Pentax 67II vs. M7... Which is Better?

[joe_casey5]

<p>I'm looking to sell my Fuji GSW690III and get a 6x7 camera. I'm considering the Pentax 67II and the

Mamiya M7. I understand the M7 is a conventional rangefinder camera like my current Fuji and the

Pentax is an SLR. One feature I like about the Pentax is the interchangable lens options and the fact that

Pentax makes a shift lens for this model. I shoot both film and digital (5DMKII w/ 24mm TS-E II lens) so

I'm covered on the digital side but I want to expand my portfolio with a 6x7 film camera. I'm not

squeamish about weight, I carry 40+ of gear in the field, but it is a consideration as I mostly shoot in the field

and o use a tripod so handholding is not a concern. I predominantly shoot landscapes and architecture

and (when not shooting digital) I use Fuji Velvi 50, Velvia 100 and Provia 100. Can anyone help me

better understand the pros and cons of these two models or even consider a third option?</p>

[charles_freeland]

<p>Hi, Joe. Can't imagine carrying both a big digi slr outfit + a 6x7 outfit into the 'field'. Not unless you enjoy back problems and aching shoulders. I use Mamiya 7ii for my travel camera and use if for architecture and landscape and just about anything else I can get away with, so l'll speak about the virtues of that camera and let others chime in about the virtues of the Pentax system. First, the Mamiya is still in production so you can get a new system. I carry two bodies and three lenses, the 50, the 65 and the 80. I sometimes think of getting the 150 but that would be another 1 pound or so of weight and I don't know how much use it would get. The 65 seems about the best all 'round lens. Results are superb, but I also have a Hasselblad set and I sometimes prefer the look of the Zeiss lenses. Mamiya is so easy to use. I have no trouble metering. A reliable camera. I've carried my set-up across three continents and haven't had a lick of trouble (knock on wood). Eats a lot of film, though, which is why I carry two bodies. In low light, using it hand-held is a cinch, even down to 1/15th or an 1/8th of a second. You do not require a tripod with this system. In fact, the reason I adopted the Mamiya over the Hasselblad was so that I could leave the tripod at home. This is what I do for 90% of my travel photos, although I do reach for the tripod when I'm doing photo work at dawn or twilight. Mamiya, being a rangefinder, is not so easy to use with graduated neutral density filters and polarizers. It can be done. There's a special apparatus one can purchase for the polarizers. I carry these filters, but unless the conditions really demand it, I don't use them. Pentax would be easier in that regard. But the Pentax is heavy compared to the Mamiya and probably would require a tripod if you're shooting much below 1/125th per second shutter speed. Lots of mirror slap. So, for me, preferring rangefinders for their light weight, easy operation, and good low light results, I like the Mamiya. Best would be to carry the Mamiya and the Hasselblad, but I don't travel with a porter or a golf cart which is what would be required for the weight. Happy New Year.</p>

[andre_noble5]

Keep your Fuji and find another way to fund a

comPlimentary system.

 

Otherwise you will regret selling the Fuji in a few years

[craigd]

<p>The Pentax 67 II, along with the rest of Pentax's medium format film equipment, was discontinued a few years ago. This is not necessarily a reason not to buy one, but it is something you should be aware of. I don't know if Pentax will still service the 67 II, but even if they are, no doubt they will stop at some point.</p>

<p>The Pentax 67 is famous for the impressive amount of noise and recoil you get when shooting it (due to both mirror slap and the large focal-plane shutter). It is a big, heavy beast of a camera, looking rather like a 35mm Pentax Spotmatic with elephantiasis, but despite this it can be shot hand-held with good results as long as you stick with fast shutter speeds. The camera is highly reliable, and I have seen no issues with film flatness or frame spacing. Pentax's lenses, particularly the newer generation that came out starting in the late 1980s, are superb.</p>

<p>The P67's one big disadvantage (aside from weight) is the abysmal and near-useless 1/30 sec. max flash sync speed dictated by its large focal plane shutter. There are a few leaf shutter lenses for the P67 that can sync at any speed, but selection is very limited and operationally it's rather clunky to have both a focal plane shutter and a leaf shutter at the same time.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Joe, I appreciate your interest in a great camera, the Pentax 6711, I use one and I love it. For the all the reasons and methods that you stated that you want to use it for is perfect. First lets dispel the myth that this is some sort of beast monster that can't be used in the real world. Why this camera gets stuck with this notion I think because it resembles a 35 mm SLR, but it certainly larger and heavier than a 35mm SLR, but after all we're talking medium format here. So here's the fact-- a Pentax 6711 body weighs 2.7 lbs. a Mamiya 7 body with lens weighs 2.6 lbs. The Mamiya 7 lighter right? Well, how light does a camera have to be? 2.7 lbs, the Pentax 6711 is one of the lightest medium format camera's, I think the RZ 67, not the RB 67 is as light. So, the Pentax at 2.7 lbs, and then add the lens weight, whatever that is depending on the lens, I say the beast is somewhere else. I don't mean to belabor the beast comment, but it's just not the case when looking at the weight facts. So my point is simply gauge your findings on other needs and functions, I think I made my point. As for flash sync, yes 30th is slow, but I use the camera as a convenient alternative to 4x5 for landscape field work, so a fast flash sync is a non-issue for me. Maybe you too.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Update on the RZ67 weight. The body only is 2.5 lbs. Body, lens, and 120 magazine is 5.5 lbs. Just wanted to be factual on the data. Although the Pentax 6711 body at 2.7 lbs excluding a lens, is quite attractive, I would think. I realize we're comparing the Mamiya 7, but I did mention the RZ, so accuracy is paramount.</p>

[Giovanni Cappai]

<p>I'm with Andre on this, keep your 6X9. I shoot 645, 6X7 with a 7II and 6X9 with a Polaroid 600SE and press backs. The results with the 6X9 are amazing when everything falls into place. Nice description of the 7 Charles! I use 43, 65, 80, 150 and 210 with my 7II and the 43 and 80 get used most. The 65 is closer to 28mm IMHO than 35mm in the way it renders pics. The 210 is very nice but you have to use both an external rangefinder (I use the Fotoman) and viewfinder. I fit all that plus film in a smallish loewepro nova bag. All in all a wonderful system if you don't want macro or closeups but you already know that using the Fuji.<br>

Pics with the 7 here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gcap/sets/72157604354892809/</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>The M7 lenses are noticeably sharper and more contrasty than the Pentax but have limited focal lengths. And if you're not used to composing with a rangefinder you'll have a learning curve before you start getting really good shots. Also the use of filters, especially ND grads, are much harder to use with a rangefinder. Personally, if you're not in a hurry or impatient in the field I would recommend you get a 6x9 view or field camera like a Crown Graphic. That way you'll have the standard view camera movements that come in real handy for landscapes along with a good selection of high quality lenses. </p>

[peter_a._york]

<p>On a general level, the Pentax is an outstanding system camera while the Mamiya is a camera that performs exceptionally in limited conditions.<br>

Neither is good for architecture in my opinion (and bias because I use 4x5 most often) due to the lack of movements. The 75mm shift on the Pentax makes it more amenable to architecture than the Mamiya 7.<br>

For landscape, it depends. The Mamiya 7 is incapable of close focus due to the rangefinder, so macro is out (and close portraiture in non-landscape settings). It is also incapable of long telephoto work. <br>

The Mamiya lenses are some of, if not the sharpest around. This is largely due to the fact that the Pentax is an SLR, where mirror clearance has to be accounted for in lens design. A Mamiya 7 is as good as 4x5 in many situations. However, you need an exceptional scanner to extract all that information (over 5000 spi for B&W). Additionally, there are photographers who purposely opted out of the Mamiya 7 system because they did not like the "etched" look. Imagine a portrait with brutal resolution. <br>

A Pentax 67 can be hand held with great success (Nick Brandt comes to mind), but the Mamiya 7 is lighter and is not constrained by a focal plane shutter. I personally prefer to use a 4x5 Speed Graphic for handheld over the Pentax. It is bigger (though more ergonomical IMHO) and a bit heavier but more stable.<br>

The metering on the Pentax 67II is superior to that on the Mamiya 7. This is not an issue for me because I use a separate spotmeter, though I do long for the 67II's metering capability for macro work. <br>

The Pentax line of lenses is impressive, with a broad range and some exceptional performers. In the end I opted for the Pentax 67 for landscape work because of the ability to do macro and telephoto work. That being said, I think my ideal travel kit would be an ultralight 4x5 and the Mamiya 7.<br>

Good luck!<br>

</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>These cameras are like chalk & cheese. Neither is "better"- just bettr at different things, and any difference in lens quality is much less significant than other differences. </p>

<p>If you need a system with long lenses, use grads extensively, accurate framing , need to assess depth of field through the lens, or need close focus or speciality lenses, then you need an slr. If you prioritise lightweight, handhold capability, the ability to take pictures where a MF slr on a tripod would prejudice your entry, speed of focus if you're good with rangefinder focussing, then you need something like a Mamiya 7. If you need both sets of attributes- as I did- then you need both systems without necessarily having to take both with you all day every day. You can increase flexibility further by having slightly different formats for each.</p>

<p>However what you say in your initial post seems to make more of slr attributes. </p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>based on your shooting preferences, the Pentax 67 would seem to be more appropriate. My choice however would be the Mamiya 7 simply for the glass (had Pentaxs' and I know their glass) and the fact that I like to handhold too much. While I do like filters and they are more difficult to use on the Mamiya, they are not impossible. You have to think and plan more. As has been pointed out, these 2 cameras, while not totally mutually exclusive, do usually have different markets. Other options are the Mamiya RZ and RB (nice because of no batteries except for the meter), the Bronica GS which is kind of nice as well , perhaps the old Fuji BL 690 (multi-lens) if you can find one, the various field cameras - I'm sure there are more. Currently, my big MF camera is a Fuji 680 - amazing glass, need a truck to get around. Skip the hiking thing, the landscape comes to me.<br>

ps. if already carrying a dslr outfit, the added weight of a Pentax multi-lens kit may require nice dolly.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>I have to agree with David concerning the difference in optics between the two systems. I feel it is pretty minimal between the two if one picks the right lenses from the 30 + optically different P67 lenses.<br>

There was a time when the use of symmetrical and semi-symmetrical designs was paramount in correcting aberrations. The recent rangefinder designs, most of which are semi-symmetrical are sharp indeed. However, optical design has progresses so far in the past 30 years that asymmetrical designs used in SLRs are so close in performance to the rangefinder designs that it is not a major consideration. Be aware that there are a few semi-symmetrical designs used in SLRs as well, with Pentax 67 having five.<br>

Your consideration between the two systems should be based on functionality.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Strong point from steve as to lens design. Within the Pentax 67 line of lenses available, it is the latter versions that should be on your radar. There has been some confusion on this, meaning it is the, '67,' stamp, not the, '6x7,' that I would pay attention to. It is conceivable that the performance differences between these old and new releases has formed some ambiguity on the Pentax lens issue. How an argument over the, 45, 55, 75, 105, 200, Pentax lenses could exist, I don't know, but certainly like any other manufactures lens run, there are some inferior results. Again the functionality point that Steve alluded to should be the focus here, and getting into personal appeal variances on lens performance between the camera brands that we're referring to, is like splitting hairs. In the field, I prefer to take one machine at a time with me, not blending film camera's or film and digital. So when I'm on the trail with a camera, it's usually the Pentax 6711 these days. Getting around with it is not a problem for me. Body weight, 2.7 lbs !</p>

 

[nathan_bonsal]

<p>Oh boy, do I hate rangefinders, but the Mamiya 7 gets a pass in my book. The point about brutal levels of sharpness holds for me with the 7- it is extremely sharp. Some cameras tell beautiful lies about a person, the Mamiya 7 reveals it all for the world if you focus perfectly. Great for models, lousy for real people. For landscapes, it's top notch. You won't be shooting macro or close shots with it, but it's decent for landscapes.<br>

The Pentax is a great system, though- fully fleshed out with a great stock of decent lenses, and it's adequate for landscape photography. <br>

I do tend to grab the GS-1 because of its leaf shutter, though- each of the three cameras is well-suited for a different task, but an SLR like the GS-1 fits each role with aplomb. I guess it's really going to depend on what you shoot. I find a leaf-shuttered SLR like the GS-1 to be the one-size-fits-all for the role, as it has interchangeable lenses, high synchronization speeds, no parallax errors, and convenient WYSIWYG filter use.<br>

Rocks and trees? Pentax or Mamiya. Flowers? Pentax. People? That's a tough one. The Mamiya has a high sync speed and works better with strobes, the Pentax has no parallax error. For natural light, you could go either way, but indoors, the advantage goes to Mamiya 7. <br>

Since you use Velvia a lot, I have to mention that the sharpness and high contrast of the Mamiya 7 can be a bit outrageous on Velvia 50. It has a unique look that you'll like if you like COLOR. Because color you'll get.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_cook]

<p>I have used all three of the cameras you mentioned over the years, although many more rolls through a P67 than the other two. The Mamiya lenses are superb (especially the 50mm for the Mamiya 6), but not so superior to the Pentax lenses that I would base a choice on that. I think the P67 is much more versatile, and unlike Nathan's comment above, I feel it is more than just adequate for landscapes - I think it is the preferred system.</p>

[joe_casey5]

<p>Thank you to everyone that commented. Asking other photographers' opinions, even hobbyists, is liking asking which is better (Coke or Pepsi) but I think I got some good information here. I shoot with a Canon 5DMKII and a 24mm TS-E II lens (tilt-shift) which works great for architecture, but for poster sized prints (and no I don't consider 15x30 as 'poster size') I've never been happy with the results I get on my 5D for landscape work, even with $2200 worth of glass in front of that 35mm sensor. I've shot a lot of Velvia on both my old Hasselblad H2 and my Fuji 690 and the film wins the argument 9 times out of 10 as to which renders landscapes the best. The trick is finding a system that has everyone I need + a few things I prefer. If Hasselblad came out with a new SLR camera that shot 6x7 I'd stand in line... literally! My H2 shot amazing pics but I was never happy with the 645 format; being a slightly bigger than 35mm is just that... only SLIGHTLY bigger. There's something about the 6x7 format that involves capturing more detail and still being configured to the 3:4 format, not to mention it is a nice substitute for a 4x5 view camera which takes more patience than I would have for a field trip. The SLR's with their built-in metering system is a damn nice feature, trust me, I've had both and it does make a difference but at this point I'm going for gallery shots and I have to say the MOST important feature in a 6x7 system (IMHO) is sharp, contrasty images (the sharper the better). If that means I'm moving over to the Mamiya 7II system and giving up the built-in metering option... it is what it is! Besides, I use a spot meter with my Fuji currently. I like the Fuji 690 I have now, but the inability to change lenses, coupled with the 6x9 format where 6x7 is typically wide enough for my work is part of the reason for the switch. Thanks again to everyone. Happy New Year!</p>

[trooper]

<p>I have and use all of the cameras that you have mentioned..... Yes, the Mamiya 7 system has top notch optics but they seem to favor color work for me and I always seem to struggle a bit more when printing my more normal black & white work. I also use the Pentax and can echo the comments made. Everything you are considering is capable of gratifying images and it really distills down to which set of compromises you can best live with. I've gradually accumulated too many options while deciding, then found myself not parting with things like I should have and now have too many systems (I haven't mentioned a number of things!). One odd-ball that I somehow now have two of is the GSW680 Fuji. I find that I am grabbing one of those more often than I would have expected. It's relatively portable, I like the 9 image film capacity for various reasons, I like the wide perspective/format for landscape work and as you know, Fuji's optics are bitingly sharp. No batteries to fail, relatively small portable tripods are sufficient, great film flatness and they just plain work. Anyway, I thought I'd interject those thoughts. You have a nice decision to make as you aren't really going to go wrong with any of them.</p>

[guyvickers]

<p>Hi Joe,<br>

Please consider the Bronica GS-1 before going ahead with Mamiya 7II, the weight of the GS-1 body, film back and WLF is not much heavier than the Mamiya 7II. Lenses are easy to find with 35mm equivalents of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 55 macro, 75mm, 100 and 125mm. There is a "40mm" (Bronica PG 80) which focuses very close and has the best coating of all their lenses as was the last one manufactured, unfortunately it is very hard to find. There is also a fixed f8 "250mm" (PG 500), very rare. Sharpness in PG lenses is only just below Mamiya 7II glass, not bad for an SLR. Using grads/polarisers is a breeze. Battery is PX28-much cheaper than batteries for the Pentax 67II. Lastly, Bronica gear is much cheaper than other options and as film developing continues to go up in price, committing less to 67MF makes business sense. Contact me off list if you would like more info on GS-1, cheers<br>

Guy</p>

[guyvickers]

<p>Joe, the attached picture file is taken on a Bronica GS-1 with PG 50 lens, B &W multi-coated polariser and Lee 2-stop Grad. I built a self-timer for teh camera to take shots like this. Film was Kodak E100G. regards, Guy</p>

[swhiser]

<p>Joe -<br /> Seems you already have a good grasp of the pros & cons. All are very good systems. The Fuji is good too, so hard to imagine defenestrating it UNLESS you were to select the Mamiya -- another, slightly better but also limited, rangefinder.<br /> The Pentax is sufficiently inexpensive that it lends to gradual collection (of as much of the system as your needs warrant).<br /> Adding, however, a Pentax 67II system will pinch anyone's shelf-space; so this is a mixed answer. But my view is that almost everyone who is serious should spend a good spell with the P67 system -- especially for the way you describe your approach.</p>