Minimum Focus, 75mm and 80mm?

[mark_tucker2]

<p>I used to own a Mamiya 6, and I remember the frustration of the very long minimum-focusing distance, for shooting portraits. No way could you shoot even close to a head and shoulders portrait. I ended up buying that goofy and expensive close-up adaptor with the wacky magnifier thing on it, but that just turned the camera into a not-portable travel camera. So I sold it all.<br>

<br /> Reconsidering maybe the Mamiya 7 or 7II. Does anyone know if there is a difference in the minimum-focus distance between the 75mm lens from the Mamiya 6 days, or the 80mm from the Mamiya 7? Which one focuses closer?<br>

<br /> Does anyone see a difference in the viewfinder quality between the Mamiya 7 and the Mamiya 7II? I had heard there was an alteration in the 7II to make it better?<br>

<br /> Is the "spot meter" in the camera just totally untrustable? Are you forced to carry around a handheld meter for available light? What would happen if you sprayed some diffusion spray over the meter window? Or taped some very thin diffusion paper over it? Would it help disperse it, and take the spot-ness out of it?<br>

<br /> Heard concerns about film transport mechanism: was this improved when they brought out the 7?<br>

<br /> Thank you. Mark Tucker, http://www.marktucker.com</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I will admit that I know very little about any of these cameras so I can't help you there, but a 75 or 80mm lens is not the best lens for portraiture anyway as you can get some perspective distortion. Not good, if the person already has a big nose! :-)</p>

<p>I would recommend that you use a 150mm lens, or at a minimum, a 135mm lens for portraiture. I will normally use the 80mm on my Blad for full length bridal portraits, but at those distances, perspective distortion is no longer an issue and the subject distance is not that bad.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The 80mm lens for a Mamiya 7 focuses to 3.25', which is way too close for a portrait. You could always use an auxillary lens to get closer, but what's the point? This is a rangefinder camera - you couldn't see where the camera was pointed except in general terms, or focus it for that matter. To clear up another matter, the Mamiya 7 is not an updated Mamiya 6. The 6 is a 6x6 cm camera and the 7 is 6x7 cm.</p>

<p>If closeups and accurate framing are important to you, pick another type of camera. There are plenty to choose from. I wouldn't consider a Mamiya 7 a "small travel camera" either, except in comparision to an RZ.</p>

[kparratt]

<blockquote>

<p>I ended up buying that goofy and expensive close-up adaptor with the wacky magnifier thing on it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The best Mamiya 7II lens for portraits is the <strong><a href="http://www.mamiya.com/mamiya-7-ii-lenses-telephoto-150mm-f4.5.html">150mm f/4.5</a> </strong> , which is a moderate telephoto, equivalent to 71mm in the 35mm format. A deeper knowledge of photography would have lead to a purchase of this focal length, which was also available for Mamiya 6.<br>

The close-up adapter kit was never intended for portrait. There's nothing "goofy" or "wacky" about it. The decision to buy it, maybe? Certainly not wise to buy anything "expensive" without first doing some research. ;-)<br>

However, I imagine a Mamiya 7II with a 43, 80 and 150mm lens outfit would cover a wide range of contingencies with great facility. The light meter is sensitive and reliable.<br>

Photo.net is rich with informative discussions on the Mamiya 6 & 7 systems. So search, read and enjoy.<br>

Cheers, Kevin</p>

<p>PS. Not portrait related, but I would own a 7 II if for no other reason than to use the superb 43mm f/4.5</p>

 

[mark_tucker2]

<p>Wow, tough crowd here. Full of experts who'd rather tell you how they'd shoot it, rather than directly answer the question that I asked. I re-read my original question, and nowhere in there could I find any mention of me asking about the 150. Sorry to barge in.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Can't answer for the 6 but the 80mm for the 7 focusses down to 3.25' as indicated above. What might be helpful is that at min focus distance the field of view is approximately 30" x 25" which is not "head & shoulders" territory without a crop. You might also wantto consider the point that you can't see dof through the lens, so the question of what's in and whats out of acceptable focus becomes quite interesting. </p>

<p>Your other questions</p>

<ul>

<li>The finder on the Mamiya 7ii has a kind of polarised look. </li>

<li>I prefer to use a hand-held meter. With the 80mm lens fitted its a strongly centre-weighted metering pattern rather than a spot. I've never found it easy to use in 10 yeears of ownership, though I might be less fussy if I didn't use high contrast slide film </li>

<li>I've had no transport mechanism problems. The shutter curtain winder is flimsy and a clear wek spot in an otherwise pretty reliable package. </li>

</ul>

<p>Incidentally the 150mm lens is not going to help you get closer to a head & shoulders portrait than the 80- what you gain in focal length you lose almost exactly in min focus distance. Also its a tougher lens to focus and compose with than the 80 which might be improved by the use of an auxillary finder with which I don't have experience. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em> No way could you shoot even close to a head and shoulders portrait.</em></p>

<p>Well, Mark, you indicated how you intended to use the lens. When you consult experts, expect to get advice on what you need, not just what you want. I'm not into spending other peoples money recklessy - I'd never make in Congress.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Mark, I just took a look through your <a href="../shared/community-member-all?proc_name=bboard&user_id=36296"><strong>posting history</strong> </a> . How come someone who <em>claims</em> to have owned and used so much equipment, can ask such questions as you did about theses lenses for Mamiya 6 and 7, with so little apparent knowledge? Something does not add up.<br>

I mean, "several" Hasselblad 200 bodies, Hasselblad H series, various large format .... ?</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>Ok Mark,</p>

<p>googling for mamiya 7 and clicking on B+H and then on the 80mm f/4 lens for the 7ii gives you its min focusing distance as 1m (metric).</p>

<p>Does that answer your first and second rant/question?</p>

<p>And if you prefer a more common portrait lens for the 7ii, the 150 mm f/4.5 focuses down to 1.8m as per the Mamiya website.</p>

<p>Looking for at the minimal image areas depicted on film, you will get about 70 by 90 cm, which is ok for head and shoulders, but not very tight. (inch measures are also at at the Mamiya site)</p>

<p>Good luck! And especially with googleing! And interpreting simple optics measurements. You seem to have been an old pro (nice, no: superb images at your website ... you took those?). What happened?</p>

<p> </p>

[carsten_whimster2]

<p>This is surreal! Am I the only one here who recognizes the name of Mark Tucker, a very successful commercial photographers in the States? Clearly he does not need advice on focal length, camera type, or anything else, just an answer to his questions. The self-proclaimed forum experts should take a step back here and stop answering un-asked questions. Somehow this thread reminds of another one:</p>

<p>http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/satire-alert/</p>

[tim_bosley1]

<p>Wow! have to admit - I would not have expected advice to come so difficult here. Try learning a bit from him...<br>

Any advice for the President while your at it?</p>

<p> </p>

[kparratt]

<p>Maybe 'surreal' to you Carsten, but Photo.net has international membership. *International* includes countries around the entire globe, where obviously the name "Mark Tucker" means squat. I could real off names of European, Asian and Australian artists and photographers of much greater stature that no doubt <em>you</em> will have never heard of. The world is not the USA.<br>

When I first read his question, I was going to blow it off because it just didn't seem to be coming from anyone with a future in photography, and I value my time. But I decided to offer something, because it may just help this person. I took his question, and idiom on face value, as did other posters. Even putting aside his use of childish words like "goofy" and "wacky", he clearly comes across as someone who does not know what he is handling. His question generated the response it deserved.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p>Totally off topic, i know.<br>

But the thing of course is not about whether someone, in our judgement (how much is that worth?) has "a future in photography", but whether we can help by providing the answer to the question asked.<br>

We are not here to judge whether people Deserve partaking a bit in Our Immeasurable Wisdom.<br>

What is going on, Kevin, that you even think in terms like those you utter?<br>

With all due respect, but the "goofy" and "wacky" thing we can find in this thread is the highanded attitude towards someone who asked a simple enough question. If someone should think that a poster doesn't deserve an answer (what!?), even deserves disdain instead, perhaps that someone should find something else to do?<br>

Communities like these are places where we can share info. Not display attitude.</p>

[carsten_whimster2]

<p>Kevin, I am British-Canadian, grew up in Denmark, live in Germany, and still managed to hear of Mark. I have visited the States seriously on just 3 occasions, while living in Canada, and on neither of those 3 occasions I looked at photography.</p>

<p>The *real* point here is that there is a bunch of forum-dwellers who see themselves as experts and who give advice on all sorts of things not asked for. Sometimes that can be helpful, often it is unwanted. In this particular case, it was unnecessary, as a click to Mark's site and a brief glimpse would have shown. I was not picking on your posts in particular, just on the general idea of assuming that someone does not know much. IMO the best way to approach a question is to answer it, not to make replacement suggestions. Auxiliary questions could clarify the context, without needing to assume or jump to conclusions. I am sure I am guilty of assuming things myself, but I do try to get the facts straight before telling someone how to photograph better, or in this case, more conventionally. Using words like "goofy", "wacky" and "His question generated the response it deserved" only reveals you as someone who likes to judge people (too) fast and hard.</p>

<p>Anyway, I doubt anyone is convincing anyone else here. I hope that Mark got the answers he wanted, and hope he doesn't blow off photo.net because of this experience. I agree with Q.G. that the community exists to share, not to judge.</p>

[dweezil]

<blockquote>

<p>I was going to blow it off because it just didn't seem to be coming from anyone with a future in photography, and I value my time.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe the reason someone 'has no future in photography' is because no one ever answered his or her questions, no matter how goofy or obvious. </p>