Mamiya 7 and 43m lens vs Hasselblad SWC

What is the current thinking between the Mamiya 7/43m combination and a

Hasselblad SWC (which I can only get pre-owned). Are there some side by side

image comparisons here?

 

Will the 43mm lens with the 6x7 film give you a wider FOV? or the same as the

38mm lens and 6x6?

 

For me the other consideration is that coming from DSLRs - the Mamiya offers

the convenience of metering etc.

 

Is focussing/composing easier with the Mamiya - I understand the 43mm comes

with its own finder.

Well, the angle of view will depend on whether you consider the whole frame, or you crop to some convenient smaller size. For the 38mm lens, the angle of view if you use the entire 6x6 frame is about like a 21mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. If you crop to 645 format, the angle of view is about like 24mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera.

 

Here's a display that shows angle of view for various popular focal lengths in the 35mm world, and their counterparts in 6x6 formats with various croppings. I have a much higher quality version as a PDF file; email me if you'd like a copy.)<div></div>

Both have separate VFs. The Mamiya gives you a rangefinder. The physical handling

is different, of course. The Hasselblad allows separate film backs.

 

 

To me the most important factorwould be the specific quality of the lens. Both are of

very high quality, but no doubt have different wide aperture performance (degree of

vignetting, corner sharpness and contrast), out of focus detail rendition or "Bokeh",

and stopped down performance.

 

 

Try to get some comparison data if you can. The lens quality is what it is all about,

unless film changing and handling aspects are also quite important to you.

and the SWC is a fixed lens camera...

Unless you print exclusively in a square, the Mamiya will be better. This is because it has

an extra 1cm of film and a more common aspect ratio. I believe the SWC is a superb

camera, but the Mamiya has a number of advantages that I think are really important in

use: <P>1. It has a rangefinder. No matter how much apparent depth of field you get with

a 38mm or 43mm lens, having a rangefinder makes a big difference. Would you be

comfortable using a 38 or 43mm on a 35mm camera without any way to focus? The depth

of field is the same, and errors will show up in large prints. You can roughly estimate, but

by doing so you are wasting the superb performance of these lenses. <P>2. You get a

whole, useable camera with the Mamiya 7II. The SWC requires you to bring another camera

if you want a bit more lens coverage. The Mamiya 43mm also allows you to bring a 50mm,

65mm, 80mm, 150mm or even a 210mm. Of course, you don't need to bring any, but it

can be convenient to have another lens at times. <P>3. The Mamiya has better film

loading, the film sits flatter and you can use both 120 and 220 with the same camera. The

SWC has the advantage of switchable backs, but a hasselblad back's loading method

encourages film curl and the pressure plate does not sit as forcefully against the film as

the straightforward loading and pressure plate system of the Mamiya. Theoretically it

means that the Mamiya should be sharper assuming the rangefinder is calibrated properly.

In practice there should be little difference. That said, if you leave film in a hasselblad

back for a long time, the reverse curl WILL make a difference to your sharpness. So if you

tend to leave the film in your camera for awhile, the mamiya will be sharper. <P>4. The

Mamiya comes with a meter, works in AE, and includes a good finder with a bubble level.

<P>5. The Mamiya has superior ergonomics. It has a large, comfortable handgrip that

gives you a secure hold on the camera and allows you to squeeze the shutter without

shaking the camera. Hasselblads are great on a tripod, but holding a square box with a

button on the front is not the most ergonomic of camera designs. It can certainly be done,

but you are at an inherent disadvantage. Also, if you prefer to use your camera at eye-

level, the Mamiya will be the easier to work with. <P>6. I have not shot head to head with

the biogon versus the Mamiya, but there are a number of users who maintain that the

Mamiya is the better lens...it is based on the same design, but uses a more highly

corrected version. If you believe Ken Rockwell, who owns both, it is the sharper lens.

Personally, I think the other advantages are great enough that even if it weren't a better

lens, it would be a better option. Anyway, enough talk, here are some of my

samples:<P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/kvivik-view-farmer-

gallery.jpg"><P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/hvalfjordur-

bw1.jpg"><P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/infrared-mission-

43mm.jpg"><P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/shinto-teki.jpg">

Thanks for all the replies and Stuart - your superb images have fairly well convinced me but I suspect I will need to work on it to achieve your standard. What BW film were you using?

Wait till you see some SWC pictures - they make the Mimaya look 2nd class. Seriously. The

Mimaya may be sharp but the Hasselblad has soul baby!

If only someone could post a side by side comparison of these 2 systems. It appears from what I have read that the Mamiya is all about sharpness.

 

Next question - prices in Sydney for the Mamiya are quite High. I have only seen 2 sources on ebay separately for the lens and camera and these have been quite low in comparison - could I be buying poor quality control ones on ebay?

<p>1. It has a rangefinder. No matter how much apparent depth of field you get with a

38mm or 43mm lens, having a rangefinder makes a big difference. Would you be

comfortable using a 38 or 43mm on a 35mm camera without any way to focus? The depth

of field is the same, and errors will show up in large prints. You can roughly estimate, but

by doing so you are wasting the superb performance of these lenses.</p>

<p>

Well, if I didn't have any way of SETTING the focus distance, yes, that would be a problem.

But the SWC has this nice ring, complete with distance markings and DoF indications. I

use it for focusing.

</p>

<p>

What it doesn't have is a built-in means for MEASURING the focus distance, this is true.

But besides eyeballing it or using the hyperfocal setting, you can actually measure with a

tape measure, optical rangefinder such as used to be a shoe-mount accessory for folding

cameras, or even make yourself a little card that you hold at arm's length and sight over to

become your own optical rangefinder. See <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=003HEV">make your own rangefinder</a> for details. For the most

stringent conditions, you can mount the camera on a tripod and fit a ground-glass

adapter (or a digital back).</p>

<p>

Most of the pictures I take with my SWC don't involve flat subjects all at the same distance,

so not everything can be at the point of sharpest focus. I don't find a rangefinder camera

to be all that helpful in judging the overall appearance of such an image, either. Sure, I

can focus directly on something (though watch out for focus error due to reframing) but

that doesn't show what will be sharp or how unsharp something that is not will be.

</p>

<p>

Also, a few other points: the SWC has the button on the top, not the front, and if you're

using it handheld instead of on a tripod, at eye level is about the only way you CAN use it

if you want to have it be level and framed to your liking (unless you buy that Voigtlander

finder).</p>

<p>

I think if you have a Hasselblad kit already, the SWC makes a lot of sense, but ideally you

should borrow or rent one to make sure it is a serendipitous match. The Mamiya can

clearly produce fine images as well, depending on the idiot at the controls, and if one was

new to MF, didn't need digital back options or the ability to change film mid-roll, didn't

like square format, etc. it clearly has a lot to offer. Again, if trying before buying is an

option, that's probably a smart move. If anyone is looking for a good home for theirs,

contact me for a shipping address and I'll try to get it a good spot in the rotation :-)</p>

Unless I've overlooked it, something not yet mentioned, and the one factor of primary importance for me, is image geometry. This is where the Biogon 38mm lens, with near zero distorstion, together it's other qualities, ranks it as one of the best lens designs ever. It has been the choice for areal photography amd geogrametric work sinces it's appearance decades ago.

 

For the convenience of rangefinder work, ok- maybe the Mamiya, it depends what you're into, but for stunning landscapes, interiors and architetural images, as well scientific applications, the Hasselblad SWC is a tough act to follow, especially in the 6x6/6x7 arena.

 

Cheers, Kevin.

Actually Kevin, the Mamiya has less distortion than the biogon if you can believe it.

Mamiya claims it reaches a maximum of .04% in the corners, while the biogon is quoted as

having a maximum of .29%. Not that it would matter...both are essentially invisible. <P>As

someone who shoots with Rollei 6000 series, Hasselblad 200 series and the Mamiya, I

think the comment about the Mamiya lenses lacking "soul" is nonsense. Soul is injected by

the photographer, not the lens. Honestly, the Mamiya 43mm and the biogon are pretty

much identical except the Mamiya is a slightly newer design that is a bit more highly

corrected. Zeiss makes some beautiful lenses, as do Schneider and Mamiya. The lenses for

the Mamiya 7 are every bit as good as those for Rollei and Hasselblad. Ask Mary Ellen Mark

or Eikoh Hosoe or any of the number of fine photographers who use the mamiya. I think

the 43mm is the best superwide I have used for any camera system, including lenses like

the 21mm biogon, 19mm elmarit and so on. There is simply nothing wrong with it. <P>

John -- in answer to your question, those were 3 different films. The first was Rollei R3 at

ISO 50, the second was Fuji acros at 100 (in rodinal), and the third was Macophot IR 820.

I have a couple of Haselblad cameras including the SWC. Whilst its a great camera, I wouldnt want to be stuck with it as my "main" or only camera. The lens is too wide for many subjects (even some landscape) and the handling is like....a lens stuck to a 120 back.

 

But when you need a wide lens and a light camera its great. See some images here..http://www.tonyestcourt.co.uk/html/langdale_feb_08.html

 

These are no good for comparing lens quality (what web pages are?) because the wind conditions meant my camera, me, my eyeballs etc. couldn't hold still.

 

Unless you were really sure the blad was for you, I'd get the mamiya, Dave Butcher uses one, see here http://www.davebutcher.net/

"Next question - prices in Sydney for the Mamiya are quite High. I have only seen 2 sources on ebay separately for the lens and camera and these have been quite low in comparison - could I be buying poor quality control ones on ebay?"

 

You get the exact same camera from the eB*y sellers as you get from official Mamiya channels. But your local Mamiya importer probably won't service it.

 

I have purchased from the seller "ahmuay" and have been 100% satisfied. No worries about service because Precision Camera Works will service my Mamiya 7:

 

http://www.precisioncameraworks.com/

Hey Stuart,

<p>

We are just expressing our opinions and experiences here OK. If you want to have your

own comments respected then start by respecting those of other people. No need to put

down anyone by calling their views nonsense.

<p>

Nobody said the Mimaya lacked soul. I said that the Hasselblad <i>has</i> soul, and I

was referring to the often commented experience of the Mimaya indeed being ultra-sharp

but, as with other Zeiss lenses, the Hasselblad is capable of producing a very realistic and

beautifull three-dimensionality that is not so apparent with other lenses.

<p>

It is an unfortunate consequence of the digital age we live in that dicussions about lenses

often come down to numbers, the sharpest, the fastest, etc. etc. and people often miss

the most important aspect - what they look like!

<p>

Now, you may not agree with the above. One of the joys of photography is that it is a

subjective experience after all. But do have the education at least to respect others

opininions and experiences.

Antonio -- my intention was not to offend you, so if I did so, I am sorry. If it is the word

nonsense that is tripping you up, please replace it with "wrong". I believe that the mamiya

has advantages beyond mere sharpness and I think the idea that it is lacking a indefinable

something is misguided given how the lens designs are extremely similar. The biggest

difference is that one is new and Japanese and another is older and northern European.

And believe me, I am a connoisseur of lenses that look beautiful -- I have a special place

in my heart for lenses like the 75mm summilux, 110/2 planar, and so on, I just think that

the mamiya belongs right up there at the top. Anyway, I respect your opinion, I just

disagree with it in this case. I am sorry if you found my way of expressing that

disagreement as offensive. it was certainly not meant to diminish you.

Stuart, OK. Thanks. Nice images on your website by the way.

p.s. I was expressing my opinion based on my experience. As such it cannot be wrong. It is

my experience. You can agree with it or disagree but you cannot say it is not what I have

experienced.

The fact that someone had experiences that led him or her to form an opinion may not be questionable. But that says nothing about the validity of that opinion.<br>And that opinion can indeed as easily be wrong, nonsense even, as it can be right, no matter how undeniable the experience it was derived from.<br>;-)<br><br>Just another opnion: whether "soul" is, or even can be, a quality lenses can posess is, i believe, rather more a matter of perception than experience. But however that may be, i too have used Zeiss lenses for many years, but have not seen them show said "soul", nor Mamiya lenses (which i also have used) lacking the same.

Bakker,

 

There is no right and wrong when you are putting forward your experiences. People can

have different experiencs of exactly the same thing and they are all equially valid.Right

and wrong do not come into it, especially when talking about something as subjective like

what a lens looks like and how it performs. People can and do argue about the numbers,

but the finer points of photography, how things feel and handle and look are unique to

each individual. You should try listening to other peoples opinions some time, you might

acutually learn something, rather than always trying to shoot people down.

Bakker,

 

p.s. You are now on "my ignore list" - go find your sport elsewhere, I am not intersted.

Antonio,<br><br>For someone of the opinion that one "should try listening to other peoples opinions some time", you show remarkably little interest in other people's opinions. (I could quote a certain mr Antonio Garcia Russell once again, saying <i>"What a total load of crap. Honestly, you are so full of shit it is untrue. Total, unadulterated bollocks."</i>, as an illustration of how you in fact try to listen to other people's opinions. But should i? Should i have to?)<br><br>And now i am on your "ignore list" (you apparently find you have a need to keep such lists). You are "not interested" in other people's opinions. Fine with me.<br>But is it with you? It doesn't mean that from now on people will only agree with you, will it? So what are you going to do when someone posts the next opinion you do not like? Where will you end?

Stuart, thanks for the info regarding the mamiya lens and it's lower distortion. Very interesting. I wish I could apply it then with a viewing screen such as the Hasselblad system. Is the viewfinder well provided with frame lines to help with alignment in picture taking?

We're comparing two of the finest lenses ever made. I would expect that a talented photographer could produce stunning results with either lens.

Kevin -- the viewfinder has framelines and markings to see different the image size at

different distance settings, but it is not parallax corrected per se. It is like an external finder

for a Leica or Voigtlander lens, only it has a bubble level and diopter.

Hmm - might see if I can borrow a demo item some time to try out. Not being parallax corrected wouldn't matter for architecture/landscape anyway. Sounds like the framelines would be sufficient for vertical and horizontal reference. Thanks, again. K.