I bought a Mamiya M7 slighted used (so I don't have to worry about the 1st/ 2nd scratch) and so, crassly deflowered, of much less value to shrink wrap Asian collectors. So I now can take MF pictures for $1200 (and add three, wider, hi IQ lenses) which should rival 4 figure MF digital backs.

With the meter set at ASA 50, lens at F4.0 (a slow F4.0 lens guarantees some DOF) the M7's meter tells me to shoot at 1/30 sec on this cloudy day. So this is really an exterior (sunlight) camera with Velvia. I put a camera plate on at 90 degrees (so I could get to the controls on the bottom) and now it fits fine on my Wimberly Mk II head.

The 80mm lens is a 39mm 35 FF equivalent. Were I to crop a panoramic section from 120 film (why buy the 35mm pano adapter and sweat custom development/handling?) I wind up with about 20mm lens coverage (on 135 but at a 39mm DOF?). This is almost exactly two Leica M7 35mm frames laid end to end.

At least one person thinks Mamiya's M7 shutter is quieter than Leica's M7 too. But if you crop 35mmm FF to 8x10/16x20 print size then the (ideal format) 6x7's area approaches 6 times that of 35mm FF. This is a lot of film in a camera smaller that a 1D series DSLR.

Welcome to the Mamiya 7 world. You'll be wanting to get the 43mm. It is exceptional. You'll find that the meter is fairly accurate -- just be aware that it is basically an averaging meter with the 80mm lens so think about what it is you are metering. With the 43mm it is more of a spot meter. Just keep that in mind.

The 35mm pano adapter is a little fiddely to use. I don't think it requires any custom development or handling -- just tell them not to mount the slides and/or not cut them -- not a big deal really. Even Costco will do that.

The only reason I see to use 35mm film for this is the save on film cost. But sooner or later you realize that by using 120/200 film for that pano you can decide where and how to crop the pano later -- giving you more options, the benefit of having a second look at the crop and the ability to change your mind. I used my 35mm pano adapter once only.

With a good scanner, you'll be amazed at the detail and resolution available. have fun with it.

Thank you Lotusm50. I have a good scanner (V750 and wet mount kit). Just waiting for the film to arrive. You really thing the 43mm is the next lens to buy instead of the 50mm??

SoundHound wrote:
Thank you Lotusm50. I have a good scanner (V750 and wet mount kit). Just waiting for the film to arrive. You really thing the 43mm is the next lens to buy instead of the 50mm??


Well, I like wide. I also use the 65mm as my standard lens, rather than the 80mm. I guess it depends on your taste and style. The 50mm and 43 mm are similar in design and performance, one is basically wider than the other. As it is, the 43mm is only the rough equivalent (depending on who you talk to) of a 21mm or 24mm lens on 35mm. So it's not really all that wide.

also one thing I was blissfully unaware of when I had the 7ii for a day shooting Pan-F+ 50iso film was that the shutter doesn't time itself slower than 1s (not surprising really) so for that you need the cable and a stopwatch.


it's a wonderful camera (although I prefer the fuji 690 simply for the aspect ratio) and you'll enjoy it muchly.

the 43 is the reason many people bothered to buy into this system at all. It's worth having, perhaps the best of the bunch from what I have learned.

I too have some MF rangefinders, Fuji GSW690III and GW670III. They too offer pretty amazing results, albeit not as sophisticated as the M7 (fixed lenses, no metering, et al)

congrats.

-Ed

I am thinking of getting a "7" for those times I need to go really wide and my MFDB on a 'blad won't cut it. I missed a great deal on fleabay yesterday. :-(

I bet some E100VS, Provia, Velvia, Astia, well you name it would look kick tail drum scanned.

espressogeek wrote:
I bet some E100VS, Provia, Velvia, Astia, well you name it would look kick tail drum scanned.


Indeed. Even looks great on lesser dedicated film scanners (like the Nikons). There are some good examples of these films exposed in a Mamiya 7 in the film images thread. See: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/658112

I would try using the new Fuji Velvia 400 X film. It's supposed to have as fine grain as the older 100 ASA Velvia. I've not done a comparison but the two rolls I've shot look pretty nice.

Best, Hrannar

I think you mean Provia 400X. It has greatly improved its grain to RMS11, but is not as fine as Provia 100F (RMS8). Still, RMS11 is very respectable for a 400 speed reversal film. It beats Kodak's E200.

mrladewig wrote:
I think you mean Provia 400X. It has greatly improved its grain to RMS11, but is not as fine as Provia 100F (RMS8). Still, RMS11 is very respectable for a 400 speed reversal film. It beats Kodak's E200.


Yes, worth a try. Provia 400F wasn't all that great, Provia 400X is supposed to be much closer to Provia 100F in color and grain, but as indicated it is not as fine as Provia 100F, Velvia 100/100F, Astia 100F or Kodak 100G/100GX (all of which are 100 ISO, so this is not unexpected). Frankly, I would prefer a 400 speed film to be closer to Astia in look than Provia, but still worth a try.

Astia looks really neat when underexposed a smidge in twilight. E100VS, well, it looks killer most of the time under right light. My v700 scanner does an OK job but I plan to use it more like a glorified lightbox and send out for a good drum scan when I need one. I have never had the priviledge of looking at a Nikon 9000 scan at a very high scan resolution. Perhaps it would change my mind about the drum scan but I doubt it.

I'm still looking for a nice little Mamiya 7. :-)

OK now I'm looking for a 43. expressogeek: before you spend lots of money on drum scans try wet mounting on the platen of your V700 with the $160 kit (expensive but paid for in a few drum scan-you get a lot of supplies).

http://store.aztek.com/servlet/-strse-231/EPSON-V750-WETMOUNTING-OPTICAL/Detail

After a short learning curve you will get flat clean 4800 dpi scans of your MF negatives with no newton rings (the V750 has a hole for a tab on a separate wet mount tray for 6400 dpi but that's a really REALLY huge file).

espressogeek wrote:
Astia looks really neat when underexposed a smidge in twilight. E100VS, well, it looks killer most of the time under right light. My v700 scanner does an OK job but I plan to use it more like a glorified lightbox and send out for a good drum scan when I need one. I have never had the priviledge of looking at a Nikon 9000 scan at a very high scan resolution. Perhaps it would change my mind about the drum scan but I doubt it.

One thing to keep in mind about color transparency films and scanning is that the limit of scanners is usually in the dense shadows and in these areas the scanner noise can overpower the signal. Even drum scanners have this problem. Since I shoot for a hybrid film/digital workflow, I choose films and exposures that will be easier to scan and that will produce a good file, hopefully with detail throughout. If I need a little more saturation to meet my intended goal, I can add it in photoshop. So long as I don't blow the highlights, the film is usable. I like E100VS well enough, but I find that it needs about a half stop extra exposure over the rated film speed and that it does best when the subject brightness range is very limited when it is used for scanning.

That is why I usually shoot with Provia or E100G and occasionally Astia and even Portra. I hope that Ektar will be expanded to sheet film now that they've added 120 (available this spring) as I think it would be very useful to me based on what I've seen so far in 135 format. These films all open the SBR and scan very well.

Another reason why the Nikon scanners are well liked is that the analog gain (lamp brightness) can be adjusted to increase penetration in dense shadows to some degree. You could use analog gain to get HDR source files from film, or you could just paint the files together if you prefer. The Dmin moves with the Dmax on the scanner, so you'll give up highlight detail to get shadows in a single pass with analog gain.

And to soundhound, I think you'll really like the 43mm. One of my favorite 4X5 lenses is the 75mm which gives roughly the same field of view. I also have a 65mm which I find too wide at times and have skipped the traditional 90mm in favor of a 125mm. I find it hard to compare these more square formats with 35mm because it depends on whether the horizontal or vertical field of view is most important. Regardless I do like this field of view very much.

I have had some experience (40+ years ago) with the B& W chemical darkroom. For the past few years I have been scanning and photoshopping a friends legacy 6x6 rolli negatives of legendary classical artists.

I can tell you that, even with my modest scanner (V750), I can get detail out of deep shadows and deal with thin negatives that I would have discarded in the chemical days.
So I encourage you all go get the best (wet mount results) out of your flat beds and then go on to compare with various drum scans.

I've shown this before, but I believe there is a real noticable difference between the capability of drum scanners and consumer flatbeds. Its not that I wouldn't encourage you to get the best you can from your flatbed, but if you're going to wet mount, drum scanners are accessible. I've seen a Howtek hi-resolve 8000 for about the same price as a Canon 5DII recently.

My flatbed scans were not wet mounted and I would expect some improvement if they were. The Howtek scan was wet mounted. And neither of these were sharpened. Here is an example from a friend's Howtek D4000 and my Epson 4990. The Epson captures the image, but the details are much softer and this affects the ability to enlarge. Keep in mind that the Howtek maintains true optical resolution up to a 4000ppi scan. We just chose 3200 because that supports a 40X50 print at 300ppi. Most people who have scanned with the Epsons or microteks find that the optical systems run out of steam around 2000-2500ppi and that's consistant with what I've found too. The largest I'm completely confident printing from my flatbed is 16X20. From a good drum scan, I'm comfortable with any size.

The big image (4X5 provia, Fuji 124-NW)



100% from the drum scan at 3200ppi


Epson at the same


Drum


Epson

And here is a bit from my Nikon LS-4000 comparing it to the Epson 4990. These are both 100% crops. I do plan to improve some things about the way I scan with the Epson, but the Nikon scanners are also a big step up.

Nikon at 4000ppi, E100G, Canon 17-40L @ 20mm or so. It was one of my first scans with the software and scanner, so the colors and tone aren't exactly where I would want them, but the resolution shows.


Epson at 3200ppi unfortunately from a different but equally sharp slide. E100G, Canon 17-40L @ 35 or 40mm.


I need to get a matching 4000ppi scan of the top from the epson at some point. The Nikon LS-4000, 5000, 8000 and 9000 all are said to have the same optical capability from what I've read and seen. They are said to max out a little shy of their 4000ppi scan resolution when using a resolution target. Most critical reviews I've seen put them between 3200 and 3500ppi. The trouble with the Nikon MF scanners I've found is that they are getting into the prices where you start to find reasonably good drum scanners. The Nikons are great for their ease of use, but if push came to shove I'd choose the drum scanner for the ability to scan all sorts of film formats.

I owned the 50mm for the M7II and sold it and got the 43mm.

I've scanned 6x7 negs on the following scanners, in order of quality:
1. Epson flatbed with Betterscanning holder
2. Nikon 9000
3. Imacon
4. Heidelberg drum scanner

For big prints a drum scan makes a difference. For web or small proof prints an Epson scan is fine. For convenience and price the Nikon is a nice compromise.

I went the other way and sold my 43mm and got the 50.
They are both of them superb but I actually liked the 50 better, just the perfect wide for me.
(I shot them side by side before I decided)

The lenses are top notch, it is truly a Leica on steroids and the lenses equal the best of that I have seen on 35mm - only in a format way bigger!

Will post samples a.s.a.p. they are actually right in front of me.

Here is a shot from sunrise at Mosquito Bay, Abel Tasman NP, New Zealand.
M7II, 50/4.5 T F5.6 Fuji Reala. Color looks a bit off in my web browser, it doesn't look as vivid in real life, but still.



Coming from rangefinder wide angle lenses and entering SLR land puts things in perspective. I dearly miss the 43 and 50mm lenses on the M7.

Having worked with various Imacons (including the top dog) I would say that they provide enough quality, when you are maxing out the Imacons and approaching drum scan territory you are down to scanning noise more than detail already.

I made a few big ones from 6x6 , 6x7 on the Imacon and I know what wet mounted drum scans can do but I think the Imacon way is the best solution.

I have an Epson 4870 and it does the job, in a pinch, up to a certain size. You lose out on micro detail though a crisp neg does look pretty fine in print. Some people could not tell the difference until they were told to look closer but to me it was obvious. I use the Epson mainly for scanning old prints and not MF negs though I did try it out and I came to the conclusion that it would work OK for certain stuff, for sure.

I have no experience with the Nikon/Minolta MF scanners but judging from what I have seen they seem fine.

mrladewig: nice samples. And it does show the micro detail difference between Epson flatbeds and high end scanners.

mrladewig wrote:
I think you mean Provia 400X. It has greatly improved its grain to RMS11, but is not as fine as Provia 100F (RMS8). Still, RMS11 is very respectable for a 400 speed reversal film. It beats Kodak's E200.

Yup, sorry Provia 400X it was.

espressogeek wrote:
I have never had the priviledge of looking at a Nikon 9000 scan at a very high scan resolution. Perhaps it would change my mind about the drum scan but I doubt it.


Well here is a 100% crop from a Nikon 8000 scan (very nearly as good as a 9000). This is a 4000 dpi scan of a 6x7 Velvia 100F slide from a Mamiya 7 and 43mm lens. The resulting files is over 97 megapixels. This 100% crop is completely unsharpened.

LotusM50: it would be nice to see the whole picture as well.