Mamiya 7 internal 50mm finder- why not?

I've been considering a Mamiya 7 as a back-up/replacement for

my Plaubel W67, but I've always been deterred by the need for an

add-on finder for the 50mm. Does anyone else crave a version

with a built-in 50mm finder (even if it's at the expense of the

150mm finder)? I suspect many M7 users are former/current

Leica RF users, and that company has had success with

models geared to wide-angle use. Anyone from Mamiya

monitoring this forum? I've even considerd buying a junker and

attempting a do-it-myself conversion. Don't make me do it!

The entire Mamiya 7 viewfinder window (outside the 65mm lines) doesn't

show THAT much less than the 50mm lens sees, and my understanding is

that it's not uncommon for users of the 50mm lens to just skip the

add-on finder and compose through the window.

Paul-

 

If you are looking for a back-up to your Makina W67 (55mm lens, equaling about a 28mm in 35mm format), you might check out the Fuji 690 with the 65mm lens (equaling 30mm in 35mm format). I find the Fuji with the 6x9cm format to be a bit more versatile than my RZ67, as I can always crop off the extra two cms, if I want an 8x10" print.

 

The Fuji 6x9s have great lenses, are relatively lightweight and have reasonably accurate viewfinders. (Obviously, the 65mm lens matches the viewfinder, as the body and lens are a one-piece unit.) They shoot like big Leica rangefinders and make great pano cameras. They can be had used in the $750-1,000 range, a whole lot cheaper than the Mamiya 7, particularly if you only want to use one lens with the camera.

 

Regarding the Mamiya 7, though, while the 50mm requires a separate viewfinder, the 65mm does not. The 55mm on your Makina is equal to a 28mm in 35mm format. A 65mm on the Mamiya 7 would equal a 32mm in 35mm format. On a 6x7cm camera, a 65mm lens will have a 68 degree field of view. A 55mm lens would have a 74 degree field of view. That isn't a great deal of difference, considering that the 50mm with the finder costs $1,450 after rebate at B&H, while the 65mm costs only 1,200, almost 20%less.

<i>Anyone from Mamiya monitoring this forum?</i><p>

 

Mamiya monitors the excellent <a href="http://63.236.31.8/webx?14@130.hCYmah0WbV9^1@.ee7077a">Mamiya 7 forum.</a> Consider posting there.<p>

 

Many Mamiya 7 users find that the finder is about right for the 50mm without framelines, i.e., to the border. I use the 43mm quite a bit and have never found using the external finder to be a problem.

I too have the 43mm lens and yes sometimes it's a bit awkward to deal with the finder. Certainly for action shots I don't bother, the in-camera finder is close enough for those.

 

Sometimes having the separate finder is actually quite handy. With the loose finder I can quickly check to see if using the 43mm makes sense from the composition perspective. I don't have to pull out the camera or change lenses. I've actually done this quite a bit.

Paul,

 

I use the 50mm lens far more than the 43mm on my Mamiya 7 for precisely the reason others here have mentioned. The full viewfinder image of the M7 (outside the 65mm lines) matches the 50mm coverage very nicely!

 

The only time you'll run into a problem is when you're shooting something pretty close. There's no room for you to shift down and to the right to adjust for parallax correction. I've had no problems with normal shooting, and rarely bother with the external finder anymore.

Like Tim, I use the outer edge of the Mamiya 7 finder as a reasonable approximation of the coverage of the 50mm lens, just as owners of the newish 0.58X viewfinder M6 TTL can judge the coverage of a 24mm lens without an external finder. <P>

I'm surprised by your reference to Leica wide-angle "success" in the context of discussion of the need for an added finder for lenses wider than the "35mm equivalent" of a 28mm lens. I'm no Leica historian, but I thought that production Leica cameras with coupled rangefinders have had as their widest framelines coverage for a 50mm (II to IIIg, M3), 40mm (CE), 35mm (M2, M4, M5, and M6 and M6 TTL 0.85), to 28mm (M4-2, M4-P, and M6 .72 and M6 TTL .72 and .58). The Mamiya's 65mm lens, the widest lens with matching framelines in the finder, produces a 1:1.25 aspect-ratio image "equivalent" to an image cropped (e.g., to print an 8x10") from a frame exposed using a Leica's 28mm lens.

Thanks for all your input. I've considered just using the entire

viewfinder to approximate the 50mm, but framing accuracy is

very important to how I work. Working without parrelax correcting

framelines wouldn't cut it. I guess I've gotten spoiled by my

Plaubel, which has a very accurate framing system. Brian, not to

nitpick but most folks calculate the angle of view based on the

diagonal (88mm for 6X7, 43mm for 35) rather than an 8X10 crop,

thus 65=31, 55=27, 50=24. My point was that Leica sarted

producing models with a wider view (to 28mm) that dropped the

135 frame (I think.) If Mamiya did the same I'd be right on it. In the

meantime I'll just hope my Plaubel doesn't act up again (but

that's a whole different thread....)

Paul, your framing could easily be much more accurate than the angle of view equation "most folks" use; just crop a bit. In calculation results or film, what's a few millimeters?

as for the WHY in your query: in order to accomodate a wider angle of view in the finder (assuming you don't redesign the entire body, including the rf), you must necessarily reduce the viewfinder magnification and so the effective baselength of the rf. this reduces rf accuracy of course. the M7 already is cutting it pretty close (indeed when the camera first sppeared, there were grumblings about the smallish effective baselength, but the thing seems to work ok in practice). to produce its recent wideangle m6, leica has had to reduce viewfinder magnification to .58 i believe. this seriously compromises focus accuracy for longer lenses, rendering the .58 m6 really unsuitable for use with the 90mm f2. my preference has always been for high a magnification viewing window and a separate finder as necessary. i actually love the pre-m leicas (especially the multi-brite line iiig) that have the rf viewer next to the composing viewer. focus accuracy should trump the minor inconvenience of using a separate finder. at least it does for me.

when i say unsuitable for use with the 90mm summicron, i understand that the camera has a 90mm frameline. the margin of error in the rf with that focal length, however, is simply too great to assure sharp focus at f2. will leica eventually produce a clip on magnifying viewer for the m6 .58 for those occasions when wideangle guys want to go long?

I use the Mamiya 6 with 50mm lens and built-in frame finder. Focus is always fast and accurate. I wonder why they didn't do the same with the 7.

focus accuracy would be adversely affected at the long, not the short end. another random (but at least tenuously related) point: rangefinder focus always APPEARS to be positive and accurate. the test is whether (by reference to lens engravings, e.g.) you actually are achieving consistent, accurate focus.

Paul,

 

In your post from the the evening of Dec. 11 you said that you would use the external finder because you need the parallax correcting lines. The external finder is not coupled to the rangefinder mechanism; it just locks into the hot shoe. Therefore there is no parallax correction on the external finder.

Very often when I shoot 43mm I don't attach ext. viewfinder. I hold it in front of my eye just to get the composition, notice where the center is, then point camera's internal viewfinder's center to that spot. Faster, less hassle.