MF v LF - thanks everyone!

Many thanks for all of the comments about Mamiya 7 v 4X5 for backpacking.
They are much appreciated and informative.

To answer some of the questions:

From Peter De Smidt:
Do you see and grain or softness in your 16x20's compared to, say, your
8x10? If not, then you probably won't see all that much difference. At
best, the differences would probably only be apparent in side by side
prints.

No, the 16X20s look fantastic - grainless and sharp. I have the best
images professionally scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a light
jet. Mind you, the best 4X5 transparencies would be done the sae way.

Otzi wrote:

You have really answered your own question. Portability and speed is
everything whilst travelling esp. packing. Quick grab shots et al... What
is your purpose for travelling, specifically (art) photos or just to look
around?

Both really. I use a Canon S400 digital for snapshots, and recording
experiences on the trip. The Mamiya 7 is there for quality enlargements
which can hang on the wall as a daily reminder of the beauty of these
areas.

Chris Ellinger wrote:

If you haven't found yourself wanting camera movements, or unhappy
with the limitations of rangefinder viewing (closeup, graduated
filters, polarizer, etc.), stick with the Mamiya. As you say, the
Mamiya lenses are very sharp -- probably better than anything you
might put on a LF camera. Since Velvia is essentially grainless, you
probably won't see an improvement in image quality from LF, but you
can easily test by comparing a 9x12 print a 16x20 print from the
Mamiya.

As I have no experience with camera movements, I probably do not know what
I am missing! I certainly have learnt to live without closeups, long
lenses or graduated filters. I use polarisers regularly and easily though.

Colin Brendemuehl wrote:
If your prints are good enough for you (and your customers) then why
switch?

That is a good question. I guess there is always the desire for more
improvement in quality. I only take images for my own pleasure, but have
recently had one printed in a NZ landsacpe calendar
(http://www.craigpotton.co.nz/corpora...Photography419)
- Reflections of New Zealand - April, anyone is interested. And I do
wonder about movements!

Thanks again for your input. It is much appreciated. I will look at the
possibility of buying an inexpensive 4X5 field camera and having a play
around with B&W prints first.

Alan Hogg
Univ. of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Hi Alan,

In my experience the Mamiya 7 is a superb instrument. I owned one for a
couple of years then moved to a 6x9 Horseman view camera. The Mamiya is
certainly very compact and fast to use but I did miss the ability to close
focus and compensate for depth of field, hence the view camera. The Mamiya
lenses ( I had the 43mm, 80mm and 150mm ) are in a class of their own for
sharpness, I had one print enlarged to 44"x55" for a client and the
sharpness was exceptional. It was printed on a Lambda. However, for me, the
view camera is more suitable. You can view images from both cameras at
www.geoffmurray.com The 6x9's are from the Horseman, the 6x7's from the
Mamiya.

Geoff
www.geoffmurray.com


"Alan Hogg" wrote in message
...
Many thanks for all of the comments about Mamiya 7 v 4X5 for backpacking.
They are much appreciated and informative.

To answer some of the questions:

From Peter De Smidt:
Do you see and grain or softness in your 16x20's compared to, say, your
8x10? If not, then you probably won't see all that much difference. At
best, the differences would probably only be apparent in side by side
prints.

No, the 16X20s look fantastic - grainless and sharp. I have the best
images professionally scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a light
jet. Mind you, the best 4X5 transparencies would be done the sae way.

Otzi wrote:

You have really answered your own question. Portability and speed is
everything whilst travelling esp. packing. Quick grab shots et al...
What
is your purpose for travelling, specifically (art) photos or just to look
around?

Both really. I use a Canon S400 digital for snapshots, and recording
experiences on the trip. The Mamiya 7 is there for quality enlargements
which can hang on the wall as a daily reminder of the beauty of these
areas.

Chris Ellinger wrote:

If you haven't found yourself wanting camera movements, or unhappy
with the limitations of rangefinder viewing (closeup, graduated
filters, polarizer, etc.), stick with the Mamiya. As you say, the
Mamiya lenses are very sharp -- probably better than anything you
might put on a LF camera. Since Velvia is essentially grainless, you
probably won't see an improvement in image quality from LF, but you
can easily test by comparing a 9x12 print a 16x20 print from the
Mamiya.

As I have no experience with camera movements, I probably do not know what
I am missing! I certainly have learnt to live without closeups, long
lenses or graduated filters. I use polarisers regularly and easily though.

Colin Brendemuehl wrote:
If your prints are good enough for you (and your customers) then why
switch?

That is a good question. I guess there is always the desire for more
improvement in quality. I only take images for my own pleasure, but have
recently had one printed in a NZ landsacpe calendar

(http://www.craigpotton.co.nz/corpora...rs/InteriorPho
tography419)
- Reflections of New Zealand - April, anyone is interested. And I do
wonder about movements!

Thanks again for your input. It is much appreciated. I will look at the
possibility of buying an inexpensive 4X5 field camera and having a play
around with B&W prints first.

Alan Hogg
Univ. of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Hi Alan,

In my experience the Mamiya 7 is a superb instrument. I owned one for a
couple of years then moved to a 6x9 Horseman view camera. The Mamiya is
certainly very compact and fast to use but I did miss the ability to close
focus and compensate for depth of field, hence the view camera. The Mamiya
lenses ( I had the 43mm, 80mm and 150mm ) are in a class of their own for
sharpness, I had one print enlarged to 44"x55" for a client and the
sharpness was exceptional. It was printed on a Lambda. However, for me, the
view camera is more suitable. You can view images from both cameras at
www.geoffmurray.com The 6x9's are from the Horseman, the 6x7's from the
Mamiya.

Geoff
www.geoffmurray.com


"Alan Hogg" wrote in message
...
Many thanks for all of the comments about Mamiya 7 v 4X5 for backpacking.
They are much appreciated and informative.

To answer some of the questions:

From Peter De Smidt:
Do you see and grain or softness in your 16x20's compared to, say, your
8x10? If not, then you probably won't see all that much difference. At
best, the differences would probably only be apparent in side by side
prints.

No, the 16X20s look fantastic - grainless and sharp. I have the best
images professionally scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a light
jet. Mind you, the best 4X5 transparencies would be done the sae way.

Otzi wrote:

You have really answered your own question. Portability and speed is
everything whilst travelling esp. packing. Quick grab shots et al...
What
is your purpose for travelling, specifically (art) photos or just to look
around?

Both really. I use a Canon S400 digital for snapshots, and recording
experiences on the trip. The Mamiya 7 is there for quality enlargements
which can hang on the wall as a daily reminder of the beauty of these
areas.

Chris Ellinger wrote:

If you haven't found yourself wanting camera movements, or unhappy
with the limitations of rangefinder viewing (closeup, graduated
filters, polarizer, etc.), stick with the Mamiya. As you say, the
Mamiya lenses are very sharp -- probably better than anything you
might put on a LF camera. Since Velvia is essentially grainless, you
probably won't see an improvement in image quality from LF, but you
can easily test by comparing a 9x12 print a 16x20 print from the
Mamiya.

As I have no experience with camera movements, I probably do not know what
I am missing! I certainly have learnt to live without closeups, long
lenses or graduated filters. I use polarisers regularly and easily though.

Colin Brendemuehl wrote:
If your prints are good enough for you (and your customers) then why
switch?

That is a good question. I guess there is always the desire for more
improvement in quality. I only take images for my own pleasure, but have
recently had one printed in a NZ landsacpe calendar

(http://www.craigpotton.co.nz/corpora...rs/InteriorPho
tography419)
- Reflections of New Zealand - April, anyone is interested. And I do
wonder about movements!

Thanks again for your input. It is much appreciated. I will look at the
possibility of buying an inexpensive 4X5 field camera and having a play
around with B&W prints first.

Alan Hogg
Univ. of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Hi Alan,

In my experience the Mamiya 7 is a superb instrument. I owned one for a
couple of years then moved to a 6x9 Horseman view camera. The Mamiya is
certainly very compact and fast to use but I did miss the ability to close
focus and compensate for depth of field, hence the view camera. The Mamiya
lenses ( I had the 43mm, 80mm and 150mm ) are in a class of their own for
sharpness, I had one print enlarged to 44"x55" for a client and the
sharpness was exceptional. It was printed on a Lambda. However, for me, the
view camera is more suitable. You can view images from both cameras at
www.geoffmurray.com The 6x9's are from the Horseman, the 6x7's from the
Mamiya.

Geoff
www.geoffmurray.com


"Alan Hogg" wrote in message
...
Many thanks for all of the comments about Mamiya 7 v 4X5 for backpacking.
They are much appreciated and informative.

To answer some of the questions:

From Peter De Smidt:
Do you see and grain or softness in your 16x20's compared to, say, your
8x10? If not, then you probably won't see all that much difference. At
best, the differences would probably only be apparent in side by side
prints.

No, the 16X20s look fantastic - grainless and sharp. I have the best
images professionally scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a light
jet. Mind you, the best 4X5 transparencies would be done the sae way.

Otzi wrote:

You have really answered your own question. Portability and speed is
everything whilst travelling esp. packing. Quick grab shots et al...
What
is your purpose for travelling, specifically (art) photos or just to look
around?

Both really. I use a Canon S400 digital for snapshots, and recording
experiences on the trip. The Mamiya 7 is there for quality enlargements
which can hang on the wall as a daily reminder of the beauty of these
areas.

Chris Ellinger wrote:

If you haven't found yourself wanting camera movements, or unhappy
with the limitations of rangefinder viewing (closeup, graduated
filters, polarizer, etc.), stick with the Mamiya. As you say, the
Mamiya lenses are very sharp -- probably better than anything you
might put on a LF camera. Since Velvia is essentially grainless, you
probably won't see an improvement in image quality from LF, but you
can easily test by comparing a 9x12 print a 16x20 print from the
Mamiya.

As I have no experience with camera movements, I probably do not know what
I am missing! I certainly have learnt to live without closeups, long
lenses or graduated filters. I use polarisers regularly and easily though.

Colin Brendemuehl wrote:
If your prints are good enough for you (and your customers) then why
switch?

That is a good question. I guess there is always the desire for more
improvement in quality. I only take images for my own pleasure, but have
recently had one printed in a NZ landsacpe calendar

(http://www.craigpotton.co.nz/corpora...rs/InteriorPho
tography419)
- Reflections of New Zealand - April, anyone is interested. And I do
wonder about movements!

Thanks again for your input. It is much appreciated. I will look at the
possibility of buying an inexpensive 4X5 field camera and having a play
around with B&W prints first.

Alan Hogg
Univ. of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Hi Alan,

In my experience the Mamiya 7 is a superb instrument. I owned one for a
couple of years then moved to a 6x9 Horseman view camera. The Mamiya is
certainly very compact and fast to use but I did miss the ability to close
focus and compensate for depth of field, hence the view camera. The Mamiya
lenses ( I had the 43mm, 80mm and 150mm ) are in a class of their own for
sharpness, I had one print enlarged to 44"x55" for a client and the
sharpness was exceptional. It was printed on a Lambda. However, for me, the
view camera is more suitable. You can view images from both cameras at
www.geoffmurray.com The 6x9's are from the Horseman, the 6x7's from the
Mamiya.

Geoff
www.geoffmurray.com


"Alan Hogg" wrote in message
...
Many thanks for all of the comments about Mamiya 7 v 4X5 for backpacking.
They are much appreciated and informative.

To answer some of the questions:

From Peter De Smidt:
Do you see and grain or softness in your 16x20's compared to, say, your
8x10? If not, then you probably won't see all that much difference. At
best, the differences would probably only be apparent in side by side
prints.

No, the 16X20s look fantastic - grainless and sharp. I have the best
images professionally scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a light
jet. Mind you, the best 4X5 transparencies would be done the sae way.

Otzi wrote:

You have really answered your own question. Portability and speed is
everything whilst travelling esp. packing. Quick grab shots et al...
What
is your purpose for travelling, specifically (art) photos or just to look
around?

Both really. I use a Canon S400 digital for snapshots, and recording
experiences on the trip. The Mamiya 7 is there for quality enlargements
which can hang on the wall as a daily reminder of the beauty of these
areas.

Chris Ellinger wrote:

If you haven't found yourself wanting camera movements, or unhappy
with the limitations of rangefinder viewing (closeup, graduated
filters, polarizer, etc.), stick with the Mamiya. As you say, the
Mamiya lenses are very sharp -- probably better than anything you
might put on a LF camera. Since Velvia is essentially grainless, you
probably won't see an improvement in image quality from LF, but you
can easily test by comparing a 9x12 print a 16x20 print from the
Mamiya.

As I have no experience with camera movements, I probably do not know what
I am missing! I certainly have learnt to live without closeups, long
lenses or graduated filters. I use polarisers regularly and easily though.

Colin Brendemuehl wrote:
If your prints are good enough for you (and your customers) then why
switch?

That is a good question. I guess there is always the desire for more
improvement in quality. I only take images for my own pleasure, but have
recently had one printed in a NZ landsacpe calendar

(http://www.craigpotton.co.nz/corpora...rs/InteriorPho
tography419)
- Reflections of New Zealand - April, anyone is interested. And I do
wonder about movements!

Thanks again for your input. It is much appreciated. I will look at the
possibility of buying an inexpensive 4X5 field camera and having a play
around with B&W prints first.

Alan Hogg
Univ. of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.