Mamiya TLR vs. Pentax 67

[kkeller]

I apologize in advance for the question, and realize I just just shut

up and go shoot, but I am truly "et up" with an equipment issue:

Whether I should sell the 67 (45 and 200) and get a Mamiya 220 or

330. The problem is that I really love my Yashica TLR (which I use as

my moderate), so thought that I might really, really love a Mamiya

outfit. I was getting ready to buy the 135/4 macro and a bright

screen of some sort (I want composition lines and a split). I judge

the 67 with folding wlf too dim. So instead, I thought, well, maybe

the 220 with 55, 105 and 180, save $, etc. So, has any body moved

back and forth between the 2 systems (I've read the related posts

from S. Rasmussen, S. Eaton, S. Sabo, and would love to hear from

them and others)? Is the Pentax glass noticably better in B&W at 8x10

(or 8x8 11x11 14x14 ...). How good is the Mamiya macro by bellows--

would the 135 be better (I know it's only 1:3)? I shoot a mix:

people, street, landscape, cityscape, minor macro (rocks and puddles

and leaves and logs and tombstones..), no still lifes...yet. I know

the decision is personal and please don't flame me. Thanks! p.s.

Great forum. I've learned a ton from you people.

[roger_michel]

the mamiya glass is every bit the equal of the pentax (and has anyone noticed that b&h still has a few NEW mamiya TLR lenses for sale!!). add in the fact that the mamiya has no mirror shake, and is used typically in that great, steady TLR, arms-against-the-body shooting position, and your snaps should be sharper on the mamiya. i will add these caveats: the mamiya is MUCH bigger than your yashica, so you should not expect it to have the same fast handling characterists. for street photography, a TLR can be VERY stealthy indeed -- it's quiet and it's held at the waist. however, for shooting fast (even moderately fast) moving action, an SLR has distinct advantages. you'll have to decide whethet the mamiya can be a street camera for you. i personally would go for the mamiya. i must confess, however, that the deck was stacked. i have never been a big fan of the pentax as a general purpose camera. it is UNRIVALED in certain specific applications, but is not all that great in practice as an everday, everywhere shooter IMO. and i know there are others who have the opposite opinion!! these things are just very subjective. i only mention my bias in the interests of full disclosure.

[tom_bowling1664874721]

Can't speak on the Pentax 67 but I have the Mamiya TLR C330f and have had it for about a year now. It has turned into my main camera without me ever intending it to, but it is big and you can't be inconspicuous with it, as you can with say a Rolleiflex. So that advantage of TLR photography doesn't really apply. I have it as well as the Rolleiflex, definitely not instead of. I have the 55 and the 135 lenses and they seem fine to me. The 135 stops down to f45. If you don't always use a tripod and don't always stop down a bit the finer parts of posh lenses will be lost on you anyway, because your breathing and heartbeat will introduce a lote more lack of resolution than any lens ever could. I've never understood this comparing lens business. How many angels can you stand on the end of a pin? The Seiko lenses are sharp. They are coated (at least the black ones are). They render colour well. They don't look like plastic lenses, cheap telephotos, the bottoms of milk bottles, your granny's glasses or pinhole apertures. Flare is not a problem, but then when you see the size of the Mamiya hood you'll know why. Oh, one other advantage. It takes 220 film. And I would use it for a bit before you bother about bright screens. Mine seems bright enough to me.

[vartan_grigorian]

The Pentax 67 is easily the better choice for Macro work. I have only two lenses including the 135 Macro and it is a very useful lens. Since you can probably buy the Mamiya TLR for the price of a Pentax lens why not keep the Pentax and buy the Mamiya anyway? After using both for a while then decide if you want to sell one. The leaf shutter lenses of the TLR would be a good complement to a P67 system.

[mike_rosenlof2]

The Mamiya lenses are good. I've got a very nice 11x14 on my wall that I shot with either the 135 or the 65, I don't remember which.

 

Shooting closeup is one of the very weak areas for a TLR. If you do a lot of that, this might not be your best choice. The 330 models have a pretty good indication of parallax cutoff, but it's still more difficult. If you're working on a tripod (and you should be for close up!) you can get a paramender and that solves a lot of the parallax problem.

 

It's a system that can work quite well for people, street, landscape, cityscape.

 

But then, the Pentax 67 is nice too...

[john_burnley1]

The Pentax 6x7 lenses are definity sharper than those made for Mamiya TLR's. But in real world use rather than in the shooting of test targets under conditions that factor out shutter bounce and mirror slap, that may not matter for your particular use. Mirror and shutter bounce ARE issues with the Pentax but of course not for Mamiya TLR.

[mark_uehling]

I had a Mamiya C330 years ago and now have a Pentax 6x7 and would definetly not recommend the Mamiya TLR over the Pentax. If you think the Pentax ground glass is dim, the Mamiya TLR is noticeable dimmer, and the lenses are slower. I use the Pentax rigid magnifying hood and have no trouble focusing whatsoever. I literally never have mis-focused shots, whereas I did with the Mamiya.

 

My biggest gripe with the Mamiya TLR was the lenses. I got noticeably flat (low contrast) results with them, and I had the latest black lenses. The coating on them was definitely not up to the Pentax Super-multicoating level. Now my Pentax system is only 7 years old and the TLR was probably 10 years older than that. I also have a Mamiya 6, and those lenses are very punchy, so I think it was the earlier coating process on the TLR lenses. Macro is also difficult with a TLR due to the different viewing lens.

 

Having said all that, if you are into street photography, the Pentax 6x7 is too big. I can't see hand-holding it, the mirror shakes too much. It requires a very sturdy tripod. I would recommend the Mamiya 6 or 7 for street photography; very quiet and you can hand hold the 50mm down to 1/15 second fairly easily as there is no mirror slap. The rangefinder focusing is excellent in low light (excepting the 150mm which is hard to focus in any light).

 

You already have the yashica, which you love. You have the pentax. You usually lose out when you sell. Perhaps you should sit tight and focus on taking pictures and not on equipment. Just my $0.02.

[hugh_sakols]

I use a mamiya c220 for landscape and nature images and can't complain. I always use a tripod and take my time setting up shots. Lately I've gotten great results using the c220 for macro work. I have some nicely composed images despite the paralax problems inherent with the tlr. After using it you will learn. Last week I finally got a paramender which now accurately compensates for paralax. I mount the whole rig on a Kirk BH1 ball head. I find it to be a stable set-up considering that the tlr uses leaf sutter lenses. Keep in mind I have budget constraints yet can't complain about the images. If money were not a factor I would probably go with an slr outfit for macro and a mamiya 6 for backpacking.

[bob_cook]

Kevin, I have both systems. They are not interchangeable.

Pentax is not a great choice for walk-around everyday stuff.

Mamiya is probably about the same weight, but much quieter. I

had the black 180 super, and it was prone to flare in situations

where my SMC 200 was not. Bob

[johan_erasmus]

I have negatives taken as a kid in 1970 on Kodak Panatomic-X using a Mamiya C220 that I find hard to beat today in terms of technical quality. I love the camera, but you will be very disappointed in it as a replacement for the Pentax. You need have no guilt about owning both as they compliment each other nicely, as already stated above. I would sell something less important (car, house) to buy the Mamiya. A nice new (old) piece of equipment can be very stimulating photographically.

[trooper]

Kevin, I've owned both the Mamiya TLR's and the P67. My photo activities are perhaps best described as �eclectic� and I used the Mamiya for all of the duties that I presently use my P67 system. I find no real fault in either set of optics, but agree, the P67 stuff has more efficient, modern coatings. I drifted to a Koni Omegaflex from the Mamiya and still am awed by the Hexanons when I look over the results from them.

 

I also have Fuji RF equipment and after having different things either still owned or used in the past, I still lean toward the MF rangefinder for �street� and discreet use. They are quick handling for me and the Fuji�s (I�ve heard the same for the Bronica and Mamiya) are superb, optically. As I reflect on this in response to your post, I realize that the methodical and careful approach to landscapes and general tripod/monopod field use, I wouldn�t care if I was wielding a TLR or SLR (or RF really). I tend to pre-visualize and then set the technical things in response. Whether I�m setting �8 and 1/60 on the P67 or Omegaflex and composing the shot doesn�t enter into the process too much at that point. Am I over-simplifying my procedure? Maybe�.

 

It sounds as if you have a general comfort level with TLR�s �watch your light angles and enjoy your Mamiya. They�re both pretty bulky systems and it�s awkward to have both with you. If you find you�re relying on the macro 135 more and more, maybe adding to your P67 makes sense. The P67 system is affordable, capable and from a company who seems secure financially and likely to be adding/enhancing the system for many years. That�s worth something in the equation, too!

[mediumformat]

I also have never used the Pentax, but fell in love with my Mamiya C220 very quickly. Has all the TLR advantages as mentioned, and also works great for street photography if you use a firm neckstrap to steady the camera, which is easy. On the tripod, TLRs are like small view cameras, since you can comfortably compose on the big screen, and there's no need to change orientations. Add a standard cable release, metal lens hood of course, and you're ready for action.

 

As for the lenses, I think the Mamiya lenses are excellent, especially the 55mm, 80mm, and 180mm Super. I've had so much fun using the standard 80mm that I've yet to buy the others for myself.

 

I also have a Rolleiflex T and a Minolta Autocord. All three cameras have different feels and style of operation, and all have excellent lenses (Tessar 3.5 on the Rolleiflex and Rokkor 3.5 on the Autocord).

 

As far as price/performance ratio, I really think that TLRs are the kings. When you consider the interchangeable lenses on the Mamiyas, it's just another reason to go for it. I will never trade or sell any of these TLRs. But if you find they do not fit your style, you should easily be able to sell them for what you paid.

[ahaohio]

I tend to use my Mamiya C220 a lot more than my Nikon system. I shoot mainly B&W (TMY) but also slides (RVP) and occasionally C41.

 

I have made nice 16*20's and I really like operating this piece. Macro can be painful.

 

One nice thing about it is that it is constantly a good conversation piece. People come up on the street to talk. Yet another way to make friends.

 

And - Unless you are in a deep financial fix: Do not get rid of the P67. Wish I had one myself for those fast nature shots.

[jeff_drew4]

Kevin, I have owned an entire C330 system with multiple lenses and used it for some weddings etc. I also own and use P67 and have owned and used Yashica, minolta, Rollei TLRs. << ...I might really, really love a Mamiya outfit...>> Maybe, but it is 6x6cm vs. 6x7cm and significantly bigger to hand hold vs. Rollei/Minolta/Yashica TLRs. Mamiya TLR build quality was always very good and the glass was great, especially the newer editions. I would not bother with C220 or earlier compared to late C330. << Is the Pentax glass noticably better in B&W at 8x10 (or 8x8 11x11 14x14 ...)>> Not really. Once past 16x20, however, the 6x7cm begins to exert its benefit of larger space. << How good is the Mamiya macro by bellows-- would the 135 be better (I know it's only 1:3)? I shoot a mix: people, street, landscape, cityscape, minor macro (rocks and puddles and leaves and logs and tombstones..)>> Macro stuff with Pentax 67 is easier than TLR, largely due to design of SLR vs TLR. P67 accessories and glass are excellent for macro. Opinions: I sold all my C330 stuff years ago only to pursue Hassy and LF work. I had absolutely no complaints with results from C330 compared to other 6x6cm format cameras. The interchangeable lenses, paramender, leaf shutter bennies etc. were A1 on C330 series. Would I give up my P67 for a C330? No, because the P67 works fine for me in macro and scenics - way better than C330 did. My C330 was a great "people and small group" tool. Is the P67 clunky sometimes -yes. For brighter viewing, get a screen change or look at the new P67II - much improved. For street use, I use my old TLRs sometimes, or my new favorite which is the 35mm Bessa R and a ISO100 film. Blow-ups out to 11x14 are no problem for it, no tripod or noise either.

[hugh_sakols]

Before I bought my medium format camera, I got a hold of a Kindermann 6x6 slide projector for $300.00. One advantage of 6x6 is how affordable it is to enjoy your images projected. I say this because I was surprised to learn how affordable the Pentax system is compared to a nice Mamiya C330 system. However, I could never afford a 6x7 projector. Then again if you prefer to shoot black and white this really isn't an issue.

[angus_bromide]

For sheer ergonomics, nothing beats a Rapid Omega (or one of the other monikers it wore). Not good for macro, but the applications you described shouldn't be an obstacle unless you're really on top of them). I used one for wedding photography after using a Yashicamat. I loved the Yashicamat, but in terms of speed and "feel", there was no comparison. I ended up selling it and going with a Bronica outfit, and regretted it.

 

If you've never tried one, don't let the funky appearance prevent you from seeing what it can do. Everything is right when your hands want it to be, and it's a joy to use. See if you can find one local to try out, even if it's only to dry fire around the store. Don't yell at me if you leave the store with the camera, a brick of film, and a sales slip after you try it out, though. :)

 

I've got a variety of TLRs now (Rollei, Yashica, Minolta, Mamiya) but hope to persuade my wife to let me add a Rapid Omega some day. If I survive that long, I'll have to start working on her to let me buy some lenses and extra backs for it. Oh the humanity. :)

[mark d.]

Kevin,

 

One thing to keep in mind with the Pentax 67 is the size. The 135/4 Macro only goes to 1:3. If you want to go 1:1, you'll need to add the extension tubes. The body, with extension tubes, and the 135/4 racked out measures roughly 15 inches long! It's huge and heavy. You may want to consider whether or not you want to deal with that. I sold my 67 for financial reasons but when those clear up, I won't be going back to it for my macro work. Good luck!

[mark_hubbard]

I will side with those who suggest you go for both!

 

I am surprised by some of the comments from others. I own the complete C330S (and F) system, and I would rate my late-issue 180 Super as equal to the Hasselblad in that focal length. It is truly one of the finest medium format lenses I've ever encountered! At the same time, I'm lukewarm on the 55, find my 65 and 80S both excellent, and enjoy the 105 DS and the 135. Only the 250 f6.3 is really dark and therefore difficult to focus without the magnifying chimney hood.

 

The biggest difference between the C330 and the C330F (and subsequent S) is the improvement in the design of the folding hood. The earlier C330 had basically 3 independent flaps that only came part way up the length of the front part of the hood (the top of the camera). It was a wonder anyone could focus anything with all that light bouncing around. However, with the introduction of the "F", the folding hood copied the Rolleiflex design and was more than adequate for anything except perhaps the overly slow 250mm.

 

Likewise, one of the things I enjoy most about the Mamiya C330F/S is its built-in bellows extension, which allows full-frame semi-macro shots of flowers and other subjects with many different focal length lenses. I don't know how close the Pentax allows you to get, but the Mamiya has tremendous flexibility in this "semi-macro" range. The Paramender is useful, but hardly necessary to get clear, huge, stunning shots. How many other medium format cameras let you fill your frame with a single rose using any of four different focal length lenses without add-on bellows or extension tubes?

 

The real joy of the Mamiya C330F/S system is assembling a complete medium format system with seven lenses for about the price of one used Hasselblad telephoto lens that produces results indistinguishable from my 180 Super (I only say "my" because one person above had less glorious results with his).

 

Keep your good Pentax 67 and build your Mamiya system on the side!

 

Best wishes,

[gene_crumpler8]

I have a c33 with black lenses. I moved to a p67 system because I was not happy with the quality of the the 80mm and 105mm Mamiya when shooting 120 Tech Pan. Before I would move into the C330 system, you might want to try a new p67 lens. The latest 55mm f4 is the sharpest lens I own, both on chart tests and in the field! If I had to give all but one of my 20+ cameras, I'd keep the p67, TTL finder and 55mm. No contest(includes the blad).

[patrick_drennon]

I bought a C220 about 3 months ago. I already owned a P67 &

P67II. I'm quite impressed with the little TLR.......but. You'll likely

hate it for macro or any other work where the SLR has a clear

advantage. By the way, the finder on the 67II is about 1 1/2 to 2

stops brighter than the P67.