The bayonet mount of Mamiya 7 lens and shade problem.

Permit me for asking this unstructured question.

<br><br>

But how many people have found the Mamiya 7 lens shade to be a problem?

I bought some equipment described as <b>lightly used</b>, and the lens

bayonet, where

the shade is mounted, has a gash. The gash was also covered up with a

black marker, but not disclosed at all. My guess is the shade was

forced onto the lens, and it chewed up a little bit of the bayonet.

<br><br>

I am not sure why but the seller says that some people fuss over

cosmetics. But he also blamed the 80mm shade as of poor quality, and

hence the gash on the 80mm lens.

<br><br>

<i>How many people have gashed their Mamiya 7 lenses?</i> Would you

call it

a <i>lightly used</i> equipment. The Glass is very clean.

<br><br>

So, is the Mamiya 7 lens shade bad?

if you paid more than usual for a used camera expecting good cosmetics, then expect a refund.

 

however if you got a good deal, and the glass is perfect... why fret?

No not fretting actually. I would like to know if there is a genuine wide spread problem with the shade design.

I just bought a lightly used Mamiya 7 with 80 mm lens and the lens shade has no wear, perfect fit.

 

The camera is a darling, fabulous operation (apart from the meter which is a joke in bad taste imho), beautiful sound and feel, and at least the contact prints seemed great, I'll see soon some larger prints.

oh yeah.... another note,

 

i did a ton of reserach on the mamiya 7/6,

 

i never read a post regarding a faulty lens shade problem.

 

i think the previous user did just what you described.

The only problem I've had is a broken 43mm shade (my fault-I stepped on it), and the loose fit of the shade for my 150mm (a problem I have heard about from others). Never had or heard of any problems with the 80mm shade.

 

I'd be very surprised if the shade could do any damage to the lens--the shade is plastic, the lens is metal. You'd break the shade before marring the mount, I'd guess. It may have been dropped or banged on something. I'd run a roll of film through it and see if it works.

 

The shades work fine. I leave mine mounted all the time.

Ilkka, thanks for your info. I too love the electronic Leaf Shutter. So quiet. Better than in my Rollei TLR. However I found the mechanical release mechanism to be quite stiff.

 

Frederic: I will rely on your information. It is reassuring that the bayonet mount or the shade is not a problem (I of course now know the seller was the problem however. He even blamed Paypal for giving him my confirmed address incorrectly!? That is to cover up the fact that he mis-spelled my shipping address).

 

Tom, thanks for what I had overlooked: that the shade is plastic, and so that damage on metal could be from something I would never find out.

The lens shade is made of plastic and is not likely to cause damage. Mounting it on the lens is a bit of a chore though, as you have to put it exactly right to get it on properly.

 

I caused some marks on my 80 lens due to the polarizer, or rather the adaptor ring for it. If you read the manual for the polarizer, you are supposed to fit the adaptor ring first, then the polarizer. If try to fit the polarizer with the adaptor on, it will not go on the lens properly and if put efforts to it, you may cause some marks on bayonet, like I did.

 

At the time I did it, the lens and camera were virtually new so I would have call it lightly used. I bought the camera to use it, so I do not really lose any sleep over it, which is strange since I am normally kind of a mintist. I guess the results I get from the camera is what matters, not if there is a scratch on a lens barrel.

I think any brassing should be disclosed, and always ask if there is any unless the seller clearly stated there isn't. That's why asking for pictures is useful. I'd be a little peeved if the seller didn't disclose it, but I doubt I'd post here about it. I'd be peeved not because I wouldn't buy the lens, but because the lens is worth a little less than I thought (maybe $25 or so), which I will lose if I resell. I'd also be peeved if someone stole $25 from me under different circumstances, not so much at losing a small amount of money as at the cheapness of some people.

 

The Mamiya 7 shades can be a PITA to mount in a hurry, but seem less prone to stripping than one might think.

I decided to add a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3579182">photo</a> to show what I am talking about. <br><br>

But this is the least of the problems now. The seller advertised on photo.net as <i>a lightly used Mamiya 7 kit (body and lens) with boxes, papers, strap, etc. Camera is in fine condition...</i>And I found out the rangefinder parallax correction is broken. The lines do not move at all. The seller says he did not know the camera had those lines moving! He supposedly had the camera for 7 years! <br><br>

Your lens looks like its been partly eaten. You didn't buy it from a family of chimps did you? I confirm that the viewfinder frame on my 80 moves down and right as the lens is focussed more closely. I guess that if he made assertions that the lens was in full working order and it isn't, or was cosmetically excellent and it isn't, then you are entitled to have your money returned. Which, with a private sale, is not the same as saying that you'll get it.

David, thanks for verifying for me the 80mm lens parallax lines. I did the same before getting in touch with the seller.

<br><br>

The seller tells me, and I quote: <i>Note, too, that the parallax throw of that lens is minor.</i>

<br><br>

Yes the return of the equipment is a different story. I am trying him to take it back. I told him earlier, based on the lens bayonet condition itself, but he refused it point blank by telling me it is cosmetic and the deal is over. Now it is a different story. I told him this is a functional problem, but now he is not responding to my emails :-)

<br><br>

It is a private sale of course via an advertisement on photo.net. I however do have all the email correspondence. He is expecting me to swallow it all because of a B+W UV filter and some film he has thrown in as <b>goodwill</b> ;-)

Hi,

 

Because this has been beaten to death without comment from the seller (me), allow me to

add a few words. If anyone doubts my integrity, please just read my feedback here on

photo.net or on eBay under "geod100."

 

First of all, the buyer complained about all manner of things, amongst them the odd

insinuation that I was trying to "cover up" misspelling the street address. Why someone

would purposefully send an item to the wrong address and then try to cover it up is

beyond me -- and the suggestion seems, well, I'll leave it at that.

 

Now, the camera. The buyer complained about a couple of scratches (there is no

"brassing" on the camera; there are two or three minor scratches on the top, near the

viewfinder window -- these were described as "gashes"). Okay, the camera is at least

seven years old, it was described as "lightly used," which is true, and I'd be glad to furnish

pictures to anyone who cares to see for themselves. (BTW, after receiving threats to

publish my personal information all over the Internet, I relented and took the camera back;

this was after offering to have the camera fully cleaned and brought to spec by Mamiya

USA AT MY EXPENSE. By all rights, I didn't have to do a thing).

 

Now, the lens: yes, there are scratches on the front of the barrell. I haven't really used the

camera is something like a couple of years and, frankly, I don't remember how the

scratches got there. If you do a macro shot, of course, they look "chewed" on; if you hold

the lens at a normal distance, it's not that big of a deal.

 

Functions: optics are 100% perfect. Shutter: perfect. Range finder: no, the M7's frame

lines do not move dramatically across the view finder -- in my experience, when focusing,

say, on someone's face, there is no effect at all. I've owned three M7s, btw, including an

M7 II. So, today I received the camera -- I first removed the lens and then remounted it.

Presto: the view finder works as it should.

 

In short, this was a used, and old, camera in more than acceptable condition. I would be

glad to provide pictures to anyone who is interested. More over, not only does it pass my

inspection, but I dropped it off with a local tech and will be glad to provide third-party

verifiable documentation as to the condition (while I'm at it, I'm springing fifty bucks for a

thorough cleaning).

 

There is an insinuation, too, that I tried to wheedle my way out of this deal. Out of pure

friendliness, and before anything came up, I threw a pro pack of Kodak 120 into the box.

Also, I forgot that I had left a B+W filter, which is in perfect condition, on the camera. As a

"concession," I told the buyer to just keep the filter, for free, against the scratches. Then,

after visiting a local dealer, handling new cameras, etc., the buyer insisted on returning the

camera, sent threatening emails, etc., and I took back the camera and issued a refund for

my net proceeds from the paypal transaction. And that's all there is.

 

The buyer and I agreed that we would not lambast each other on the internet. In fact, we

have had phone conversations and those have been polite. There has been a lot of

miscommunication, etc., and there is no need to go into that -- and I will not go into that.

The pupose of this post is merely to clarify the situation, to make clear that there are two

sides to the story, etc. I will not write about this again on-list, as I have made a

commitment not to do that, and I absolutely, positively, will not communicate about the

buyer with ANY third party -- so don't ask.

Lastly: the purchase price was $1,000, which strikes me as a pretty good deal on this

camera.

 

Out of frustration and because I don't have much time for Internet dealings these days, I have

dropped my asking price to a give-away: $795. For that much money, you can use it as a

fancy paperweight.

 

Of course, it is a paperweight that happens to take flawless 6x7 pictures!

Yes, as it turns out, misspelling the address was entirely my fault. I left an "L" out of the

address and incorrectly believed the original email was incorrect. So much for my eyes, I

guess. I don't even understand why such things are discussed on-list.

We agreed yesterday that we do not have to go to the internet to negate each other. I respect that decision. And still, if George wanted to explain his side today, as above, then that is fine with me.

<br><br>

I think it is only fair that I (buyer) also explain my side:

<br><br>

 

I started this thread as I wanted to find out whether Mamiya 7 lens shade has indeed a quality problem that it could easily chew a lens bayonet.

(Some things are prone to damage, as e.g the owners of the first version of Hasselblad Xpan would have found out: the paint scratches very easily on the back door, even if the camera is not misused)

<br><br>

 

And throughout in this thread, I did not want to disclose the seller's identity. Hence never pointed to him directly, but quoted his responses. <i>And, I stand by every word I wrote.</i> Now he has come forward on his own to describe his side.

<br><br>

When I found out the lens (bayonet) damage, and also found out that the bayonet could not have been chewed by the shade, I asked him for getting the camera/lens checked/repaired by Mamiya, and he refused. <br><br>

Shot a test E6 roll. And then I noticed the parallax correction missing! So,

I went to a shop to find out that the parallax correction is indeed taking place in a working camera. I would not like to find imaginary faults in somebody's equipment. So I had to see it for myself. This camera I bought obviously had a problem as the frame lines never moved. Whether 80mm lens has small parallax throw vs 150mm or whatever is not a concern a buyer will easily accomodate, I hope you will agree. We have had a lot of miscommunication over the emails, and I was not ready for his last minute repair offer -- when I had asked for the repair option, I did not get it.

<br><br>

I believe if the equipment is found faulty, the buyer has the option to return the goods.

<br><br>

In the end, George decided to do the right thing: took the camera back, and sent it for a cleanup. He tells me the camera is already sold for $800.

<br><br>

This is a case of perhaps a lot of miscommunication. All of this would have never happened if I had been given the option of repair early on, when I asked for it. Instead when he gave me the option of a free Filter, I just could not take it. I am sure he meant it well as a <i>concession</i> but it only added to my discomfort. So this is one case where if some remedy was offered to the original transaction, it backfired! I did not want the filter, but the repairs! And finally when I was offered repair, I did not want it. Classic miscommunication. I hope nobody does it like us :-)

<br><br>

Having explained my side of this transaction, let me also now go on to conclude that all is well as it ended well. I do not want to discuss George with any third party.

For the record, I have no memory of having been asked for a repair early on. There was an

enormous flurry of emails. My offer to have the camera checked out, cleaned and repaired

by Mamiya USA at MY expense came from my side. I was so upset by this whole episode

that I was going to write it off, not accept the return, and let whatever negative posts

happen, happen.

 

As for the lens: the "gash" (folks, we're talking things measured in millimeters)it does not

affect function in any way and, again, seen at a normal distance, it really isn't a big thing.

The camera was (is) overall in very clean condition. I was berated for a scratch on the top

of about a centimeter in length and perhaps one milimeter in width. Given the age of the

camera and how clean it was, overall, etc., I didn't (and don't ) think anything of something

like that.

 

Note, too, that in my experience an inspection period really amount to 24-48hrs, tops.

That's enough time to check things out. This whole episode lasted well over a week.

There was never any mention of having shot a roll of E-6 -- just that the viewfinder didn't

look right and that the buyer was going to take it to a shop (Keeble & Suchat, a very

respectable shop that I happen to know quite well and whose judgment I would abide by; I

never did hear of their inspection, nor did I inquire.) -- until later.

 

So, it really comes down to a question of judgement. For me, the camera and lens were, in

fact, lightly used. The body was almost completely free of mars. The lens was, too,

except for the marks on the barrell -- which, again, in no way affected function.

 

In the end, out of sheer frustration, I pretty much gave the camera away for $800, just to

have it, and this episode, out of my mind. Oh, and it was inspected by a local tech and it

WAS declared to be in 100% operational condition -- I did this within a couple of hours of

receiving it.

 

In the end, there was a lot of miscommunication and, I think, personalities and

expectations that absolutely did not mesh. Not a first on the Internet, but one of the very

few times for me. I truly regret getting far too hot under the collar and have apologized

verbally, in writing, and now here, publically.

I might add, too, that there was no repair TO be done to the lens. It worked(s) and is fully

functional. The optics were pristine -- as the buyer attests. Filter and shade mounting

were not a problem.

 

Honestly, I hadn't used the camera in ages, except for having shot a couple of test rolls

before selling it. Clearly, the cheap -- why does Mamiya do that? -- shade can't hurt the

metal barrell. Clearly, too, I hadn't given it a second thought and had rather confounded it

with other cameras. In any case, the one area where servicing or at least inspection was

warranted was the viewfinder. I offered, without being asked, mind you, to take care of

that. I called Mamiya, discussed the problem, got a quote (1 to 1 1/2 hours labor, no

parts, at $65/hr), etc. The buyer never even replied to that very fair offer.

 

We both stand by our stories and, alas, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Let this be a

lesson to others to communicate well before getting into a deal and to exchange images of

an item (I blame myself for not shooting them; then again, I've had many dealings with no

images at all and generally trust this community).

 

All's well that ends well, though. Disagreements and misunderstandings notwithstanding,

the deal is over. We have different feelings about how and why it ended, and the way it

ended, but that's another matter. Life is too short to drag this on.

Would you two children please stop being silly in public?

 

We have all heard enough of this, call it a day!