Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

[GrahamWelland]

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

I meant to go back and redo that image ... It's not a poster child for post processing for viewing at 100%. In print the noise is invisible so I never did go back to it. If I remember correctly I lifted the exposure on the tree bark shadows but I used Topaz - I would need to look back at the PSD at home.

 

[Shashin]

Just to mention one obvious point--your best pictures come from a camera you use. Tech cameras are great, but are you willing to put in the extra effort--all the time? I really liked the quality of 4x5, but I mostly shot medium-format. I just did not like the workflow of the view camera, it took the spontaneity out of my work. Others work with that type of camera much better. YMMV

 

[gerald.d]

That's a good point Shashin.

I'm coming at this from two directions - DSLR and 5x7 large format.

If I were to be brutally honest with myself, 5x7 is often too much like hard work. On the DSLR side, the vast majority of my shots were using the range of Canon TS-E's. I actually enjoy manual focus and exposure.

I see using a tech cam as falling between these two extremes, and for me I think that's going to be a happy place to be

 

[alan_w_george]

IQ180: Mamiya 45mm versus Cambo with SK 47mm

 

[Wayne Fox]

As one who has shot MF for quite some time, and tried a tech camera for about a year, I have some personal thoughts that apply to me ...

For me there is no doubt if you have great technique and know what you are doing, technical quality of the tech camera and lenses will be superior, especially when you pixel peep. Obviously subject matter will dictate how important that difference is. Another factor which I feel is important is how large prints will be and how much will the difference show through on final prints. Yes, I think the tech camera can be superior, but won't always be.

To me it wasn't about the quality of the images ... while the tech camera has an edge, I think printed they both are very good. To me it was about the images I missed because of the workflow. Had I been more experienced with this type of shooting my feelings might be different. There are occasions where the workflow of a tech camera is no problem, but in my case I just don't work that way. Most of the time when I shoot it's a location I'm only going to get to once, I've scouted multiple spots and compositions, and I want to get them all.

I also started with a p65+ back and the Schneider 35 and 47 were pretty good, but the the IQ180 I felt the LCC just had to work too hard, and that means giving up 2 stops or more of my dynamic range to make up for the fall off. The color cast was so extreme I also was uncomfortable with how much manipulation it required to neutralize the color, and I also felt that using the LCC eliminated the "natural" fall off in density of a wide angle lenses and left the outside too light, requiring every image to be "fixed" with adding vignette (so more manipulation). One of the main things I like about MF is the amazing dynamic range. With the DF I don't lose that.

I'm interested in getting back into a tech camera (or even something like a Lihnhof 679) someday, but only if I can pick up a decent used system with a few lenses. If I went tech, I would probably go Arca because the tilt is one of the biggest advantages to get sharp images. I also would probably only go with retro focus lenses (like the rodenstock) to reduce some of the color cast and fall off. This would be a nice kit when I'm headed to a location where I've shot before and I'm really trying to nail a single composition or two.

The DF gets a lot of knocks, but to be honest, it has everything I need, OK AF (and I can focus it manually quite well), I only shoot in manual mode and can nail exposure easily. What it's missing is good exposure bracketing, so I have to do that manually but don't find a need for it too often. I'm also from the Zoom lens world and my copy of the 75-150 is very sharp and my favorite lens, although the 55LS is pretty sweet.

Not knocking anyone else's position ... that's just my own personal experience.

 

[PeterL]

Wayne - seeing your images, it's clear you know what you're doing and it works for you. It is interesting to hear your thoughts on your choice of platform.

I'm personally sticking with the tech camera, the process of working it just calms me down, and makes me appreciate to entire image creation process better, and I believe this makes my images better.

Cheers, -Peter

 

[djonesii]

Wayne nailed it.

Much of a tech camera workflow is about personal preference.

To anyone on the fence, I'd highly recommend one of the getdpi workshops where you can get your hands on one of these beasts + training for a very effective comparison. I think that of the 4 of us who did not have technical cameras, one bought, one will, one might, and one won't! So do come in aware of the "risks"!

In hind sight, when I was at the workshop, i did not shoot the same backs on the same system, so it's hard to compare image quality. That said, the workflow comparisons that I made were totally valid.

When plunking down the cost of a late model Boxter, fully understanding the workflow to get the images that you see in the technical camera thread was vital for me.

Good enough is a slippery slope that ends with a pink "hello kitty" camera and shooting everything at web resolution, but my P30+ does just nudge that out :banghead::banghead:

Where I'm at today, I'm with Wayne ..... but since the rumor mill is always alive and well, I may even have to make due with my AFD-II.

Dave

 

[Guy Mancuso]

As one who has shot MF for quite some time, and tried a tech camera for about a year, I have some personal thoughts that apply to me ...

For me there is no doubt if you have great technique and know what you are doing, technical quality of the tech camera and lenses will be superior, especially when you pixel peep. Obviously subject matter will dictate how important that difference is. Another factor which I feel is important is how large prints will be and how much will the difference show through on final prints. Yes, I think the tech camera can be superior, but won't always be.

To me it wasn't about the quality of the images ... while the tech camera has an edge, I think printed they both are very good. To me it was about the images I missed because of the workflow. Had I been more experienced with this type of shooting my feelings might be different. There are occasions where the workflow of a tech camera is no problem, but in my case I just don't work that way. Most of the time when I shoot it's a location I'm only going to get to once, I've scouted multiple spots and compositions, and I want to get them all.

I also started with a p65+ back and the Schneider 35 and 47 were pretty good, but the the IQ180 I felt the LCC just had to work too hard, and that means giving up 2 stops or more of my dynamic range to make up for the fall off. The color cast was so extreme I also was uncomfortable with how much manipulation it required to neutralize the color, and I also felt that using the LCC eliminated the "natural" fall off in density of a wide angle lenses and left the outside too light, requiring every image to be "fixed" with adding vignette (so more manipulation). One of the main things I like about MF is the amazing dynamic range. With the DF I don't lose that.

I'm interested in getting back into a tech camera (or even something like a Lihnhof 679) someday, but only if I can pick up a decent used system with a few lenses. If I went tech, I would probably go Arca because the tilt is one of the biggest advantages to get sharp images. I also would probably only go with retro focus lenses (like the rodenstock) to reduce some of the color cast and fall off. This would be a nice kit when I'm headed to a location where I've shot before and I'm really trying to nail a single composition or two.

The DF gets a lot of knocks, but to be honest, it has everything I need, OK AF (and I can focus it manually quite well), I only shoot in manual mode and can nail exposure easily. What it's missing is good exposure bracketing, so I have to do that manually but don't find a need for it too often. I'm also from the Zoom lens world and my copy of the 75-150 is very sharp and my favorite lens, although the 55LS is pretty sweet.

Not knocking anyone else's position ... that's just my own personal experience.

Well Wayne you come to these conclusions through working the systems and finding the best solutions for you and for that i give you the highest praise. All too often we think one thing or go in one direction without looking out your side mirror and it pays to get all this figured out to get the best ART you can draw from yourself. Frankly IMHO everything is BS unless you can produce great ART and find what is working the best for you to accomplish that. IQ is not everything or technical perfection. Frankly its last and if you can't get it on the sensor than it is money not spent well at all. Use what works. No need to be looking around the corner all the time. :thumbs:

 

[dchew]

Unless you are shooting architecture I agree with everyone that it should be mostly a workflow-preference, not a quality decision. Although the quality with wides is better, Wayne is spot-on.

I will tell my usual story: at PODAS this year both the Alpa and the DF were relatively new to me. After the first day shooting the DF I used the Alpa and never looked back after that. The last day I was shooting at the dunes with another guy who had a Canon w/ 35-350. The light was changing very fast and he was swinging around banging off lots of great shots. I was in molasses with the Alpa. But I absolutely loved it! On the way back I had the pleasure to meet Wayne for the first time. We chatted about the Alpa and he mentioned he was selling his for the reasons he states above.

Point being it is totally a personal decision. I would not recommend anyone buy a tech camera without thouroughly trying it first.

Dave

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Unless you are shooting architecture I agree with everyone that it should be mostly a workflow-preference, not a quality decision. Although the quality with wides is better, Wayne is spot-on.

I will tell my usual story: at PODAS this year both the Alpa and the DF were relatively new to me. After the first day shooting the DF I used the Alpa and never looked back after that. The last day I was shooting at the dunes with another guy who had a Canon w/ 35-350. The light was changing very fast and he was swinging around banging off lots of great shots. I was in molasses with the Alpa. But I absolutely loved it! On the way back I had the pleasure to meet Wayne for the first time. We chatted about the Alpa and he mentioned he was selling his for the reasons he states above.

Point being it is totally a personal decision. I would not recommend anyone buy a tech camera without thouroughly trying it first.

Dave

Totally agree and more workshops and seminars are planned just in this area. Folks NEED to attend these.

 

[Don Libby]

Hi Gerald, I'm going to make an attempt to answer what appears to be the main question - "Is there a place for both a TC and AF"...

The short answer is yes. There's a slight longer one which still ends in yes.

I made the move to medium format about 6-years ago with a Mamiya AFD, P30+ and a slew of lenses. I kept the P30 and lenses and updated the body as I went along.

Then I got the TC bug and tried out a Cambo WRS and shortly afterwards got it along with a P45+. Within less than 5-months I sold the entire kit of AF deciding to go solely with a TC for my landscape work. Fast forward a couple years and you added a M9 then just a couple months ago got rid of the M9 for a DF and 3-lenses. In between all this I upgraded the back to a P65 so I'm now shooting landscape with the same TC I started with all those years before and have since go back to a DF with AF.

Can they live together? Yes. My lenses for the TC have been 35, 90 and 120mm while I'm using 80, 150 and 300 with the DF and soon hope to get a 120mm for macro.

The thing to remember is that while these are basically the same with the back being the anchor to both, the methods used to capture are totally different. AF is fast "run and gun" while the TC is very slow and deliberate. Both are more than capable to providing stunning work but in the end I'd say I use the TC for 90+% of my landscape work as you just can't beat the movements.

I know you want to see images demonstrating the differences and have not included them here. I'd like to suggest you visit both the MF image thread and the TC image threads as they run the gamut of what you can hope to achieve.

I'm glad to see more and more thinking about using a technical camera.

Hope this helps in some way.

Don

 

[Shashin]

When you come to such a forum, there is nothing but love toward technology that is a silver bullet. But I do not find that technical solutions are really as they are presented. Cameras are a compromise. None are "ideal" and every solution creates a problem, or ever two. I think of cameras in terms of how much friction are they adding to the process. The least friction, the better the work.

Now, this is nothing to do with how easy or quick a system is, but rather if it supports or interferes with your work. Like Wayne, I came down on the DSLR side of the fence (but I still use technical cameras), others have found the tech camera to be the solution. I even believe Holgas are still popular.

 

[jlm]

i've always hated that little peep-hole in an slr.
2-1/4 and 4x5 ground glass was wonderful, you could fall right in. MFD on a tech cam is almost blind by comparison
It's funny, but with film you would shoot and not see the real image until your first print came up in the dektol. now with a DB, you don't really see the image until it comes up in the soup of Capture One , back at the studio

 

[Wayne Fox]

Totally agree and more workshops and seminars are planned just in this area. Folks NEED to attend these.

Yeah, you just need to do a couple more a year, or give us far more warning. I didn't attend last fall because what I like about your workshops is the small personal experience (fantastic), and last fall was more like a PODAS (which isn't a bad thing, just not what I wanted in a place like that). Unfortunately by the time I heard about Death Valley I was committed to something else.

My fall is filling up very quickly already ...

(sorry about getting off topic).

 

[malmac]

I have both a Cambo WDS and a Phase 1 with IQ180 back.

99% of the time I use the Phase 1 - I just never seem to have time to fiddle with the Cambo / Disto / LCC and notebook to record those camera settings which are not recorded to the digital image file. I also find the distance scale on the SK35xl lens panel inadequate - though I do realise that a HPF ring could be added - but at present I am not prepared to sink any more dollars into the Cambo system.

I like the idea of the Hartblei Hcam B1 approach - better focus system than the Cambo - capacity to use my Canon Lenses and also my Phase 1 DF mount lenses - do not loose the use of tilt shift lenses - I guess the Hartblei is another take on the technical camera.

What do other forum members think?


Regards


mal

 

[Woody Campbell]

I use the Alpa TC + IQ 180 + Schneider 35 as a carry around. I keep it hyperfocused at f11. It's very quick and unobtrusive. A large part of the issue that you see with the LCCs is alleviated with a center filter although you loose a stop plus. I was trying to replicate the Hasselblad super wide C experience, which I think I've done. I don't own a real MF body and don't plan on buying one. This is really a matter of personal preference and I respect the opposing point of view. I've shot Leicas all my life so a little manual involvement comes easily. The IQ possible with the Schneiders and Rodenstocks is simply mind-bogling. Long lenses are a real issue, but I'm predominantly a wide shooter. A recent example:

 

[Shashin]

+1 (with lots of jealously with Woody's approach).

I used to shoot a Horseman SW612 with a 55mm handheld using the focusing scale and a center filter. It was a great street camera. Fast to use with great results.