Update on: Is Mamiya 7 genuinely SHARPER than Hassy when hand-held?

As you may recall from the original discussion, I own a Hassy 501cm

+80mm lens. However, I was always somewhat surprised with the quality

which I managed to achieve when using the Hassy HAND-HELD .... my

Leica rangefinder cameras seemed to produce consistently SHARPER

looking hand-held images than my Hasselblad. Whilst the Hassy

handheld was OK, it certainly lacked the consistent biting sharpness

which jumped out of prints which were taken with my Leica M series

cameras. And so I posted the question regarding "Is the Mamiya 7

genuinely SHARPER than Hassy when hand-held?" to get some opinion.

 

Well, I eventually rented a Mamiya M7 & 80mm lens. I used Delta 100

(a film I'm very familiar with), and had biggish enlargements to

20x24 inches done by my usual professional lab here in London.

 

My assessment of the enlarged prints which were taken my the Mamiya

7, and the many images which I have collected using my Hasselblad,

showed that I am personally able to achieve noticeably sharper images

when HAND-HOLDING a Mamiya 7 .... the sharpness of the prints taken

by the Mamiya 7 were certainly reminiscent of a "larger-than-life"

Leica quality, which was something I had always hoped for but never

achieved with the Hasselblad.

 

It perhaps boils down to several factors. I guess the lack of mirror

vibration in the Mamiya 7, the fact that I don't like the mirror

blocking out my view with the Hassy SLR, the very smooth shutter

release of the Mamiya 7, and its ergonomic grip probably all

contributed to me being able to take sharper photos with the Mamiya

rangefinder.

 

And so I've found in the Mamiya 7 what I always cherished about Leica

rangefinders in terms of hand-held image quality. The 20x24" prints

I recently got back which were taken with the Mamiya 7 are so

stunningly sharp (both on an absolute basis and when compared to a

Hassy hand-held) that I could imagine a tripod may make little

difference.

 

I ackowledge that a Hassy locked on a tripod with Mirror lock-up

produces images which are basically identical to the Mamiya 7, but I

have to agree with those in the original discussion that the Mamiya 7

does indeed take sharper pictures than the Hasselblad when HAND-HELD.

Could you say what shutter speeds you carried the testing out at

please?

I was using "regular" hand-held speeds of 1/60 - 1/250th. I would imagine, similar to a Leica rangefinder, that the Mamiya would allow similarly noticeable benefits over a Hasselblad in terms of sharpness at slower shutter speeds in the 1/15 or 1/30th range .... however, I wouldn't want to trust my ability of handholding at 1/15th in order to make a big 20x24 inch enlargement.

Jon,

 

why is it you would expect anything else? movement during the exposure interval affects the image. your rangefinder is designed to be handheld and performs many limited functions well. conversely, it has serious limitations as compared to your Hasselblad.

 

most importantly, use the camera that works best for you in each application, or the one that takes you where you want to go.

Good review Jon. I had a similar experience as well but with the pentax 67. Probably no suprise.

 

I rented a pentax 67 and a mamiya 7 for a test drive and found, at handheld, the negatives from the mamiya 7 were noticeably sharper at the higher end speeds then the pentax 67 (above 1/125). Of course, the pentax has a substantially larger mirror then the hassy, but regardless, the mamiya is still a great rangefinder camera that will produce great handheld pictures when you just can't use a tripod. I also found the center weighted meter very accurate as well. Only problems I had were composing using the left and right frame lines. Sometimes my horizons were just a little crooked.

I love my Mamiya 6s and 7IIs, but in fairness to the Hasselblad:

 

1. You note that rectangular prints were made. I assume you had enlargements made of identical sections of images. In other words, for purposes of control factors, you didn't compare the sharpness of a 6x7cm image from a Mamiya 7 with a 6x4.5cm image from a Blad?

 

2. Even on a tripod, I would expect the Mamiya 7 80mm to produce slightly better results than the Hassy 80mm in that the M7 80mm is a rangefinder lens that doesn't have to contend with the design demands of an SLR lens.

 

Currently, I'm selling my RZ stuff because I love the Mamiya rangefinders so much. Part of that is that I find the M7 rangefinder lenses to be slightly better, comparing the same focal lengths. The RZ 150mm was awsome, but the M7 150mm is a leeetle bit better in terms of contrast and shapness.

well, let's see. interchangeable film backs, macro work, longer focal length lenses, depth of field viewing, alternate camera bodies, faster lenses, filtering, system breadth, digital, reliability, rental, choice of rainbow body colours!.

 

it seems a bit silly, but if your main application is exclusively handheld, sharp, f16 photograpy, the Hasselblad is a poor choice for many reasons.

In terms of the prints, I did full-frame enlargements for both the Hasselblad and Mamiya. Therefore, I would get 20x20" prints from the Hasselblad 6x6" negative, and approximately 20"x24" from the Mamiya 6x7" negative. As such, there was no difference in the magnification of the Mamiya and Hasselblad negatives during the enlargement process, which I believe provides a consistent benchmark when assessing the sharpness of the 2 cameras.

 

The hand-held Mamiya images appear so stunningly sharp (on an absolute basis, and when compared to a Hassy when it is off the tripod WITHOUT mirror lock-up) that I was quite amazed. As a long-time user of Leica rangefinders, I know the limitations of rangefinders, but I have no need for telephoto lenses, close-up ability, interchangeable backs, etc. All I require is a handholdable medium format camera which takes incredibly sharp photos, especially when travelling.

 

I bought the Hasselblad due to its reputation for quality, reliability, etc. The reputation for quality is certainly justified .... its build quality and lenses are outstanding, it takes brilliant photos when using mirror lock-up on a tripod, the strong metal body is excellent compared to the plastic construction of the Mamiya 7, and its mechanical construction makes it more reliable in harsh climates/journeys. I won't get rid of it for these reasons. But its short-comings as an SLR when taking pictures hand-held are evidenced from the astonishing sharpness of Mamiya 7 photos, in my view.

Not only is the 80 mm sharp, but the 65 mm and 43 mm as well. See my handheld M7 portfolio at

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=276771.

 

 

Mark

Not precisely on point, but I had a photography professor in college who has shot album covers for blues and jazz greats and also has photos in the collections of the big museums in N.Y.C., Chicago and L.A. Then too, the guy is a world-class B&W printer.

 

The discussion in this story took place in the early 80s. At that time, Rollei TLRs hadn't gained the cult/collector status they have now and there were no new $3K RTLRs on the market.

 

One day, before class, the professor was holding one of his frequent companions, a Rollei TLR. Being a complete dumba$$ (I can still be a dumba$$, but slightly less frequently), I asked the professor something like, "(w)hy would you want to shoot with that old thing when you could shoot with a Hasselblad?"

 

Rather than slap me, which would have been appropriate, the professor patiently gave me an explanation. "I have a Hasselblad that I use occasionally, but I like Rolleiflexes better. I've been shooting this camera (the RTLR he was holding) since before you were born. (On a later occasion, he quietly reminisced that he had used that RTLR to photograph Thelonious Monk and other jazz greats as a younger man in N.Y.C.) I'm more comfortable photographing with this camera and I can do anything with it that I can do with a Hasselblad and an 80mm lens."

 

Seeing that I was about to say "but," the professor opened a 16x20 clamshell box. He produced a series of 15"x15" B&W images printed with black border on 16"x20" paper that he had made with the RTLR.

 

It was a moment of seeing that someone had done something that I loved to do better than I even knew was possible and probably better than I'll be able to do it in my whole life. I was so stunned by the quality of his work, I wanted to cry. To this day, I've never laid eyes on technically better B&W prints. The images were excellent and I couldn't get over the contrast and bottomless sharpness of the photographs.

 

I asked about the film and printing materials, thinking maybe he had some special process to overcome the deficiencies of the lowly Rollei TLR. He said, "Tri-X, D-76, fiber-based Polycontrast, Dektol."

 

This was an object lesson in how it is the brute skill of the photographer that produces fine printed images. Also, I learned that there isn't a better 2 and 1/4 camera/80mm lens combination than the Rollei TLR.

<<I guess the lack of mirror vibration in the Mamiya 7>>

 

Well, duh.

There's another way of looking at this. Joe's taking his benefit as

extra sharpness, which is fair enough since that's his priority.

He could have taken it as the ability to handhold at lower speeds

but the same sharpness. I'm sure I've printed material I've made

with my Mamiya 7 at 1/15 sec up to 20" x 16" though not every

transparency works out this well.

 

Equally you could take the benefit as extra depth of field vs an

SLR when handheld - not a bad result when you consider that

you can't see your dof on the rangefinder and therefore you often

take risks in this direction.

One of 3 of my early photography "mentors" used a Rollei TLR exclusively; shot mostly B&W; and always captivated my interest with his perspectives. He never spoke ill of other tools, but he rarely used 35mm preferring his trusty 6x6 TLR. I regret being too immature at that time to fully appreciate the opportunity to learn more from him! Oh well . . . I use the P67, mostly on a tripod, and won't argue the Mam7 vs. P67 vs. 'Blad points for handholding etc. My entire P67 outfit includes 4 lenses, 3 finders, lots of shades & filters and cost way less than a new Mam7 or Hassy outfit, so I make do with what I have. The Mam 7 is a sweetie to hold, but adding a 600mm tele to it would pretty much blow the argument away. Anyway, click'em if you got 'em!

I don't hear an argument here. it is the classic screwdriver versus hammer problem. screwdrivers are wonderful tools, but when you need to pound a nail, you will find the hammer works better.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."- Abraham Maslow

 

I agree that the post is question-begging. While 500 Hasselblads are elegantly designed and compact for a 2 and 1/4 SLR camera, they wouldn't be my first choice for hand-held photography. And most of the folks I know who shoot Hasselblads without a tripod are event photographers shooting flash.

 

Nonetheless, allowing for the significant differences between SLRs and TLRs or traditional rangefinders, it is interesting that Mamiya 7 variants deliver 6 sq. cms. more image area than the Hasselblad. At the same time, the Mamiya 7 variants allow a hand-held capability analogous to that of a Leica M camera, by virtue of the Mamiya's lack of mirror and leaf shutter.

I frequently use my Hassy for hand-held landscapes while day hiking. I use the standard waist level finder. It has now become second nature for me to lock up the mirror while providing a moderate downward pressure on the hassy with the strap around my neck, and with the hassy above my belt, followed by pressing the shutter. I've never used the Mamiya, but shouldn't this method of shooting the Hassy compare with the Mamiya? My pictures look very sharp to me. And besides, I think I hold the hassy steadier this way than with a rangefinder pressed to my head. I shoot with the 80mm. But I agree that for wideangle, the Mamiya should really shine with its non-retrofocus lenses. I suppose if I wanted to spring for a wideangle MF lens, I would go with the Mamiya or a used Hassy SWC. Just my two cents worth.

Where can we see these handheld Hasselblad landscapes?

I've used the hasselblad handheld a few times (Hang-glider photo in my Hasselblad portfolio here is an example) - BUT to me it's much more of a tripod camera.

It's sort of silly comparing a rangefinder to an SLR in a 'handheld sharpness competition' - they are completely different tools that meet different needs.

Dispelling the notion that comparing the Blad with the Mamiya 7 is not on a level playing field (just because the latter has a bigger format size) it would indeed be interesting if a Mamiya 6 is used instead. The 3 interchangeable lenses for the Mamiya in the 50mm, 75mm and 150mm could be found in the Blad series (except for the 80mm standard). It would be interesting whether the same impression could be apparently seen in handholding the Mamiya 6, using similar film, shooting at identical shutter speeds and aperture in a variety of shooting condition. At best, the results can only reflect a fair comparison in practical usage and cannot be deemed conclusive for all purposes.

"It would be interesting whether the same impression could be apparently seen in handholding the Mamiya 6, using similar film, shooting at identical shutter speeds and aperture in a variety of shooting condition."

 

I own Mamiya 6s as well as 7s. The 6 variant bodies are just slightly smaller than the 7 variants. The 6 lenses are just slightly smaller than lenses for the 7s (smaller image circle needed). As such, Mamiya 6 cameras would be a bit lighter and, if anything, more hand-holdable than the 7 cameras.

 

As to sharpness, contrast and lack of distortion the 6 lenses are at least as good as Hasselblad lenses as I've used in the same focal lengths. For a highly accurate dissertation on the Mamiya 6 syetem, see Ken Rockwell's materials, here:

 

http://kenrockwell.com/mamiya/6.htm

 

If you look at the images I have posted, the cat was shot with the 75mm, the dogs and the guy with the handlebar moustache were shot with the 50mm. Admittedly, my scanning and posting technique don't do the sharpness of the images justice.

 

Regards,

Considering the Hasselblad mirror clangs like dropping an axle on cement, it isn't surprising you find these results.

It has been rumored that hurricanes are really the result of too many Hasselblad shooters at weddings all clanging those big mirrors at the same time.

Jon - you pretty much answered your own question in your original post. You wrote: "<i>a Hassy locked on a tripod with Mirror lock-up produces images which are basically identical to the Mamiya 7, but I have to agree with those in the original discussion that the Mamiya 7 does indeed take sharper pictures than the Hasselblad when HAND-HELD.</i>"<br>Even with 35mm, especially at slower shutter speeds. Mirror slap on medium format SLRs is awful. If your hassy performs identically to the mamiya 7 on sticks and locked up, there is no other explanation for the lower quality from the hassy when handheld.

Whoops. Part of that should have read "Even with 35mm cameras, with their smaller mirrors, you get somewhat lower quality because of the mirror slap - especially at slower shutter speeds"

dan taylor(port-tee),

 

you make me laugh.

 

yes yes, nasa used them,

 

me

 

p.s. twenty five years ago...

 

p.p.s. fer weddings/events(buy a brace of zoomfujis or go digital already) for studio, a 4x5 railcam and digiback, for tripods/landscapes think big negs(no bigger than that) and we've answered the handheld thing right here. i can think of no earthly reason to own a hassy in this day and age.

> i can think of no earthly reason to own a hassy in this day and age

 

other than simply enjoying using them to do photography.

 

what a concept.

 

it is such a personal endeavour, and no one really cares if you can think of a reason or not.