 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / July 2004MF v LF
Hi there, I aplogise in advance if this has been posted before. I will post it in the MF group also to get a different view. I have a Mamiya 7 with 50, 80 & 150 mm lenses and only photograph landscapes on a tripod using Fuji Velvia 50. All of my photos are taken whilst backpacking, sometmes many days away from a road end. The Mamiya 7 lenses are very sharp and the system very portable and easy to use. I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is concerned. That aside, how much improvement in 16 X 20 prints could I expect from a 4X5 field camera? Am I dumb to be even considering LF? Thanks, Alan Hogg University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. > Hi there, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > University of Waikato, > Hamilton, New Zealand. Do you see and grain or softness in your 16x20's compared to, say, your 8x10? If not, then you probably won't see all that much difference. At best, the differences would probably only be apparent in side by side prints. But don't take my, or anyone else's, word for it. Find someone with a 4x5, or rent one. It can be a studio camera or whatever. Find any easy place to do a test shot. Take the picture with the 4x5 and with your Mamiya equipment. Then, make a 16x20 from each of them. That will be the only way you will really know to what extent, if any, you will see increased quality with the 4x5. That said, I do backpack with a 4x5. I use a Toho FC45x, which weighs around 3 lbs. I use TMX in Readyloads, but you would probably want to use Velvia in Fuji Quickloads. For backpacking, the Toho is the best choice that I know of. The advantages of the 4x5 for 16x20s are mainly camera movements: in some circumstances you can get more things sharply in focus with movements. This is mainly the case if what you need sharp lies along a plane, which, for me at least, isn't all that often. You can also avoid keystoning by keeping the back perfectly plumb. The disadvantage is the increased weight (mainly do to the film), the less exposures you can carry, and the significantly longer set-up time. -Peter > The disadvantage is the increased weight (mainly do to the film), the > less exposures you can carry, and the significantly longer set-up time. Since I'm a lurker and do not have any experience with LF (yet), what accounts for the significantly longer setup? Is it focussing? > Since I'm a lurker and do not have any experience with LF (yet), what > accounts for the significantly longer setup? Is it focussing? Simple mechanics of setting up always on a tripod, using film holders versus roll backs, no in camera metering and in general leveling, composing aligning movements and yes focusing. Oh an there's that darkcloth issue of having it about your head versus simply looking through a finder.  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 In article <pan.2004.07.20.23.16.13.560000@devnull.com>, > > Since I'm a lurker and do not have any experience with LF (yet), what > > accounts for the significantly longer setup? Is it focussing? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > aligning movements and yes focusing. Oh an there's that darkcloth issue of having > it about your head versus simply looking through a finder. In article <pan.2004.07.20.23.16.13.560000@devnull.com>, Mike <Mike@devnull.com> wrote: > Since I'm a lurker and do not have any experience with LF (yet), what > accounts for the significantly longer setup? Is it focussing? If you use someting like the Linhof rangefinder 4x5 without movements and with the optical framer, then the setup time is the same as working properly with a MF camera: tripod setup. Go Linhof! >>The disadvantage is the increased weight (mainly do to the film), the >>less exposures you can carry, and the significantly longer set-up time. > > Since I'm a lurker and do not have any experience with LF (yet), what > accounts for the significantly longer setup? Is it focussing? In addition to what others have said, most view camera's need to be 'setup'. Field cameras need to be unfolded, bellows might have to be changed... And focusing properly can take a little while: Look at ground glass under darkcloth, use loupe, tilt, re-focus, swing, re-focus ...,do it all over again to see if you can do better,..., figure focus spread for depth of field... It simply takes longer. This afternoon, I took 5 rolls of film with my Fuji 6x9 rangefinder. That's 40 exposures. If I had brought my 4x5 or 8x10 Sinar, I probably would have made only 5, with a couple of duplicate exposures thrown in. The slower pace is not necessarily a bad thing, but it _is_ a very different way to work. I think most people who give up 4x5 do so simply because that slow way of working doesn't work best for them. The best suggestion for would-be large format photographers is to try one out for awhile before buying. -Peter >>The disadvantage is the increased weight (mainly do to the film), the >>less exposures you can carry, and the significantly longer set-up time. > > Since I'm a lurker and do not have any experience with LF (yet), what > accounts for the significantly longer setup? Is it focussing? With medium format, you don't always have to use a tripod, with large format you do. The LF camera is likely to be folded up or come in pieces, so setting it up to take a picture takes longer. Focusing does take a bit longer. In particular, you have to use a dark cloth of some sort, which is going to take more time than looking through a viewfinder. You seldom do any kind of through the lens exposure measurement with a LF camera, so judging exposure takes a bit longer. Finally, since view cameras allow for movements, you almost always takes advantage of them, if nothing else but to frame the subject exactly as you want. You can't do that with your medium format so you don't spend time at it. > [...] > I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is > concerned. That aside, how much improvement in 16 X 20 prints could I > expect from a 4X5 field camera? Am I dumb to be even considering LF? Movements aside, here is a pretty good side-by-side comparison of equivalevent Hasselblad SWC and equivalent 4x5 lens. Click on the small image between the others for a full-blown (web) version. http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html Hope this helps. Nothing beats LF. Bigger really is better. > Movements aside, here is a pretty good side-by-side comparison of > equivalevent Hasselblad SWC and equivalent 4x5 lens. Click on the small [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hope this helps. > Nothing beats LF. Bigger really is better. 6x7 format (56 x 69 mm) is much larger than a Hassy (45 x 56 mm) when adjusted for the .80 aspect ratio. > > Movements aside, here is a pretty good side-by-side comparison of > > equivalevent Hasselblad SWC and equivalent 4x5 lens. Click on the small [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 6x7 format (56 x 69 mm) is much larger than a Hassy (45 x 56 mm) when > adjusted for the .80 aspect ratio. Anyone can do the math of 69-56. So what? And your demonstration of the difference with 4x5 is where? > > 6x7 format (56 x 69 mm) is much larger than a Hassy (45 x 56 mm) when > > adjusted for the .80 aspect ratio. > > Anyone can do the math of 69-56. So what? And your demonstration of the > difference with 4x5 is where? The resolution on a true 6x7 falls somewhere between the Hassy and the 4x5. That's all I am saying. > > > 6x7 format (56 x 69 mm) is much larger than a Hassy (45 x 56 mm) when > > > adjusted for the .80 aspect ratio. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The resolution on a true 6x7 falls somewhere between the Hassy and the 4x5. > That's all I am saying. Okay. In the example shown I chose a section deep within each to obviate the other dimensions. > > > > 6x7 format (56 x 69 mm) is much larger than a Hassy (45 x 56 mm) when > > > > adjusted for the .80 aspect ratio. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Okay. In the example shown I chose a section deep within each to obviate the > other dimensions. I don't understand. A 6x7 negative has 53% more resolution than a Hassy negative cropped to 8x10 aspect ratio. > Hope this helps. > Nothing beats LF. Bigger really is better. I agree and your test is fairly well done with the exception of the Tri-X versus APX variable..... in my book that's a big variable. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > Hope this helps. > > Nothing beats LF. Bigger really is better. > > I agree and your test is fairly well done with > the exception of the Tri-X versus APX variable..... > in my book that's a big variable. The disadvantage in that case was the 4x5 with Tri-x, but of course the 4x5 prevails anyway. It should show how the finer grain film does not make up the difference. > Movements aside, here is a pretty good side-by-side comparison of > equivalevent Hasselblad SWC and equivalent 4x5 lens. Click on the small [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hope this helps. > Nothing beats LF. Bigger really is better. What would the print sizes be if the whole frames were blown up as big as the samples? Eventually, of course, the 4x5 (or 8x10) will win. The important question in this case, though, is to what extent will quality differ with 16x20's? I expect that your example would only be relevant for a bigger print size. To state the obvious, a 16x20 is roughly a 4x enlargment from 4x5, where as it's roughly a 7.5 time enlargement from 6x7. This difference will be mittigated somewhat by the quality of the Mamiya lenses. I've seen reports that with a properly aligned rangefinder that the Mamiya 7 lens can resolve around 90 lp/mm at working apertures. A good number of large format lenses, on the other hand, will give around 50 to 60 lp/mm under relevantly similar conditions. BTW., it's perfectly possible that APX 100 might have bigger grain size than Tri-x. APX is a very nice film, but it's not fine grained for it's speed. -Peter > The > important question in this case, though, is to what extent will quality > differ with 16x20's? Another thing to remember is that the original poster is using Velvia, which will be significantly finer grained that APX 100 or Tri-x. Another relevant factor would be the type of prints that the original poster wants made. Are they Ilfochrome, C prints, or what? If they are large format inkjet prints, then the differences between 4x5 and 6x7 would probably be even smaller. -Peter > > http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html > > What would the print sizes be if the whole frames were blown up as big > as the samples? [...] Presuming the equivalent of 360spi, then the print would have been 41"x32". Alan, >>I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is concerned. _That aside,_ You have really answered your own question. Portability and speed is everything whilst travelling esp. packing. Quick grab shots et al... What is your purpose for travelling, specifically (art) photos or just to look around? I would say that just about all LF users would also take along a 35mm for LF is no candid camera but more an art device. If you can keep the 7 and try a cheap LF to experience the difference. Or find some other range finder to suit your purpose. By reason LF dictates that you do your own darkroom work or a lot of the advantage is lost and the cost is increased. For only you really know what you saw and shot. This mainly for black and white. For other films like chromes etc. most the advantage is not apparent till humongous reproductions are attempted or extremely fine (reproduction) work is required. As is the way in this trade opinions will vary, this is mine. SignatureOtzi > > > http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html > > > > What would the print sizes be if the whole frames were blown up as big > > as the samples? [...] > > Presuming the equivalent of 360spi, then the print would have been 41"x32". : Hi there, : I aplogise in advance if this has been posted before. I will post it in : the MF group also to get a different view. : I have a Mamiya 7 with 50, 80 & 150 mm lenses and only photograph : landscapes on a tripod using Fuji Velvia 50. All of my photos are taken : whilst backpacking, sometmes many days away from a road end. The Mamiya 7 : lenses are very sharp and the system very portable and easy to use. I've found that Mamiya lenses are very good. I hope that the equipment snobs never catch on to Mamiya and keep their attention turned to Hasselblad!! : I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is : concerned. That aside, how much improvement in 16 X 20 prints could I : expect from a 4X5 field camera? Am I dumb to be even considering LF? There will be a noticable improvement in detail and tonality. However the change won't be as large as going from 35mm to MF. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > [...] > : I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There will be a noticable improvement in detail and tonality. However the change > won't be as large as going from 35mm to MF. The following shows how different MF and LF can be http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html > > : I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is > > : concerned. That aside, how much improvement in 16 X 20 prints could I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The following shows how different MF and LF can be > http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html The above test was made using 6x6 format. A 6x7 format negative is 53% larger than 6x6 assuming that the later is cropped to 8x10 aspect ratio. > > > : I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is > > > : concerned. That aside, how much improvement in 16 X 20 prints could I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The above test was made using 6x6 format. A 6x7 format negative is 53% > larger than 6x6 assuming that the later is cropped to 8x10 aspect ratio. It is a comparison of the same relative area between the two formats. The area in red (the area compared) fits very easily into 6x7. (The small picture is the 6cmx* image.The large on the next page is the 4x5). > > > The following shows how different MF and LF can be > > > http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html Very good and interesting comparison. > The large [photo] on the next page is the 4x5). Er, no next page. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > > > > The following shows how different MF and LF can be > > > > http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Er, no next page. =8^} I err in presuming everyone mouses over images as I do. Hit the little picture between the two pictures. It opens to a new page. Note the light leak in the picture. Bummer. I hope to find some daylight-time to reshoot it. > > > The following shows how different MF and LF can be > > > http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > area in red (the area compared) fits very easily into 6x7. (The small > picture is the 6cmx* image.The large on the next page is the 4x5). You are seriously confused. >> [...] >> : I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > change >> won't be as large as going from 35mm to MF. > The following shows how different MF and LF can be > http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html It shows how different the errors of an cheap flatbed scanner look after scaling the pictures different. The Epson 3200 isn't able to scan with 3200 DPI, this is typical marketing BS. Blow both negs up to 50x60cm (or something like that, using an optical enlarger) and scan the sections 1:1, this would show something... My experience with this question is that I have both a fine Technika V with several excellent lenses and a Mamiya 7 with 43/65/80/150. Last year I shot 4 (four) 4x5"-negs and about 300 120 films with the Mamiya, and I'm _very_ critical about quality. If you know you're going to make murals and/or need movements, take the LF camera. For the rest, a Mamiya 7 is good enough. Martin > > The following shows how different MF and LF can be > > http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/compare.html > > It shows how different the errors of an cheap flatbed scanner look > after scaling the pictures different. The Epson 3200 isn't able to > scan with 3200 DPI, this is typical marketing BS. It was a comparison to show differences, not a scanner contest. Let's just say "Each scanned to maximum SPI" and leave it at that. Each negative received the same sampling so is it not a fair comparison? >>>[...] >>>: I realise that LF has many advantages as far as camera movements is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > after scaling the pictures different. The Epson 3200 isn't able to > scan with 3200 DPI, this is typical marketing BS. The Epson 3200 does indeed scan at 3200 ppi. But you are right about marketing. Scanner manufacturers have apparently agreed to publish only their scanning resolutions. That tells you the number of samples per inch that are collected by the scanner. The Epson 3200 does collect 3200 samples per inch. But this doesn't tell you how well it does at resolving fine detail. That is usually specified in lp/mm. The theoretcial maximum lp/mm obtainable from a scanner with scanning resolution 3200 ppi is about 63 lp/mm. All the tests of the Epson 3200 suggests that it actually delivers at most half that. In actuality, no scanner delivers its theoretical maximum resolution in lp/mm. You would get that if you had perfect optics and other components. But some scanners come closer than others. The Epson 3200 at about 30 lp/mm shold deliver scans which can be enlarged 5 X or perhaps slightly higher. Prints made that way should not break up much even under close examination. Even larger prints should be acceptable if viewers keep back to a normal viewing distance. It would be better if all scanner manufacturers published the results of testing showing the photographic reoslution obtainable under standard conditions, in addition to publishing the scanning resolution. But none of them do it, so it is probably not fair to single out Epson for not doing so. Given the price, the Epson scanners do a pretty good job. They are certainly adequate for 4 x 5 and also for a lot of medium format. But one can do better for 35 mm at comparable prices by getting a dedicated 35 mm film scanner. > Blow both negs up to 50x60cm (or something like that, using an > optical enlarger) and scan the sections 1:1, this would show something... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Martin > Hi there, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whilst backpacking, sometmes many days away from a road end. The Mamiya 7 > lenses are very sharp and the system very portable and easy to use. I wouldn't advise even trying 4X5, you don't want to see the difference and then have to carry it! <G> SignatureStacey >I have a Mamiya 7 with 50, 80 & 150 mm lenses and only photograph >landscapes on a tripod using Fuji Velvia 50. All of my photos are taken [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >concerned. That aside, how much improvement in 16 X 20 prints could I >expect from a 4X5 field camera? If you haven't found yourself wanting camera movements, or unhappy with the limitations of rangefinder viewing (closeup, graduated filters, polarizer, etc.), stick with the Mamiya. As you say, the Mamiya lenses are very sharp -- probably better than anything you might put on a LF camera. Since Velvia is essentially grainless, you probably won't see an improvement in image quality from LF, but you can easily test by comparing a 9x12 print a 16x20 print from the Mamiya. Disregarding the limitation of rangefinder viewing, the Mamiya is perfect for your purpose. Chris Ellinger Ann Arbor, MI USA http://www.ellingerphoto.com If you don't need movements, and if it isn't important to you that each photograph be processed individually, and if 16x20 is the largest print you'll ever make, then you probably don't need large format given the quality of your existing equipment and the slow speed film you use. I use a Pentax 67 camera occasionally. Most of my prints are 11x14 or smaller. I rarely can tell the difference between photographs made with the 6x7 and the 4x5. I seldom make 16x20 prints with either format but I've done some with each and have been able to see what I thought was some difference in the print definition with 4x5 but it certainly didn't leap out at me. I'm not sure that in a blind test of a whole batch of both I'd consistently know which was which. Given the disadvantages of large format compared to roll film (weight, bulk, limited amounts of film that can be carried, time to set up, lost pictures due to light changing, etc. etc.) I think you'd probably be better off sticking with roll film unless you find your existing prints lacking in some way that large format might improve. > >I have a Mamiya 7 with 50, 80 & 150 mm lenses and only photograph > >landscapes on a tripod using Fuji Velvia 50. All of my photos are taken [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://www.ellingerphoto.com > Hi there, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > University of Waikato, > Hamilton, New Zealand. @ 11x14 is difficult from normal viewing distances to tell the diff between good medium format and 4x5 prints. @ 16x20 the detail would begin to become evident, but good medium format is awfully good. Especially the Mamiya. If your prints are good enough for you (and your customers) then why switch? If there's more you want out of your prints, then ADD to your system and don't change. MF convenience is tough to beat. LF-type movements cost a fortune to add to those MF systems that are capable of it. For landscape shooting, a good wood field and something like a Nikkor SW 90/8 would be perfect. You could do it for < $1000. Collin > [...] > If there's more you want out of your prints, then ADD to your system > and don't change. MF convenience is tough to beat. LF-type movements > cost a fortune to add to those MF systems that are capable of it. The Rollei SL66 also can use a 50mm lens with tilt. Seems to be a very good thing for landscapes. > For landscape shooting, a good wood field and something like a Nikkor > SW 90/8 would be perfect. You could do it for < $1000. For less perfection and $800 less cash: A Pacemaker Graphic and the 127 Ektar that comes with it. But why not just rent the 4x5 of your choice for a weekend and try it. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >> For landscape shooting, a good wood field and something like a Nikkor >> SW 90/8 would be perfect. You could do it for < $1000. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But why not just rent the 4x5 of your choice for a weekend > and try it. Or for $150 less the graphic a B&J press camera with the included lens-))) Nick "Nick Zentena" <zentena@hophead.dyndns.org> wrote > Or for [$50] $150 less the graphic a B&J press camera > with the included lens-))) It's gotten that bad, has it? I don't want to even look. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > "Nick Zentena" <zentena@hophead.dyndns.org> wrote > >> Or for [$50] $150 less the graphic a B&J press camera >> with the included lens-))) > > It's gotten that bad, has it? I don't want to even look. With the one I got the seller didn't know the front opened. Had the back open. Called the ground glass the lens and mentioned how it had lines drawn on it-) But nobody seems willing to pay extra for the B&J name. Nick The trick is - you have to carry it. > >> Or for [$50] $150 less the graphic a B&J press camera > >> with the included lens-))) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nick > The trick is - you have to carry it. Came with a handle-) And it's lighter then some MF cameras. Nick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.