Mamiya 7II vs. Pentax 67II

[csafdari]

Help me make up my mind:

I have a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B which I use for med format handheld

photography - mostly travel - but I've long wanted a more versatile system

(close focus, large lens selection, in-camera metering etc) for more than just

scenics and landscape work. I have pretty much settled on the Mamiya 7ii but

find myself being distracted by the Pentax 67ii - much larger selection of

used lenses on the market, for example. I don't use tripods, I need something

exclusively hand-held. So, how about if you good folks just toss out some

considerations pro/con each system, to help me make up my mind?

 

Thanks!

[stuart_richardson]

Well, if you need close focus, you should not get the Mamiya -- the closest the 80mm will

focus is 1 meter and the 150 only goes to 1.8m. That said the Mamiya is lighter and has

no mirror slap so it will be better to use handheld. You can do a lot with the Mamiya, but

focusing closer than 1m is not something that you can really do. Long lenses are also a bit

of a problem. The longest rangefinder coupled lens is the 150. There is a 210 but you

have to estimate the focus (a bit odd, no?). If you mostly use wide angle to standard lenses

and want to work handheld then the Mamiya is probably the better bet. But if you need

close focus and telephoto you will have to go to the Pentax. That said, don't expect to get

very sharp results handholding the Pentax telephotos. The camera alone is large and heavy

and with telephoto lenses it becomes giant. In my opinion the Mamiya is a much better

choice for a handheld travel camera.

[joseph_dickerson]

Safdari,

 

Re-read your criteria and you'll have your answer. You're looking for a vesatile system, close focusing, with a large selection of lenses. That perfectly describes the Pentax 67 and, at least in my mind eleminates the Mamiya. The Mamiya may be a better walk around camera but it is a very limited system without macro capability. On the other hand the P67 is hand-holdable and meets all your other needs.

 

Joe D.

[bwbob]

While the Pentax67 is a fine system, the camera is heavy with mirror slap and IMHO primarily a tripod camera. The Mamiya7ll ( which I currently own) is a superb system but unsuited for closeup work. You might want to consider a 645 SLR such as the Pentax which is relavely light with excellent lenses and should fulfill your requirements.

[peter_lushing1]

I walked around Israel in the summer heat with my Mamiya 7ii; I wouldn't dream of same with my Pentax 67ii.

[david_henderson]

The Mamiya isn't especially versatile- except in the sense it can get to places that a heavier, bulkier, more conspicuous camera can't and you can hand -hold down to about 1/15. There's lots of things it won't do- close up, long lenses, seeing depth of field ttl; full frame head and shoulders portraits, frame a shot really accurately, and the meter is pretty unsophisticated to the point I don't use it. Its a camera for which you have to understand and buy into its limitations before you get it. I did and do, and I'm still delighted with it several years on- but 80% of my photographs are made with a slr.

 

That said I wouldn't buy the Pentax 67 either for hand-holding. Too big, bulky, huge mirror slap or so I've read countless times on here, and given the difficulties of using mirror lock-up whilst hand-holding it, all told it doesn't look like the right package.

 

I too think the previous poster's suggestion of a Pentax 645 might work well though - I've never owned one but I've seen countless photographs made on one and worked alogside a friend with one and he seems to have a pretty easy time with great zooms, a relatively sophsticated metering and autofocus system. The downside is that many people couldn't handhold a MF slr below 1/60.

 

I also need to say that you're not making the best of any MF system without a tripod. I know there are times /styles of photography for which tripods really get in the way, and indeed I'm prone to wander around New York and Paris with just the Mamiya and a pile of Tri X. But I don't kid myself that my usable negs are as sharp as if I'd been on a tripod- and neither should you.

[remi_lemarchand]

I have a Pentax 67 II and I do take it for handheld photography, it's not that bad. However, it's heavy as heck and slaps like a machine gun, so I end up taking my RF 645 most of the time - and frankly, the P67 is really not happy under 1/250 without a strong tripod - my Bogen 3221+ Kirk Ballhead is marginal IMHO.

 

On the other hand, I just bought a new looking 165 2.8 for $199...

[csafdari]

Thanks all - I guess I'll stick with the Mamiya then. I already carry around a large heavy 4x5 handheld camera so I don't need another heavy camera.

 

I don't want to go with the 645 because I already have several 35mm cameras, and frankly the difference in negative area is just not worth buying a new system, for me. I guess for head/shoulder shots and other close-ups I'll rely on my RB67 though I certain can't lug that thing around.

 

Carrying a tripod around is just out of the question & I think that a handheld shot at 1/125 or faster would be just as sharp as a tripod-shot, frankly. I for one can't see a difference anyway.

[jeff_drew4]

I preferred the P67 system when this comparison was presented for me years ago. It's all a compromise so everyone's needs and wants may be different . . . BTW, the P67 & P67II are much gentler and quieter than a real "machine gun", IMHO, . . . from the "been there-done that-have the scars" club. :-)

[eric_brody]

Safdari,

 

Most of the other posters have pretty much said it all, but as a M7II owner I'll chime in. The Mamiya and Pentax are about as opposite as two cameras that use the same film can be. The M7II is light weight, quite hand holdable because of no mirror flapping around, virtually silent, and has superb image quality. That being said, its strength is normal to wide angle photography. Its weakness are less than precise framing, usually not a problem if you do your own processing-printing or scanning, useless close-up abilities, limited lens selection, and high price.

 

The Pentax 6x7 is a heavy beast, realistically useable only on a tripod, but with superb image quality, lots of great lenses, closeup abilities, and likely less expensive.

 

You've set up an paradox. Your dilemma is that the Pentax is not realistically hand holdable, and the Mamiya is not good for closeups and has only one short telephoto, the 150. If you really won't use a tripod, the decision is made, you should go for the Mamiya; If you really want closeups, the Pentax is the solution.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

[dave_cheng1]

I use a Pentax 67II and I go hiking with 4 or 5 lenses in my backpack always. I don't hike long with these many lenses. I would bring only 3 for longer hikes. It's not "primarily a tripod camera" to me at all. I have a tripod but seldom use it at all.

 

Range Finder and TTL viewing make a huge difference to me. TTL viewing is an important part of photography to me. It is the only way you will know what you will get on your film. Shooting at wide open aperature is a wonderland to explore. Mirror slap and hand holding the camera are no longer issues shooting at wide open aperature. If this is an important part of your photography then Pentax 67II is your choice.

[r_scott_steube]

I will strongly endorse the M7II for travel and street/enviromental shooting. The lens choice/performance and handling charateristics are so wonderful, my only regret is not owning two M7IIs so I just can keep shooting (a helper to reload film would be nice too)!!! For tripod work of scenics etc, Mamiya RZ is my first choice. However, you are wondering about the P67II, check out LuminousLandscapes article at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml for an online critique. Good Luck!

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"I don't want to go with the 645 because I already have several 35mm cameras, and frankly the difference in negative area is just not worth buying a new system, for me."

 

The 645 neg is huge when compared to 35mm - the area is about 2.7x larger. I'm not sure why you seem to think it's not much different than 35mm in size. I get excellent 11x14 prints from my Bronica RF645 and very good 16x20 prints. Yes, my 4x5 prints of comparable size are nicer, but the 645 is more likely to be with me. And an RF645 is much less expensive than a Mamiya 7II (better build, too). All the same, if I could get the Mamiya for the same price as the RF645 i'd take it. The larger neg is nice.

[roland_vink]

As others have also suggested, I would look more closely at the Pentax 645. The system has a supurb selection of lenses. The camera handles beautifully, especially the 645N and 645NII, has excellent metering, and a very smooth mirror - mirror slap is no problem for handheld work.

[csafdari]

The difference in negative size between 35mm and 645 is - to me - not worth it buying 645 because it would be pretty much redundant. So, in short, the "gap" that a 645 would fill would be too small:

 

1-If I really needed the versatility that comes with lens selection etc, rather than getting a 645 I'd stick with my 35mm. It may not have the same "quality" print (grainwise) but its plenty versatile and I already have all the lenses that I could need (and I just LOVE my Canon f1s!)

 

2- my Zeiss Ikon Ikonta B already does a pretty good job as a MF camera too.

 

3- The price difference btwn a 645 and a full-frame MF is not really substantial.

 

So, if I am to get another MF system, it just isn't worth it to step back in the negative size (which, after all, is the main benefit of MF!)

[derek_stanton2]

"much larger selection of used lenses on the market, for example."

 

How many lenses do you need? I would suggest that anything you would need for either system could be easily acquired on the used market - that shouldn't be the deciding factor.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Going from 35mm to medium format is completely about quality. Yes, 35mm is more versatile. But medium format prints are much nicer.

[sebastien_lallement]

Safdari,

 

If you really need close focusing, there is an close-up attachment for the Mamiya 7, allowing to focus down to 11" (27.5cm) with the 80mm lens. Focusing and framing are accurate, thanks to a wire frame showing the the actual image field in front of the lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sebastien

 

http://artbig.com/

[harvey_edelstein1]

I am posting a day after everyone else, so I hope I am not to late to have MR. Cyrus read this.

 

You have a 4x5 which I am sure you will use for anything over 16"x20".

You say you want something lighter, close focusing, and lots of lenses to choose from.

 

I would choose either a Hassy 6x6 it has larger negative than 645, lot of lenses, exact focus and prices for this quality are dirt cheap now.

Only the human interface and handholding are not the best but the bodies are light and strong and you could adapt to it.

 

I agree however that for up to 16"x20" the Pentax 645 is hard to beat.

It can use all the 6x7 Pentax lenses in addition to its own array of lenses including some AF zooms.

 

I know you have doubts so here would be my reasons for getting into the 645 pentax.

 

A. The P645 has effectively tamed the mirror slap so the camera can be held at slower shutter speed handheld.

 

B. You can buy either manual or AF body styles that take same lenses and the grip, viewfinder , body size/ weight, and handling are great for carrying and handheld eyelevel shooting.

 

C. Pentax is making some interesting dslrs and they say they will be comming out with a digital version of the 645, if this happens it will mean your lenses will be of value in the future and likely appreciate.

 

And so my take agrees with Roland and others that the P645 is worth at least looking at or renting and running several rolls of film thru it and enlarge to the size you use. Then decide. Give us all the benefit of doubt since you asked for opinions and there is a consensus in favor of the P645 here.

[x]

If you've ruled out using a tripod and want versatility then as a P67 owner I would say forget it. In contrast to what others say I've found it to be handholdable with care at 1/250 sec and fine at higher speeds. More of a problem will be the limited depth of field, much less than 100% viewfinder and slow focussing. If you really want versatility and portability above all else I would suggest you go down the 645 route. The 645 kit - whether Pentax or Mamiya is so much smaller and lighter - and closer to 35mm in ease & speed of operation. The Mamiya 7 will be handholdable and smaller if you really want the big tranny but it's nowhere near as versatile as its smaller brother.

[akgraham]

Weight and handling are big issues with cameras as different as these. I too have a Super Ikonta and when I felt the weight of the P67, I got the M7.

 

The compromise is that occasionally I use a different camera e.g. for macro or long lens work.

 

If you do go with the M7ii, there is a close-up lens and frame kit that works well for me.

 

Regards,

[steve_rasmussen]

The P67 can be used as a handheld travel camera. I should know, I've done it for the past 15 years. The lenses from 35mm to 165mm can be shot at 1/60 second if one is practiced at handheld work. The 200 thru 600mm lenses can be shot at 1/125 second handheld. No, I don't take the 600 on travel! Actually, I have shot the 150mm at 1/30 sec sucessfully. Also have shot the 55-100 zoom at 55mm at 1/15 sec sucessfully. So, it can be done with the P67/67II.