Medium format image quality

[Barry Duggan Photography]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images. I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

 

[The Davinator]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images. I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

Mamiya RB67 with lenses is a superb system. I mainly used it for landscape and some wedding/portraiture where the output would be a large print.

 

[Barry Duggan Photography]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images. I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

Mamiya RB67 with lenses is a superb system. I mainly used it for landscape and some wedding/portraiture where the output would be a large print.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be interested in a camera that big and heavy.

 

[Autonerd]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images. I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

I've just started playing with an RB67 and a Mamiya C330. PM me your email and I'll send you over some scans.

C330 is mildly more portable than the RB67...

 

[PAntunes]

Bronica S2a is quite affordable and has some nice sharp lenses.

I've also got a fuji GS645S pro, a rangefinder with a fix lens and amazing image quality. Quite compact and easy to use.

Sold the RB67. Great camera but too big and heavy. Made the Mamiya press look compact.

 

[Ken Seals]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images. I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

Unless the lens in the Yashica D has deteriorated over time, it should be capable of very sharp images at f:8 - 16. Are you seeing problems with sharpness? I sold my Yashica D many years ago, but recently bought what turned out to be a like new Yashicamat which has excellent sharpness.

Here is a Yashica D image from 1963 - The Taos Pueblo, a World Heritage Site.



--
Regards,
Ken - LR ACE
FAA Remote Pilot Certificate, ATP ASMEL
Mizzou PJ '66
www.kenseals.com

 

[Tomm111]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images. I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

I worked as a darkroom assistant in an art college, we handed out Yashica Ds to all the 1st year photo students. When the Yashica 124G came out we switched to them, a much better camera and lens. Minolta Autocord also comes to mind.

Bronicas have great lenses but are finicky and parts can be a problem ?buy a parts camera too?

Had an RB67 and traded it for an 8x10, then traded that for a Horseman 980, which is a nice 2 1/4x 3 1/4 (6x9) press type camera. It has a cam rangfinder system, its lenses are very inexpensive, the "super" set is very good, really liked the Super Horseman f7 65mm nice wide and could cover 4x5. Has changeable backs too.

 

[MehdiT]

Fuji a GW690 or GSW690, crazy sharp lenses.

 

[Stephen Merola]

If your budget is tight I would go with a Mamiya 645 of some kind, Bronica SQ, ETRS, or Pentax 645. There are lots of others though, but with these you get a good selection of fantastic glass for cheap. For rangefinders, the Fuji 6x9s and 645s are great options.

I have Pentax 67ii and 67, also great, but more money. I have since sold my Mamiya and Bronica. I really enjoy the Pentaxes and hope to get a 645n shortly.

Just my opinions. Good luck in your search.

Oh...just remembered you could get a Pentacon for cheap. I don't know much about them though.

 

[tassienick]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images.

Whats your workflow? Ie. how are you shooting, developing and scanning and/or printing?

Can you show some samples where you would like to see more sharpness?

Yes, there are options out there with sharper lenses than the Yashica D, but you should be able to achieve very sharp shots with the D.

I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

--
Regards,
Barry.
Website - barryduggan.com
Email - [email protected]
Twitter - @barrydduggan

 

[DrBormental]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images.

Yes and no.

I cannot comment on the Yashica as I never owned one. I am relatively new to medium format photography, but I am lucky enough to own two MF cameras that offer (supposedly) one of the sharpest optics in town: the Fuji GF670 and a Hasselblad V-system with three Zeiss lenses, and here's my confession:

While I observed some increase in available resolution, I cannot say the increase was as noticeable as I hoped. When compared to 35mm, the difference in resolution is not even close to the difference in negative area.

I've looked closer into it and the reasons appear to be:

• Lenses. The best 35mm lenses deliver more absolute resolution than the best medium format lenses. A stopped-down Summicron beats a stopped-down Zeiss CF partially negating the negative size advantage.
• Shake&motion blur. If you want more resolution, your camera needs to be more steady. This rule is universal across formats, and this is why high-res digital cameras frequently disappoint their owners. My Hasselblad can deliver stunning detail on a tripod, but in a real-life hand-held situation around 1/125s to 1/250s it's not that much ahead of a Leica.

So I stopped caring about resolution, as I never print anyway. The reason I shoot medium format is what many people here call "tonality". It's a strange term which doesn't get much attention, but it comes down to compressing more light into a finite viewing area, be it a print or a scanned image.

My prediction is that you will not find any satisfaction of spending more to "upgrade" your Yashica. You are already getting 95% of medium format benefits.

 

[Barry Duggan Photography]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images.

Yes and no.

I cannot comment on the Yashica as I never owned one. I am relatively new to medium format photography, but I am lucky enough to own two MF cameras that offer (supposedly) one of the sharpest optics in town: the Fuji GF670 and a Hasselblad V-system with three Zeiss lenses, and here's my confession:

While I observed some increase in available resolution, I cannot say the increase was as noticeable as I hoped. When compared to 35mm, the difference in resolution is not even close to the difference in negative area.

I've looked closer into it and the reasons appear to be:

• Lenses. The best 35mm lenses deliver more absolute resolution than the best medium format lenses. A stopped-down Summicron beats a stopped-down Zeiss CF partially negating the negative size advantage.
• Shake&motion blur. If you want more resolution, your camera needs to be more steady. This rule is universal across formats, and this is why high-res digital cameras frequently disappoint their owners. My Hasselblad can deliver stunning detail on a tripod, but in a real-life hand-held situation around 1/125s to 1/250s it's not that much ahead of a Leica.

So I stopped caring about resolution, as I never print anyway. The reason I shoot medium format is what many people here call "tonality". It's a strange term which doesn't get much attention, but it comes down to compressing more light into a finite viewing area, be it a print or a scanned image.

My prediction is that you will not find any satisfaction of spending more to "upgrade" your Yashica. You are already getting 95% of medium format benefits.

Very interesting, thanks for that!

 

[PAntunes]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images.

Yes and no.

I cannot comment on the Yashica as I never owned one. I am relatively new to medium format photography, but I am lucky enough to own two MF cameras that offer (supposedly) one of the sharpest optics in town: the Fuji GF670 and a Hasselblad V-system with three Zeiss lenses, and here's my confession:

While I observed some increase in available resolution, I cannot say the increase was as noticeable as I hoped. When compared to 35mm, the difference in resolution is not even close to the difference in negative area.

I've looked closer into it and the reasons appear to be:

• Lenses. The best 35mm lenses deliver more absolute resolution than the best medium format lenses. A stopped-down Summicron beats a stopped-down Zeiss CF partially negating the negative size advantage.
• Shake&motion blur. If you want more resolution, your camera needs to be more steady. This rule is universal across formats, and this is why high-res digital cameras frequently disappoint their owners. My Hasselblad can deliver stunning detail on a tripod, but in a real-life hand-held situation around 1/125s to 1/250s it's not that much ahead of a Leica.

So I stopped caring about resolution, as I never print anyway. The reason I shoot medium format is what many people here call "tonality". It's a strange term which doesn't get much attention, but it comes down to compressing more light into a finite viewing area, be it a print or a scanned image.

My prediction is that you will not find any satisfaction of spending more to "upgrade" your Yashica. You are already getting 95% of medium format benefits.

How are you digitalising your negatives? Your findings contradict mine.
MF for me gives much more resolution. Scanning with a 42mp camera, the difference is clearly visible, even for the same film stock.

 

[Bob Janes]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images. I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

There are a number of twin lens reflex cameras available under that price - you can even pick up a reasonable Rolleiflex for those sort of prices.

The Zeiss Super-Ikonta 6X6 cameras used to be excellent value for money, but the prices have jumped in the last few years.

 

[alex_virt]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images. I'm aware of the likes of the Mamiya 7 but is there anything worth considering under the €500 mark?

Mamiya C330

 

[SterlingBjorndahl]

I'm lucky enough to have a late-model "baby" Graflex, a Century Graphic, with a pretty decent lens. It doesn't have a built-in rangefinder, though. But it's fun to use. And if you have 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film holders for it, they can hold instant film from an Instax Mini for fooling around with.

I also have a Pentax 67 with a bunch of lenses from the days when film was considered "dead" and film cameras were cheap. It's a lot of fun to shoot with and most of the glass is really good.

But I satisfied myself back in 2011 that a 6x7 Velvia slide shot with the P67 200mm lens resolved about the same detail as my micro Four Thirds Panasonic GH2 (16 MP, with good equivalent glass). So for me, shooting medium format isn't about resolution but about other, less tangible look-and-feel. Plus the cost of film and processing slows me down and makes me a more deliberate shooter.

I have no desire to shoot 35mm film any more. It no longer has anything to offer me.

Regards,
--
Lens Grit

 

[alex_virt]

I own a Yashica D. While I do like it, am I curious to see if there is other medium format cameras that can produce sharper images.

• Shake&motion blur. If you want more resolution, your camera needs to be more steady. This rule is universal across formats, and this is why high-res digital cameras frequently disappoint their owners. My Hasselblad can deliver stunning detail on a tripod, but in a real-life hand-held situation around 1/125s to 1/250s it's not that much ahead of a Leica.

TLRs are much more forgiving than medium format SLRs with their huge slapping mirrors. I usually shot with my Mamiya C330 at 1/125s and F11 and got perfectly sharp photos. I even got a few reasonably sharp pics at 1/30s!

 

[alex_virt]

My prediction is that you will not find any satisfaction of spending more to "upgrade" your Yashica. You are already getting 95% of medium format benefits.

I believe a Mamiya 330 with a "blue dot" lens will produce sharper pictures than Yashica.

 

[Neil-O]

I'm lucky enough to have a late-model "baby" Graflex, a Century Graphic, with a pretty decent lens. It doesn't have a built-in rangefinder, though. But it's fun to use. And if you have 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film holders for it, they can hold instant film from an Instax Mini for fooling around with.

I also have a Pentax 67 with a bunch of lenses from the days when film was considered "dead" and film cameras were cheap. It's a lot of fun to shoot with and most of the glass is really good.

But I satisfied myself back in 2011 that a 6x7 Velvia slide shot with the P67 200mm lens resolved about the same detail as my micro Four Thirds Panasonic GH2 (16 MP, with good equivalent glass). So for me, shooting medium format isn't about resolution but about other, less tangible look-and-feel. Plus the cost of film and processing slows me down and makes me a more deliberate shooter.

I have no desire to shoot 35mm film any more. It no longer has anything to offer me.

Regards,
--
Lens Grit

Looking at the prices of secondhand 120 cameras a lot of photographers are coming to the same conclusion. Congrats on taking advantage of the lull in prices, I wish I had at the time. Here in the UK it's shocking what even ragged examples of 67's are fetching these days.

You are totally right about resolution, though 120 film drum scanned by someone who knows what they are doing can still give digital a run for its money, most of us simply won't be able to extract all the detail in the negative. But the way the eye reacts to better tone and colour more than makes up for it. No point in trying to quantify it, that's is why some digital-only photographers get so vitriolic with film users.

 

[Oldwino]

I’d second he idea of getting a Mamiya 645. It’s like a mini Hasselblad, with affordable lenses.