Hi Peter -

I stumbled across this thread earlier this evening - Luminous-Landscape. It's similar. The poster is asking about the Rollei 6008AF system vs the Contax 645AF. Both groups fans have some interesting points. The Mamiya 645AF and RZ systems are very much alive, so your situation isn't as polar. Also, since the digital back can easily be used on either the 645AFD or a RZ, the Mamiya is a win-win scenario. And the Hasselblad V lenses can be used on a 645AF body via Hass-->Mamiya adapter (a whopping $60 from Ebay). And the Hass lenses can look rather sexy on a 645AF body too -



That's a 5th generation Hasselblad 110mm F2 FE; I have a 4th generation at the moment (which I like better, but we'll save that conversation for another day). And since we're talking about leveraging systems, that same Hass 110/2 can be used a Canon system via adapter too -



John

Hi Peter,

I own both 645AFDII and RZ67, which I both shot with 120 film prior to getting an Aptus 22 DB. I actually still do shoot film regularly, although I have not used the RZ67 in quite some time. Certainly the 6x7 negatives have better resolution than the 6x4.5, but both systems are so different. The RZ is very bully and heavy, and completely manual, while the 645AFD is lighter and can be shot fully automatic. I believe that different systems dictate how you shoot and how you see things, and I do believe that using a waistlevel finder will result in a different type of photography. Wether it will result in better photos, that I am unsure. In regards to negative size, I find an advantage of shooting 6x7 over 6x4.5 when printing in the darkroom, especially for larger prints. However, I find that with scanning the negatives, the difference is much slimmer. Like you I enjoy shooting with a waistlevel finder so I purchased a 500CM. When the time came to make a decision to purchase a MFDB, I was very undecided wether to get a V mount or a 645 mount. The market decided for me when I found a nice Aptus 22 back in 645 mount.

So far, I have only shot the Aptus 22 with my 645AFDII, and the core of my experience has been shooting art reproduction (product shot) in the studio. http://www.gilleslorin.com/Photography/art_repro_photography.html will give you an idea of what I shoot. Note that the images on the website were all shot with a dSLR, and i did not get a chance to update the website with images from the Aptus 22. I shoot tethered to a computer so that I can instantly see the images on a large screen, and in manual mode. I do use the AF quite a bit, although I regularly need to adjust the focusing manually. The 645AFD performs admirably. Here are a few points, in random order:
1. controls are very intuitive, it is a full-featured SLR
2. I use an electromagnetic remote control which plugs to the side and prevents camera shake
3. Mirror-up function is much nice on the AFDII with a button next to the top dial. The AFD has a lever on the side of the body, which is clumsy.
4. Communication between the DB and camera is good, although not perfect. You need to turn the camera on first, wait a couple of seconds, then turn the DB on and wait another 5 sec. You'll need a good 10 to 15 sec to start shooting. Sometimes, the camera does not see the DB, and you need to start all over. So forget about shooting the 'decisive moment'... John's ZD is ideal because there is only one battery and one system, so communication is seamless. The H3DII is also similarly built.
5. Mamiya 645 AF lens are MF's best kept secret, IMO. Although the barrels feel most of the time a bit plastic, the lens performance is outstanding, and so is the price! 90% of the time I shoot the 80/2.8 non-D version. I also own a 45, 120 macro and 150mm. Both 45mm and 150mm are also excellent lenses, and very compact and light. I wish all Mamiya lenses were built like the 120 macro, but this optic-wise this is the lens I like the least. It performs well, but I find the 80mm + extension tube a tad sharper, so I have not use for the 120mm.
6. The viewfinder of the AFDII is ok, but I find it rather poor for manual focusing in the studio.

For the past few years, I've been shooting art reproduction with a Canon 5D, with Canon and Leica lenses. results have always been more or less satisfactory, but much post-processing was always required, and color accuracy was most of the time problematic and required adjustment in the color channels. The Aptus 22 has completely changed this, and the results were beyond my expectations. The level of sharpness and detail is far superior to the Canon, on screen and on print. Tonal range is also better, details in the shadows are well preserved and it is less prone to blown-highlights. Color accuracy is night and day and is on par 98% of the time. The only color I have problem with is blue, especially when the object I am shooting contains blue made from cobalt. These generally require adjustment in the color channel.

So why am interested in shooting the Aptus 22 with the RZ67? There is mostly just a couple of reasons: the waistlevel finder and the focusing knob. I find the viewfinder of the 645 AFD too small and dim, and macro-focusing is a hit and miss. The waistlevel finder is much bigger and brighter, has a loupe, the focusing knob of the RZ67 is much more precise. Also, the RZ has a built-in bellows and there is a also TS adapter available, which does not exists with the 645AFD. I see the RZ67 with MFDB a viable option for me only in the studio; certainly I will try it for outdoor shooting, but I am sure i will find the 645 AFD much easier to handle and shoot. The waistlevel finder is great, but with bright sunlight, it is very difficult to use, and find find myself being more comfortable with an eye-cup to block outside light. Also, while I do not use a light meter for studio photography, I find an in-camera light meter very useful (when I purchased the 500CM, I soon after bought a PME51 metered-prism.) Optically, I am not expecting an improvements between the RZ and AFD systems, at least nothing that could not be improved with post-processing.

In regards to the use of film vs digital... this is a very personal question. Some people have switched to digital and never looked back. Some people have attempted digital and returned to film. Some people use both medias. For my product photography, I would never consider shooting film again. The level of control and workflow speed with digital and are far greater to film. For my personal work, I enjoy shooting film here and there, especially for black and white prints. There is a certain inherent beauty to images captured on black and white film. So will I still shoot film in a year or two? I believe so. I also shoot RF, and while I bought a M8 two years ago, I've now returned to film, and hardly shoot the M8.

This is my own personal experience. I hope this answers some your questions... I saw you posted separately regarding the adapter plate. I'll give you my observation in the thread.

Gilles

Hi Gilles

Thanks for your very detailed and useful reply. The opportunity to learn from your experiences and follow the logic behind your decisions helps me orient myself in the maze. Here is what I am thinking after reading your comments. Maybe most of my conclusions are obvious but for some reason what is obvious sometimes seems harder to grasp than it should be. Maybe this is due to all the clouds that obscure the view of the mountains at this time of the year here in Sapa.

Forget about press releases! Intended application should dictate choice of gear more than any other consideration (apart from budget). In this respect your beautiful portfolio is very instructive. It is obvious that you have spent a lot of time and effort getting your lighting right and worked hard on the images to get the most out of them. For this reason I am happy to hear that you see a definite difference when you shoot with your MFDB rather than the DSLR. It confirms my prejudices, which is something we all like, and indicates to me that it is worthwhile to invest in a MFDB rather than a cheaper DSLR if image quality is the prime consideration.

Convenience is a separate consideration. By this I refer to any factor that makes taking the photo easier. For example, weight of camera, AF and other on-board bells and whistles, viewfinder brightness etc. I guess this is important if grasping the "definitive moment" is a crucial part of the intended application, as in sports or photojournalism. Personally I am more interested in 19th century portraiture though I don’t use neck braces to prevent my subjects from moving during the exposures. So convenience is a minor consideration. Hence my decision to sell my ZD DSLR, which was a very convenient camera to use but did not provide good enough images at 400asa for my intended use. Not to mention that exploring the ZD lead me back to a renewed interest in and focus on film that I have found is more suitable for what I want to do in terms of "serious" work than digital.

It was a surprise for me to discover that film is not dead as manufacturers and photographers from all walks of life continue to use it and expect to do so for years to come. It has also taken me a long time to realize that despite the hype digital is not a viable substitute for digital. Its an alternative. Digital seems to be widely regarded as the best option for commercial applications and film for personal projects or providing an edge over the competition. Despite film purchase and processing costs plus scanning time, using film does not seem to be much more expensive or time consuming than using digital, mainly due to the high turnover cost of constantly upgrading digital equipment to keep up with the newest technology. Maybe this will change with the development in a few years time of full frame 6x7 sensors – but wasn’t the same said about development of full frame 35mm sensors?

Very interesting to read your comparison of the 645AFD and RZ67. Bottom line seems to be that there is not such a huge difference as I had imagined apart from the crop factor, waist level viewfinder and weight (though these are by no means minor considerations). Best approach seems to be to follow your example and buy a MFDB for the best value for money possible then buy a camera platform that goes with whatever adapter is on the MFDB later (ie cart before horse rather than tail waving dog).

Or given my newborn faith in film may be best to forget about MFDB for at least six months and just invest in a small high-powered compact digital camera as a back up for my Mamiya 7 that I can use when/if film is not available or freestyle travel photography. Something small and easy to use but professional enough and with a good enough sensor that I could use it as a tool for photojournalism or publishing on the internet if I wanted to. Initially I had thought the M8 could be the ideal camera to do this with until I started surfing and found the M8 is just one of the many contenders in a whole new category of high end compact cameras (Canon G10, Sigma DP1, Panasonic LX3 etc etc) – many of them far cheaper than the M8. Problem is these high end compact cameras are only slightly smaller and cheaper than used full frame 10MP dslrs, which are not that much smaller and cheaper than new 22mp full frame DSLRs like the Canon D Mark III, which are only slightly cheaper and smaller than a used MFDB, which are not as good as film for my intended application… so it’s a very slippery slope, isn’t it.

Maybe in the end I really will just buy a Panasonic point and shoot and a packet of crayons!

Hi Peter,

I definitely saw a big difference with product photography going from dSLR to MF, and I am definitely not willing to go back. But for this I had to make a sacrifice and shoot at the native ISO of the Aptus 22: ISO 25. But in the studio, this doesn't really matter. The maximum ISO setting for this back is 400, and if you are disappointed with the RZ, you will also be with the Aptus 22 and other similar MFDB. I don't think I would go beyond 200, and this would have to be for emergency only. Therefore this limits the camera quite a bit, and for outdoor shooting, I use a tripod and low ISO settings. Fortunately, the new back have improved ISO and will give you at least one extra stop. I have been contemplating the DL28, which is a Leaf Aptus II 6 and sports ISO 800. However I have no experience with this back. Like you, I do not care about "convenience", so shooting on a tripod a low ISO is fine with me. Yet, slow shutter speed is not ideal for portraiture, so I can see why you would need ISO 400. If you plan to shoot at ISO 400 regularly, I would seriously consider which back to get, IMO. So to get a back that supports ISO 800 at a good price, you'll probably need to wait a few months.

In regards to M8, I don't think we can include it in the high end compact camera market. Certainly, it is very compact, but the sensor is in a whole different category. Afterall, it is a Kodak CCD sensor, the same used in some 22MP MFDB, but only smaller. The quality of the files is stunning; much better than a FF dSLR, IMO. I've done prints up to 20x30in. and the quality was more than satisfying. I've tried to print with the 12MP 5D, and the quality did not compare. I also own a G10, which we use for family pics. It is a wonderful point and shoot, and the placement of the buttons and functions is pure genius. But at the end of the day, it is a small sensor camera, and the image will print accordingly. Just before Christmas, my girls' teacher asked if I could take pictures of all the kids in their class and print 8x10. I went to the school twice, one day shooting the M8 with a 50 summicron, and the other day with a G10. You would think that the 15MP could rival the 10MP of the M8 on 8x10, but far from it. Also the G10 viewfinder is useless, so you have to use the LCD, and there is shutter lag. In my post earlier, I mentioned that I was hardly my M8 and primarily shooting film. The M8 is a great digital camera, but I find that for getting that typical BW rangefinder look, film is the way to go. The M8 is also no ISO-queen, but the native ISO is 160 and up to 640, you're fine.

Here are some images of China with the M8: http://gilleslorin.fileburst.com/China_as_I_saw_it/

and here are some more with the same lens, but with film: http://gilleslorin.fileburst.com/Jingdezhen_market/

I know...

Hi Peter -

The M8 is a temping camera in terms of its yester-year design, but it's a temperamental machine. Mine is on its way to Leica for the 3rd time in 2 months because they can't seem to fix it. They are not even reading the letter explaining what's wrong with it. All the rear buttons still work when the camera is turned off - how hard is it to test that??? The last go around they said they took pictures and everything looked fine. Hello!!! My point here is - dependability. I would not trust an M8 in high humidity environment. It's not weather sealed. And if it does go belly-up you'll probably have to ship it to Solms for repair. The M8 is quite expensive for what it is. And the lenses aren't cheap either - assuming your go with the newer ASPH types. All those same dollars could be buy an impressive dSLR & lenses. For harsh environments I prefer a weather sealed dSLR.

Image quality doesn't make the picture. It's a nice added benefit if you happen to take a great picture, but having a digital back, M8, dSLR, etc., won't improve the actual photography. That's a very basic comment, but it's a big consideration when trying to decide to spend thousands of dollars on a medium format set-up. None of the digital backs are high ISO machines. Maybe with a Hasselblad H3DII-31 or Phase One P30+ you could stretch into ISO 400-800 territory, but it's not going to better than a 1Ds3 or D3X (I list these two for their respective pixel counts). If you can shoot with a digital back under its preferred conditions, then it will perform well. Beyond those limits and it's diminishing results.

Used digital backs will just get cheaper, so what you can buy today can be bought for tomorrow for even less. Before spending $8k-$10k setting up a basic digital medium format solution, I'd try something like a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mark II. Use film for the medium format images and then the dSLR for when light begins to fade. After three months re-evaluate again and see what's working and not working as hoped. The next question after that is whether or not a digital back will address what's not working for you. And while I suspect a digital back may offer some better file quality, obtaining the incremental quality improvement in less than ideal conditions will be difficult or impossible.

A digital file is not a replacement for a film negative, as you said, it's just another medium. This post on GetDPI has some interesting musings about film v digital. The topic comes up over and over again, and there's not a simple categorical answer. It's subjective to say the least. There's certainly no shame in using film. Most people would agree that digital is more convenient, but better? I guess that depends on how you define "better".

John