I made the mistake at the weekend of wandering into Jacobs and having a look at the Mamiya 7ii.

It felt fantastic (quirky in a very appealing way) and I immediately fell in love with it. It felt great; light despite being large with a fantastic viewfinder - I found it much easier to use with my spectacles on that the Leica and better than the 5D. It fit my hands just great. I liked the way it looked too. And the shutter was so soft I could hardly hear it at all, much softer (if you can believe it) than the Leica. There was a real "ooh" factor. I didn't want to give it back to the shop assistant.

A few months ago I was all prepared to go for a Leica M8 and found that I just couldn't like it (despite admiring it very much), so ended up with the 5D instead.

I have found myself more and more using just the 50mm f1.4 with the 5D and sometimes switching to MF (but using the AF confirmation lights) as with wide apertures and off-centre composition I find the AF not as useful as it usually is.

The Mamiya is a fraction of the price of the Leica, the lenses are apparently fantastic, and image quality must surely be better (than the Leica) with the large 6x7 negative coupled with these great lenses. Now I am under no illusions about the build quality of the Mamiya v the Leica. I would expect a Leica M7 to last for a lifetime, and would not expect that of the Mamiya, but the thing is that it is very affordable. The 80mm "kit" lens with its field of view equivalent to 39mm on 35mm seems ideal, as I find the 50 a bit tight and 35 a smidgen wide. Of course I might be tempted to add a couple of extra lenses later, but don't anticipate really wanting one for a while.

But I do love digital and have no access to a darkroom. So I would be sending my film off for development and possibly a low-res scan at the same time. I could stretch to purchasing a Canon 8800 scanner which is very reasonably priced. I have no illusion that it would be as good as an Imacon or heaven forbid a drum scan. But do you think I would still be likely to get similar or possibly even higher quality than the 5D?

For my (everyday) needs the quality of the 5D is more than sufficient. And if I do need a really good print for a competition or special occasion I could always send in the neg for a high-res drum scan. My print volumes are low (I am just an amateur) so for prints larger than A4 I get them done at a shop rather than at home. I don't think that a medium-format digital back is likely to ever be in my future, nor a camera like the 1DsMkIII.

Of course I will be using it to complement my 5D, and so wouldn't need to use high ISO film unless I wanted to for effect.

As my photography has improved I find myself now taking fewer and better pictures, and the frame counter on the 5D is ticking over far more slowly than it used to for the first couple of years of DSLR use when I had the 20D.

I have this romantic notion that the Mamiya would quickly supplant the 5D + 50mm as my portrait/documentary setup.

I am not asking for anything so sensible as a solution to my muddle, but if you have any experiences to share I should love to read about them.

I used to own a Mamiya 7II with the 65mm lens. I ended up buying the other lenses. Great camera, and with the film flatness and lack of vibration, the 6x7 transparencies approached 4x5 film in terms of quality. Problem is its film - so that means you need a decent scanner, so the overall package cost goes up even before you factor in development costs.

Now I have sold the 7II and shoot mainly digital, also with a Mamiya, but a now a ZD. The ZD is a lot more convenient and offers similar quality to drum scanned 67 transparency film from the 7II, but with better dynamic range, instant preview, and all the plusses of Photoshop.

So I'd stick with the 5D...

Quentin

I have the Mamiya 7II with all available lenses, and can confirm that the handling is terrific, the lenses gorgeous (personal favourite is the 43mm), though the longer lenses (esp 150mm) have a close focus which is too far away to use as a decent portrait lens for my taste: needs a lot of cropping, so you lose some of that nice big tranny. The transparencies are indeed beautiful: nothing like putting them on a lightbox with a loupe and marvelling at the vibrancy and clarity. I wasn't planning to buy a family hierloom so was perfectly happy to choose the Mamiya over the Leica, and it gave me excellent service and performance. However it now sits in my 'unused gear' coffer (or perhaps that should be coffin), where it's remained unused for the last couple of years.

The problem is, as Quentin so rightly said, scanning. Indeed it's the entire analogue-to-digital workflow. To get the best from the trannies you need a very good 6x7 scanner, and my Nikon 8000ED was never quite good enough. One quickly discovers that scanning is an entire art form and new skill to master, and the resultant files are very large. Better make sure your computer has tons of memory and fast CPU. Unless of course you opt for a whole non-digital workflow, but that's getting more difficult to do in this digital age. The camera is also of course completely manual (the internal metering is simplistic and not really much use), but you indicate you're comfortable with that.

If you're printing large at exhibition quality, then you have little choice but to drum scan. If you leave most or all of that process from drum to print in the hands of a third party, then you're losing out. I found that even some of the most reputable London pro labs were returning crap scans and prints, and don't get me started on the quality in Hong Kong...!

IMHO, I'd have to say that for printing up to A3 then I'd go for the 5D every time. I have performed side-by-side comparisons of prints from 1DsII files and 6x7 drum scans, and when I examine them closely I can see the superiority of the 6x7, but on showing them to friends and family, all they noticed were some differences in colour (never get the two to match perfectly). At that size your 5D files should be as capable as the 1DsII files of producing a similar quality A3 print. When I print at A3 from a 6x7 scanned (by me) with the Nikon, the dynamic range is noticeably worse and the 1DsII file is superior. That could probably be improved though if I became more proficient at scanning and spent a lot longer on each tranny...

I have a pile of 6x7 trannies that I keep meaning to get around to scanning, but never do. It's just too daunting to scan even one of them. After I bought the 1DsII I discovered I could never return to analogue photography, and the files you get from the 5D should rival mine - in fact better in some cases.

Peter

My recommendation is to shoot the Kodak Portra films instead of transparencies. The cost of both film and processing is much less than the transparancy film and the dynamic range is so much greater.

My experience with the NEW Portra films is extremely positive--I've almost completely converted over to it, except for a handfull of Velvia rolls left in the fridge. Once those are gone, that's it for trannies.

Scanning is a breeze. Get yourself one of the newer, higher-end flatbeds.

A good 6x7 on Portra 160VC is going to give you image results the 5D couldn't even dream of.

Agreed.

For those willing to stay on the slide side of things, Velvia is clearly by far the worst solution when scanning is part of the equation. Provia 100F is a much better option.

Regards,
Bernard

I never really got on with Velvia, and found the Portra too muted and low in contrast. Provia 100F was my favourite, and scanned more easily than Velvia.

One thing not mentioned so far is the sheer time it takes to "work up" a decent sized 6x7 scan. I've done many hundreds from my library of RB67 trannies and if I never have to spend hours getting rid of dust, reducing the grain etc etc again I'll be very happy.

5D definitely!

I'd say you could pick up a good 2nd hand Imacon/Hasselblad scanner for a lot less than you would have two years ago... mine is here sitting on the desk .. only being used for film from my Noblex.. and I just finished paying for it too!... I know several photographers still using MF Film ... and I would say that using the mamiya could only compare to using another MF system.... so if I was on a trip without recourse to electric power .. or just wanted to do some street photography ... and had a good scanner handy .. I would consider the Mamiya ... mind you .. my Fuji GW690III has remained unused for quite a bit now... just doesn't make sense for me to use film commercially ....(BTW never really liked Provia for scanning... Kodak e100G was twice as good in resolution terms)

R

That's what I have been using as well, but I just hate the time I waste cleaning up the dust from these images.

Cheers,
Bernard

So it seems the majority opinion is that scanning is a PITA.

*Sigh* - I know that is bound to be right, far more sensible just concentrating on the 5D.

But it's just a hobby for me after all, and the aim is to have fun taking the pictures too, it's not just about image quality.

I have decided to get a cheap scanner - the new Canon 8800F looks like it might be OK. I've no doubt it won't have the same quality as the stuff you folks use, but I do have a ton of old 35mm negs and some from my Holga which need scanning.

That's a cheap way to test whether the scanning business will drive me nuts or not I guess. If I hate it I can always put it on ebay after scanning some of my 35s.

If I think I can live with it for low volumes then I may re-visit the notion in a couple of months.

Thanks for all the input.

Hi
Speaking of the Nobelux I just scanned about 60 images on the Epson V700 scanner. Very impressed with the quality, used Kodax 400 neg. I still have to edit my ZD shots but from what I have viewed the digital quality is way better. The real problem with scans is file size. A Nobelux 3200 dpi @ 48 bit is 173 megs.

As the owner of a drum scanner and founder of the ScanHi-End yahoo scanning group, I guess I ought to be more positive (no pun intended ) about film, but the fact is modern high resolution digital capture does have many advantages. 4x5 and 8x10 film, preferably Provia as Bernard has mentioned, will still outresolve the highest resolution digital backs, and there is a look to LF film that is unique. You can buy a decent drum scanner in working order for not very much money and that would work well with a Mamiya 7II.

But the fact is since I purchased the ZD, I think the drum scanner has only been switched on once.

Hmmm. Must dust down the 8x10 again

Quentin

Denis,

I have considering a Nobelux for some time but sort of hesitated because of:

1. The price,
2. The rumoured problems when a strong light source is part of the frame,
3. The anticipated learning curve before getting good results.

If I may ask,

- What is your take on the Nobelux?
- Do you use the 150?
- Have you benchmarked it against stitching?

Thank you in advance,

Regards,
Bernard

Hi
I have the 135U model 35 mm & a Widelux 35 mm. I shot a lot of images at APEC here in Sydney used both the ZD & Nobelux. I don't think stitching is the same especially when people are involved. Quality wise the ZD is far superior but the Nobelux has a very good lens. I wish they would make an affordable 35 digital panoramic camera. I love the Widelux but it needs repair & have owned it for 20 years. With this scanner I might shoot some film every now & again. It just has a different look. For street work the ZD camera was brilliant because it is so light weight.

Thanks a lot Denis.

Regards,
Bernard

Hi Bernard I use the 150ux with slow speed module and panolux meter... some trouble with the panolux but the guys in Dresden are very helpful and will sort it out as soon as I get a test set of images to them. The lens is so sharp .. it really beats a lot of my large format lenses for detail. It is really nice for wide landscapes but you need to print big to get advatage from all the little things that it picks up ... not so good for interiors because of the distortion ... but good when you crop out the bottom and top of the shot.. It's really great to have a shot all in one viewfinder when you are out and about .... beats stitching in that respect.... some shots here.

You'll notice a fence going across the bottom of a seascape shot .. I was standing in a circular enclosure. The one of the warehouse is warped in PS .. not very successful.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment

I have had my Mamiya 7II for many years. I also have the 5D, Fuji GX617, and a Linhof 4X5. For some reason, my best pictures have been taken with the Mamiya. I really don't know why.

The build of the camera is terrific. It feels really comfortable to use. The lenses are fantastically sharp. I have a 12' X 14' print in my living room that was made from a Mamiya tranny. It is very sharp.

If you like the camera, buy it. If you take an occasional great photo you can pay for a professional scan--they are not that expensive.

You can also buy a Mamiya Cabin 6X7 projector and mount your good trannies for projection. When you are looking at Mamiya trannies on a 6' X 7' screen in a darkened room--well that's a magical experience.

Agree absolutely: If ever that quality could be represented in a print... Nirvana!

So this is ever so slightly off topic. But possibly relevant. On Sunday I went to an exhibition of William Eggleston's prints here in Edinburgh. They are large prints, made from 5x7 negatives in the '70s and recently printed. They took my breath away. I wonder how long it will be before I, as an amateur, can afford a digital camera that can capture that kind of detail.


What impressed me most was the apparent three dimensionality of the prints. The subjects are a mixture of portraits and random bits of environment. In the portraits, which looked perhaps a little bigger than life-size, every nuance of facial feature, every thread of fabric was pin sharp. Almost too sharp. One guy has a very unpleasant looking pimple on the corner of his mouth. This being large-format, you have the usual business of the very shallow plane of focus. Eggleston uses this to good effect. You could imagine brushing your fingers through the hair of some of the subjects. You could imagine them slapping you for doing so!

For a while I thought about rushing home and digging out my 4x5. Two things stopped me. First, I was never anything like as good as Eggleston [you probably knew that already]. Two, I really don't want to get into the business of scanning, spotting, and filing sheets of film. So I'll have to settle for mediocrity until the technology and my abilities improve to the point that digital can grab my eyes the way the best of film work does.

Here's a link about the exhibition.

http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/exh_gfx_en/ART49605.html

I am still working on both transparencies (Kodachrome, shot many years ago) and digital capture via D200.

Yes, they are very different, to my eyes at least, but whilst I still have a film camera and a freezer drawer pregnant with materials, the simple hassle of spotting my scanned pics is just too daunting nowadays. The other huge problem is processing, where not all labs are created equal, and even the good ones can vary in output. Further, whilst colour transparencies and the E6 system are all well-known and can generally be monitored well enough by the labs, processing b/w film seems to be far more doubtful - possibly because the exposure of that material is so much more a matter of personal interpretation and one film with one developer, learned at home or in your own business, becomes a technique which no outside lab can handle in the same way.

I have also learned one of the newer bad habits that comes with the digital age: impatience. I have also lost a lot of my ability to use an incident light meter as well as I used to when no alternative was available; the matrix system in the D200 is just so good that I needle match all the time and never bother looking at the rear screen until I get home, and then only in order to wipe out the trash.

I looked at the Mamiya 7 a few times, thinking the Leica thoughts, only larger, but the same argument that kept an M3, 6 or 7 and myself apart still applied: non-reflex focussing is a step too far, possibly because I started off with a modest but to me, at the time, expensive Voigtlander Vito B which eventually carried a rangefinder in the shoe... The Exakta that replaced it made slr viewing irreplaceable, particularly as I became very fond of the 135mm focal length for much of my work. The Nikons that replaced that machine were so good - I used to imagine that had Nikon made a version of 6x7 then it would have been mine - sadly, it turned out to be a Pentax 67 that caught me, but that´s another tale.

Starting from scratch, it would have to be digital capture now.

Rob C

Actually it might be worthwhile waiting for Epson to update their 700 range with LED illumination, as is surely due soon.

Hi There,

All my images for the past six years were taken on a Mamiya 7II with the 80, 50 and 150 lenses, scanned on a Nikon 8000 Scanner.

I'm not an advocate of digital over film. They look and feel completely different.

I personally think the Mamiya 7 is one of the best cameras around. The lenses are superb and I've used it to so some portraiture too - something most people think is an unsuitable venture for such a camera. It's light, got the highest image quality ratio vs weight/compactness (no bigger than a 1DSm2).

Last year, I bought a 5D, feeling rather wary of embracing digital. But I've found (for my own personal work), that the Mamiya was staying in the bag. For me it was the following reasons:

1) Lack of close focussing
2) Lack of decent telephoto support
3) slow lenses

I love film. I really do, and I would encourage you to go the Mamiya 7 route if this is where your heart is leaning. You have to go with what you 'feel' is right for you.

In terms of Mamiya 7 vs 5D, it's like comparing apples to oranges. The mamiya will produce images with a look and feel you won't get from a digital camera. And likewise the other way round too.

If it's convenience you are after, then digital wins, but if you want very large images comparable to LF work, then the Mamiya is it. Optically, the lenses are superb. I just found that most of my work was publication based, and I wanted to simplify my system down to something more compact, with a greater range of lenses. It's taken me a year to get to the point where I'm getting the colours and tones I liked so much about my Mamiya.

So, basically, if you fancy the Mamiya, and you're not worried about the extra costs and time, then go for it. It's a superb machine.

If you have the option of renting this camera, do it. If not, ask the store for a trial run. Shoot side by side with your 5D, get scans made (either rent an imacon or get 3 or 4 drum scan done) and then GET GOOD PRINTS MADE AND COMPARE. Put all digital files on 1 page and all the scanned images on another to save cost if neccessary, just get a decent size print done. Don't compare onscreen, you will not get the full experience of the differences between these 2 different camera systems as easily as from a good print.

This is what I did with my canon 30D and then sold it due to the results!

I mostly shoot medium format neg film (portra 160NC, Agfapan APX 100, fuji reala 100) and rent an imacon 848 scanner (they are common). Yes, removing spots and dust is a pain, but the results and speed of this scanner are very good. There is effective dust and scratch removal in the imacon software. Not as good as a wet mounted scan from a drum scanner but you've got a lot more to deal with in terms of the process if you go the drum route. I've been wrestling with getting a cheap drum scanner, I've yet to make a decision.
Getting a crap scanner for such a superb camera will only frustrate you and cripple the full potential of this great camera. I've got an epson 4990 for contact sheets only.

I'm guessing you're in the UK, if so, get to calumet, I used to use their imacon at their London Euston branch.

-Nik

Another solution to your dilemma is the Fuji 6X9 rangefinder. If you want lots of saturated color, light weight, and a very sharp lens, this could fit the bill. It is the same aspect ratio as your Canon and you could do inexpensive scans on a desktop scanner and send the good ones out for a drum or Imacon scan.

There are two models, one with a normal lens and another with a wide angle. I prefer the normal.

I have this camera and have done some spectacular landscapes with it. I mount it on a tripod and use a cable release. You need to add an empty filter ring to the front of the lens in order to easily screw in and out any filters. It has a quirky retractable lens hood.

The Fuji lenses are terrific. I have their GX617, but that is much heavier. The 6X9 you can sling over your shoulder and, with high speed film, use it for snaps in the city.

Thanks for all the replies.

Renting the camera for a weekend is probably a very good idea. I'm in London so it should be easy enough to manage. After putting through a few rolls I will have a much better idea whether it's just fanciful or whether I really will form a long-term relationship with it.

I will very likely purchase the new Canon 8800F LED scanner. Of course the quality will be lower, but I'm sure with the 6x7 neg it will be good enough for A4 or A3 prints and the potential is in the neg for a drum scan if I do take a shot that proves worthy of a competition or a some large prints.

The price of the Mamiya 7II with 80 f4 is only around £1150 pounds from Jacobs, and cheaper if I get it off ebay. That is near enough the same price as a 35mm or 50mm L for the 5D. Of course there are film costs, but I will only be using it for low-volume purposes, I will still have the 5D after all.

Also I suppose that if I did fall out-of-love with it, I will probably be able to recoup 50-75% of its value by selling it.

One thing that seems clear is that the vast majority of those who have used the Mamiya don't have a bad word to say about it.

You could also try the guys at teamwork ( I recall paul & steve) super nice guys, friendly and without any attitude. They rent gear as well as sell new/secondhand. I rented quite a bit from them last year, including the ZD. I think it's teamworkphoto-dot-com.

-N

I have both the Mamiya 7II and 3 lenses as well as a Canon 5D, so I feel qualified to comment.

On subjects that are appropriate for the Mamiya 7II, it is far and away better than the 5D. (that is, scanned at 4000 dpi, on a Nikon 8000 scanner -- a drum scan is better, but raises your costs significantly). No contest. Clearly, the 7II has limitations, and they have been pretty well covered in the above discussion. The 5D is faster, has faster lenses, has low marginal costs, good high ISO quality, and is quicker to the final image.

However, if what you are doing is about quality and not about speed, or specialty lenses, the Mamiya 7II is outstanding and is the hands down choice. If you are taking your time, and don't need to rapid fire 100 images, use the Mamiya 7II. It great for landscape, cityscape & architecture (when you don't need shift/rise) and even street photography (with high speed B&W film). It's fine for portraits, but won't give you a tight head and shoulders images. But there is a lot of film real estate, so you can crop. It's great for infrared film, too.

The only thing that will touch it is a good MF back. I can churn through a lot of film processing before I get anywhere near the cost of a MF back. The 7II is paid for. I have a fridge full of film, and I don't really use a lot of it. For me, it's cheaper than buying a MF.

Velvia 50 is OK. However, I have to say that I have had great results with Velvia 100F. Astia 100F is excellent as well. (Provia 100F doesn't really do it for me). The current Kodak films, E100G and E100GX are excellent as well and scan great (and have had great results in the past with E100SW as well). With current generation 100 ISO slide film, it's hard to find grain even when scanned at 4000 dpi. For faster film, Kodak 400UC (negative film) is really pretty good. I've heard good things about the recent Fuji Provia 400X, but haven't tried it yet. And you can still use B&W film for some of the texture and feel that digital can't match. And I still have a stash of the discontinued Konica 750IR.

One of the less-oft mention downsides is that a scanned 6x7 slide at 4000 dpi produces a 500+MB file. Even with 4GB of memory, a 64 bit OS, and dual core processor, working with the files in PS is slow.

Yes, I expect that huge files will slow down the PS functions more than somewhat. But then again, if quality is really the way one want´s to go, then there are few options that I can think of which can get around that. It must be better to have original information on a file than having to enlarge it via interpolation to reach the same mammoth print.

Of course, if huge prints are not really expected, then the need for large films or sensors is largely in the imagination, in which case, I´d suggest opting for comfort and digital capture.

No point in making life more expensive or complicated than it need be!

Rob C

It is indeed -- at least in my experience.



I just looked at a number of different prints in a B&W digital print exchange. All the images were printed on 8.5x11 paper. The sources used were both digital and scanned film. The prints that really stood out from the others were those that started from a scan of a large piece of film. It was an obvious and clear-cut superiority. From what I have seen, it is NOT in the imagination.

Don't forget that it is not a difficult thing to stitch many successive shots of a scene using a DSLR. Once you have, say, 6 shots occupying the original FOV of the scene, the 5D should be easily capable of out resolving 6 x 7 film.

I have seen a photo on the web which was a pastiche of 250 (!) shots from, I think, a DSLR. That resulting file could be printed at 10 feet square if one wanted, and still be razor sharp.

Nowadays, there are inexpensive programs available so one does not even need to use a tripod to stitch photos together.

So, what is easier - buying, storing, using large film, sending it off for processing, printing, and possibly even scanning it, etc.

Or putting your camera on multishot, hitting the trigger, and taking multiple shots for about 1 second. Selecting them in a stand-alone program, and sitting back as it makes a 100 MB image for you. You could even upload it to Costco.com, have a 36" print mailed to your door for something like $10 or $20.

Digital has its advantages, and not too many detriments, if one learns how to get around them. Not too hard to equal the dynamic range of film - blend some exposures. You can even blend images with different focus points a/or apertures easily - see Sean McHughs amazing work along these lines ( http://www.pbase.com/compuminus/cambridge)

My chief concern is not about the maximum possible image quality of 5D v 6x7 as such.

My interest in the Mamiya was far more to do with the experience and fun of using a rangefinder as compared to an SLR, having it as an extra option for when the mood takes me rather than as a replacement for the 5D.

I like my 5D very much and plan on keeping it. :-)

The image quality question was really this: if I use a modest scanner (<£500) will I be likely to get similar quality to my 5D. It is perhaps the kind of question that has too many variables implied to get a sensible answer.

But as a working test I might get the scanner first and extrapolate from the quality I am able to extract from my 35mm negs.

At any rate the replies have been very helpful and interesting and I thank you all.

I just came across this thread. I'm in a very similar situation, using a nikon D200 as my primary camera. I dug out my rolleiflex 3.5 and shot some portra 400nc on it. I never had a scanner for mf negs and so to test the workflow i scanned in half frames on my 35mm flatbed.
The images certainly have a look that i've never encountered with my D200 files. Using square format and a seperate lightmeter, the whole shooting scenario is vastly different and for me seems to contribute to a more contemplative shooting style. With that in mind I have decided to get a canon8800f scanner, It's the cheapest option for mf scans. Like the OP I don't really care if the quality with such a scanner is inferior to my D200, all I would like is to be able to produce 16" square prints that are of acceptable quality. I'm sure the tedious workflow will kick in, but if the magic that's in the negs can survive a cheap scanner withoutt loosing too much the i'll be happy. John

As this thread has been resurrected I can give an update as to progress...

Had a good look through Salgado's Africa (which I received as a present) and realised that shooting 35mm is not really that much of a limitation.

Ruled out the M8 on grounds of its cost, the difficulty of using the viewfinder with spectacles, and the crop factor.

Ruled out the Mamiya 7II on the grounds that I would have to develop the film myself because there is no-where nearby in my part of London that I could find that would do it for me at a reasonable cost. Online services are expensive too in the UK; the market seems to be shrinking to high-quality and cost required by professionals. For hobbyists it's looking like it is back to DIY as far as film is concerned.

So I went for a new Zeiss Ikon + 50mm Planar f2 + Nikon Coolscan V.

Mostly shooting Ilford XP2 and Kodak BW400CN which I get processed and (low res) scanned near my house then use the Coolscan for the ones I want to work on.

With those films I reckon I'm getting roughly 6-8Mp of usable info, even though the files come in at 20Mp at 4000dpi. I hope to start developing my own BW soon though with some finer grained film.

I'm having fun with it and probably am using my ZI and 5D equally, though pretty much using the ZI exclusively for BW.

I would love to see a digital FF Ikon and am hoping that the A900 sensor might make its way into one at some point. I would happily give up my 5D in such a scenario as the RF experience is everything I had hoped it would be and the viewfinder on the ZI is simply magnificent. I also enjoy having a camera that is much smaller and lighter than the 5D.

Although I lust after new equipment, as we all do, in moments of sanity (such as when looking at my credit card bill) I am reminded that my equipment is not currently a limiting factor in my photography.

My ZI will last me until a digital version comes along (if ever) and my 5D will last me until it breaks, at that point I shall get the latest "mark" of its line. That may be II but hopefully will be later, the arrival of the Mk II however has prompted me to start contributing a monthly amount into my photography fund again.

I just saw this and thought I'd add in my own experience. Having had a 5D for a couple of yeasr and added a 1Ds3, which has to all intents and purposes replaced the 5D, I recently purchased a Zeiss Ikon and C Sonnar 50 1.5. I too shoot mostly Black and White - largely FP4 and HP5 to date - and scan in a Nikon 5000 with roll film adaptor (acquired second hand). This doesn't get near the absolute image quality of the digital kit, but is able to make nice small to medium prints and I thoroughly enjoy shooting with it.

Like you I couldn't get on with the M8 and my glasses, but the Ikon's vf is excellent. I hope that they do one day produce a 20+Mp digital version, but meanwhile I'm just enjoying using two of the best, albeit very different, cameras I've ever had the priviledge of owning.

The 5D and 70-300 DO is for sale as I don't use them much, but if no one buys them that's not too great a loss. The 1Ds3 may be changed for a later 1Ds..., but there's no rush and the Ikon is secure unless a digi version appears.

Mike