From 35MM to MF..B4 I pull trigger

[cwb_.vt]

I shoot for fun, not professional...Spotmatic, FM2T, F6, R9, M4,

and D2X ..just put in black and white darkroom and I am having a

ball......most of my stuff is landscapes and nature, mostly on

tripod for technical and discipline reasons....1-2-3 second

exposures in AM or of water, or in the PM are not out of the

ordinary (and other variations of exposures that demand a

tripod).....I do day hikes and it appears one can carry this stuff as

per the web images I have seen....my tripod is Gitzo 1327 , rated

to hold a truck.......would like to move up to MF black and white

both in camera and darkroom, no real reason other than the

hobby expands. Before I buy this MF camera, just need a logic

check

 

I have spent about a week reading the various posts and reviews

and this is what "I think I know"...

 

1) There are lots of 645 choices at various new/used investment

levels and for my purposes and the general market price levels I

would be well served with Pentax, Contax or a Mamiya. That is, I

have not read any substantial problems inherent with these

systems given my shooting style.... I only toss out the Hassy stuff

cause I do not like the square....I just think in rectangles, stupid

but that is me.....the only "drawback" seems to be the size of the

negative....sort of a "small MF"...

 

2) So, if one looks at the 6x7 size (perhaps a "true MF"), there is

the Pentax 67 and a Mamiya 7II.....I read that the SLR mechanics

(Mirror) of the Pentax can be an issue for the longer exposures (I

do these)...so I lean toward the Mamiya 7II as it is a rangefinder

and seems to have rather strong follwings and positive views

from forum folks....

 

So, I think I would lean to the Mamiya 7II system.....in advance, I

thank you for your time and recommendations on my

behalf...Chris

[mike_earussi1]

The Mamiya 7II is the best optically of all MF systems. But it not the most flexible or necessarily the easiest to use, not being an SLR. The easiest and most compact is the Pentax 645. They are also built like tanks (at least the original manual focus ones. I'm not familiar with the autofocus models). It would most resemble the 35mm SLR's you are use to, and hence be the easiest for you to learn and adapt to. Depends upon what is more important to you.

[Gary Naka]

IMHO, go 6x7. My reasoning is, if you are going MF, why stop half way with the 6x4.5, go for the biggest film image you can. If you are going to make a progression, make the progression a large enough step to make a real difference. For example: 35mm, 6x7cm, 4x5 inch large format.

 

The only downside to 6x7 is the enlarger. An enlarger that can handle 6x7 is more expensive than one that maxes out at 6x6.

 

For 6x7, how about an SLR like the Mamiya RB67 and RZ67. I've seen the RB67 going for really great prices. I could buy an RB67 kit of body, back, and THREE lenses for what a Hasselblad body, back, and ONE lens goes for.

 

The con of an SLR is its heavier than a range finder and you have the mirror to deal with. The pro is you don't have the rangefinder mechanism to deal with, and at close-up range WYSIWYG you don't have to deal with paralax of a rangefinder.

 

gud luk

Gary

[sergio_ortega7]

CWB,

 

 

Pros of the Mamiya 7II...

 

-quiet

 

-lightweight

 

-compact

 

-great optics in the WA and normal lenses (there's really not much else!)

 

-interchangeable lenses

 

-decent meter with all manual exposure control

 

-aperture priority exposure available if wanted

 

-all the benefits of rangefinder design, so if you like Leicas it's a natural

 

-well made, robust and durable

 

 

 

Cons of M7II...

 

-expensive, particularly lenses

 

-slow lenses for low light work

 

-120 film gives only ten exposures

 

-close up work of any kind very limted if not impossible

 

-use of polarizers and graduated filters a real pain in a.. (so landscape shooters beware)

 

-DOF pre-visualization non-existent

 

-precise framing can be a challenge

 

-very limited range of lenses in the longer focal lengths vs MF SLRs

 

-precise focus with longer lenses not very accurate

 

-hard to get used to if you're coming from SLR design

 

 

 

If you're really into Nature and Landscape, re-consider the Pentax 6x7, or even the Mamiya RB/RZ. Yes, it's heavier and it has the big mirror, but just use a tripod and MLU. It's much cheaper, especially lenses. Even though many use it and get great results, the Mamiya 7II is not at its best in landscape/nature photography. It's really a very good handheld, walk-about, travel, people, low(er) light camera.

 

Good luck with your choice.

[mag_miksch]

I vote with Gary, look for a RB / RZ<br>

you wrote: <i>....mostly on tripod for technical and <b>discipline</b> reasons...</i> and the best for discipline in composition is the large screen of a waist level finder on a 6x7 SLR. </P>

Kind Regards<br>

Martin

[Ed_Ingold]

The Mamiya 7 rangefinder has a niche application. It does have outstanding optics, but the main design is for maximum portability. To achieve this, you go back to the 35/50/90 days of 35mm rangefinders. The range of lenses is very limited, and many require bulky, auxillary viewfinders. You give up portrait work, let alone macro photography, because the lenses only focus down to about 6 feet. Polarizer - forget it.

 

The Mamiya 7 looks interesting, but only as a second camera. If you want to dabble in medium format photography, start with an SLR. Also plan to spend about three times as much for everything compared to 35mm - gear, film, processing and scanning. If you would like a preview, turn out the lights and start tearing up ten dollar bills.

[bueh]

If you have the money, definitively check out the Mamiya 7. It's the best there is and if you find its operation not too difficult and can live with its drawbacks, you won't find better lenses in 6x7.

 

If you don't have the money and want large medium format, think about trying an old plate or press camera with a rollfilm adapter. These cameras are not that convenient for today's shooters (tripod-only groundglass focusing, no safety interlocks), but they give you huge 6x9 images and if they are in a good condition, their image results are spectacular. Cameras like a Maximar plate camera give you close-up capabilities and horizontal + vertical shift, while press cameras have the additional advantage of interchangeable lenses and being of better build quality.

 

And don't forget the Mamiya RZ67 SLR, while some people don't recommend it for hiking, I find that the camera is not that heavy to carry with a good backpack. Mirror lock-up and leaf shutter lenses eliminate all camera vibrations when used on a tripod. Nowadays the R*67 cameras are pretty inexpensive and have a huge selection of excellent lenses and accessories available.

 

Other options are cheap and not-that-reliable 6x9 folder cameras or the expensive Fuji 6x9 rangefinders.

[troyammons]

I would go for 2 cameras. A Mamiya 7 for landscape and hiking etc, and a RB67 for tripod or when you dont mind heavy Eq, etc.

 

I know you are thinking no way , but keep in mind you can buy a complete RB67 with lens for about half of what a normal M7 lens alone sells for, much less the 43, 50 65 etc, plus you have a very smooth mirror action and a great macro and portrait camera.

 

Actually if you only end up shooting WA LS you mat want to look at a Fuji 690SW fixed lens camera too.

 

To me the downside of the M7 is the cost of the lenses, and close focusing, but they are ultra sharp. Really the best.

 

The downside of the RB is the weight. With a lens and back around 6#.

 

If you go for a Pentax look at the P67II. I liked it a lot better than the older cameras. The metering was superb, it has MLU and the EDIF lenses are particularly good. Its heavy too but not as bad as a RB67.

[cpj]

Actually, the press camera idea with roll film back has a lot of merit.

 

You can buy a Speed Graphic or Crown Graphic for $300--actually I'll sell you a good

one--and then you can pop in any of the very best of the Large Format lenses that are

available. There are some great brands to choose from--Nikkor, Caltar, Fujinon,

Schneider,Rodenstock and many others are available for relatively small dollars compared

to some medium format lenses such as Zeiss/Hasselblad.

 

Technically I believe 6x9 is considered "large format" but any 4x5 enlarger will have

negative carriers for this size. Because you are doing your own prints, you have the

flexibility of choosing any size you want. So for about $1000 to $1200 you can pick up a

Graphic with the option of range finder or ground glass focussing, a roll film adapter, and

a wide angle, normal and telephoto lens of excellent quality and you can learn to take

advantage of the swings and rising lensboard features to correct perspective. (No more

buildings that look like they are falling over as their parallel lines converge.)

 

Just be sure to get a good focusing loupe for working on the ground glass to get precise

focus, and get and inexpensive dark cloth to throw over your head. You'll look like Ansel

Adams in the 1950's and you'll be able to turn out unsurpassed technical quality

negatives.

 

You can sell all this stuff for about 80% of what you pay for it. If you want more "range" in

swings, tilts and lensboard adjustments a very good, modern press camera body that's

actually a cross between a press and view camera, is available from Horseman and made in

Japan.

 

Check out the Large Format Forum and ask some questions there about "Small, Large

Format" and check out their index of topics as well.

 

Regardless of what others have commented, using a rangefinder camera for landscapes is

just not a personally rewarding "experience" while making the photograph in my view.

And I shoot primarily landscapes with a Hasselblad system consisting of several backs and

lenses--$25,000 worth or more.

 

But I still have a couple of great shape press cameras in my shop and I'd be willing to part

with one. Even the Kodak Ektar lens that came standard on many Graphics is superior to

anything for smaller format.

[flying_tiger]

"The Mamiya 7II is the best optically of all MF systems. But it not the most flexible or necessarily the easiest to use, not being an SLR. The easiest and most compact is the Pentax 645."

 

I would rephrase it as: "....is the sharpest of all 6x7 systems." Though sharpness is not everything. Tonality, color rendtion, micro contrast are also very important. Try Hasselblad/Zeiss and see what I meant.

 

The difference in size between 6x6/6x4.5 and 6x7 is not that big deal. You've have to crop 6x7 anyway - to a lesser extent. If size is your priority, maybe you should consider 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10. The advantage is perspective control - with all those movements of a view camera.

 

Try different options before pulling the trigger. It's an expensive upgrade but well worth it. After getting my Hasselblad/Zeiss, I very very rarely shoot my Canon L lenses with EOS. The Japanese made optics from Canon is no comparison to Zeiss.

[bob_cook]

I have owned and used both systems extensively, and like you, am strictly an amateur. While the lenses for the Mamiya are outstanding, and on paper perhaps the "best," on the light box I don't believe you will see a difference between the P67 and the Mamiya 7. The mirror on the P67 is not an issue; you simply lock it up. What has been discussed is shutter vibration. It does occur and might affect shots in the 1/15th down to 1/2 second speeds. At the longer speeds, as you say you frequently use, it is not an issue. And, it can be controlled in the other situations by damping with your hand and not using a cable release. There is a specific technique to overcome the problem.

 

If lightweight is a prime requirement, get a Mamiya. If cost is an issue, I truly believe you won't see a difference in prints and the Pentax is much more flexible, especially with filters and close-up work.