Mamiya 7/7II vs Fuji 690GSW

[kendurling]

I want to get a nice MF RF camera, mostly for shooting landscapes in B&W. I'm

currently borrowing a mamiya 7 w/80mm lens, have owned a Rolleiflex for years,

but mostly have shot 35mm. It's partly for that reason I'm having trouble

getting used to the Mamiya's aspect ratio, but I also think for this part of my

photography I'd like a wider format, and of course, lens. I know there are w/a

lenses available for the Mamiya, but am wondering if I'd be better off with a

dedicated 690GSW with its 65mm. I'm also finding the mamiya quite quirky, and

often difficult to get critical focus with, especially in low contrast or low

light situations. But then I've only burned about 20 rolls of film with it so

far. But I'm wondering if the Fuji ius similar in this respect, or easier. I

take it Fujis don't have light meters? Thaty's fine if so, I really enjoy the

meditative aspect of using a handheld, and am not crazy about the mamiyas

viewfinder "interface." I know the mamiya lenses are regarded as the best MF

lenses, which is attractive.

 

Any other things to think about?

 

TIA

 

 

Ken

[stuart_richardson]

The Mamiya has a crisper, contrastier rangefinder than the Fuji, so if you are having

difficulty now, you

will probably have more with the Fuji. As you said, the Fuji's don't have light meters.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you get two more shots a roll with the Mamiya. 6x9

is a nice aspect ratio, but it is really not all that much bigger than the 6x7. You would have

to print mighty large to see an advantage. Anyway, if you don't really like the Mamiya, I am

not convinced you will like the Fuji. They are fairly similar to work with. The Fuji lenses are

great, but in my opinion not quite as good as the Mamiya 43mm and the 80mm that I

have. I started with a Fuji G690 (an older, interchangeable lens version) and later switched

to the Mamiya. I have no regrets whatsoever. But as I said, if you don't like the Mamiya,

then you would probably be better off looking into something different like an SLR.

[robert_edge]

"I want to get a nice MF RF camera, mostly for shooting landscapes in B&W."

 

"Any other things to think about?"

 

I can think of one thing: why?

[frank_nesbitt]

I had a 690GSW several years ago and used it primarily for landscape work. I had just

come off a spell of working with a 4 X 5 and welcomed the simplicity and speed of the

Fuji. I found the lens to be supurb and the negatives easy to print. The camera was solid,

very well made and could be used handheld, though I generally used a tripod. Usually

shot 220 roll film using several different types. You could choose back then.

 

I haven't used a Mamiya 7 much at all but have a friend who travels extensively and takes

nothing else along. His results are wonderful and he uses the built-in meter. He gave up

a Leica M6 to get the benefits of a very much bigger, easier to print negative.

 

The Fuji has no meter but I am used to using an incident Seconic, going back to the days

when they were marketed as The Norwood Director and made in the USA. Does that date

me, or what? And focus was never a problem for me with the Fuji.

 

If I were shooting landscapes again, I'd probably pick up another Fuji.

 

Good luck with whatever you select.

[philippartridge]

I feel it comes down to (i) how you see your subject matter and thence the best aspect ratio for your work, and (ii) will you ever want to use more than one lens. They are both high class, the Mamiya more versatile, a little fiddly yet still basic, lots of interlocks and dials, but well-built; the Fuji is just industrial strength photography, a bullet-proof design.

 

One has to be careful changing lenses on the Mamiya with the wides, the rear element is very close to the lens-body opening - many of them receive damage there.

 

The Mamiya is a little better optically, see Chris Perez's MTF data on the web - the big Fujis use large format style lenses, and work best at f16 or so; not so the Mamiya 7 lenses, which are great wide open and just bloody amazing at f8-f11. Which is why that aspect ratio is key, as the real estate tend sot cancel out the better performance of the Mamiya somewhat when shot full frame. And, BTW, the film area is 21% larger on 6x9 than 6x7 - 82mm v 68mm frame widths.

 

I liked the Fuji's rangefinder better, less invasive of VF area as well, but it is personal taste. When you first fire a big Fuji, don't be alarmed by the apparent shutter noise - it is the linkage that makes the racket, the shutter is a neat, snicky leaf variety.

 

I feel the Fuji will live a lot longer, it is just so simple and strong, no electronics so no circuit board, vulnerable contacts, lens changing. Not a bad reflection on Mamiya tho', just different design parameters. Finally, the Mamiya still costs much more...despite digi-induced depreciation. The Fujis weigh in at around 1550g, the M7 with say, 65mm lens, weighs around 1400g; the Fuji is quite a big wider.

[charles_sallee]

I bought a used Fuji 690 GW III a few years back. I've heard the Mamiya 7s are truly wonderful. Some things I liked about 6X9:

 

A. Shoot trees, a church, etc with the camera level (vs. tilted up)and then crop out the bottom. If you can get back far enough to do that it's sort of like having a PC lens; no converging verticals.

 

B. Focus on and shoot a centered subject. Offset your subject later by cropping. Eliminates the focusing error (admittedly very small) caused by focusing with your subject centered and then offsetting it. Applicable to a rangefinder.

 

C. Any panorama; not meaning multiple shots stitched together but cropping the top or bottom for a short but wide print. Obviously less need to enlarge with a 6X9.

 

Had mine out last night shooting dogwoods in a local park illuminated by only the street lamps; black backgrounds. Had to count the seconds and replace the lens cap to stop the exposure. The Fuji is quirky for sure but it takes good pictures and is priced right.

[kparratt]

Ken, regarding: "I know the Mamiya lenses are regarded as the best MF lenses" , their quality is well founded, but several objectives in the Zeiss, Rodenstock and Schneider range simply tell another story as to which is "best".

 

When Hasselblad began the development partnership with Fuji to create the new H series, their decision was based on rigorous and thorough scientific research, not opions flying all over the place at photo.net and elsewhere.

 

And as to why the Hasselblad H 1 camera system is not equipped with Carl Zeiss lenses, for this special project, they required a partner with a broader capacity than lens design and manufacturing, and had to turn to Fuji.

 

However, splitting hairs over the imaging qualities of the rangefinders you are wondering about, is secondary to other concerns. Working with B&W is best done with hand-held meters. You said it all with "I really enjoy the meditative aspect of using a handheld."

 

Charles Sallee also speaks of the use of a wide-angle objective as a PC lens. It is an excellent application, and a lot cheaper than a purpose-built PC ("perspective control" or "shift lens") For this, the Fuji provides more facility with the 6x9 format. ie Turn the camera 90 degrees, framing the subject picture in the vertical ("portrait") format, then as Charles says, hold the camera dead level (perpendicular), to avoid converging verticals in the image, and crop to the final composition in the darkroom.

 

The creme de la creme for this work is actually the Linhof Technorama, but it will require a few more $$ http://www.linhof.de/english/index.html ... and it doesn't even have a rangefinder, which is not essential for landscape work anyway.

 

Cheers, Kevin

[.th]

had a fuji 690, "have" an m7, so here's what i can compare... imo, the m7 is damn close to being <b>the</b> ultimate in cameradom. imo. in terms of focusing i found the rf quite a lot better than the fuji, but if your subjects are slow or not moving that might not be an issue. i never did any "testing" with the fuji, but i never got as amazed with img quality as i have with the m7, but the comparison is sort of not fair, since i've also taken to use a tripod for most everything i do, with the fuji i shot almost only handheld. i had the 690III, standard and wide, the standard was a no issue camera, but the wide gave me plenty headaches. it had the weirdest lock up problems, and took several visits to the local repair guy, who eventually figured out what was wrong with it... so in my experience it is <b>not</b> bullet proof. otoh, maybe it had been treated rough (it didn't look like it), i bough both second hand. maybe it was just bad luck, i've never heard of similar problems.... that about sums up my experience with them.

<br><br>

 

sizewise the fuji is quite larger, the cost of 6x9..

<br><br>

 

having said that, both are very capable (needless to say), but it sounds as if you're fixed on the 3:2 format. if so, it's an easy choice, but if i may mention it, the format is what kept me away from 6x7 cameras for some time, only to find that when i finally changed my attitude about it, i had no problems with the tighter format. different, but neither better nor worse. it's just a matter of arranging the compo elements in a different way...

<br><br>

 

best of luck with your choice, and more importantly, with what you do with it afterwards...!

<br><br>

 

th

[jean-louis llech]

<i>"Several objectives in the Zeiss, Rodenstock and Schneider range simply tell another story as to which is "best"."</i><br>

I fully agree with that. I use both Zeiss and Schneider, and they are really great lenses. I have been using for several years Mamiya Sekor lenses, and I prefer the german ones. That's a personal opinion.<br>

IMO, several points have to be pointed out :<br>

- The TTL light meter is not a real problem. You can use a spotmeter, and have an excellent measure of light, either incident or reflective, depending of your subject. Don't forget that the Mamiya 7/7-II metering angle depends on the lens mounted on it.<br>

- The Fuji cameras, either 6x7 or 6x9 are very good cameras. But be careful to "fondness for sweet things" : if you choose the GW 90mm in 6x9 format, you will probably search one day to buy also the 65mm GSW. This means to buy a second camera only to have two lenses. For landscapes, the 65 and 90mm are probably inseparable. But fixed lenses. Period.<br>

- On the other side, with one single Mamiya 7 or 7-II, you just have to change the lens, and you could later widen the range of your lenses from the excellent 43mm to the 210mm. The low side concerns the films. If you use alternatively B&W and color/trans films, you will need two cameras. As with the Fujis, but with interchangeable lenses : just a kind of joke about film format : 2 Fujis 690 GW (90mm) + 2 Fujis GSW (65mm) = 2 Mamiya 7 less several other lenses. Mamiya has a larger choice : 43-50-65-80-150 and 210 lenses And the 43 is a great lens. Fuji cameras are maybe more rugged, because they are less "sophisticated". Another personal opinion.<p>

 

So, the real questions are in my opinion the film format, (6x6, 6x7 or 6x9...or larger) the film shape, (square or more or less rectangular), and the rangefinder philosophy.<br>

While I use Rolleiflex TLR and SLR cameras with Zeiss lenses in 6x6 format - and I like them - I also use a 4x5" large format folding camera either in 6x9 or 4x5" formats, sometimes on a tripod, but also often hand-held, or on a monopod. I have a real pleasure to use it hand-held. It's heavy and expensive, I agree. But I have a larger choice of formats (Think to 6x12 landscapes) and lenses.<br>

- Several other cameras are available, like the Horseman SW 612 which can indifferently use 6x7, 6x9 or 6x12 film formats, and interchangeable Rodenstock lenses. The Horseman SW 612 Professional has also shift abilities.<br>

Look at their <a href="http://www.horsemanusa.com/sw612.html">website </a>. I know that the price is of course higher. but IMO not only the price, but the wider choice of formats, lenses and the shift system.<br>

- Last, the Fuji rangefinder I tried had a window which was a bit "yellowish", and not really clear. All Fujis have been discontinued. Mamiyas not yet. That's also an element of choice.<br>

Hope this helps.<br>

[charles_hess2]

To Robert: Why not? B&W with a MF camera will produce superb results. Going with a RF makes sense in that the Mamiya and Fuji are both relatively lightweight and very portable for those treks through the mountains. 6x7 negs and larger are hard to beat for detail, so again, why not? Are you recommending he go digital? That would make me say to you: why?

[david_henderson]

"Don't forget that the Mamiya 7/7-II metering angle depends on the lens mounted on it."

 

I know why he said this but it isn't true. In fact the metering on the Mamiya 7/7ii reads from exactly the same area irrespective of what lens you have fitted because it isn't TTL. This means that the metering has the character of a fat spot when a wide-angle is in use; and of a centre-weighted system whern you fit a longer lens to the extent that a small amount of the metering info comes from outside the frame. I also prefer to use a hand-held meter rather than work with the complexities of this, but then I use slide film and with B&W you might well get good results a lot easier.

 

"I fully agree with that. I use both Zeiss and Schneider, and they are really great lenses. I have been using for several years Mamiya Sekor lenses, and I prefer the german ones. That's a personal opinion"

 

But of course the lenses made for the Mamiya 7 are not the same as the Sekors made for Mamiya's SLR/TLR. The real fact is though that the Mamiya's lenses are technically good enough not to provide a practical limitation on what you can do with them. In reality for most MF cameras the differences in lens quality are not terribly significant and it's slight differences in image character that are arguably more important.

 

I think the first para of Philip Partridge's post, above, sums up your real choice parameters very well. These issues are very much more important than minor differences in lens quality, focussing etc.

[jean-louis llech]

<i>-"Don't forget that the Mamiya 7/7-II metering angle depends on the lens mounted on it."<p>

 

- "I know why he said this but it isn't true...<br>

...the metering has the character of a fat spot when a wide-angle is in use; and of a centre-weighted system when you fit a longer lens"</i>...<br>

OK.<br>

[dean_tomasula1]

I have both the Mamiya 7-II and the Fuji 690. The Fuji is heavier than the mamiya. No light meter. The Mamiya has a brighter rangefinder. And the biggest drawback to the Fuji is it doesn't have interchangeable lenses.

 

But, they both are great cameras. I'm happy with both of mine.

[kendurling]

Wow. Honestly I was expecting "This question has been answered many times, please use the search function" (which i did) but this is a great crop of responses. Thanks all. I will have to pore over them, but on initial reading a few things spring up:

 

1) I don't "dislike" the Mamiya. I do have questions about whether the 6x7 format is what I want, and know only I can answer that. I find focusing tricky with the split image, especially with the camera rotated to portrait. I've been getting a lot of shots that are just slightly OOF - but enough to ruin it - but when I look over the lot, it's improving so I guess it's a learning curve. But it seems you're saying the Fuji VF is darker - perhaps focusing is even more difficult? I'm in my mid-50's and my eyes aren't what they used to be.

 

2) re: the Mamiya 50 and 43mm lenses - I hear people praise the 43 a LOT, but rarely the 50. is it not as good? In 35mm I find the 24mm FL to be very natural for my eye, so I'm thinking the 50mm lens would be a good one for me were I to go with the Mamiya system. The Mamiya wides use an external VF for framing, I assume the dedicated Fujis have finders that are matched to their lenses. Does this amount to an advantage for anyone?

 

3) Interesting point about shooting two films. Maybe I WILL end up with one of each. But right now I'm interested in really perfecting my B&W skill in this format. I don't have an enlarger/darkroom but can soup my own negs, and for now I would be scanning and inkjet printing, possibly quad eventually, with the occasional print done by a lab. I have an Epson 4990 and lust after a Nikon 9000. What do most of you use for processing?

 

4) Interesting the the Fuji is so much louder, the Mamiya is truly Leica-like with just a little tick.

 

4) If I also wanted to add some portrait work does this change the assesment of the two cameras? I have indeed considered a MF SLR, which would probably better for portraits, but so bulky in the field.

 

OK, I better go back and read more of what you've said, I'm rambling.

 

 

Ken

[paul_wilson2]

If you're only going to use this camera for B&W landscapes, personally, I'd look at something like the Horseman 612, Paq Pro or possibly a 6x9 field camera like a Horseman VHR. You might even consider a 4x5 field camera with a rollfilm back.

 

However, the Mamiya has many other advantages over those which might work for other types of photography you do. It's certainly lighter and faster to use and all the lenses are beyond reproach IMO.

 

I've used a Fuji 6x9. The lens seemed quite good to me and I liked the aspect ratio and 28mm equivelent lens. However, I'd rather have more flexibility than that. The rangefinder was nowhere near as good as the Mamiya's.

[greg_jones1]

I have a Mamiya 7II with the 50mm and 80mm. I chose the 50mm because the 43 seemed like too much of a specialty lens-to me and my style of photography. I would love to have one, don't get me wrong, but went with the practical decision to use the 50mm. And I absolutely love it.

 

Lens quality? You have to be careful not to cut yourself when using the lens, it is so sharp ;) My only real comment on the lens series for the M7II camera is that they render a slightly cooler color cast than my Hasselblad Zeiss lenses (at least to my eyes). A simple 81A filter takes care of this. But hey, I am a retired custom color printer and still do my own color processing and printing so maybe I am a little more critical than others. And it is a matter of preference as well.

 

The 50mm was a later addition to the Mamiya 7 lens line-up. It is pretty much the same forumlation as the 43mm, but obviously not as wide. You will not be disappointed with ANY of the wide angles for the Mamiya 7 camera. Telephotos, now that is another issue. Not that they aren't great lenses, its just that some folks have issues focusing the longer lens (150mm) with the rangefinder. The 210mm is not even coupled to the rangefinder.

[stuart_richardson]

I would agree with Greg here -- the 43mm lens is certainly a very special lens, but that is no

reason to ignore the 50mm if that fits your eye better. <P>Another thing to check is that the

rangefinder is not out on the Mamiya that you have been using. Sometimes, if they have

received a bump or been exposed to a lot of vibration (like on a plane), they can go out of

alignment. If that is the case, then even if you focus properly, the picture will be out of focus.

Most camera repair people can fix this problem fairly easily.

[mark liddell]

If you are having trouble focusing with the 7 it is more than likely the rangefinder needs adjusting. This seems to happen to 7's over the years.

 

I haven't used the fuji but I think you need to ask youself:

 

1) Which format do you prefer, 6x7 vs 6x9

 

2) Will you need more than one lens, If so go M7 (and eat the huge cost!)

[eric_george2]

A bit of a stretch, but you might also consider the GA645ZI. With its zoom lens, sharp optics and modern convenience of motordrive, built in light meter, unsurpassed auto focus, and digital imprinting of exposure data and auto ASA detection. Sure the neg is a bit samller, but still excellent for some nice enlargments, plus you get twice as many exposures.

[eric_brody]

I have the M7II and the 50 to which you are referring. I got the 50 for the same reason as the previous poster, it is simply more usable than the 43. With the 43, the slightest movement throws things off kilter if there are any straight lines in the image. It is really WIDE.

 

There is no doubt than any MF rangefinder takes a bit of getting used to and I have made every mistake you can think of, and a few uniquely new ones as well with my M7II. But... there is no question that the Mamiya lenses are incredibly sharp. Realistically, unless you are making billboards, there is probably minimal difference between Mamiya and the Fuji lenses. While I have not used the Fuji, friends who have think they are wonderful. I opted for the M7II for the flexibility of interchangeable lenses and I believe it has paid off. Either of these cameras will make incredible images I'd just avoid the arguments re Hasselblad's choice for the H2. They are irrelevant to your questions. I am certain the Fuji lenses are remarkable as are the Zeiss lenses. I also own a Hasselblad with Zeiss lenses and any faults in my photos are NOT due to the lenses.

 

See which camera feels best to you. I suspect you'll be happy with either. When one has not had experience with a given camera or format, it's hard to know if these things that seem SO important on paper or on the internet are really that important when it really comes down to making photographs on a day to day basis.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

[kendurling]

Hey thanks, I'll check into having the RF on the 7 checked. If it was off, I probably wouldn't get ANYthing in focus though right? I'm not sure I can state that.

 

Just for fun, here's a landscape I did with a 30D that I wish I'd had a MF camera for. Seems like a natural for 6x9, doesn't it?

 

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view;jsessionid=aoS8sJj1asHcnhm8Bg?id=1816116

 

I've printed it as large as I could fit on 8.5x11 paper, and it starts to show that it's digital already. But it could be a little over-sharpened. That layered look that to me is one of the downfalls of digital due to coarse edge definition. I'm sure it could be printed better, but I sure would love to have a big neg to start with.

 

Ken

[kendurling]

Something I forgot to ask: when using the 50mm (or 43) with its external viewfinder, how does focusing work? Is it coupled to the camera's split screen?

 

Ken

[jean-louis llech]

Ken<br>

A simple answer : viewfinder is not rangefinder. Each one has its purpose.<br>

[robert_edge]

Charles Hess wrote:

 

"To Robert: Why not? B&W with a MF camera will produce superb results. Going with a RF makes sense in that the Mamiya and Fuji are both relatively lightweight and very portable for those treks through the mountains. 6x7 negs and larger are hard to beat for detail, so again, why not? Are you recommending he go digital? That would make me say to you: why?"

 

I use a Mamiya 7II myself. It may or may not make sense, especially when someone who has tried the camera writes a post that sets out a series of reservations, such as "[i'm]not crazy about the mamiyas viewfinder "interface". Disliking the viewfinder/rangefinder is not a minor issue.

 

This article, about using the Mamiya 7 for landscapes, is worth reading, including the update at the end: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/M7_Hands-On.shtml

[robert_edge]

Ken Durling wrote, in part:

 

"I find focusing tricky with the split image, especially with the camera rotated to portrait."

 

The Mamiya 7 is more comfortable ergonomically in horizontal than in vertical orientation. This may be part of the problem, but it could also be that you are not taking into account the fact that, in vertical orientation, you need to focus on something that gives you a vertical double image. Also, your focusing should improve, for both orientations, if you align the two images watching the perimeter of the patch rather than the centre.

 

Given what you say in your posts, I think that the main thing that you have to decide is whether you like rangefinder focusing. What gives me pause is that you have tried it and seem not very comfortable with it. Assuming that the rangefinder is aligned, this should make you think twice. There is no law that says that you have to like rangefinders. Plenty of people don't, and trying to force yourself, when you would be happier using an SLR, is a mistake.