up to 6x7 for those beautiful transparencies. Why not buy a used H3 or H4 and use a film back? If you’re going to make the jump make the jump.

[Two23]

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...

Well I'm not a fanatic, I'm just a duck hunter in South Dakota.  About eight years ago I got back into shooting some film.  In the 1990s I shot a Hassleblad for weddings and then added a 4x5 for stock photos.  I bought a Nikon DSLR in 2005 and am currently shooting a D800E with state of art Sigma Art and Nikon's best lenses.  So why do I still shoot a lot of film?  I'm now mostly shooting 4x5 and 5x7, and am semi-seriously looking at 11x14. (They are huge!)  I have three sets of lenses for the large format cameras.  I have eight lenses made from 1845 to 1860, three made from 1870 to 1900, six made from 1910 to 1930, and five made in the 1990s (mostly plasmats in Copal shutter.)  I shoot very little color (Portra 160), lots of b&w film, and increasingly now shooting glass plates (dry plates.)  My goal is to get into wet plate collodion this year when it warms up.

With the above background said, I have some thoughts on your questions.  I will almost guarantee that I can tell if a photo was made with a lens from the 1850s and shot on glass vs a digital concoction made with modern lenses.  Older lenses used different glass (crown & flint), were uncoated, and have drastically different signatures from modern lenses.  That alone gives many clues.  Add to this the properties of the emulsion on glass plates.  They are orthochromatic--sensitive only to blue light & UV.  They don't record the full spectrum.  And finally they react to light entirely differently from a digital sensor.  With sensors the light comes in, hits it, and most is absorbed.  With glass plates, light comes in, passes through the emulsion, passes through the surface of the glass, hits the rear surface of the glass, and at that point 90% passes on through but 10% bounces back and goes through the emulsion a second time from the rear.  This creates faint halos.  This is why modern film has an anti-halonation coating.  I've not yet seen any faked digital shot that can replicate all the above.  If you know what a REAL "old time" photo looks like the difference is obvious, and you don't have to be a "fanatic."

Now on to more of your questions.  My D800E rivals what I get with 4x5 film as far as technical quality, even drum scanned.  As a former Hassleblad shooter I'll say that my D800E produces much cleaner images than any 120 film based camera possibly can.  If you are looking at a film camera thinking you're going to get technically better images you are poorly informed and completely on the wrong path.  So, why do I shoot film when I just said my D800E + Sigma Art lenses produce cleaner images?  It's because I'm bored with the "digital look."  I love shooting film (and especially glass plates) because of the aesthetics.  I just love the classic look I'm getting!  It's much more challenging and I feel more involved in photography--the creative/subjective part.  I.E., the "art."  An 1847 Voigtlander Petzval shot on glass plate or a 1912 Heliar shot on Ilford FP4+ film gives me such a dramatically different look & --feel-- that I just fell in love!  I process my own now and that's giving me even MORE creative control.

So what about the difference between Pentax 67 and Mamiya 7?  Optically you'll never see a difference.  You are asking the wrong question here.  The difference is the Pentax is best as a studio camera and the Mamiya 7 is best as a field camera.  The Pentax has more lens choices and takes different backs & accessories.  It also weighs a ton.  The Mamiya is relatively light and quick.  And that's always my advice--match the gear to how you use it!  Only looking at the tiny technical differences suggests you are on the wrong path.

I take both my Nikon DSLR and a film camera with me on trips.  My film camera choices are one of these three:  1937 Voigtlander Bessa (6x9,) 1954 Rolleiflex (6x6), or 1942 Leica IIIc with 28/35/50/90mm.  I'd love to have a Mamiya 7 but really can't justify the cost.  And, that camera is really too modern for my taste, especially the look the lenses give.  My suggestion is to buy a used Chamonix or Wista 4x5, some FP4+, and lenses 240mm Heliar, 165mm Tessar, and 90mm Dagor--all made before 1940 (uncoated glass,) and see what you get.  If you just want something fairly cheap but excellent to try, buy the Fuji 6x9 rangefinder mentioned above and some FP4+.


Kent in SD

1. c.1909 Dagor 100mm, FP4+
2. c.1998 Nikkor 300mm, FP4+
3. c.1858 Derogy Petzval, glass plate

[Two23]

Thanks Mike:

1. So lenses of Pentax are as good as the Mamiya?

2. 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..?

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

4. Leaf shutter vs ?

5. Mamiya is good deal more expensive right? Body and lenses

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

1.  Yes.  You'll never see a difference.  Not a good reason to select one system over the other.
2.   There is no way I'd shoot a Pentax 67 handheld.  They are heavy and clumsy.  The Mamiya was made for that.
3.  The Mamiya 6 is a bit more limited in lens selection.  That's one reason it is cheaper.
4.   Leaf shutters allow sync at any speed, including 1/500s.  Otherwise you rely on the camera's focal plane shutter, typically 1/30s because shutter is so large
5.  Much more flexible, much more compact, much more in demand, much more expensive.
6.  Totally wrong reason to be shooting film instead of digital unless by "quality" you are talking about aesthetics.


Kent in SD

[kevs]

Two, I enjoy your posts, and being a history major in college, I think a lot of your passion comes from the vintage vibe history on the lenses and cameras, many which I collect for display. But on your images, maybe I can't see well, but I don't see the effects these old lenses get are that much different than what I can try to do (though I don't currently) with Nik filters or Alien Skin or others.... So I appreciate the passion and the vibe, but to lug around a 4x5 and come out with grainy shots or blurry stuff look great/ cool, and the 4x5 you have is gorgeous, but that look can be achieved with less weight. Maybe I'm wrong...    I bought to Sinars a few years ago to only achieve super hi res, which I did, but could not bear, the weight... but then again, there was no love there, they were pretty but not historical, it was a tranactional experiment.
Maybe someone else here can pipe in who has done A/B test with old lenses cameras, and spent a lot of time in PS with 3rd party filters.

Interesting you Nikon is as good as 4x5, as many have argued that dlrs has not quite matched 4x5 film yet for resolution.

BTW, I love Peking Duck.. but I think you need 24hrs to make it. I used to go to Peking Duck house in NYC when I lived there...

[Two23]

But on your images, maybe I can't see well, but I don't see the effects these old lenses get are that much different than what I can try to do (though I don't currently) with Nik filters or Alien Skin or others.... So I appreciate the passion and the vibe, but to lug around a 4x5 and come out with grainy shots or blurry stuff look great/ cool, and the 4x5 you have is gorgeous, but that look can be achieved with less weight.

These are low res jpegs and quite small.  In real life the differences are there.  I've not seen a digital imitation of halonation.  What usually gives it away for me with older lenses (19th Century) and modern designs is the graduation of sharpness from the center outwards.  The original lenses used for photography (1840-1866) were the achromatic doublet and the Petzval.  These were sharp only in the center third.  Sharpness from an AC lens rapidly fell off, and Petzvals suffered from astigmatism and coma pretty quickly away from the center.  The signature of these lenses is fairly pronounced.  In 1866 a new type of lens was invented--the rectilinear/rapid rectilinear.  Those corrected some of the astigmatism but were still soft away from the center.  In the 1890s a new kind of glass was invented by Zeiss and that enabled a new class of lenses--the anastigmats.  The most popular was the Tessar, but my favorite is the Heliar.  These lenses typically have a very soft yet sharp look to them.  Not much changed from 1890 to ~1946 when lenses began getting coatings.  That was a real game changer!  I can generally tell the difference between an image taken with a coated lens vs uncoated.  Color saturation is much lower as is contrast.  Skip ahead to the 1980s and 1990s when we began getting CAD designed lenses, aspherical elements, more exotic glass formulas, multi-coatings.  I really can't tell much difference between shots made with lenses from that period vs current lenses.  I can sometimes but not always tell the difference between shots made with a current digital camera processed to look like film and a  modern film camera (e.g. Hassleblad 503).  As for the shots I've posted, it might be that as a regular user of these lenses and current lenses I'm more sensitive to the differences.

Back to the two cameras you mentioned, I see no difference at all in the image quality you would get.  They are designed for different uses though.  It's like comparing a two seater car to a minivan.  IMO people not familiar with the Pentax 67 are fooled by the handle.  It's not there so much to make it easier to handhold as it seems to be easier to shift it around on a tripod head in a studio.  If I wanted a camera for field use I'd rather have a lightweight 4x5 than the Pentax.  My Chamonix is actually lighter than my Nikon D800E, as are the lenses.  My choice between the Mamiya 7 and Pentax 67 would be the Mamiya because it's so much faster to use, I don't need the lens selection of the Pentax, and I don't need the multiple backs the Pentax offers.  The reasons I haven't bought one are (1) Mamiya is expensive--I'd rather just buy an 8x10 camera  (2) the look an image taken with the Mamiya lenses won't be all that much different from the look I get from the lenses on my Nikon D800E.  Both sets of lenses are modern designs.  The one camera I've been thinking about adding for trips is a Fuji GW690.  It's a rangefinder with fixed lens (equivalent to 38mm).  All manual, no meter (use incident light meter.)  The attraction for me is the big 6x9 negative and the simple operation.  I've been using a 1937 Voigtlander Bessa RF which is the GW690's great grandfather.  The Bessa RF folds up small enough to fit into a large coat pocket.  It's a bit awkward to trigger a shot is my only complaint.  There is a version made by Fuji until 2014 and that's the Fuji GF670.  It too is a folder and travels well.  Alas, too modern for me.   If I were to pick a modern (i.e. with meter) film camera it would be one of these:  Hassleblad 501cm, Mamiya 7, Paubel Makina.  All of these are bigger and heavier than my D800E though and fairly big money.  Which brings me back to if I was going to carry that much bulk I'd rather just shoot a nice 4x5.  Much more flexible, has lens movements, can use about any lens made in any time period, makes a big negative that can be contact printed or printed with alternative process (e.g. carbon print, cyanotype, palladium, albumin, tin type.........)


Kent in SD

Sunset, Deception Pass
1937 Bessa RF, 105mm Heliar, FP4+

[Two23]

Interesting you Nikon is as good as 4x5, as many have argued that dlrs has not quite matched 4x5 film yet for resolution.

My gut feeling from using both 4x5 and D800E is the D800E with BEST lenses (e.g. Sigma ART 50mm) outresolves 4x5.  The images are cleaner (OTOH more sterile) too.  If I think of it I could go out and take a shot using both and post here for comparision.  I don't shoot film for image "quality,";  I shoot it for the qualities of the image.  In the end I think the things we can measure (such as resolution) are way over hyped.  Photography is about art, emotion.  Those are inherently subjective.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

Hey, I do have a shot made with the 6x9 Bessa RF on Ilford FP4+, and same shot made with Nikon D800E and Sigma ART lens.  One is color and one is b&w is the main difference.  Again, 72 res jpeg.


Kent in SD

[kevs]

KIrk nice, never heard of Fuji GW690, looks very cool, Looks like Mamiya 7, but with larger neg, at 1/4 the price. How is lens quality vs Mamiya.  Again, I think now that only reason I might pick one up is just to have Chromes in the filing cabinet instead of 35mm chromes... Nostalgia/ Posterity, so I don't know I'd buy one but good to know about.

Lake shot is very nice, moody, flat, but I would never know it could not be a digital shot with grain filter added.  I would have to be in the room with you with large print to see what you are talking about. And I bet someone very savvy with digital darkroom filters could get 80-90% there the look. And if not, something different equally filmy like. So to me it's more about the fun you are having.

[Two23]

KIrk nice, never heard of Fuji GW690, looks very cool, Looks like Mamiya 7, but with larger neg, at 1/4 the price. How is lens quality vs Mamiya.  Again, I think now that only reason I might pick one up is just to have Chromes in the filing cabinet instead of 35mm chromes... Nostalgia/ Posterity, so I don't know I'd buy one but good to know about.

Lake shot is very nice, moody, flat, but I would never know it could not be a digital shot with grain filter added.  I would have to be in the room with you with large print to see what you are talking about. And I bet someone very savvy with digital darkroom filters could get 80-90% there the look. And if not, something different equally filmy like. So to me it's more about the fun you are having.

The GW690 would be a good choice for you, I think.  It's a modern lens with multicoatings.  Fujinon lenses were made for the professional market.  I have a 180mm f5.6 in Copal shutter that I use on my 4x5 and 5x7.  It's as good as the Nikkors I have (75mm f5.6, 90mm f4.5, 300mm M f9) and my Rodenstock 135mm N.  The GW690 is well made, shutter speeds are accurate, and the viewfinder is easy to see through (unlike the cameras from the 1920s I like!)  The 6x9 negs are big, about half the size of 4x5.  It's a great travel camera for landscapes.  The multicoated lens means it plays nice with color film.  The downsides to the camera are fixed lens, no meter, and it is pretty big.  For its quality its one of the few bargains out there.  It gets eight shots per 120 roll.  I see that as a positive since it's not the sort of camera you'll shoot a 100 frames with in a day, and you can fill a roll pretty quickly and get it processed.  The Fuji GS has two versions, one has a 38mm lens equivalent and the other a 90mm equivalent.  The 38mm is more attractive to me.  A 38mm equivalent will seem wider on this camera since the 6x9 format is getting into pano territory.  And you could even stitch several shots if something wider is needed.

And that brings me to the other part of film photography.  I process my own b&w film (and glass plates,) but any C41 I send out.  It takes about a week to circle back.  There are DIY kits to process E6--it's not as hard as C41.  Next comes scanning.  I use an Epson v750 to scan negs.  It does a pretty good job.  The only thing better would be a drum scan and that can run into money.  People have now figured out how to set up a DSLR on a copy stand with film on a light box, take several overlapping photos, and stitch in PS.  From the samples I've seen this works very well.  On the large format forum I've seen a guy posted results from a Tango drum scanner and his copystand method and hardly anyone could see any difference.  You can also have the place that processes film make scans for you.  That would probably be the most economical way to see if you like it.  Scanners can also be found used on ebay.  The copystand method basically requires only a fairly cheap stand, an LED light box, and a macro lens.  The guys I know who shoot color film seem to like C41 rather than E6.  It seems to scan better.  I've found that to be true but it takes a little more work in software to get the color balance exactly right.  The only two color films I keep on hand are Portra 160 and Ektar 100, both C41.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

A very complete review by a regular user:

http://photojottings.com/fuji-gsw690lll-65mm-f5-6-camera-review/


The 65mm lens is equivalent to 28mm, not 38mm.  Note that as you increase image size, you lose DoF.  The 65mm f2.8 lens is roughly equivalent to f2.8 wide open (for DoF.)


Kent in SD

[smthopr]

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.

I have and use both.  But, for sharpness, a tripod is really necessary even with the leaf shutters. The maximum shutter speed is 1/500 sec and will still show some camera shake at large magnifications. When I'm shooting hand held, I'll use 35mm film or my 5Ds as it's so much less expensive than 6x9 film...

The 35mm film as that "35mm film look" and the 5Ds can shoot at very high shutter speeds for hand held.

[kevs]

Thanks Kirk and SM, well love the huger look.
How easy is it to shoot , and how is quality of chromes/ lenses, compared to the Mamiya 7, comparable? If I could get a mint condition for $600.00 I might just pick on up for fun. May never scan much, but cool just to have huge chromes, in addition to the base of my fine art shoots which will be newer 35mm DLSR.

How much would a typical repair cost on the camera?

Is there a charge that converts lens.. from 35mm to The Fuji lens ( I think in 35mm)

PS, you should be able to handhold it ok, like a Nikon or Canon srl, if you have strobes to freeze the models right?

[Two23]

1. How much would a typical repair cost on the camera?

2. Is there a charge that converts lens.. from 35mm to The Fuji lens ( I think in 35mm)

3. PS, you should be able to handhold it ok, like a Nikon or Canon srl, if you have strobes to freeze the models right?

1. Remembering there aren't parts available for many cameras now, repair usually involves cannibals.  The good news is these cameras are built solid.  About all they need is a good cleaing & lube every five years or so.  I will add that I've had several cameras from the 1940s and earlier repaired.  Cost was generally $100 to $200.  The Fuji has no electronics which should make it much more "future proof" as far as repair.

2.  Not sure what you mean, but the lenses on a fixed lens camera aren't really interchangeable.

3.  I use a tripod for everything except "street" shooting.  I generally use ISO 100 film, and the camera is best stopped down to f8 to f16.  Sunny 16 says 1/100s shutter.  I shoot with strobes a LOT, mostly at night.  Depending on what lighting system I'm using the flash duration is either 1/600s or 1/1200s.  I can generally get away with handholding that, but sometimes I can see it's sharper on a tripod.  About the only cameras I don't use a tripod as "standard" are my Leicas and the Rolleiflex.  The Rolleiflex is held at the waist to fire and that makes it very stable.  Both of those cameras are my "go to" for street shooting.


Kent in SD

[kevs]

Thanks Kirk, have you used tried this Fuji?

It could be ok street shooting handheld? Leaf Shutter or Mirror like Pentax?

With strobes though everything is frozen by the strobes, so that should be sharp?

So you don't think you even need a mint condition one, if it excellent/ very good, should be nice. Does it compare to quality to the Mamyia 7?
Are there repair guys out there or not so much because they would need parts..?

Finally your opinion: You know it wont excel really quality compared to new 35mm digitals, and it's look is not unique, hence it would just be for having 6x9 chromes and negs for fine art project, just to have them.. but is that a waste/ crazy? in your opinion?  (thinking one could get a clean copy with lens for $600 or so..)

[elliot_n]

You're shooting digitally, but you want to buy a medium format film camera just so you can have some 'chromes in the filing cabinet'? Hmm, that doesn't make much sense!

Re. the Fuji GSW690, I've used one extensively (the Fuji GSW690II). I only ever used it on a tripod, for photographs of buildings, but in decent light I'm sure you could use it handheld.

When I bought mine secondhand, about 15 years ago, I immediately had problems with the shutter release (can't remember the exact details). Back then, Fuji UK could still service the camera, so they replaced the leaf shutter, the shutter release mechanism, and the top plate. I imagine that such a repair would be much more difficult today, due to availability of parts.

[kevs]

Thanks Elliot, we'll idea, of just having it, physical images, for posterity, (and maybe scanning a few to blow up, but not many);  instead of only having  computer bytes, that exist on hard drive, get that?  It's an idea...

For Fuji, would you not recommend it?  Would you say it creates good images?  Love that its even bigger than the Mamiya 7, and I read that the build quality of the Mamiya is not so good either. But yeah, if need a repair, you could be screwed?

If you recommend go with 1, 2 or 3?

[elliot_n]

The Fuji makes great images.  It's not a lovable camera (like the Mamiya 6 and 7), but it's a good workhorse. If you're shooting it alongside a DSLR you might like its 2:3 aspect ratio. If I was buying one now, I would be looking for a low mileage copy of the third incarnation (there's a roll counter on the bottom, but I guess it could be clocked). I never shot transparencies with mine - only colour neg, which I then scanned on an Imacon. As I remember, the 65mm lens vignettes quite significantly.

[kevs]

Thanks Elliot, yes no rush, so I could wait on ebay or KEH for a near mint copy of the iii version.
What is the lens that has no vignetting?  They come with one fixed lens, I guess at the time the buyer would choose which one?  Do you see 100% what you are getting through viewfinder?  Why is it less lovable than Mamiyas?

[Rob C]

I bought myself a brand new Pentax 67 ll and discovered that the shutter was as bad for bounce as the mirror; well, I would have, but the mirror was always up and the entire thing tripod only. It was supposed to be going to be used for shooting stock, so the silly electronic synch. speed didn't matter. (I didn't buy the two shuttered optics.)

I traded it away very quickly.

The Mamiya 67 rangefinder was blessed with good glass, but when I picked one up at the dealership, the tiny viewfinder made me put it back down almost immediately. I think that I have accepted that film is of the past unless you just enjoy the hassle, as many do. As ever, you have to consider repairs to obsolete equipment from non-existent companies.

Pentax was hopeless for me, but then again, it worked for Mario Testino and Sante D'Orazio, shake notwithstanding.

[elliot_n]

Thanks Elliot, yes no rush, so I could wait on ebay or KEH for a near mint copy of the iii version.
What is the lens that has no vignetting?  They come with one fixed lens, I guess at the time the buyer would choose which one?  Do you see 100% what you are getting through viewfinder?  Why is it less lovable than Mamiyas?

The Fuji GSW690 comes with a 65mm lens. It's a rangefinder, so you can see more than 100% through the viewfinder. If I remember correctly, the viewfinder frame-lines are coupled to the focusing mechanism, moving as you focus closer (to compensate for parallax). Also, as far as I remember, when looking through the viewfinder the large lens intrudes somewhat into the bottom right corner of the frame-lines. - It's less lovable than the Mamiyas because it's ugly, and you can't swap lenses.