Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Thierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    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 Hagenauer
    [email protected]

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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.

  4. #4
    Member Ebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    35

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    An older test with P45, but files ready to download from
    Capture Integration (bottom of page)

    " www.captureintegration.com/tests/lens/ "

    By page tabs:
    Test, Lens (bottom of page)
    Last edited by Ebe; 4th March 2012 at 19:44. Reason: It changed my link to default CI

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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:


    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    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.
    I couldn't agree more!
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 5th March 2012 at 04:50.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Houston TX USA
    Posts
    273
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

  9. #9
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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 ,

    Matt

  10. #10
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    I agree - wise words from Dave here ...


    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    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 ,

    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.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  11. #11
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    I'm going to start carrying a smeary wet wiped Nikon polarizer with me at all times.

    -Matt

  12. #12
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Nose grease works a charm. Really
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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!


  14. #14
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  15. #15
    Workshop Member Bryan Stephens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    463
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    He didnt have his glasses on that day
    Bryan

    “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Hi Graham - would be very interested to see these, but I'm getting a "missing plug-in" message using Chrome, and it's not helping me out by telling me what plug-in is required?

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    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

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterL View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  21. #21
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    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.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison


  25. #25
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    134

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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.
    wayne
    My gallery
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

  27. #27
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Houston TX USA
    Posts
    273
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

    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

  28. #28
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  29. #29
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    970
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by dchew View Post
    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

  34. #34
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    134

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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).
    wayne
    My gallery

  35. #35
    Senior Member malmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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

  36. #36
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    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:



  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Mamiya 645 vs tech camera - objective comparison

    +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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •