Ron and Edward - Thanks for the suggestions. Both cameras are on the table. As for what I wanna do with them.. Nothing specific, just to play around the odd time I have the energy to shoot film.
Briefly had a Mamiya 7 after years of always wanting one.. But it had problems, so I traded it into the store where I got it, for something else that I didn't end up keeping.
Speaking of film.. If anyone is interested, here's a shot taken with the 50APO @ f/2 and an M7 w/Portra 400 on the same day as the other shots (obviously). BTW, I didn't scan this, I'll scan my own at some point, this was the lab's scan:
My three lens set up carried over most of the formats/systems:
On the Mamiya 7II it was the 50/4.5 wide, 80mm and 150mm lenses. (I did have the 43mm but I preferred the 50)
Favorite films were Fuji Reala and Kodak Portra 160/400NC.
Small format with Contax: the 25/2.8, macro 60/2.8 and 135/2 was the go-to-kit. The 21 was too bulky and I did not like it compared to the Biogon for the G series. The macro 60 is a great all-rounder and though the 25 was soft wide open I liked the angle so I lived with it as a 25/4 lens for the most part.
For Contax G2 it was the 21/45/90mm lenses, the 21 was so good it left the 28 in the cold for most outings/trips. But for one biking/hiking trip I brought the 28/45/90 to great effect in a binocular bag.
For Leica M7 it was the 28/2 the Summicron 50 and a 90/2.8.
Almost always shot on Fuji Reala.
With the X-pan there was a unique mix with the normal lens doubling as a wide panoramic lens as well as the 90 doubling as a "normal" panoramic lens. It was awkward printing from the Xpan at the time but I loved the concept.
Some slide film for the XPan - and Reala of course.
Personally I found the Pentax 6x7 way to clumsy in handling and bulk but there is no denying the appeal of the 6x7 format. I used to work with an air photographer, Imacon-scanning his Pentax 6x7 air to ground shots for books - plenty of room to crop and correct for horizon and angles. I don't personally hold the Pentax lenses in the same regard as the Rollei or Mamiya lenses though.
I did find the Mamiya 7 lenses to be of the same caliber as the better Leica lenses which was very impressive in 6x7 format. Around then I figured I would not invest too much into Leica small format but over the years digital has improved to the point that I think the best small format lenses come alive on the better digital platforms much more so than at the time I was an active photographer.
EDIT:
Picture doesn't show Adam, tried klicking it too but it doesn't load. Would love to see what one of my favorite films would look like with the 50AA.
The Mamiya 7 was quite "limited" but for scenery and traveling I found it adequate and the quality superb.
The Pentax 6x7 will of course have a few advantages for a broader use than the Mamiya 7.
My all time favorite travel camera is the Hasseblad SWC/M which I have traveled a lot with, with a Ricoh GR 28 (film) as a side kick. I sold off the SWC/M a few months ago - with some deep remorse and regret - but it had been a shelf piece for quite some time and I got well paid for it. The SWC/M is the only camera I "miss" at times, other than that camera I don't really get attached to gear.
Also thanks for sharing your setups..
I had the same setup for the G2 (never really used the 28 either). For a while I did 28cron 50cron 90tele-elmarit w/the M9. But I'm not a fan of the 28cron on the M240, and have since decided to go with 35/75 two camera setup for most of my fast paced work needs. Also saves carrying around three M bodies.
I really wish I would have spent more time with the Mamiya 7. And yes, the Pentax67 does look a bit clumsy. Although sometimes clumsy can be good.. Slows you down and such. Allowing you to think more before taking the shot. Well for me anyway it helps. Maybe the Pentax will have that effect on me, maybe I'll hate it?
AmbientMike wrote:
Thanks for adding the 0.95 to the mix, Adam. The one with the 0.95, especially, reminds me why I don't shoot weddings. Mine don't turn out like that
I was thinking about how ridiculous it was to pay $8K, then I remembered I wanted the 0.95
Yep, I know exactly how you feel.. The Noctilux sure wasn't cheap. I actually don't think I get much use out of it to be honest. If you think about price per use, statistically it's my worst purchase. Though when I shoot with it, and get the results I expect from the lens, I'm thrilled. And no other lens can do what it does.
I think this is why I have a hard time with Leica.. To many good (unique) options. So I buy them all, then I get frazzled when it comes to choosing a lens for the day. Luckily I don't have much of a need for anything wider then 35 and anything longer then 75 (although I do have lenses that don't fall within that FOV range). But that still leaves us with many options.
At least with wedding work it's easy, 35/75. I try not to deviate from that combo.
And maybe that's why I like the 50APO so much (when not working). It's one lens that gives me exactly what I'm looking for, the f/2 is limiting on occasion, but that's easily remedied with newer sensors that have better high ISO.
Adam, the Portra 400 image looks good though I think it would probably be better on medium format? My feeling is that film really sings in larger formats. In 35mm it just looks grainy. Maybe it's been too long since I shot ISO 400 colour neg film (over 10 years) and have forgotten how grainy it is compared to digital. Not that I have anything against grain. In fact I'm quite against super smoothed out digital images. This just feels coarse. Maybe it was the scan?
I suppose if you're going 6x7, any of the cameras will be on the big/bulky side, other than the few fixed lens RFs...
Ron, film is not that grainy, especially at the posted size. Scanning film causes grain aliasing, which creates visible digital grain even at small sizes. In order to avoid this problem, one should scan at around 8000 DPI minimum optical resolution. This is one of the reasons why I quit using film, as only drum scanners (and I believe pseudo drum scanners like the Imacon) can achieve such resolutions and are too expensive. I have in my archives some very nice optically printed photos and there is no such grain to be seen.
I haven't been in a dark room for a long time. I couldn't really comment on the grain, if it's from the scanner or the film.
If my memory serves me correctly, I've always liked my larger format gear when working with 16x24+ sizes. But I think 400iso 35mm film is still ok for 8x10 and under.
To be honest, I haven't been able to ever get good files no matter who scanned it, drum or not. Darkroom prints yes, fantastic results, but nothing good from film to digital. There are a few MF wedding photographers who's images always look good on screen at web sizes.
I got a ridiculous scan of Fuji 35mm print film, like 100 Mb or so, about a decade ago, and it looks great at 20x30. Think the lab is out of business though. But keep trying, should be able to get a good one somewhere.
Film isn't necessarily grainy, up to 800. Velvia can probably still compete with ff slrs, if you don't mind 36+ exposures, low iso, and can get everything right.
B&W on digital isn't quite as good, imo, at least I haven't been able to get it as good. Close, though.
Yeah, I just own older leica M39 gear, but it's nice stuff. Would definitely like to own more. The 0.95 looks amazing, but if you are going to stop down, 50/2 is probably better.
Don't expect too much sympathy for owning a bunch of leica glass
AmbientMike - I think a majority of the time most labs don't have wet scanning available. So what happens is, your negative is slightly curved, and you end up with less then sharp results. I notice that Noritsu and Frontier scanners are the common ones. So much so, that most lay-people start to associate a "softness" with film. And my gripe is that film CAN be sharp, but most of the time due to the way it's scanned and passed around the web, it isn't sharp. I think half the problem with digital is that it's to sharp. Which is why lately I've been ok with less then pin sharp results from most of my photos.
I think I'd have to find a place that does ONLY drum scans. But if memory serves me correctly, it's not worth it for a whole roll of film. I think the cost is ridiculous to the point where one should just buy another MFD camera
The funny thing about the Noctilux is that I don't like the idea of stopping down. I paid money and sacrificed compactness for the ability to use 0.95 successfully, but @ f/2 it's a crazy contrasty lens with weirdly amazing colors. It looks completely different then the Lux-asph or Cron-apo. So it's still very usable, and very unique. Just not something I think to do because of it's size and cost. Another thing that also bothers me about the lens is that it has such a long focus throw that I find myself rotating it until my hand blocks the viewfinder. It makes for a slow focusing lens. Which is unfortunate, as I don't need such a long throw to nail focus IMHO.
I think the only thing that would compare favorably with drum scans are Imacon scanners, the better ones. I worked with one of the bad boys and it made terrific scans even from small format. On 645 and up it was fantastic. I agree with the grain aliasing part that Ed mentioned but the larger the format the less of a problem. Small format needed to be scanned on a higher res than medium format.
A Fuji Reala 100 print straight out of the Frontier printer looked awesome if properly exposed though.
The air photography shots from Pentax 6x7 was made on 800 speed film - something I would never have chosen but the Pentax camera would not allow him to shoot longer lenses on 400 speed he said, at least not with guaranteed success rate. I thought he would/should have gotten away with 400 speed film quite easily though. Still, an Imacon scan of 6x7 format 800 speed film, cropped and printed very large (70x100cm) was still respectable and held quite a punch.
I worked with Fuji Frontier and it could do a really good job with fast scanning to a computer for post processing and then send it back to the Frontier for printing. The main advantage was dust busting as well as touch ups. When I traveled with the Hassy SWC this was my favorite MO when I got back. Not necessarily better than straight printing but no dust bunnies and if I needed "more" then it was popped into the Imacon for a huge file.
Adam: the Summicron 28/2 was very nice on the M9 but you are not alone thinking the "magic is lost" on the M240. I mostly used it on film where it was my all time favorite 28 but went a bit wider (ZM25/2.8 and ZM18/4) on the M9.
There's been a fair amount of discussion here on FM about the 28 Cron on the M9 vs. M240. Back a few months ago I did a bit of a test to compare the two and some of the results are posted somewhere here on the alt forum, though I never got around to writing an actual summary on my blog...
I haven't given up on the 28 Cron on the M240... 28mm has really grown on me, in terms of the focal length and not specifically the Cron, so I'm willing to live with the change in character on the M240. From my brief testing, I feel a fair amount of the difference in look can be made up in post, such as color/saturation. The M9 is inherently a higher contrast, punchier file where in particular green foliage and blue skies play really well with the 28 Cron's stronger character. The difficult part is vignetting character, which I believe is a significant underlying influence in its admired look on the M9. For whatever reason, its vignetting character on the M240 is off center with the bottom portion of a horizontal composition a fair amount darker, while the upper two corners are a fair amount lighter than the M9... precisely where the sky would usually be and where a deeper blue vignette can be quite effective. The darker bottom area causes foreground areas to appear murkier in M240 files. It's not just that they're darker, but also seem to be lower in contrast, which takes an edge off details in that area.
Adam, I looked and they're still in business. Said the negatives have to be carded or 55 cents to card. $1.50 a scan. I'm skeptical it's the same but for that it might be worth a chance. I pressed a bit but she didn't seem to know what kind of scan. They've apparently had the machine for a while. ?.
You have to have an account, and a tax id to get an account, but I don't think that would be a problem for you. They print portraits mostly so they use lower contrast paper, and Kodak, at least they used to, so I think that's why I quit using them, but it might be ok for you. I mostly do outdoors.
The one they did of Velvia didn't seem to turn out, but that could have been the printing. Very sharp.
Of course, for people you don't always want sharp. And if you are getting a bunch of them, might be too expensive. I kinda figure I can get rid of sharpness if I need to, but rarely do. But it would be a shame to talk you out of buying another camera
I hope I can get a 0.95 one day, sounds really good. Contrast isn't always good, but I'd rather have contrasty lenses.Weirdly amazing color sounds good/great.
AmbientMike - I think with something like the M240 (which I'm primarily using), you want more contrast. Unless you shoot JPG. I've noticed over the last few days that JPG files are contrasty out of the M240!
As for a lab to do scans, I heard icon in LA does drum scans. I've never used them for drum scans though. Also at $1.50 a scan, I don't think altcolorlab is doing a drum scan. I think the solution is quite costly and messy.. Wouldn't be worth it for them to charge so little.
Ron - I remember your tests, and I agree with your results. I also like your 28cron images!
kosmoskatten - Both Frontier and Noritsu look great. I know a lot of successful photographers who use both machines for 100% of their professional work. I've printed quite a few images from negs - digital - frontier. I think they use a laser to expose the photo paper. So it's kinda like digital but still using film paper!
rscheffler wrote:
I haven't given up on the 28 Cron on the M240... 28mm has really grown on me, in terms of the focal length and not specifically the Cron, so I'm willing to live with the change in character on the M240. From my brief testing, I feel a fair amount of the difference in look can be made up in post, such as color/saturation. The M9 is inherently a higher contrast, punchier file where in particular green foliage and blue skies play really well with the 28 Cron's stronger character. The difficult part is vignetting character, which I believe is a significant underlying influence in its admired look on the M9. For whatever reason, its vignetting character on the M240 is off center with the bottom portion of a horizontal composition a fair amount darker, while the upper two corners are a fair amount lighter than the M9... precisely where the sky would usually be and where a deeper blue vignette can be quite effective. The darker bottom area causes foreground areas to appear murkier in M240 files. It's not just that they're darker, but also seem to be lower in contrast, which takes an edge off details in that area....Show more →
or you know, just turn off in camera corrections...
if you use lightroom i would just keep corrections off and apply the LR plugin on batches on import to correct color shift without touching vignetting, contrast, etc.
