Mamiya 7's IQ compare with Hasselblad V and Pentax 67?

<p>Hello all, I have been working as a fashion and portrait photographer for 2 years now, having used and then sold a Hasselblad 503cx, a Mamiya 645, and a Contax 645, I now only use a Canon 5Dmkii for my work. But I am missing the medium format, and want to get a camera that can deliver significantly more image quality for my personal project. Which is the reason for this post, and I hope you knowledgeable guys can help me with some opinion please.</p>

<p>Personally, I loved the sharpness and tone of the 'blad and find Contax 645 less sharp, and the Mamiya 645 even worse. Using the 5Dmkii was a hard choice made based on financial reason (most jobs I get are very low budget, and film prices and processing in London is not getting any cheaper) and the need of quick turnaround. </p>

<p>My main concern, as the title read, is that how do the images produce by a Mamiya 7 compare with Hasselblad V series and Pentax 67, in terms of sharpness, amount of details and colour tone? I am assuming the Zeiss lens are the best among this 3 system, so does it compensate for the smaller size of the 6 x 6 image? (I have no experience with 6x7)</p>

<p>Secondly, I will be aiming to shoot full length portraits, head shot, as well as occasionally close up of small animals, say, a small cat. I am assuming Mamiya 7 as a RF will have problem handling close up, is that the case? </p>

<p>Lastly, as I gather, Mamiya 7 using a 150mm will give me quite a small area to compose (half of the 90mm's area), right?</p>

<p>Any opinions will be most appreciated, any images by the 3 system to compare will be great too! Thanks.<br>

Best wishes,<br>

H</p>

 

<p>The Mamiya 7 lenses are simply phenomenal. The real consideration for you should be rangefinder limitations and inability to close focus. </p>

<p>You may find this comparion interesting:</p>

<p>The Mamiya 7 lenses are simply phenomenal. The real consideration for you should be rangefinder limitations and lack of close focus. </p>

<p>Mr. Nakamura.....</p>

<p>The close focusing distance for the 150mm is about twice the distance for the 80mm (no 90mm in the 7/7II system) so no gain in closest focus area covered. Furthermore, the area covered at closest focusing distance for either lens will not give you a tight head and shoulders. Full body length shots can fill the frame so no worry there. </p>

<p>From my experience and many others, the 7 series lenses of the 65 mm, 80 mm and 150 mm meet or exceed the sharpness of the closest Hassy equivalent. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The M 7 lenses are the best ever made for MF but, as others have pointed out, it is not the most flexible of cameras. For portrait or macro work the Pentax 67 would work better.</p>

<p>I think it depends on your print size. For most print sizes, you won't notice the difference. If you're going to making large prints, then the Mamiya 7 will win, assuming you can focus accurately with the rangefinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am assuming the Zeiss lens are the best among this 3 system</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a reasonable assumption given the pervasive Zeiss mythology - but, it turns out to be a wrong assumption. Objective tests reveal that the Mamiya 7 has the best optics in medium format, at 6x6 or 6x7. [i have seen suggestions that the Bronica 645 RF surpasses it, at 645].</p>

<p>Just from my memory, you should see test results at:<br>

http://www.photodo.com<br>

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html<br>

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/<br>

(Ken Rockwell is more opinion than test)</p>

<p>However, as a fashion/portrait/pet photographer looking for the best IQ, you should really be looking at the Mamiya RZ67. I think you will find that it fits the purpose rather better than these three other cameras, and its optics are the equal of the other two SLRs. A few years ago I stumbled upon a fashion programme on TV, covering shoots for one of the big magazines (Vogue I think), and what caught me eye [apart from the models! (;))] was that it was all being shot with a gaggle of RZ67s - both indoors and outdoors, both handheld and tripod-mounted.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Mamiya 7 lenses are simply phenomenal. The real consideration for you should be rangefinder limitations and inability to close focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thats my view too. Combined with the fact that the differences in lens quality between MF systems is actually pretty minute and you won't be able to see much difference unless you print huge. One tiny point- I think that some of the Mamiya 7's apparent sharpness derives from contrast. My experience with Velvia for example is that I get maybe a quarter stop less dynamic range with the Mamiya 7 than with other MF systems. But really the point is this-voting for ultimate but marginal lens quality , if it costs you the ability to do what you want , is not a smart thing to do. Bear in mind that with a Mamiya 7 you can't see dof through the lens and that the lens barrel markings are unrealistic. For dof-critical applications I'd choose a slr every time.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have owned several Hasselblad systems, nearly all the lenses, the Mamiya 7II, the Bronica RF, several RZ 67 with most of the lenses. The RF cameras are not the tool for your job, closeups are a problem in framing, as well as closest focust distance.<br>

Yes, the 7II lenses are great, but so are the RZ lenses, which, overall, can't be bettered in MF slr systems. The RZ is wonderful, size being its only drawback, but still easily handheld (heck, many pros handheld them for entire weddings, though the difference becomes obvious after that long compared to a Hasselblad). For your project I don't think you'll be handholding for 8 hours at a time, the RZ fits the bill. Also, closeups are a breeze due to the bellows system which gives closer focus without extensions than any helicoid system. Sharp optics, big neg size, close focus, huge screen, great prices: what more could you ask for? </p>

 

<p>I've owned several of the systems discussed here (not the RB/RZ) and I've come to the conclusion that medium format systems don't really ovelap when it comes to what they do best. For example, for portable portraits the Hasselblad seems best with between lens shutters for fill light and portability. For lots of studio work on a tripod, the RZ shines withit's larger negative but too heqavy to carry for long distances. The Pentax 67 is portable but it is bulky/heavy and you don't get fill flash (think sports or photojournalism). The Mamiya is the ultimate travel tool for city scapes, and portraits in context but doing head/shoulder portraits is difficult. There are always workaounds for an occasional shot like taking a longer shot of a person and cropping to a head shot with a Mamiya 7 but why fight equipment for frequent shots. Among the major manufacturers, lens quality is outstanding and differences hard to determine (however cost does - the Pentax glass is an incredible bargain now and the RX glass isn't far behind) The differences are probably nonexistant if you are doing off tripod work although the hand holdable ergonomics of the Pentax and the Mamiya 7 are probably superior.</p>

<p>Warren, what's the problem with Mamiya 7 and headshots? It has parallax correction, doesn't it?<br>

I did not compare all lenses in a scientific mode, but my very subjective impression is that Mamiya 7 lenses are among the sharpest. The reason may be the relative simplicity of rangefinder lenses design vs. SLRs which are more complex. This simplicity allows designers to get better results. </p>

<p>Warren, what's the problem with Mamiya 7 and headshots? It has parallax correction, doesn't it?<br>

I did not compare all lenses in a scientific mode, but my very subjective impression is that Mamiya 7 lenses are among the sharpest. The reason may be the relative simplicity of rangefinder lenses design vs. SLRs which are more complex. This simplicity allows designers to get better results. </p>

<p>Mike. You don't really know the Mamiya 7 sytem well. The reasons why the Mamiya 7 doesn't handle head & shoulders shots well is that the lenses don't allow sufficiently close focus to frame just the head and shoulders. So you have to crop to achieve a head shot or head & shoulders . Secondarily because there is no ability to see or judge depth of field through the camera. So all you can tell is what you've focussed on, you can't use a dof preview button (as you could on a slr) to assess how out of focus are things that you have not chosen to focus directly upon. With MF lenses and a point of focus only a few feet away, thats an issue. Image quality only matters if you can get the photographs you want, and given that all the main brands of MF systems offer pretty good lenses, may not be relevant unless printing very large.</p>

<p>As said the Mamiya lenses have great optical quality -- but if you need to focus close or use a long lens then problems arise very quickly. If one doesn't need interchangeable backs then the Mamiya 7 is probably the best portable wide angle camera, but for close ups and long lenses it's not so good. Since portability or wide angles are not so critical in a studio setting, I would consider either a Hasselblad or a SLR Mamiya for those applications.</p>

<p>

 

<p>Thank you everyone for your great response, your views really helps!</p>

<p>Considering what's been mentioned about the inability to focus up close, I have great doubt about the Mamiya 7 for my kind of portrait work, and I had finally found a shop where I can put my hands on a Mamiya 7 earlier today. (It was my first time with a Rangefinder) Although I was very impress with how compact and light it is, it's way of focusing is not for me, just like some of you said, I totally need a SLR.</p>

<p>Given the fact that I will handheld 90% of the time and will be traveling with all the gear on my own on public transport, RB/RZ are out of the question. Someone pointed out Bronica GS-1 for being relatively compact and light (quite important for me), but from the sample images I can find online (flickr and pbase.com), I wasn't very impress, the lens seems to lack the impressive details from Pentax 67 or the others 6x7 camera.</p>

<p><strong>Will be great if I can get this much more opinions from you guys please:</strong> How different in terms of details and sharpness do you think there is, <strong>comparing prints of the same size from a Pentax 67 and a Hasseblad V series?</strong> And since I will be mainly using my images as rectangle, 6x6 will in effect become 6x4.5, and previously from what I got in a Contax 645, it wasn't any better than from the hi end Canon digitals, hence me selling the Contax. Will a Hasselblad be an improvement on that?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot.</p>

 

 

</p>

<p>Let me make a prediction. If your Contax was working right and you were using it properly, its unlikely that <strong>any </strong>MF camera is going to make you completely happy. Maybe you're just one of the people that prefers the look of digital images to film?</p>

<p>Although I've never done side by side comparisons, the difference between a well scanned medium format negative, even 6x4.5, and a good digital file should be obvious beyond 11x14. Having said that, I took some architectural shots using a D700 and a 28 PC and at 11 x14 it is the equal of anyting I was getting from medium format and riveled 4x5. I believe that digital 35mm full frame is now indistinguishable from even 6x7 if you limit yourself to 11x14 prints. I also think the traditional view that it's about the camera shake stupid (with apologies to James Carvile) is also a major factor. One of the reasons people love the results form the Mamiya 7 may be that they are better able to hold it still and minimize camera shake. I always felt good about holding a Pentax 6x7 still and read later that much of the vibration I felt was happening after the shutter had closed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Although I've never done side by side comparisons, the difference between a well scanned medium format negative, even 6x4.5, and a good digital file should be obvious beyond 11x14.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I actually did some comparing earlier this year between some Hasselblad slides and negs and Nikon D3 files printed to 24x16" and it was obvious that medium format was better (the scans were not drum scans either). But the D3 print was acceptable and from a distance it looked totally ok. In small prints the printing technique itself is more limiting than a high end camera and people have different eyes and vision also. I'll add also that at a print size of 24x16" the prints made from 6x6 are practically grainless when using modern films. Then there's always the option of digital MF...</p>

<p>I am using the Pentax 67 and the sharpness and richness of the negs are excellent. This camera is a bit on the heavy side, especially with a big tripod. It can be used handheld to take critically sharp negs contrary to what some people seem to believe. It's a SLR and gives good control of framing and close up photography. For handheld low-light photography however, it is a difficult camera to use. I am still interested in the Mamiya 7 because of its lightweight and portability. Can this camera easily be used handheld? The lenses look sharp, but judging from the photos I have seen taken with the Mamiya 7, the quality of the 'bokeh' looks mediocre at best. Is this correct or haven't I merely seen the good shots?</p>

<p>If you're interested in Pentax 67 photos, see my <a href="http://cceder.com/index.html">website</a></p>

<p>I have Hasselblads and owned a Mamiya 7 until last year. Both of these and the Contax are superb image makers and each will outpace a DSLR providing the scan is good. Not only is the resolution better and the file size massive in comparison, the tone and feel of the images are much more to my liking than 35mm DSLR's.</p>

<p>As for sharpness, I don't think the Mamiya can be beaten, but it's close and only down to head, shoulders and half the trunk. For head shots, half head shots and full set of teeth shots, the Hassey is best by a long way. For digital, the Hassy back is on it's own here. For landscape shots, the Mamiya is up front. </p>

<p>So, they will all take pics for you and if cropping is an alternative the Mamiya is the easiest to shoot. I stayed with the Hassy and bought a CFV back for it and used the Mamiya to fund it.</p>

<p>For rectangular formats, a 6x7 has a definite edge over 6x6. I have used both formats. By my standard, I feel any fine grain film should not be enlarged more than 10x.<br>

I have loved the Mamiya 7. But you have a good DSLR, and considering the ease of use and high resolution, you are not missing much! At least not unless you plan to have your film drum-scanned or with an Imacon. IMHO.</p>

 

<p>I use the P67 system and also run a Mamiya 7 and Bronica RF system. I meant to decide which to keep and use but I find that they all have their unique attributes and have found it hard to cull anything to this point. The Bronica easily gets used the most for me and I'm most confident and comfortable with it. It's especially strong at candids and general fast-duty, people shots. The finder is easy to use in lowered light, the vertical format favors this sort of shooting and the optics are as good as it gets. The Mamiya is a great rig to have on a hike for portability. I find that the P67 sits home the most as the RF's do most everything that I need for my duties and they need much less pod support to perform well.</p>

<p>The P67 is a good, solid performer. The optics have a great deal of variability from one example to the next but the good ones are very good. The P67 doesn't get along with every tripod as I've found it has some unique vibration issues that are well controlled by some equipment and not by others (even stressing some rather heavy combos). An adapter and a 645 body has added to the versatility of my overall slr kit/lenses. It certainly seems that your required duties would be best served with an slr and that a studio-oriented rig such as a Fuji 680 or Mamiya RZ might be a good solution but you could likely be very happy with the Pentax, too. I know that the Hassy gets great praise and they are very capable. I went through some frustrating reliability issues a few years back and abandoned mine but results were very good when it was working.</p>

<p>At 1/250 shutter speed with the P67 I cannot see any difference in sharpness whatsoever between handheld and tripod mounted. Even at 1/125 and 1/60 with good technique the P67 can be used hand-held and produce critically sharp negs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At 1/250 shutter speed with the P67 I cannot see any difference</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well Ok but the thing that always bothers me is the consequences of ensuring that you can actually get to 1/250 or 1/125 or whatever. Maybe you have to use a faster film or push it. Maybe you have to accept a wider aperture and less depth of field than you'd like. Maybe you have to leave off a polariser or red filter. Using a tripod gives you more than sharper pictures. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well Ok but the thing that always bothers me is the consequences of ensuring that you can actually get to 1/250 or 1/125 or whatever. Maybe you have to use a faster film or push it. Maybe you have to accept a wider aperture and less depth of field than you'd like. Maybe you have to leave off a polariser or red filter. Using a tripod gives you more than sharper pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course David but walking around with the P67 with one lens mounted and without lugging around the big old tripod every time is really nice. I find that in pursuing sharpness I have many times missed the shots I would have really liked. After a year of use I have found that the P67 gives me more than enough sharpness handheld in most circumstances.<br /> Chris</p>

<p>Hi guys, thanks for your opinions, thats most appreciated. Just a little update, after looking around but failed to find a Pentax 67 to rent in London, I have bought one from ebay and has just got my first 3 rolls back. Some of the images really rocks! Even though I am just scanning with my Epson v750 (I found that while drum scan result are obviously better, Flextight x5's result doesn't really differ from the v750, IMO), the details, sharpness and that extra "feel" that the large film area give to it are really impressive. It's definitely a step up from 645 and is to me, a more significant difference to the quality that a 1Ds Mkiii can give me. </p>

<p>Just one thing is that operation-wise I does find it quite difficult and slow, especially with the camera turned sideway for portrait handheld, which is what I will use it for mostly. I found all the weight has to rest on my left hand while I try to focus, and the right hand struggle to get a good grip. The 67ii with it built-on right hand grip will make the operation much easier but is sadly out of my price range. I know there is a left hand grip for 67, but really don't see the point: so you have to hold it with your left hand, then use your right hand for both focusing AND pressing the shutter? To me it sounds impossible to use in a portrait session if you have to slow down so much, if you want spontaneous result.</p>

<p>I know practise with the camera may help, and I am gonna try using a monopod in my process to free my left hand more.... let's see how it goes. Will probably have a chance to try my hands on a RZ67ii next week, may be the rotating back is what I need, but we will see. Will also compare the scans from the RZ compare to the P67.<br>

All the best.</p>