The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

gerald.d

Well-known member
My journey into MF is progressing steadily but slowly.

Last week I was fortunate enough to pick up a second-hard Phase One AF (thanks Gareth!), a couple of old manual lenses (50mm shift, 150mm f/3.5N) and a film back.

I'm looking to add to this a P65+ and Alpa TC along with a 35mm SK shortly.

Originally, the plan was to start with the tech camera and the P65+, and then get the other body in a few months time, but given how difficult it is to pick up second hand kit out here (Dubai), I jumped at the chance to get the AF, lenses and back when I was in the UK last week hanging around waiting for a visa to be processed.

What I'm now questioning though is exactly what the TC+35mm SK is going to give me over using the AF with a lens of the same focal length.

Ignoring every other contributory factor (size/weight/whatever), is there anyone here who has both set-ups (with >=60MP digital back), and can share with me identical test shots taken with both a "Mamiya" body/lens combo and a tech cam/lens combo using the same focal length lenses, to demonstrate the gap in quality that I can reasonably expect between the two set-ups when using with a high MP digital back? Tech cam doesn't have to be the Alpa TC.

To stress - my primary interest here is not in hypotheticals, theory or (however well considered and respected) opinion, although of course all comments and advice would be most welcome.

What I'd really like to see are images that demonstrate the objective differences I can expect between the two options.

Many thanks in advance :)

Gerald.
 

Thierry

New member
Dear Gerald,

I suggest you to get in touch with Bryan Siebel, member "siebel" on this forum and located in Dubai.

He knows the Alpa cameras and the PO backs by heart and will be able to explain you both the handling and the differences to expect.

www.bryansiebel.com

Best regards
Thierry

My journey into MF is progressing steadily but slowly.

Last week I was fortunate enough to pick up a second-hard Phase One AF (thanks Gareth!), a couple of old manual lenses (50mm shift, 150mm f/3.5N) and a film back.

I'm looking to add to this a P65+ and Alpa TC along with a 35mm SK shortly.

Originally, the plan was to start with the tech camera and the P65+, and then get the other body in a few months time, but given how difficult it is to pick up second hand kit out here (Dubai), I jumped at the chance to get the AF, lenses and back when I was in the UK last week hanging around waiting for a visa to be processed.

What I'm now questioning though is exactly what the TC+35mm SK is going to give me over using the AF with a lens of the same focal length.

Ignoring every other contributory factor (size/weight/whatever), is there anyone here who has both set-ups (with >=60MP digital back), and can share with me identical test shots taken with both a "Mamiya" body/lens combo and a tech cam/lens combo using the same focal length lenses, to demonstrate the gap in quality that I can reasonably expect between the two set-ups when using with a high MP digital back? Tech cam doesn't have to be the Alpa TC.

To stress - my primary interest here is not in hypotheticals, theory or (however well considered and respected) opinion, although of course all comments and advice would be most welcome.

What I'd really like to see are images that demonstrate the objective differences I can expect between the two options.

Many thanks in advance :)

Gerald.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Thanks Thierry - I know Bryan, but as per my post, I'm not really after explanations of handling and expectations of differences, I'd actually like to see those differences.

Can't remember it exactly, but I think Bryan's signature here is along the lines of "at the end of the day it's all about the image", which is particularly apt with regards to what I'm looking for :)


Regards,

Gerald.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Thanks Ebe - that's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for :)

/edit

Just had a quick look at the f/11's.

Struggling to see anything in it in the center, but a clear win for the tech cam once you get towards the edges.
 

gazwas

Active member
Just had a quick look at the f/11's.

Struggling to see anything in it in the center, but a clear win for the tech cam once you get towards the edges.
Hi Gerald, glad you're liking the camera!

I think you hit the nail on the head with your above statement. IMO tech wide lenses only really shine when looking at the edge of the image or when doing shifts etc.

It is of my opinion that while I fully agree that LF lenses are sharper than the DSLR equivalent, its only really while conducting these like for like comparisons that you will ever notice any real difference. You would have to be looking at very large prints or pixel peeping to notice the differences when not shooting under test conditions.

As we discussed, my whole reason for going tech camera was for wide lenses and using movements as my longer lenses are on a DF (120Macro and 150D are excellent optics). If all my shots were straight zeroed captures then I'd find it hard to justify the cost of a tech camera when there are some very excellent Phase/Mamiya glass to use.

If you scrutinise images and look for the differences you will find them.

However, its not always about the tech behind the capture that makes an amazing picture.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Ok, this isn't a far comparison but is two images taken a day apart, one with my DF/35D and the other with my Alpa/SK35, both with IQ160. Now to be fair to the Phase One lens, it was raining and I think that basically the polarizer was slightly misted up but you'd never see this in a print. It was the stronger image at the end of the day due to composition and other factors that are probably self evident. A friend of mine has a 30x40in version of the DF image and it is stunning to see in print.

However, in comparison side by side it's a bit like taking a knife to a gun fight when you see the Alpa/Schneider 35 shot.

IQ160 & Phase One DF & 35D:

IQ160 & Alpa STC/SK 35 XL Digitar:


If you scrutinise images and look for the differences you will find them.

However, its not always about the tech behind the capture that makes an amazing picture.
:thumbs: I couldn't agree more!
 
Last edited:

djonesii

Workshop Member
I have looked at my photos from the workshop, and There is no question at all, an IQ180 with even a simple 40mm simply smokes a P30+ with a very good 35mm, no real surprise there.

That said .... I'd take a really long hard look at a tech camera and what it takes to get those stunning images.

I've got a few where I simply scr**ED the LCC up to the point where I can't salvage the image, and that really sucks. The experience of focusing a tech camera vs a SLR is a whole different beast.

Even the post processing is much more work.

There are a suite of ways to get around the core physics of the optics other than physically with a tech camera. Graham was shooting both on the WS, and with focus stacking and helicon, you can give tech a run for it's money. Very Very similar images, but not technically better.

To some extent, you're hearing the voice of a fellow with two youngish kids, and not enough upmph in the job department to drop another 20K on camera gear. From all I saw, for high end landscape work, a tech cam with an IQ160 is the best value.... Rode or Schneider comes down to angles on the head of a pin, and working with one of the few dozen folks in the world it can help you really dial in a lens/back combo.

That said, even a P30+ with a good 35mm is very near the top of the diminishing marginal returns scale ....

Dave
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Graham,

That pair of pictures should be posted in every "detail and resolution are everything" discussion. Would one want the best of both pictures? Sure. But the tradeoff in this example is strongly in the DF's favor. Was there a polarizer on the 35XL? It doesn't look like it.

Big :thumbs:,

Matt
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I agree - wise words from Dave here ...


Graham,

That pair of pictures should be posted in every "detail and resolution are everything" discussion. Would one want the best of both pictures? Sure. But the tradeoff in this example is strongly in the DF's favor. Was there a polarizer on the 35XL? It doesn't look like it.

Big :thumbs:,

Matt
Matt - yes this was a case of taking the DF along on one day and seeing the shot & taking it there & then. I decided that I'd come back the next day to shoot a technically 'better' shot with the Alpa but of course the leaves had dropped more, the colour wasn't going to be as saturated and also the composition wasn't as nice either.

As regards the images, no polarizer on the Alpa shot. Smeary wet wiped Nikon polarizer on the DF shot.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I'm going to start carrying a smeary wet wiped Nikon polarizer with me at all times. :ROTFL:

-Matt
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Guy, if you're getting nose grease on the lens, you're looking into the camera from the wrong end! Jeesh, I thought you were the teacher here!

:ROTFL:
 

jagsiva

Active member
Ok, this isn't a far comparison but is two images taken a day apart, one with my DF/35D and the other with my Alpa/SK35, both with IQ160. Now to be fair to the Phase One lens, it was raining and I think that basically the polarizer was slightly misted up but you'd never see this in a print. It was the stronger image at the end of the day due to composition and other factors that are probably self evident. A friend of mine has a 30x40in version of the DF image and it is stunning to see in print.

However, in comparison side by side it's a bit like taking a knife to a gun fight when you see the Alpa/Schneider 35 shot.
Graham, thanks for the comparison. I noticed that the 35D image has a lot more noise, especially in the trunk section. Were they both shot at the same ISO value? Even if they were, I'd assume the 35D had a longer shutter which could have contributed to this.

...but the SK is clearly a lot crisper. Just when I though I had put my tech camera aspirations to rest :(
 

PeterL

Member
Great comparison Graham, while the DF picture has a more pleasing composition, there is no comparison with the 35XL in therms of sharpness and detail. The exact reason I shoot with the Alpa/Schneider as well, it's worth the extra hassle to me....

Cheers, -Peter
 

gazwas

Active member
Great comparison Graham, while the DF picture has a more pleasing composition, there is no comparison with the 35XL in therms of sharpness and detail. The exact reason I shoot with the Alpa/Schneider as well, it's worth the extra hassle to me....
Agreed, its a great shot Graham but hardly a fair comparison considering one was shot with a fogged up polariser. ;)

Shot like for like on the same day I would imagine without pixel peeping, the diference to be not that great, especially in the centre of the image.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Trust me, the 35D and SK35 XL Digitar is an unfair fight even under the best conditions. However, the question is whether you'll clearly see it in a real print on a real wall from a proper viewing distance. That's a harder comparison.

When you pixel peep the differences are significant, although as you mention it is primarily off the sweet spot of the lens where it will be most apparent. A fairer Phase/Mamiya test would probably have been the 28D or 45D. Both better lenses in my experience at least.
 
Top