Mamiya 7II vs RZ proII ?

[mark_lewis2]

<p>I'm contemplating reintering the world of film after a four year dalliance with digital (1DsII, 1DsIII, 5DII) and while I've owned Hassy and P67II gear, I'm leaning toward Mamiya 7 or RZ equipment (not really into the square thing...). I'm not dissuaded by the weight/bulk of the RZ, but am hearing a lot of chatter about the optical performance of the Mamiya 7 lenses. <br>

Primary use would be on location, on tripod, subject matter from 5' feet to infinity. The only rangefinders I've previously owned were Leica's and I was fine (amazed!) with them.<br>

Durability/ruggedness is a concern as I only shoot in distant/remote locations. That said, I do seriously baby my gear and wonder why I continue to insure it all...<br>

If it matters, photography has been my sole occupation for the past 23 years, this is not merely a hobby. <br>

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>Can you be more specific what your question is?</p>

[mark_lewis2]

<p>I was hoping that people that have used both could chime in on their likes/dislikes of each. Is the bulk of the RZ worth the effort over the compactness of the M7?<br>

-is there an optical advantage of one over the other?<br>

-is one more durable than the other in terms of daily professional use?<br>

-if comparing the two cameras with comparable lenses, on a three day shoot with models in a remote location, is there one system that seems preferable? and if so, why?</p>

 

[User_5888660]

<p>I own both systems, and I recommend both systems. They are very different, however. I use the 7II much more often than the RZ. I take the 7II when I travel and for general shooting. I usually carry one body and 3 lenses in a small shoulder bag. But, in the studio for model shoots, I usually use the RZ. </p>

<p>The main differences in the systems are obvious. One is a light weight rangefinder and one is a bulky, studio oriented camera. The 7II has better optics. The lenses are scary good. The RZ lenses are good, comparable to Hassey (which I also owned and sold), but not as good as those for the 7II. </p>

<p>From what you describe, the 7II could fit your bill. But know its limits. It is not good at close range--minimum focus with the 80mm lens is about 1 meter. To do a head shot, you will need to crop. Some people dislike the 150 lens, but I have had no problems with it. One other thing to consider is the use of filters. A polarizer is difficult to use and split ND filters are a matter of guess work. With the RZ, you can line up the filter easily. </p>

<p>Also, the 7II doesn't have a broad selection of lenses: 43 (fabulous), 50, 65, 80, 150 and 210. The 210 is a specialty lens and difficult to use for a moving subject. The RZ has many more choices. For portrait and model work, the gap between the 80 and 150 for the 7II is pretty significant. The 80 is slightly wide for the format. I wish they offered a 110 or 120. You asked for comparisons with "comparable lenses." The problem with that approach is that the 7II doesn't really offer lenses in the range I use most often in the studio. The lens hoods for the 7II are weak, at best and if you add a large shade, it will block the viewfinder. </p>

<p>The RZ goes through batteries much faster than the 7II. Be sure to carry extras when on location. The RZ seems more rugged, but then, I have carried my 7II all over the world and I don't treat it with kid gloves. I had to replace one body, following dropping it onto a tile floor ( I was getting on an elevator and the door caught my hand and the camera hit the floor). Mamiya sold me a new one at cost. Other than that one case of obvious neglect, the camera has held up well. </p>

<p>You might consider renting or borrowing a 7II for a long weekend to see if you can live with its inherent limitations. If you can, then I would get it over the RZ. If you are used to shooting a SLR, you may find the limitations too significant to put up with. </p>

<p>One more thing, the 7 and the 7II are almost identical. The 7II offers multi-exposure (which I have never used) and it has a brighter viewfinder. I have had some times when I had to shield the viewfinder on my 7, I haven't had that problem with the 7II. </p>

<p> </p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I love MF, but have always found the RB/Z a bit bulky. I really like the Mamiya 6 and 7s though (Fuji's for that matter). I love the idea of a compact, all-in-one MF camera. I keep toying with buying a Mamiya or Fuji and just leaving it in my car so I don't have to even have to worry about taking my Hasselblad bags with me if I'm just shooting a 35mm or DSLR, or LF.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>I love MF, but have always found the RB/Z a bit bulky.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>same here. But while I wouldn't describe the Mamiya 7 as rugged it can take a lot of "abuse".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Durability/ruggedness is a concern as I only shoot in distant/remote locations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think, given this, that the Mamiya is probably your best option.</p>

 

[iangillett]

<p>I also own both systems. There is not much I can add to Allen's comprehensive answer. You have not said what sort of photography you would be using the cameras for, and it is that which may influence your decision. Although you used to use film you are coming back to it after extensive use of digital and you may find the lack of instant feedback disconcerting so it may be worthwhile going for the RZ as it can take a Polaroid back; indeed, it would also help you with changing ISO by having separate film backs available - one of the great advantages I find with digital is being able to change the ISO.<br>

Another aspect to consider is the aperture you will be working at. Rangefinder focussing is very good for wide angle lenses but less accurate for longer focal lengths so if you are shooting wide open at longer focal lengths you may find it harder to achieve focus.<br>

Like Allen, I wish that Mamiya offered a focal length between the 80 and the 150 for the 7 - for the RZ you can get 90, 110 and 127.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>-is there an optical advantage of one over the other?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of sharpness etc. not really. But the M7 has an excellent 43mm lens, the RZ does not. On the other hand, the RZ has "fast" lenses (f/2.8, f/3.5...), the M7's optics start at f/4. The SLR (bellows!) focuses <em>a lot closer</em> than the rangefinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>-is one more durable than the other in terms of daily professional use?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would say the RZ. Built like a tank. No rangefinder adjustment issues.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>-if comparing the two cameras with comparable lenses, on a three day shoot with models in a remote location, is there one system that seems preferable? and if so, why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The RZ. It is a versatile workhorse, while the M7 is more a specialty camera if you want a "small & lightweight" package, especially for traveling and landscape. However, for best results with the RZ you need to use a tripod and MLU.</p>

[PatB]

<p>Hi there,<br>

I agree. It pretty much boils to the type of photography you do.<br>

mamiya 7II for travel/lanscape (with emphasis on travel)<br>

rz for portrait work<br>

Since I mostly do portrait photography I find RZproii a perfect camera for portraiture - interchangeable and rotating backs, close focusing, great lenses, fail-safe features, dof preview, accurate viewfinder and, most importantly, its reliability! Saying that, it only "failed" me once giving a bunch of blank frames on a film (scary!) as I ignored the occasional low battery light flashing (without an audible beep signal), thinking it would have been fine... so my fault really.<br>

I haven't got mamiya 7 and often find myself wishing I had it is for travel photography with having all the advantages of a huge negative minus the weight, I find the idea of the panoramic adapter great as well, instead of getting an xpan camera for example, where mamiya 7 is clearly a more versittile camera in comparison to the blad.</p>

<p> </p>

[iangillett]

Hi Patrick,

I have thought about the panoramic adapter for my Mamiya 7 but I decided against it. Why would you want to lose the

real estate of the larger film size? If you want a panoramic image from the Mamiya you could always trim the medium

format image - you also have the possibility of using the top or bottom of the image to correct for converging verticals.

I do also have the xPan and it does have one major advantage over the Mamiya - the 30 mm lens! It is much wider

than the excellent 43 mm.

[AlanKlein]

<p>What's the used camera price difference between the two?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I own and use both periodically. Both set of lenses are the best in the industry. People who get lower performance with the RZ either have older lenses, they don't use a 10x loupe (additional to the built in) on the fresnel to focus, they don't use mirror lock, they don't wait enough time after locking the mirror, or they don't adjust the floating element of the lens when available/required.</p>

<p>The RZ:</p>

<p>- Probably the best system in existence<br /> - Awesome Fresnel for composition indulgence<br /> - Better focusing system and precision<br /> - Better focusing range<br /> - Swappable backs<br /> - Rotating backs<br /> - Wider lens options (best are the 50mmULD and the 110mm2.8)<br /> - Tilt/shift option</p>

<p>Mamiya 7II<br /> - Portability<br /> - No mirror slap (no need to lock anything)</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>- Wider lens options (best are the 50mmULD and the 110mm2.8)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correction: While the RZ has the widest option with a 37mm fisheye lens, the Mamiya 7 has the widest rectinilear lens with a 43mm.</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p>T. Mestrom wrote: I think, given this, that the Mamiya is probably your best option.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't go too wrong with that sage advice since both cameras under consideration are Mamiyas.</p>

<p>I would say if you do mostly landscape or street scenes, the range-finder is the best option. If you do a wide variety of projects including portraits, close-ups, a lot of vertical shots on tripod, then the RZ II is the best choice.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A rangefinder camera is not for everyone. If you haven't use one, I strongly suggest you rent before you buy.</p>

<p>The Mamiya 7 is smaller than an RZ, but still a large camera. It is light because it is mainly plastic. Compared to a professional SLR, it looks feels like an overgrown Olympus P&S. I like the rangefinder part, but the auto exposure is primitive, it does not have auto focus, and the closest focusing range is over 5 feet. You dare not compose to the edge of the finder, because it is not that accurate. You need an auxillary finder for lenses shorter than 65mm and longer than 150mm. This negates much of the advantage of the large film size, unless you don't care about that sort of thing.</p>

<p>I used a rangefinder camera (Leica) for years, but I've become spoiled with accurate finders, a wide range of lenses and general versatility. When size and weight become an issue, I will probably buy an M9, and use it with three lenses like in the old days. That won't be for a while, I hope.</p>

[mark_lewis2]

<p>Guys, I truly appreciate all the input, many of you have touched on exactly the points I wanted to hear about. <br>

Thanks again for the input, it is very helpful/<br>

mark</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>"Wider lens options" ... as in more lenses available.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Just a few more ideas related to ruggedness/durability:</p>

<p>Like other posters, I use both systems (with the exception of the Mamiya 6 instead of the 7), RZ pro II as well.</p>

<p>By far I think the rangefinders are better in this topic. The "6" is more delicate than the "7" (retractile front, bellows), but both are better for transport and abuse due to its compactness and simple design. The RF can be misaligned, but you can easily re-align it whenever you want (if anytime you need it) if you`re a bit handy. While I like the use of plastics in the RFs, I "only", "understand", the use of plastics on the RZ.</p>

<p>IMO the RZ is rugged, but not bomb proof. I`d say a bit delicate instead if it needs to be carried so often.<br />E.g., the focusing bar can be easily bent with a slight knock over it. It will kill the usual smoothness <em>at best</em>. The camera is big, and the bellows rack&lens must be <em>rationally</em> carried for protection. I`d never say it is rugged, a bit delicate instead. You cannot throw it to the back pack, lens attached, like with the RF.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I've owned both at the same time and used both extensively. </p>

<p>My idea of travel photography is a backpack with my favorite 3 or 4 lenses ,a couple of film backs, a tripod, so the RZ size never bothered me. Great depth of field markings, great viewfinder, great lenses, great fine focusing. I've owned Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya, Linhof, and more MF systems and the RZ is my favorite.</p>

<p>I've also travelled with the 7II. The 7II 43 beats the wide angle RZ lenses, but I don't think there is a material difference between the other lenses if you use the later models and the better lenses (the 110, the Apos (fantastic), etc. I was frustrated with the 7II in terms of lack of closer focus, lesser focusing accuracy in fine focus situations. But, I'm a careful, methodical shooter who is usually on tripod. </p>

<p>If you are a shooter who likes quick shooting with mostly a single lens, can live without close focus, and don't usually sit a camera on a tripod the 7II would be very hard to beat. </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>thanks Tom for pointing out my oversight. Still, I think from the context it was very clear which of the two was meant.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>I own both. I also own Leica M's.<br>

The range finder is not as good as Leica, but actually very good. If you have used Leica's, then most likely you have to adjust yourself in the first few rolls.<br>

The meter: the manual does not tell you the area it's measuring! But search photo.net and you should get the answer. People did it through trial and error. The meter is very accurate, in my experience.<br>

I found the 150 difficult to focus. There had been many discussions on this on photo.net throughout the years. But the image quality is great.<br>

The 210 does not couple to the range finder. You have to guess the distance or use a separate range finder.<br>

The 43mm lens is worth buying the 7 all by itself. It used the same 38mm Biogon formula on the Hassy SWC, only it used the original 10-element 90mm Biogon for large format, instead of the abridged 7-element formula for the Hassy. Mamiya came out with this lens when the patent on the Biogon expired. So it's an exact copy.<br>

The RZ is a studio camera. Its natural habitat is the tripod. The lenses are all great. My own particular reason for keeping it is solely because of the 180 soft portrait lens, so that I can get rid of the Imagon, which is for 135 format. But I also keep the 90.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I am very surprised that no one mentioned the Mamiya RB67 Pro SD as offering even more advantages over the Mamiya 7II than the Mamiya RZ II offers over the Mamiya 7.<br>

<br /> Also with the additional price advantage (KEH, or Ebay), and availablility of dirt cheap brand new RB67 gear - You could own BOTH a Mamiya RB67 system and M7II (at least eventually.<br>

<br /> I have a Maiya RB67 Pro SD, and it is the most capable photographic instrument I have ever used. Awesome for landscape and portraiture</p>

[david carver]

<p>I had both and love the Mamiya 7.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Mamiya 7 FTW!!!</p>